ryan_long

Posted May 27, 2016 · May 27, 2016

Just wanted to do my part and say that I had a bad pro pack of TMax 400 120. I emailed Mr. Mooney and he sent out a replacement pro pack very quickly.

While I cannot replace the photographs that were ruined by the backing paper issue, I appreciate the customer service.

December 7, 2015

Richard:

Are you thinking of the Voigtlander 50mm Nokton f/1.1? The Nokton-Asph f/1.5 that I'm considering is only 25 grams heavier than the Summicron v4.

December 3, 2015

Mukul:

I appreciate your input and agree that one should use the right tool for the job. However, your other remarks are wide of the point. I've decided to use a Leica M3 or M6 and a 50mm. Discussion of additional focal lengths or the merits of even doing this exercise simply aren't helpful.

I'm abundantly aware that best results are frequently gained from using different tools. I've used a wide range of focal lengths, formats and camera systems: <a href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanmlong/">https://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanmlong/</a>

This is about simplification and challenging myself.

December 3, 2015

Thanks for the input so far, everyone. It looks like everyone is leaning a little towards the M3 plus Summicron? I'm pretty sure either way I can't go too wrong.

Stephen: The meter is probably a non-issue the more I think about it. Chances are if I decided to go with the M6 I'd use the meter, and if I went with the M3 I'd just estimate. I have handheld meters if I need to shoot something specific. It's certainly a tough call for me between the Summicron and the Nokton. The pros and cons don't really tip one way between the two. The Summicron and Nokton have negligible size and weight differences. The Nokton is faster, but it doesn't feel as good as the Summicron to use. The images seem pretty pleasing to my eye from both lenses. In the end this may come down to just blindly picking a combo, haha.

James: I read you on the M3. Of course that would make the most sense logically for a 50mm only setup. However, I find that shooting 50mm on the M6 with the 0.72 finder gives me more of a view of what is going on outside of the frame and lets me cut out a picture, if that makes any sense. Of course the M3 would probably allow me more accurate focus and framing at speed. The accessory meter I have is the MC and it's fairly accurate, though not different enough from estimation to have a permanent place with the M3, especially in dark situations. Luckily I have a lot of my daily lighting pretty dialed in at this point (subway, Midtown, etc).

Bill: You're right, it's very silly. However, it would save me time through avoiding the "which camera should I bring" thoughts for a year - which is probably enough justification on its own. Plus, I'm not a professional anymore so there are rarely scenarios where I would just have to get the shot. There's always something to be said for a little bit of standardization.

Robin: I agree, especially when I'm in Midtown where light is already pretty scarce at this time of year. The Nokton is pretty dialed in on both bodies, as is the Summicron. Flip a coin?

December 2, 2015

So, the New Year is nearly upon us and I'm seriously considering spending all of 2016 using just one film body and one lens. I've settled on TMax 400 and Kodak HC-110 for home development, but I am having a heck of a time picking which combination is going to be "it" for the whole year.

I have the following:

Leica M3 Double Stroke + hot shoe meter

Leica M6 Classic (0.72)

Leica Summicron 50mm f/2 V4

Voigtlander Nokton 50mm f/1.5 Aspherical (M-Mount version)

I'm leaning towards the M6 and either of the 50mm lenses, but I'mnot sure. While the M3 feels better, I like the additional space around the framelines I get with the M6 and I typically get more consistent results by using the internal meter. At the same time, the M3 finder is less cluttered and just nicer and the lack of a meter or the use of the hot shoe meter would probably require more active thinking while out shooting (which is probably a good thing).

Hopefully this year will result in a few prints. I know the Summicron is fantastic and the contrast looks great, but, living in NYC I don't always have a lot of light, particularly during the colder months. For instance, on my walk to work this morning I was shooting at 1/125 f/2 EI 400. My subjects are typically whatever I find around the city during the day or night and include people (candids) places and things so while I can handhold at slower speeds for places and things, I'd really like 1/250 for people. The Nokton would give me at least a slight speed boost when I need it and the weight difference between the lenses is negligible. On the other hand, it seems wrong somehow to let the Summicron sit for a year.

Which combo would you pick?

May 11, 2013

Rolleiflex 2.8E Tmax 400 Rodinal

Ditto + Rolleinar 2.

March 14, 2013

Patrick S. I use film because I like film. I'm 27. I've used it professionally alongside digital and I use it now (medium and large format) in my own work. I use it largely for the look that I can get and for the other things that I can't get elsewhere, such as shooting from a WLF with a Rolleiflex. I use it, largely, for the reasons one generally uses large and medium format, and I use the digital for the things one would largely have used 35mm to accomplish. I use film and film cameras because they are tools that help me do what I want to do with my images. I develop all of my color and my black and white on my own and I print in my bathroom or scan negatives as I decide.

Bronica 645 ETRS Fuji Pro 400H Dev'd at home and scanned.

When film finally reaches its point of stability -- which it will so long as there is a market -- I will continue to shoot film when I need to in order to do what I want to do.

February 28, 2013

You know, all things considered, if they had to forget a few details in training I'm okay that these were the ones that didn't make the cut.

February 26, 2013

Fuji GF670

Kodak Ektar 100

January 1, 2013

Holga WPC Acros 100 (20 minute exposure) HC-110

Fuji GF670 Ilford HP5+ Rodinal Stand 1:100 1hr10min.

November 7, 2012

Hurricane Sandy SoHo.

Pentax 67

45mm SMC Takumar f/4

Kodak Tri-X 400 Ei 320

Rodinal 1:50

August 15, 2012

Nikon D800 Nikkor 28mm f/1.8 G Champney Falls

August 13, 2012

Just to throw my opinion in there, I picked up a D800 on August 6 and so far the AF is fantastic and so is the color accuracy on the LCD.

I say that you just go for it.

August 9, 2012

I'm kind of the same, Bradley. I always had my 80-200mm in my bag and only had it on the camera for a handful of shots the whole wedding day (usually only during the ceremony if distance was an issue). Almost the whole time I had an 85mm f/1.8 on one body and the 17-35mm (and more often, now, the 28 f/1.8) on the other body. I used one D300 and one D700, so there are a few options with these two bodies.

Anyway, the 80-200mm was the first lens I sold now that I'm done shooting professionally! I'm loving the lightweight kit of primes and definitely don't miss the zoom.

July 26, 2012

I do my C41 at home. It's not particularly difficult and I put through about 14 rolls per 1L Tetenal kit. So it's all of about $1.25/roll + my time.

I also think the fact that I have an almost immediate turnaround for developing and a complete lack of reliance on someone else to develop my film to be kind of priceless.

July 17, 2012

I've got to be honest that I skipped most of this thread.

I am one of those younger photographers who began shooting digital (save from a few shots when my dad would let me use his yashica) and eventually turned to shooting film too.

I think the number one barrier to my getting into film in the first place was a misguided perception about the level of knowledge I would need and the relative difficulty of getting great results with film and wet processing.

I think that many, like me, fear letting go of the training wheels of digital exposure. I think that many, like me, love it once we do.

That being said, film shooters could do a few things to support their cause which may be a little irksome to the quality die hards.

For one, we need to be able to explain that processing film and scanning or printing really isn't that difficult (gasp) even if we all know that doing so well and doing so according to an artistic vision may be.

We need to not fly off the handle when recommending equipment, or things we think that a new photographer needs. A tank, somewhere completely dark (bathroom with towels stuffed around the door or a changing bag) a reel, developer and fixer are all you really need to get started in processing your negatives. The rest can be acquired as you go, or even used as modified equipment from other sources (i.e. using a glass measuring cup for measuring chemicals vs. a graduated cylinder).

I spent hours trying tog figure out just what I needed to get started because it's too easy to begin to think that you need these premium negative clips and stainless steel or plastic tanks.

Simplify what someone from the outside perceives as a complex process and you remove much of the fear or uncertainty from the equation.

Another point is that most of your new shooters will have a similar workflow to mine, meaning that you will more likely see a digital/film hybrid, rather than a purely film workflow. We need to be more understanding and willing to point out how the two can complement each other. For instance, while I still have an F100 and FM2N I have a hard time justifying shooting them, because they are either bulkier than my X100 or the results are equal or worse than what I get with my D700. Yes, this comes down to many variables on my end, but I'll be frank, once I finish the last of my 35mm film these cameras are going out for sale. For me 35mm just doesn't have a place in my workflow.

However, my Rollei, Pentax 67, Bronica ETRS and my Speed Graphic all see regular use and I put hundreds of rolls (not as many sheets) a year. And it's not all about quality. It's about style, and it's about the feel of the camera and the look of the scanned image as well as the wet darkroom print.

We need to encourage this type of exploration.

I particularly think that we need to encourage newer shooters to look at medium format and large format for a couple of reasons. First, because it is often such a different way of shooting (WLF anyone), and because it's much easier to get a sharp scan from even a crummy scanner than it is from 35mm. As much as a new shooter may love the distinctive look of film, many will be much more likely to stick with it if they see that they can get that look plus a sharp image. Secondly, I know that many new shooters would love to shoot a Rolleicord or Yashica 124 if they got the chance, just because they are so different and I think once they try it they are very likely to stick with it.

I'm sure there is far more that film shooters could be doing, but aside from keeping on shooting film, these are just a few thoughts that come to mind.

Also, for those of you who are interested, take a look around flickr if you need some encouragement. You'll find that the ranks of new film shooters are surprisingly thick.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/ryanmlong/

June 15, 2012

I suppose a D600 makes sense. I wouldn't be surprised if it was a reasonable strategy to get a little more life and a few more bucks out of the D3X sensor, rather than something completely redesigned. I am sure the sensor will at least be modified, but I wouldn't expect anything revolutionary.

Time will tell!

May 10, 2012

The SL66 is a really interesting camera, in that you do have bellows focusing and some tilt effects.

However, it is pricy and bulky (nearly 4.5 pounds). Do a flickr search for pictures of people holding the camera to get an idea.

If you can do with a TLR, take a look at the Mamiya C330 or C220 which are both <4lbs with standard lens. Much less expensive. Still kind of bulky and heavy compared to a Rolleiflex.

Personally, my favorite walking around camera in 6x6 is my Rolleicord Va. I keep a rolleinar 2 in one of those handy leather pouches hanging from the strap if I need it. All in all it weighs slightly less than 2lbs.

May 5, 2012

From an engagement session last weekend:

<img src="http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8162/6994246920_8f96a31bf0_c.jpg" alt="" /> Pentax 67 105mm f/2.4 Takumar Kodak Portra 400 From a trip to NYC last month. I finally developed it this month after the engagement session, once my stockpile of exposed rolls was large enough to warrant mixing new C41 chemistry.

Rolleicord Va Xenar 75mm f/3.5 Kodak Ektar 100

May 3, 2012

What's your budget? I mean, give us a real number and you will probably get more useful recommendations.

If you really want a Hasselblad then you can price one a 500cm + A12 + WLF + 150mm f/4 for $690 before shipping at KEH.

If that's too rich, then consider the RB67. The bellows focusing provides great versatility and will definitely allow you a lot of leeway when it comes to capturing both landscapes and tighter, almost macro, flower shots, and the 6x7 negative is closer to what you're getting out of 4x5 and may give you the results you're hoping for from MF moreso than a 6x4.5 frame. You could probably find a set up with a body (Pro or Pro-S) 120 back, 90mm lens and WLF for ~$300.

If the RB is too heavy and bulky (and it is really heavy, though I've done quite a bit of hiking with it), then consider going with a TLR. I have a Rolleicord Va that I love. It's extremely light for MF and even lighter than my DSLR and incredibly sharp. I paid just over $200 for it and it's probably the one shooter in my lineup that I'll never bother to sell. Grab a rolleinar for closeup work.

If you like the 6x6 frame and the versatility of bellows focusing, but want interchangeable lenses then look at the Mamiya C system. Both the C330 and the C220 are great manual workhorse cameras and can be had quite cheaply: C330 + 80mm f/2.8 + ~$275. They're both much bulkier and heavier than a Rolleicord, but, again, have bellows focusing and interchangeable lenses. Also, at least on my samples, the screen is brighter on the C330 than the Rolleicord Va.

If you're interested in 35mm style SLR handling, the Pentax 67 is a great option, though the cost of Body + Prism + Lens will probably put you close to the $500+ mark.

For similar handling style with a stable of interesting lenses, consider the Pentacon 6. It's a bit of a different beast, but I love the Zeiss Jena 180mm f/2.8.

Really, you can't go wrong with whatever you pick. And, if you decide that the system you do decide on isn't right for you then you can usually sell it back for close to, or in some cases more than, what you paid for it and try something else.

April 6, 2012

Rolleicord Va Xenar f/3.5 on Kodak TMax 400 in Kodak HC-110 Dilution E. Taken near the WTC site.

February 7, 2012

I'm pretty excited about this camera and may move to it after this wedding season.

I am really pleased about the price point. I was expecting a substantial bump from D700 level + inflation and am pleasantly surprised!

January 17, 2012

I think it's an absolutely incredible film. It's head and shoulders above many for easy scanning and quite sharp and fine grained. It's a little more muted than Portra 400, and less versatile at 160, but definitely another excellent flavor of Portra.

December 24, 2011

You need a daylight tank to process your film. Film is not safe from a safelight.

However, if you wanted to, you could try and print at home as well. Used enlargers regularly go for cheap or free on craigslist. If you're just printing contact sheets or 5x7s it can be pretty economical to do at home. Once you get printing 16x20 or so you're probably going to start getting a little more pricey just to buy trays and such for that size. Again, the used market is your friend.

Making big digital prints is another story and the economy of doing so is in part relative to how many big prints you want to make and what is "expensive" to you!

But, if you're just going to process at home (which is the most sensible way for BW, really), then all you need is a daylight tank, reels, a dark bag, a graduated cylinder (600ml is what I use) and chemicals. I actually bought the Arista kit from freestyle.biz when I started out and it had everything I needed for developing and printing save for an enlarger. I'd supplement the kit with the Arista Premium reels however, as they are much easier to load.

December 24, 2011

It's probably a choice that's going to come down to what deal you can find. Your budget is well within flatbed territory. They're not ideal, but I they're adequate for proofing, posting to the web and small prints. Some may disagree with me on this point, however. What I'd suggest is using a flatbed scanner to scan all of your photos and then decide which negatives you'd like to print and get those specific negatives professionally scanned to hi-res files and then do your photoshop voodoo before print.

Anyway, as the poster above said, the Epson V series is top rate for flatbeds. I happen to use a Canon Canoscan 8800f and it works fine for my purposes. All of the scans on my flickr stream are with this model, so you can check those out if you'd like by clicking on this picture. (Though ignore the first few color medium format scans, those were examples of exhausted C41 chemistry and not demonstrative of the scanner's capability).

This is with the same combo (F100 + Canoscan)

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by ryan_long