rory_rege

<p>Joe,<br /> <br /> You may find this discussion helpful: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=20268&highlight=mirror+reflections</p>

<p>Also this one: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=19184&highlight=photographing+reflections Note the reference to the book Light: Science and Magic.</p>

<p>The home page of that site has some excellent articles that address the broader issue that you raise about focusing a large format camera.</p>

<p>Kenneth,</p>

<p>If you aren't already familiar with him, have a look at John Deakin's work, especially the book John Deakin: Photographs.</p>

<p>Congratulations on your Masters. I like the work that you have on your site.</p>

<p>Hi Barry,</p>

<p>I just had a look at the Apple site to see whether they're selling something as tricked out as this. Sure enough, what you're describing is pretty much the configuration of their top end, $9,000 - $10,000 Mac Pro :)</p>

<p>I'm not going to go quite that far, but the case that I have in mind will accomodate lots of expansion. Of course Intel, with it's upcoming change in processor architecture, is about to make the i7 processors obsolete :)</p>

<p>What would I get in real terms if I went to two processors and/or moe than 12mb RAM that I wouldn't with one processor and 12MB?</p>

<p>You're right about the backups. I keep anything that I'm not actually working on, in duplicate, on external drives.</p>

<p>Thanks Sheldon.</p>

<p>Has anyone used one of the PNY Quadro cards with Photoshop? See http://www.nvidia.com/object/builtforadobepros.html</p>

<p>I'm planning a custom-built computer. The operating system will be 64 bit Windows 7. The machine will be used mainly for CS4 Photoshop, but I also want to be able to use it for video and sound editing. It may also be used for very casual, limited gaming (there are some male adolescents about). It will not be used for surfing the internet nor for office applications. In Photoshop, I work mostly with scans of medium and large format film in tiff format. The files can be quite large, as much as a few hundred megabites, and this is the scanned file before layers.</p>

<p>Between reading articles on anandtech.com and tomshardware.com, and going through specs on manufacturer's sites, my head is hurting.</p>

<p>I'm at a point where I need to get input on some questions.</p>

<p>The processor will be an Intel i7-950 (a so-called Bloomfield processor). This means that I need to install RAM in modules of three. The motherboard will have room for six modules, and I am trying to decide whether to install 6GB of RAM (3 sockets of 2GB each) or 12GB of RAM (6x2GB or 3x4GB). The maximum that the board will take is 24GB.</p>

<p>I am also trying to decide what to do about physical memory. I need enough gigabytes for the operating system, applications, scratch and working data. By working data, I mean that my current practice is to store data that I am not working on during the computer session on external drives, and I plan to continue that practice with this machine. This means that I don't have a need for massive internal hard drives.</p>

<p>My guess is that I should go with three internal drives: one for the operating system and applications, one for scratch and one for the data that I am working on. If this is the right direction, the question is what kinds of drives.</p>

<p>Is there any point in Western Digital's 10000 rpm Velociraptors or equivalent, and, if so, for how many of the drives? Or should I just go with 7200 rpm drives? Relative to the functions that I have identified, what sizes should they be?</p>

<p>Should I get a solid state drive and, if so, for what functions? Operating system and applications or for scratch? If for the former, I would think that a 32GB, or at most 64GB, solid state drive would do what I need.</p>

<p>One thing that is not clear to me is how to balance RAM and the physical memory. For example, if I have 12GB, or even 6GB, of RAM, do I need a scratch drive?</p>

<p>My remaining question has to do with choosing a video card. It is frequently said that Photoshop runs just as well on a low-end card as on a higher-end card, but there are suggestions on the internet that this is not true of at least some of Photoshop's functions. What is the reality about this? I'm quite prepared to buy something like the Radeon 5870 that came out a couple of weeks ago, and I may do so just for its gaming capabilities, but I'd like to know whether it has any value in relation to Photoshop.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Axel,</p>

<p>Could I also suggest that you see if you can get your hands on a copy of Geoffrey James's book Paris: Photographs. I think that it may be out of print, but it should be available at major libraries or through abebooks.com. Also, I think that some of his Paris photos are in the book that was published, and currently available, as part of his show last year at the National Gallery of Canada.</p>

<p>Hi Guido,<br /> Yes, I know that if I buy Nikon, there are some issues at the moment about timing, which of course should be tempered by the reality that there is always a better camera on the horizon :)</p>

<p>I think that what I am trying to get across is what a revelation it was for me, as someone who would like to stay with Leica, to see what Nikon and Canon are offering. Putting aside questions of ergonomics and lens preferences - both of which are sigificant issues for me, so I don't mean to dismiss them - there is just no comparison. As far as I can see, Nikon and Canon are in a different league.</p>

<p>For me, at least, this ISO issue is not minor. I regularly push film to 800, 1600 and 3200 ISO, and I was floored at what the blog that I referred to demonstrated on this issue. I'm now beginning to understand a couple of earlier threads in which people suggested - and got jumped on for suggesting - that the Leica is a complete non-starter for professionals, and by extension raises serious issues for amateurs who make photographs in lower light conditions.<br /> If I was going to stick with film, I'd be fine. But it looks like moving to an M9 is actually going to be a liability, whereas buying a Nikon or a Canon will open doors.</p>

<p>To be clear, I want to buy a Leica, but I'm beginning to think that my real choice is between staying with Leica film and buying a Nikon or Canon, and that sinking a pile of money into an M9 would be a cross between stupidity and blind brand loyalty.</p>

<p>Hi Axel,</p>

<p>I used to live there and still visit about once a year.</p>

<p>I'd suggest that you avoid June, July and August. In June, it can rain a lot (at least that's how I remember it - one year it rained 26 out of 30 days, I counted). In July, Paris is full of tourists, and also hot and muggy. In August, it is still full of tourists and hot and muggy, and on top of that the locals have all gone away on vacation.</p>

<p>Any other time of year is fine. In September, people are back from their August holiday, the cultural season begins and the city starts humming again. There is actually a name for this: La Rentree. Both September and October are beautiful. November through March is cooler, sometimes cold and wet, but the city is vibrant. As for April and May, well, it's spring in Paris with all that that entails.</p>

<p>Enjoy your trip.</p>

<p>I was about to order an M9 this week until I started looking at Nikon's and Canon's current offerings. This is a blog entry on the new Nikon D3s, and I was bowled over by the performance of the camera at the kinds of ISOs needed for low available light, as well as by the camera's video capabilities: http://www.studioimpressionsphotography.com/blog/.<br /> <br /> I'm starting to ask myself whether I'm really prepared to pay $7,000 for an M9 when I can buy a Nikon D3 (12 megapixel) for $5,000; and if I'm prepared to shell out $7,000, I'm beginning to wonder whether it might make more sense to give Nikon $8,000 for their 24 megapixel D3x.<br /> <br /> I want to make the transition from film to digital, and I'd like to stay with Leica, but I'm very unsure right now whether what I find so attractive about the camera - the ergonomics - is worth the hit; not just the financial hit, but the hit in performance.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If I could make one other suggestion...</p>

<p>In your original post, you say that one of the advantages of the Mamiya is that it has a built-in light meter. For this project, whatever you do, don't rely on the Mamiya meter for exposure unless you have read the Mamiya manual on how the meter works, and the many posts on photo.net on the subject, and have run a dozen rolls through the camera to acquire a practical grasp of the meter's idiosyncracies. For this project, I would forget about the Mamiya's meter and use a handheld meter in incident mode.</p>

<p>Also, to elaborate a bit on why I suggest a medium format SLR rather than the Mamiya...</p>

<p>You say that these photographs will be made from a tripod with posed subjects. If you care about precise composition, you will get it from an SLR. You won't get it from the Mamiya. If you have time, you can more or less compensate for this with experience with the camera, but you'll never get it dead on.</p>

<p>I love the Mamiya 7II, but it has its limitations. You should read the manual for the camera before buying one. It deals with these issues, and should be available on the Mamiya web site.</p>

<p>Hi Lydia,<br /> <br /> If you are going to shoot medium format environmental portraits, and have a choice between a medium format camera and a large format camera with a medium format back, the medium format camera is the clear choice.<br /> <br /> If you are going to shoot medium format environmental portraits on a tripod, and you have a choice between a rangefinder like the Mamiya 7II and an SLR, the SLR is the clear choice.<br /> <br /> The Mamiya 7II, which I use, is a great handheld medium format camera, but is perhaps not the best choice for tripod work with posed subjects. Also, the 80mm lens for the Mamiya is incredibly sharp. You should have a look at some photographs of people taken with the lens before deciding whether you want to use it for this project. You may decide that you love it, but you may also decide that you want a softer lens.<br /> <br /> I'd suggest, as someone who shoots both 4x5 and 5x7, that you not use large format film for this project unless you are very sure, in your own mind, about why you are doing it. It is expensive, cumbersome and in some ways very limiting.<br /> <br /> Cheers</p>

<p>I think that the original photograph is fundamentally better than the modified versions that people have come up with. The issue - indeed problem - with the photograph is that the light on her face comes across as artificial because it has no apparent natural source. To me, that means that you have two choices. Tone down the light on her face and make the photograph look more natural, or decide that you want a look that is completely theatrical/unnatural. The latter is the direction that people have taken it in, but in my humble opinion, none of the proposed solutions works. They just make a problematic photograph more problematic.</p>

<p>I'm not sure why you think that a medium format rangefinder with ISO 800 film is "wholly unsuited for sports". Have a look at some classic boxing photographs, for that matter photographs of performances, and consider what kinds of cameras and film speed they were taken with. There are problems with the photographs that you have posted, and the problems have nothing to do with the camera or the film speed. I think that they have to do with the fact that you didn't believe in the camera - "wholly unsuited", in which case, if that is your view, why use it - and the fact that you apparently went through 500 negatives, or 250 per night, to get these shots. The series might have worked better if you had slowed down. Anyway, just my opinion.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks L. DaSousa, your comments are indeed of assistance.<br>

Ron, the upside is that I got some helpful responses from you and others.</p>

 

<p>Hi Nee Sung,<br>

Nope, I throw almost all of them away. It's a great feeling, like burning all your notes at the end of the schoolyear :)</p>

<p>I am not only satisfied with the answers that I have gotten, I am grateful for them.</p>

<p>Thanks Michael,<br>

That is an informative thread - long, yes, but worth slogging through it :)</p>

<p>Thanks Ron.<br>

Joe, I'm asking for responses to a particular question, from people who have worked with both film and digital Ms, from their perspective, with as much detail as they choose to relate.<br>

I think that I can figure out how to interpret the responses. I certainly understand what Arthur and Ron have said.<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Hi, <br /> James, I appreciate the advice, but I would like to keep this on track. I'm reading the reviews, I know what the technical differences are between the M8, M8.2 and M9 and I am comfortable with the price. I also have a very good relationship with my dealer, and he will have his own views - pretty staight up if our history is any judge - when I discuss this with him.<br>

<br /> I tried deliberately to narrow this discussion to one question, and while I realize that there is a subjective element to the responses, I am keenly interested in them.<br>

<br /> Thanks Arthur for your comments. Much appreciated.</p>

<p>Under my current workflow, I photograph with film, make rough scans and rough Photoshop prints of my negatives, and then cull ruthlessly. The negatives that survive are turned over to a printer with whom I have a good working relationship, who takes it from there from scanning to printing.<br>

<br /> While I remain committed to this workflow for 6x7 and 4x5 negatives, I am seriously thinking of retiring my M3, in favour of an M9, for 35mm photography. Depending on how the M9 handles low ambient light, about which there appears to be lots of debate, I may continue to use the M3 when I need a high ISO or want the look of a push. Apart from that possible situation, my intention would be to go with the M9 exclusively.<br /> <br /> It appears that my dealer will have some M9s by the middle of October. I suspect that it would be a good idea to express my interest (as in, make a commitment to him) sooner rather than later. Before I make the jump, I am interested in comments that people might have on one question.<br /> <br /> For those who have used an M film camera and are now using an M8, what <em>if anything</em> do you <em>miss</em> , in relation to <em>how an image looks in a print</em> , from when you used film? I would appreciate it if people who choose to respond would say whether they are talking about colour images or black and white images.<br /> <br /> I realize that one response to this question is to suggest that I look at some M8 prints myself. While there are many upsides to where I live, access to M8 prints is not one of them. I hope to be able to have a look at some when I am in a much larger city next month, where I would also be getting the M9, but if I can get some input now from M8 users it would be most helpful.<br /> <br /> Thanks very much.</p>