mark_brown14

<p>Too bad.</p>

<p>Mike,<br>

I'd suggest a hand-held incident exposure meter. You might have to go second-hand at the amount you mention.</p>

<p>I remember how much my photography improved after I began using one.</p>

<p>Let us know what you finally do decide.</p>

<p>Nicole,<br>

I've been following this thread with interest as I bought an Epson 4490 a week ago, then returned it because my particular item was defective. I was intending to get another one as soon as the dealer got it back in stock, but since then I've been having second thoughts, wondering if it was really good enough for what I need. From the responses above, and by following some of the links suggested, I've come to the conclusion that it probably is.</p>

<p>However, my research led me to discover that ScanCafe claim to scan slides and negatives at 3000dpi, and that they use the Epson 4490, as well as the Nikon 5000ED and 9000ED. Whether they use the Epson for film, or just for prints, is not made clear. If you're interested you could ask them.</p>

<p>My problem is that my wife now wants to send a lifetime's slides away to be scanned, which should produce good results at a considerable (ie, vast!) saving of time, but which will likely cost more than the scanner. I will still want the scanner to convert my current and future MF and 35mm film output on an ongoing basis. We can't afford/justify both.</p>

<p>The old slides have to be done, and I don't relish the logistics of months of rainy weekends spent hand-feeding a slow scanner, so we'll probably send them off to be done. My toy will have to wait. This is not a hint to Santa.</p>

<p>Two points:</p>

<p>- If you want to present these photographs to a third party for publication at a later date, he or she will need a release.</p>

<p>- You say your daughter asked for 'portfolio shots'. If your granddaughter is contemplating a career as a model she will have to get used to signing releases. I have found that the best way to help our children/grandchildren prepare for the world of work is to get them used to the expected way of doing things in that field. Ask her to sign a release if only to teach her what these things involve, what she's signing away, and to understand that when she poses, the photographer is making an investment of time and creative energy that he or she is entitled to protect.</p>

<p>Dave,<br>

I knew nothing of William Egglestone's work, but your question made me check out the Egglestone Trust website given above. After a brief scan through the samples of his work shown there, I have to say I'm impressed.</p>

<p>The words 'profoundly banal' seem to fit in many cases, meaning, yes, he does focus on the banal, but in a profound way.</p>

<p>The first thing I noticed was his amazing sense of composition. It's not traditional (no 'rule-of-thirds' straitjacketing), and yet every part of the frame contributes to the whole in a dynamic way. I can only suppose it must be intuitive. I found it exciting, and it inspires me to try a little more of that myself.</p>

<p>Next I was struck by his subtle handling of brash colour, particularly reds. I love the intense golds and blues in the Cadillac sign (I forget which portfolio).</p>

<p>In particular, I was impressed by his handling of people: the woman with the stunning red hair in '10.D.70.V2'; the Greek god in sunkissed profile retrieving shopping carts in 'Los Alamos'; the rear view of the woman with the meticulous hairdo smoking a cigarette in a diner booth in the same collection (a cliche, but Egglestone makes it tender).</p>

<p>I don't detect any judgementalism in his work ("Isn't it crass the way some people live today"); rather he seems an interested (ie, not objective or detached) observer of what's going on in a world we are all part of.</p>

<p>My initial impression is that William Egglestone is indeed a master at what he does. His craftsmanship is self-evident, but beyond that I see an artist whose compassion makes him stand out.</p>

<p>I look forward to finding out more about the man and his work. Thanks for turning me on to him.</p>

<p>The first two responses pretty much covered it. I'd add a hand-held meter that doesn't require batteries.</p>

<p>My Leica IIIf fits in an inside pocket to stay warm when I'm not using it, and keeps going long after I've lost feeling in my shutter finger.</p><div></div>

<p>Alan,<br>

If you are intending to write a dissertation on documentary photography it would be wise to master the correct spelling of 'documentary'. It's also worth mastering the difference in meaning between 'effect' and 'affect', among other things.</p>

<p>Applying the rules of correct spelling and grammar will help you to marshal your thoughts in a logical order. This will make the whole process of research much easier for you, and will improve vastly the quality of the finished dissertation.</p>

<p>I wish you well in what sounds like a very interesting project.</p>

<p>Ray,</p>

<p>I agree with you absolutely. If you're shooting only for yourself and want to improve your technique, I would encourage you to follow your instincts and simplify your gear.</p>

<p>If you're really good you could get by with a standard lens alone. But it might be wiser at first to try the route you suggest, and go with a wide-angle/short tele combo until you can decide whether you need more lenses or less.</p>

<p>You say you shoot 24. That's hardly a round number, unless you shoot film. Do you? Film is good for encouraging you not to waste shots.</p>

<p>'Shooting themselves in the foot' suggests Canon made a careless mistake and subsequently paid the price. But, in spite of the examples given, the company today appears to be holding a large share of the market, with a reputation for quality goods.</p>

<p>Looks like they got away with it.</p>

<p>The short answer is that the purpose of pornography is to incite lust. This applies whether the subject be food, nude models, or classic cameras. It may or may not have artistic merit, but that is not its primary purpose.</p>

<p>I used to meter religiously, even if only to confirm an initial guestimate. And because I usually have the meter along for slide film anyway, the temptation is always there to pull it out even for negative films. But since I discovered the incredible latitude of modern ISO 400 colour negative materials I realize that even estimating exposure on the basis of Sunny 16 is overkill with these. Basically, a single shutter speed, single aperture box camera will give good results from bright summer sunlight (f16 equivalent) to overcast or open shade (f4 equivalent) on an ISO 400 colour negative.</p>

<p>The result has been to increase my confidence in Sunny 16 even with slower speed films, at least for snapshots. So I guess the answer is, I still use my handheld meter for critical work, but I'm moving more towards a mix of estimating exposure and relying on the latitude of the film. It speeds up my work, and gives me one less thing to worry about. </p>

<p>Point taken, Jack. And I agree with you about Pan F.<br>

Love your images.</p>

<p>Jack,</p>

<p>Times change. The amazing exposure latitude of any of today's good 400 ISO negative emulsions make these the film of choice for the old box cameras. With a shutter speed of 1/50 and an aperture of f11, a 400 ISO film will only be overexposed by four stops in bright summer sunlight (well within its performance range), and will still yield decent results down to two stops under (ie, shade, or heavy overcast).</p>

<p>Also, once you've put one of these films through an old box camera you'll be less worried about minor exposure errors on any of the other cameras discussed on this forum.</p>

<p>Ron,</p>

<p>When you say you want to take portraits of your kids, it really does make a difference what sort you want.</p>

<p>In general, if you want posed portraits, any quality TLR or folder will give excellent results. Be aware, though, that not all the older models will be synchronized for electronic flash. Just look for the X by the contact socket if you want to avoid unnecessary work-arounds.</p>

<p>If you want static informal or candid portraits, both will again give excellent results. But be prepared for some eyestrain precisely focussing an f3.5 TLR in low light, or if excessive ambient light renders the image on the ground glass too dim. As for folders, a direct vision viewfinder with contrasting rangefinder patch can actually be easier to use in low light than a manual focus SLR finder.</p>

<p>One of the few situations where I could not in good conscience recommend a folder or TLR over a more modern camera is in taking unposed portraits of children at play. Focussing is not fast enough for subjects moving unpredictably at close range, and pre-set zone focussing would not necessarily give you reliably sharper results than your current camera does. If you do decide to give it a try, it's far easier to follow action if you fold out the TLRs sports finder rather than using the ground glass.</p>

<p>Further general caveats include the fact that most folders and TLRs will not focus much closer than three feet or so away. So if you want a head shot you'll have to crop heavily, and end up using a negative area no larger than you'd get using an 80mm to 105mm lens on 35mm film. Or, put another way, you can crop heavily and still not lose quality over 35mm. Could be an advantage, could be a waste of film. Your call. Could also be a convincing argument in favour of a Mamiya 330 and telephoto lens set.</p>

<p>Much as I love TLRs, there's a reason autofocus, autoexposure, autowind-on cameras with zoom lenses sell in large numbers, and photographing naturally restless, energetic children is one of the best. So if you do go for a folder or TLR, maybe it would be an idea to hang onto your current camera a while - at least until your medium format technique is up to speed.</p>

<p>Hope this helps. Let us know what you decide. And post results!</p>

<p>All the best!</p>

<p>It's a Presto, introduced in 1978. Takes SX-70 film, no longer available.</p>

<p>Doug,<br>

Thanks for the introduction. I agree the photos are outstanding at giving a sense of place and community.</p>

<p>Kevin,</p>

<p>One camera not yet mentioned that you might like is the Ricoh 500G. It's small and relatively light weight, works in either shutter-priority or manual, the shutter works without batteries, and it has rangefinder focussing. It's not in the same cult-class as some others with similar features, so should be more affordable.</p>

<p>One problem with manual controls on compact rangefinder cameras is that the designers have to fit a lot of selector rings onto those short lens barrels (shutter speed, aperture and distance), so they can be fiddly to operate. But hey, if you want a high-performing auto/manual camera that fits into your pocket, something's got to give.</p>

<p>Sorry I can't report on results, as I've just finished putting a first roll through. But so far I'm pleased with it. By the way, your checklist pretty much matches mine.</p>

<p>Hope you find what you're looking for.</p>

<p>Alan,</p>

<p>From the 'Pictorial Cyclopedia of Photography', Focal Press, 1968 (1974):</p>

<p>'In most cases the lens-to-film distance is so small in comparison with the subject distance, that it does not matter whether the subject distance is measured from the front or the back of the camera. But for accurate work, particularly for close-ups, the subject distance should be measured from the front of the lens, or still more exactly from the forward nodal point (approximately one-third of the thickness of the lens from its front surface).</p>

<p>'A few cameras, however, carry a warning that all distances must be measured from the plane of the film.'</p>

<p>The mark on the camera body indicating film-plane position is helpful when working out magnification in close-up photography.</p>

<p>Sounds like you can keep using the optical formulas you have.</p>

<p>David,<br>

Thanks for bringing up an interesting point or two. And as for the rest of you - why the hostility?</p>

<p>Old cameras are not as good as newer ones.</p>

<p>In 1935 Roman Vishniac started taking photos of East European Jews, using a Rolleiflex and a Leica, often surreptitiously, through a buttonhole in his coat, in spite of the danger of being arrested as a spy. His collection of negatives forms one of the few extensive archives of European Jewish life in existence.<br>

One lesson for anyone worried about current developments would be to start documenting early, and pay no attention to those who say things could never get that bad.<br>

A major consideration, once the photos were taken and developed, was smuggling the negatives out of occupied Europe. This is where it would help (today) to keep your scanner, so negatives can be digitized and transmitted across borders with impunity (once the signal's back up, of course).</p>

<p>Metal-bodied cameras can be picked up by electronic scanning devices and x-ray machines. Might be an idea to stock up now on dollar-store disposable plastic cameras. Just in case.</p><div></div>

<p>Beauty.</p>

Sorry, Mark, I don't have any suggestions in answer to your question. Just have to say, after scrolling through endless queries about 'Which is better, the DX30 or the D30X?', the title of your post made my day!

 

Hope you have a very Happy Christmas!

Interesting that some posters should think high quality is essential in a classic, when you see the interest shown on this forum towards many of the mass-market models from the past. I think this is a pretty democratic forum, in that posters generally find just about anything within its mandate worthy of attention. I've certainly learned a lot from following threads on camera's I'd never heard of before. Keep digging out those bakelite wonders, Gene!

 

By the way, when did the Swinger stop being a classic?