leigh_youdale

<p><em>So, Leigh, if you are wondering why I continue to post on such matters in spite of the sometimes personal attacks that result from posting either nude photos or comments on nude photos or related issues, that (belief that I must defend freedom of expression on controversial issues) is the real reason. I am puzzled that you would characterize my posts as "fishing expeditions."</em><br>

Well, the exchange was all looking a bit self indulgent to me, but then I didn't go to Harvard - or Princeton. Maybe I chose the wrong words.<br>

And since the forum heading is "Philosophy of Photography/History" I guess it's a valid topic in that context and I'm out of my depth. So I'll shut up.</p>

<p>This is starting to look like a fishing expedition where Landrum Kelly can display his fine philosophical thinking in response to other's postings. I think he said in his original posting that he didn't want to generate a marathon thread as in previous years - but that's exactly what has happened. Maybe it's an annual outing.</p>

<p>I'd like a debugged firmware/interface and some flexibility of focal length but with the same viewfinder technology. I've got a GF1 with EVF and kit zoom which I'd sell to part-fund such a purchase. It's not bad, but it's not "there" either.<br>

Fujinon lenses are superb, so I'd be happy with that. Doesn't have to be M-mount or M43. Hell, I might even consider auxiliary lenses for equivalents to 28mm and 50mm to slip onto the fixed 23/35 lens. The purists will cry out in horror, I know, but with the large sensor the compromise on IQ might not be so great and the viewfinder wouldn't need such a major overhaul.</p>

<p>It appears to me that the main light coming from the right (her left) is too powerful and tending to create blown out highlights on her forehead. To correct this you need to move the light AWAY from her or reduce the exposure.<br>

The result of this will be too little light on the right side of her face. Correct that by using a reflector. A sheet of white cardboard would be sufficient if placed and angled suitably.</p>

<p>Looks exactly like a fake "gold plated" Leica II that I once owned. Remanufactured from a Fed II.</p>

<p>Quote:<br>

hello i am just starting in photography and i specifically enjoy taking candid photos on the street in public places. taking photos for my portfolio (im an art student)<br>

I was considering international or war photography. <br>

Nature, landscape and object photography do not really interest me at all, so with my enlightenment of the laws behind photographing people and having a concern with a career, I was thinking of selling all my camera equipment. <br>

End Quote:<br>

Jeremy, as a student and a new entrant to photography (according to your posts quoted above) I think you've been a bit naive about possible career choices and are taking too narrow a view of the opportunities offered by photography for self-expression as well as possible jobs.<br>

I'd hesitate to encourage you to sell all your gear at this stage, but instead to persevere and talk to some people - tutors, practicing photographers, potential employers, journalists - and take a reality check. However, if that doesn't appeal or if after doing it you are still fixated on the path you've indicated then sell the gear because you will not succeed. Someone who aspires to be a war photographer doesn't give up the first time a policeman phones up with a complaint!</p>

 

<p>Make sure the pressure plate is set correctly for the film (120/220) you are using and that it clicks into position.</p>

<p>Hi Em,<br>

Some of the suggestions flying around here reveal the masochistic nature of some of us but are at the same time sadistic when offered to others as sage advice. We tend to think our own preferred gear is the only way to do things and I really do question whether some of the contributors have ever experienced the conditions in which you'll be operating, considered your budget constraints, or the wisdom of purchasing a camera type you've never used before, before rushing into print. There are some good suggestions mixed in amongst it all and in the end, I think you should probably follow the suggestion to grab a couple of cameras and/or lenses (beg, borrow, steal) and a couple of rolls of film of the type you might use and just go and experiment in an environment that isn't too far removed from your intended shooting locations. You'll soon see whether colour film suits you better than digital, whether you prefer to work close in with wide angle lenses or a bit further away. And you might start to form an opinion about the relative merits (for this type of shooting) of Medium Format, 35mm SLR or RF and digital SLR.<br>

It seems you've got a little time to experiment so use it before taking the plunge.</p>

<p>Having reviewed the photos you took previously on Flikr I would say, forget B&W - you need the colour and mono would just get too drab on its own. And I'd support the use of a DSLR digital or Micro 4/3rds digital + EVF with auto focus and the best zoom you can afford or a couple of fast prime lenses - but better if you don't have to change lenses - you might drop one or the dust might get onto your sensor.<br>

I think my choice would be an Olympus EP2 with their 11-22 / f2.8-3.5 Zuiko WA zoom, or better still their 14-35 / f2 Standard zoom. If you can afford it. That combination would be a kit that will serve you well for many years' photography in all sorts of situations and if it's a bit of a stretch now, consider calling up family and relative favours and mortgaging your birthday and Christmas present for a couple of years and get them to club together to get it for you.</p>

<p>Emily, I have a Rolleiflex TLR which I use and love but it's the last camera I own that I would take on an assignment like yours. Size, difficult to focus in poor light, (relatively) slow lens, 12 shots before having to change film - I could go on, but believe me it's the wrong camera for this. Portraits and landscapes, yes.<br>

I don't even think that MF is right for the type of project you're undertaking - a 35mm-sized camera, whether film or digital - would be much more practical. And auto focus would be a huge help in the environment you'll be operating in.<br>

I'd choose my Bessa R3A Rangefinder with the 1.4 lens if I was using film, but would have to get high speed film in colour or b&w and accept there was going to be a lot of colour shift, grain and a fair few failures.<br>

But what I'd probably do is take my m4/3 Panasonic digital which is relatively small, put it on auto everything, and go for it! It has the EVF (electronic view finder) so I wouldn't have to be trying to frame and focus using the screen on the back of the camera. I'd set it to capture the images in both RAW and JPEG so I could judiciously edit and adjust the final images. And I wouldn't have to stop to change film halfway through some action.<br>

Now, I don't know what your budget is. There are a lot of quite inexpensive film SLR's around due to people switching to digital, and there are SO many choices in digital across a huge price range that it's hard to advise you further. Many people will put forward suggestions based on their own particular favourites or foibles but we photographers tend to get a bit myopic when it comes to equipment choices, so sift the advice carefully. I personally can't cope with viewing a screen on the back of a camera, and I don't like the weight and bulk of a DSLR which is why I waited until the GF1 came out, but that might not be within your reach.<br>

The other thing you might want to consider is whether you want to use a zoom lens or a fixed focal length lens.<br>

The Rolleiflex is fixed at the MF equivalent of a 50mm lens on 35 mm. My choice in a crowded party scene would be a much wider angle lens. Most digital P&S cameras start at 35mm equivalent and my feeling is that this would not be wide enough. Try something with 28mm equivalent or even my favourite 25mm - the vibration and movement around you would make anything longer than a 50mm lens problematic and the wider the lens the less problem you'll have with focus. If you saw something happening a little distance away, move to the spot rather than try to use a telephoto lens. Likely as not in a crowd people would get in the way of a clear shot if you tried to take it at a distance.<br>

Now most zooms except the huge and expansive ones, have apertures that are two stops smaller than prime lenses and it gets worse as you extend the zoom range until you're likely to be trying to shoot in dim light at f5.6 when f1.5 should be more like what you'll need.<br>

So in the final wrap up, I'd suggest having a look at the Panasonic GF1 or the Olympus EP2. They're relatively new on the market but both offer an EVF, they're both cameras you could keep and use for many years in all sorts of situations and there's a reasonably good range of lenses available, although Olympus have a better range of wide angle zooms that might be a good choice for you. <br>

If that's way outside your budget then I'd be having to decide between a compact, unobtrusive, digital p&s with as many good features as I could afford, or a second hand DSLR and a suitable lens or lenses - a couple should be enough.</p>

<p>Don't overlook the problem of uneven development can also be brought on by filling the tank too much and thus not allowing the liquid to surge sufficiently. Same result though - insufficient agitation. Use enough developer to cover the film reel but don't fill the tank. It's not necessary and impedes the free flow of fresh solution to all parts of the film.</p>

<p>Why don't you go look at the product information sheet on the Ilford website, downloadable as a pdf?<br>

It gives 6 mins for 1+25 and 11 mins for 1+50. They don't recommend stand development - none of the manufacturers do - it's just that some people try to economise to the nth degree, and often end up on forums asking why they get peculiar marks on their negatives. You have to ask yourself why would the manufacturers of the film give such guidelines if they lead to less than optimal results, and do others really have more knowledge that makes the manufacturers advice invalid?</p>

<p>Last June/July I spent eight weeks in Paris, Ireland and the UK as a tourist and carried two RF cameras with me all the time and used them constantly. (I don't carry a big DSLR with a long zoom!) Not once was any comment or even a stare directed at me. I did not always have my wife with me. I think the incidents we hear about are isolated and, unless you're behaving in a pushy or eccentric manner there's no reason to be concerned. Carry your ID, research the rights appropriate to where you will be and have your firm but friendly response prepared. I didn't need any of that, but it's best to be ready in case you come across one of the paranoid ones.</p>

<p>I thought the idea of being apprehended by one of our Gold Coast (Queensland) Meter Maids might make the prospect more appealing. http://www.metermaids.com/</p>

<p>And to Mark Tate, given the sensitivity of this whole subject it wasn't very smart not to carry some ID. Nevertheless in addition to that I also carry a copy of this - http://4020.net/words/rightssummary/nswphotorights.pdf </p>

<p>I think the simplest solution is:-<br>

(a) make yourself a "professional" badge/label like most people wear for security/access to office buildings etc that says something like "Official Photographer" and wear it on a cord around your neck. Then you can be clearly distinguished easily from any other wedding guests and wear whatever outfit you're comfortable in. The badge is the identifier, not what you wear or how you look or what camera you're carrying. Any number of guests could look the same with a nice big "Pro" DSLR. But they won't have the badge!<br>

(b) Take the photo with grace as long as it doesn't interfere with your own shoot. Think about possible referrals while you're doing it and make it a good one!</p>

<p>Something learned from an entirely different business but some of it's applicable.<br>

You might decide to put your margin at risk, based on the client's acceptance of the results, but NEVER put your costs (including overheads) at risk. In other words, before you turn up you make sure you have received enough money to cover any materials, incidental costs AND your time, factored in at an hourly rate. What's left is your profit margin. Less post production and album costs, so make sure it's a healthy margin!<br>

If using digital (and what wedding photographer wouldn't) then you can personally meet or on-line show them a set of non-downloadable, watermarked low-res images. When they agree on what they want they pay you the balance owing at that point and you can then get into post production and album preparation - not before. So you don't spend edit time or order the album until that hurdle is crossed.<br>

If they don't like what you've done the worst case scenario is that they refuse to pay the balance and you don't provide any images. But you've covered your costs. End of story. There are other issues arising relating to your reputation etc but I guess if you're already in this business you're confident enough to put that on the line every job you take, so you aren't going to lose any sleep over how to deal with it unless and until it ever happens.</p>

<p>This thread is getting bizarre!<br>

Do you want consistently good quality results or "hit and miss"? If the latter, go buy a Lomo, Holga or Diana. It won't matter much then if you stuff up the processing.<br>

If the former, just put one roll per reel, read the chemical user instructions carefully and follow them. Don't keep your stock solutions past their use-by date. Don't reuse mixed developer unless it's the same day and you adjust the time according to the instructions. And if it's truly "one-shot" then don't reuse it at all!<br>

If you develop more than one film at a time, make sure the chemicals match the film type and the development times are the same.<br>

Anything else you're gambling with the results.</p>

<p>I have an older folding Bessa 1 which produces 6x9 and 4.5x6 photos on 120 roll film. I use it but wouldn't recommend it for what you're after.<br>

I have two Leica IIIf's. Lovely classic 35mm rangefinders which I also use but wouldn't recommend. They are somewhat idiosynchratic to use these days compared to others that are easier to use.<br>

I have two Bessa R series 35mm rangefinders but I think they're going to be out of your price range, and I'm not sure rangefinder is the way to go. They have their uses but as long as your eyesight is good then an SLR takes some beating.<br>

I have a Nikkormat FTn from around 1970 which is a great SLR and in the same class as the Minolta SRT, in my view. Battery operated match needle exposure meter but everything has to be done manually. I'd strongly recommend it and they're relatively cheap these days. Built like a brick dunny! I have a range of lenses from 21mm to 200mm - you need to be clear what sort of photos you're likely to take but a 28mm wide angle, a 50mm prime and a 135mm tele are probably a good starter set.</p>

<p>My experience might help the decision making. I'll try to keep it brief.<br>

1. Couldn't afford an M-series Leica.<br>

2. Bought a fake Leica II on EBay - it's a FED1 that's been "converted. It worked but was a bit agricultural. Nevertheless it convinced me I wanted a real Leica.<br>

3. Bought two IIIf's on EBay intending to make one good one out of them. After CLA's and new shutter curtains I have two good ones! One is Black Dial, one is Red. Lenses are Elmar 3.5/50 and Summitar 2.0/50. The Elmar makes a very compact (but heavy) pocketable camera.<br>

4. Lens flare can be a problem shooting against the sun. Lens hoods for these old ones are not easy to come by and often overly large and bulky. Most accessories are scarce and/or expensive.<br>

5. I use a VCII meter in the shoe for exposures.<br>

6. Rangefinder patches are just OK but nowhere near as good as the Bessa.<br>

7. You can burn holes in your Leica shutter curtains if you leave the lens uncapped and pointing at the sun.<br>

8. Have had great fun using them, but now have a Bessa R3A and R4a for "serious" photography as the Leica's were a bit less convenient in day to day use. They have better viewfinders, option of manual or AE exposures, lighter, but a bit larger than the IIIf, M-mount and great lens options. And they're not 55 years old!<br>

9. The Leica has become my "car camera" - the one I take anywhere I'm not taking the Voigtlanders. I love to handle it, look at it but for convenience my vote goes to the Bessas.</p>