keithdunlop

If mercury vapor gives off a blue cast, then Kodak's recommended correction of 70R wouldn't make much sense, would it? The opposite color to red is green. I would think a CC red filter would correct a deep green cast. That's why we use magenta's for flourescent lights.

 

The shot has absolutely no cast to it and it's uncorrected. The other two shots are clearly magenta from the use of the CC filters which led to my conclusion that the overhead lights were somehow daylight balanced.

For many professionals who shoot medium format, the comparison of 645 to 35mm (depending on shooting circumstance and film material of course) many times does not produce that much of a difference to justify the expense of the move to a new format. I have never heard anyone say the same thing about 6x7. I wasn't knocking 645. That's all I was saying.

 

I don't think I deserve to be called a "liar" or distributing "mis-information". You can disagree with an opinion without being disrespectful to others.

Well, Mel sure threw the kitchen sink at you!

 

When you move up to larger formats from 35mm the options seems to increase tremendously. As the options increase so does the confusion. One thing is for sure, once you move to medium format you will become quickly addicted to the tonal quality of a much larger film area, and you may even start thinking about 4x5 (someday!).

 

The best source of information is right here I think. Spend some time in the medium format forum and start absorbing information, and ask questions along the way.

 

I'm not going to suggest any certain camera becuase that will be a very person choice. You will need to rent a couple of different types and see what fits you best. For myself, when I made the jump I went to a Mamiya RZ for two reasons; 1) the 6x7 perspective (matches a 8x10 print) was familiar whereas as a square Hasselblad would have been a whole new learning curve in terms of composition, 2) 645 is not that much bigger than 35mm. 6x7 was the right combination of being big enough to yield much better negatives, with a perspective that was already very familiar to me.

This is the prior post.

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=003TYq

 

I ended up shooting E100S with the Kodak-recommended 40M+10Y. The

results are dead-on perfect. I'm very pleased, and relieved. The

shoot is half done and I'll finish up with the same formula later in

the week.

 

One shot is very perplexing though. The large aircraft hanger

attached to the complex is lit with what appeared to be some sort of

high intensity vapor lights (I was unable to get close enough to

know, and the builder had no clue). I was not given access to this

area during my pre-shoot visits so I could not prepare. I shot a

series of three sets of exposures; no filter, 30M, and 40M+10Y, with

the hope that something would be close enough to scan and fix in

Photoshop later. Other than some very slight edge fall off with my

65mm Nikkor, the shot with no filter is perfect, as if the lights

were daylight balanced. There's no other way to explain the correct

color, is there?

Well, the more I think about this I guess I'll spend the money on a Fugi Quickload holder and shoot NPS as a backup to the chromes. I'll have to eat the added costs, but I'll chalk it up to marketing expense.

Mr. Thompson,

 

Gelling the lights would be the ideal soution, but in this case a HUGE PIA. The ceiling in the main reception area is about 30-40 feet off the ground. It's not practical to get to the lights. Plus, there's so many of them it would too time consuming for this particular job. Basically, the building was already shot by someone else, the client wasn't happy with the work, so I'm going back to re-do the ones they didn't like. So it's a smaller budget, quick shoot, but I want to do a good job so that they call me first the next time.

Thank you all for your assistance. There's a bit of daylight mixed in one of the larger rooms and the client wants chromes for repro, so I'm going to run some tests on my RZ with EPN (I have Kodak Readyload holders only for the 4x5) and the various filter combo's suggested. I've got resins in 30M, 40M, 10Y, FL-D and 81A to test with. Everythings's getting pre-proofed the Polaroids before the final shoot, so it will be fine, I just wanted to see if anyone had a good recipe for these specific tubes.

 

Thanks again.

 

Keith

Tim,

 

The only info I took note of was "GE" and "3500". I'll check out the sites you listed. Thanks.

 

Richard,

 

What, no duck tape?

I have an architecture shoot next week. I checked out the building

tonight and the halls and rooms are light with recessed 3500k screw-

in flourescent bulbs. I took one out and read the label. I'm shooting

EPY due to a lot of wood that needs to be represented well.

 

I'm using a Lee holder on my 4x5. My color conversion chart shows the

closest filter to be close to an 81a. Kodak provides precise CC

recommendations for flourescents, but they don't indicate which

flourescent is what temperature. Is 3500k "cool white"?

 

For tungsten film Kodak recommends 10R+50M+50Y, which means buying

three new resins. Should I switch to 30M and daylight film?

 

Ellis?

Sam,

 

I own an RZ Pro II and I use a Bogen 3437 3D Magnesium Head (pan/tilt)with quick release for landscapes (and always with mirror-up cable release). What I like most about it is that it has a mini bubble level that aids in keeping the camera on a level plane. It's suppose to hold 6.6 pounds. I find it adequate for the basic body and lens, but I probably wouldn't add additional weight by using a prism finder or motor. Myself, I think it would be hard to make fine adjustments to camera position on the a body as large as an RZ with a ball head.

Eric,

 

I currently use a Mamiya RZ67 Pro II and I prefer the 180mm lens for 3/4 length portraits and headshots. If I had to choose between a 150mm and 200mm I would pick the 150mm so I didn't run out of backing-up room. I've also used my 90mm when I need a full length shot in close quarters with great success.

I took my 24mm Nikkor with me on my Everest trek last March and it was the perfect lens. I never once wished I had a wider angle of view. Email me and I'll copy you with examples of shots of Everest from Kala Pattar taken with the 24, as well as other shots you'll encounter along the way. By the way, I only carried a 50mm along with the 24mm while trekking. I left the longer lenses, in my case, a 80-200 2.8 zoom in Kathmandu. Although you may consider an 85mm for portraits, anything longer in the Khumbu is unnecessary.

 

Keith kdun@gte.net<div></div>