tom_rittenhouse1

<p>My digital cameras are tools, my film cameras are toys.</p>

<p>Tools are for work, toys are for fun.</p>

<p>At least 2 35mm cameras with interchangeable backs.<br>

1. The old Zeiss Contaflex, had a leaf shutter too.<br>

2. The rolleiflex 2002/3003, sort of a shrunken 6x6.<br>

There were all kinds of backs for the Nikon f. Polaroid, pin register, vacuum, and who know what else?<br>

Back in the old days there were all kinds of weird and wonderful cameras around. Panaramic cameras with rotating lens and a curved film plane, a sub 35mm TLR...</p>

<p>Considering that you are not likely to ever shoot more than two or three rolls through that camera, it is a pure bottom level snapshot camera, why not re-roll a couple of 120 rolls. All kinds of instructions on how to do that on the web.<br>

There are also a couple of places that sell re-rolled 620 for about $15 each, if it seems like too much trouble to do it yourself. One of them is on eBay, just search for 620 film.</p>

<p>Having fairly recently, about a year and a half ago, bought a 4x5 monorail camera on ebay for $150, I can tell you that it was not a working camera. Needed the bellows and rear standard replaced. After that and a decent lens, I had more like $500 in it. That is not counting a tripod and film holders which I already had. Still a $3000 camera for $500 was not such a bad deal.<br>

The 127 Ektar barely covers 4x5 with no movements at all. Definitely not a view camera lens.</p>

 

<p>In the good old days I remember type 55 being used mostly by artsy photographers.<br>

My own personal favorite Polaroid was the 100 speed b&W, but almost no one else seemed to like it. At a reasonable price I would buy the 4x5 single sheet version of the 100 speed stuff, because I considered shooting it fun.<br>

But as an aside about the people trying to develop this stuff, they are doing it out of love on a shoestring budget. The don't have millions for a development budget. If thousands of people donated money they must have a desire to use the stuff.<br>

Me I would like to see 12x 4x5 film packs available, but only if it would not be more than twice the price of single sheets. Of course after putting out some feelers about that I came to realize that almost no one knows what I was talking about, the last was was sold in the mid-80's.</p>

<p>I would clip off the end of the film and test develop it in a tray. That would give you some idea how to proceed with the rest of the film.</p>

<p>When I started using Verichrome there was no Pan to it. Anyone know when it became Verichrome Pan?<br>

Vericrome Pan and a SuperXX 35mm boxes would be cute. But I think that the time shift ad was a better idea. Now a SuperXX box for you latest digicam would fit in the motif. </p>

<p>From what I have read, she tended to use the tripod mounted camera as bait for the kids. Then after she got to talking with the adults, she would use the Rollei. "No, she's just taking snapshots. See, her real camera is over there by the car?" Of course if people were willing she would use one of the 5x7's.<br>

No different, really, than her waiting until she was away before writing down what people were saying.</p>

<p>If you are a collector, the 635.</p>

<p>If you are a shooter, the 124G.</p>

<p>For what it is worth, some 4x5 test shots done in my living room the other day were f/16 @ 10 seconds with 100 speed film. Daylight through two casement windows providing the indirect light.</p>

<p>The 250 watt modeling lights on my studio strobes are not hot, and they do not drive up the electric bill?</p>

<p>The strobist approach requires that one have the experience to pre-visualize the lighting. It only became popular with digital because you can check your lighting on the LED, sort of like cheap Polaroids. Some of us did that decades ago where you had to depend on the picture in your mind to get it right.</p>

<p>Starting out, I would recommend a cheap set of reflector floods, or even clamp lights. You will find them handy to have around even after you have graduated to fancier gear, and they can teach you a lot about how light works. A three light set is what you want to start, shouldn't cost more than $100. That will allow you to learn the classic 3-light portrait setups, and do some useful table top type stuff.</p>

<p>Kind of a funny thing is that most lenses have two image circle limits.</p>

<p>The first is vignetting, where the imagae starts to go dark in the corners.</p>

<p>The second is resolution where the image starts to get soft.</p>

<p>Vignetting is pretty cut and dried, but resolution is a much fuzzier area. For one thing different photographers will have different ideas what is acceptable softness. For another it depends on what type of film you are using.</p>

<p>As an example, long ago Schneider claimed that the 90mm Angulon covered 100 degrees, somewhat later they claimed it covered 80 degrees. Did they suddenly stop lying? Nope, things changed, at one time B&W was about the only choice, in the 1950's color transparencies became the norm. What was completely acceptable in B&W, simply was not in a color transparency, so Schneider started listing coverage for the later.</p>

<p>The point I am trying to make here is that there is no simplistic answer, unless you are only talking about mechanical vignetting.</p>

<p>Several answers, but I do not understand the question, so can not give an opinion.<br>

I assume that you are talking about a scale model room about 6 feet by 6 feet in size. But then what?<br>

a, Do you want to photograph it from the perspective of someone standing inside the room?<br>

b, Do you want to shoot down into the room from above.<br>

c, Do you want perspective controlled shot from outside the room (seems most likely as you are asking about a view camera)?<br>

d, if c, will you be able to remove a wall or shoot through a window in the model?<br>

e, Something else?<br>

All of those require different answers. if you want all those answers a good text book on architectural photography is probably what you need.<br>

You will need answers about what camera, what lighting, and other things as well.</p>

<p>The kind of lighting you are using is used for dramatic advertising style photos. I do not think that is what the collector wants. Try a light tent, yep bland as heck, probably just what is wanted. A tilt/shift lens may also help (there is a reason view cameras were king of the hill for decades in doing work like this).</p>

<p>I think most triggers work with all cameras, it is the flash that sometimes has a problem. My Norman P808m did not work with 3 different radio slaves. I have been told that it should work with the Pocket Wizard, and one other $100 unit. The problem there is that for $350, or even $100, I will just stick with the sync cord.</p>

<p>My $25 radio slave works fine with my hotshoe flashes and as a remote shutter release.</p>

<p>The 135 Optar has been used to take millions, maybe billions, of newpaper & wedding photos. On a 4x5 graphic at f/16 & > it will cover the movements that camera has, not a lot. If you can deal with the limited movements, it is a pretty good 35mm equivalent lens.</p>

<p>The 135 WF Ektar someone mentioned is something else entirely, it is a view camera lens that will cover 8x10 without movements, and 5xs7 with. If you get one in the same price range as a 135 Optar you are indeed lucky. The equivalent lens for 4x5 is the 100mm WF Ektar. I would be very happy with a set consisting of a 100 WF Ektar, a 152 Ektar, and a 203 Ektar for my view camera; just as I am happy with the 135/4.7 Optar on my Crown Graphic.</p>

<p>However, I am not a nit picker, I am happy with any lens that gives a professionally acceptable image. I leave bragging lenses to people with a lot more money than I have.</p>

<p>The Toyo-View rotating backs have a bale lever.</p>

<p>Well, my experience was different that what some are saying here. I remember my first roll of Kodachrome (ASA 10), and the three photos that came out other than solid black. Next paycheck I bought a light meter. So much for the sunny-16 rule of thumb. Through the rest of the ASA 10 days I averaged 3 to 6 black frames even with the light meter.<br>

Kodachrome II improved things to where I almost never got a black frame, and after Kodachrome 25 came out I do not remember getting any at all, except deliberately for transition slides.<br>

Then an assignment came back from Kodak, with every image cut in half, and I never used Kodachrome again. But for 25 years Kodachrome was the only color film I shot.</p>

<p>One comment, some of the older power pack unit do not work with some of the modern wireless triggers. My Norman P808m will not fire with my radio trigger, but works fine with an old Wein optical trigger. Someone inquired to Norman about what radio triggers worked, and they only recommended two brands, neither one inexpensive.</p>

<p>OK, I am not a wedding photographer. But, I think that the real pros are not worried about training competitors. They usually have more work than they can do, and would be real happy to have some more competent photographers they can pass clients onto, and who can take over a shoot if they are ill or something.</p>

<p>But, I am also sure they do not want someone watching over their shoulder. The way to go about that is to look for a job as someones trainee/assistant. But the thing to watch out for in looking for such a position is that the are actually willing to train you. Too many are just looking for cheap/free help.</p>

<p>The thing to realize is that any kind of self employment is not just doing the job, 75% of it is getting the jobs and running the business. If you can find someone willing to teach you about that stuff, grab onto them like a drowning man, they are rare. That 75% is why the real pros are not worried about competition from amateurs, without that knowledge they are going to be here today, and gone tomorrow. Furthermore, the kind of people that hire them are not going to pay what the pro has to charge, so they are not his customers anyway, no loss to the pro there.</p>

 

<p>Many think that a photo is a photo, but even in the art world, a work is not considered finished until it is mounted and framed. To me, a photo that is not ready to hang on the wall, or published in a book, or such, is just a potentiality, an unfinished sketch. A serious artist has workbooks full of sketches, but she only considers them ideas, not art.</p>

<p>There is fine art photography, and there is documentary photography.</p>

<p>Never the twain shall meet, for the first is an attempt to produce what the photographer sees in his head, while for the second he attempts to capture what his eyes sees. In my experience, most photographers work in one field. and do not understand those who work in the other.</p>

<p>The camera she is holding in that photo is a Kodak Retina IIa.</p>

<p>Actually, a lot of globe trotting writers with a camera* of that time, carried a Rolleiflex for B&W and the Retina for color slides it made for a compact outfit to carry along with their typewriter.</p>

<p>*Photographers didn't have to carry a typewriter, so they usually had Leica or Contax with 2-3 lenses for shooting slides, by the late 60's they no longer carried the Rollei because 35mm was acceptable for publication almost everywhere. So, they carried two 35mm bodies instead, one loaded color slide film and one loaded with B&W film.</p>

<p>This is a generality, of course, but it applied to about half the writers and photographers out there of that time period.</p>

<p>I have found, in photographing people, that getting the camera out of the way and interacting with the subject gets more interesting photos. I think in many cases the photographer uses the camera in front of his face to shield himself from the subject, just as many shy people will half cover there face when talking to someone.</p>

<p>Technically, the best way of using the tripod depends upon the tripod. In some cases putting pressure on the tripod by holding the camera and manually firing the shutter works best. In other cases the more disconnected to the tripod the better it works. It does take a lot of experience to tell which is going to be better with a particular tripod and conditions.</p>

<p>This is a funny thread. People are writing from entirely different perspectives and insisting that they are right. They are, but only from the perspective they are looking at it from.</p>

<p>My perspective:</p>

<p>Film cameras give me a choice. A view camera is not a twin lens reflex. A twin lens reflex is not a press camera. A press camera is not an eye level reflex camera. An eye level reflex is not a range finder. All of those make me work in a different way.</p>

<p>B&W is not the same as color. Color is not the same as infrared. Negatives are not the same as transparencies. Fast film does not give the same kind of image as slow film.</p>

<p>And just as an artist's choice of pencil, ink, charcoal, water color, oil color process changes the character of his work, so do all those change the character of my work.</p>

<p>Digital, to me, is just another media. It does have its own look. But, for me the main lack is that I do not have all those choices of tools and media. And I agree with some of the others that I do not get the feeling of accomplishment that I do with film and my own processing. On the other hand some folks want to coat their own film and paper, they want to use processes that are no longer common. I can respect that, but it seems like the digital ober al, type can not respect the folks that feel the same way about film.</p>

<p>Another part of my perspective is that with old manual film cameras all I have to know about is exposure, shutter speed, f/stop, and focus. With modern cameras I have to know 10,000 (Of course I exaggerate) things about programing the camera that, to me, have little to do with producing the image I want. The idea of course is that you do not have to know anything about photography to use the camera, just figure out how to tell the camera what you want and it will do it for you. The manual for my old Pentax MX was 16 pages and half of them were a catalog of accessories you could buy. The manual for my digital point and shoot was almost 300 pages that even as a photographer with 50 years of experience, and a computer tech with 40 years of experience, I had a hard time figuring out what they were trying to say. Mostly, I think, because writers were not photographers, nor computer tech's.</p>

<p>And, in my opinion, the fact that it takes an hour and costs $100 to shoot a transparency with an 11x14 view camera, and only a second and costs next to nothing with a DSLR, makes a big difference in how you approach the process of making an image.</p>