kenneth_smith7

<p>Thanks Zelph, cool name. I'm OK on the paper development. I mix a fresh brew called Dassonville Charcoal Black and go for two minutes. Contrast, even with a slightly thin neg on Slavich #2 almost sneaks away from me, and I rarely need to pump it up with Ilford or Oriental VC. I've also tried two bath paper developers and can't say I saw much improvement using it, but might try again.</p> <p>I've gone back and forth with the negatives, in terms of how much for the shadows, and how much development, for many many years. I've had two years doing only pyro developers, and that means about 100+ rolls of 120, and 200 sheets of 4x5, and finally ditched that romantic look to return to a more prosaic utilitarian look with traditional developers using a very simple metol, sodium sulfite formula and occasionally Rodinal. Films were initially too many, but have come down over the years to FP-4, and HP-5.</p> <p>Now, look, the work is good, I mean it's not that it isn't good. But there's this extra quality real top flight artists have, and that's what I'm looking at. Friedlander's New Mexico, or Desert Seen, Robert Adams, Joe Deal, Frank Gohlke. When you see mid-day looking strong light but the shadows are not falling into black while that sky above is full bodied, not milky, well, that's the stuff. I hit on it occasionally, but lose it just as often. Maybe they do too. After all, we only see the winners, but my those gentlemen can play those tones like Julian Bream plays guitar.</p>

<p>Thank You. I've long since abandoned the step tablet, but I am familiar with my chosen papers and usually make a normal to thin negative for projection printing. My prints are less than thrilling to me because they will either be very long and smooth toned, but seem a little dull, or they are snapped up a bit and seem too contrasty. The difference is razor thin. I consider it a big and strange phenomenon and wonder about my mental perspective sometimes. I won't be buying the extremely expensive papers, so if that's the culprit it will remain.</p> <p>My contact prints look quite good though, ( 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10 ) I have used the Azo, but even my Oriental/Slavich/Ilford all have that full bodied silvery long range with snap. But with projection, the Holy Grail of Long Range with Snap , i.e. highly realistic atmosphere, is elusive. I wonder also sine I reference books, whether the photographer hands the publisher a softer print and the inks for printing, and double black runs, brings in the magic. The best I can do is print a bit soft then selenium for snap, and it's usually quite good, few would complain, but then I'll compare to Wiley's Riverwalk, my nemesis, and sigh, alas cursed Wiley I still don't have you. I'm mental, no doubt.</p>

<p>Thank you to all the great responses. All I've managed to come to over all these years is that I have to decide on a style and stay with it. Originally it was the West Coast Punch that I admired. The blackest blacks and whitest whites and the image was strong and graphic much like a lot of Weston, Adams, Morley Bear etc.<br> But I was eventually enchanted by the New Topographers combination of a utilitarian look, and it's resulting subtle long tones which produced a very "you are standing there" atmosphere. A picture window on the world, not a poetic vision of grandeur.<br> It seems you can't have both, and I sometimes lack commitment to one or the other. I have also found that shadows don't need as much exposure as I used to give them, except in special cases. I tend now to think about the light areas more, because I don't want to have to cut development to save them, and end up dull.<br> The last thing to consider is that pesky habit of fawning over others work and crying alas, I never look that good, wowie, shucks and darn. That's a waste of energy for sure. I have good work, and sometimes I don't seem to know it. Things in books sometimes seem impossibly good, the tonal range of William Wylie's Riverwalk for example. But that's their Karma, not mine. Thanks again. I didn't respond sooner, because I thought no one answered. I didn't get a notice.</p>

<p>Oh and thanks to Jochen too, good advice to keep an eye on the lens controls.<br> I have nothing to grab for a push on to the front of this lens, its almost flush to the shutter, so I have to start with threads, and I measured to see a 43mm won't get in the way. I could mount it inside too, but then of course with f/6.8 it might be too dark sometimes.</p>

<p>I think it's a 30mm, so I got a step up ring from Camerafilter.com 30mm-43mm, and picked up a sweet little 43mm on the bay. Good to go with my 1920's 150mm on a reconditioned Tecknika ll 5x7. I guess some of us just like to make things h a r d e r.</p>

<p>Thick or thin, I've never come to a conclusion, although I'm familiar with sensitometry principles and have done the step tablet tests, Picker, etc. matching film to paper, I have never felt I could say a dense negative had an edge over a thinner one, except in contact printing. I did the Weston/Michael A. Smith dense approach with sheet film and ABC pyro, PMK, etc. and had strong results with brilliant whites and great blacks. However when I use roll film, and process more generally, I would often find the thinner negatives yielded more subtle gradations. The whole issue comes down to trying to achieve full bodied deep toned skies with a natural looking landscape that doesn't have inky black shadows, i.e. more Robert Adams than Ansel.<br> I know, I know, that's what the whole business of tonal range is about, from compensating developers, pyro, masks, to HDR for the pixel crowd, but back to what the basic question is. Thick or thin negatives? Is there more solid ground than I know for choosing one over the other, because I find I'm playing this too hit and miss?<br> Usually I'll just split it down the middle, but perhaps you know what I mean by all this when you pull a stellar print from negatives that are at the extremes, and you aren't sure why, and to make it fully confusing it comes from both opposite ends.</p>

<p>Mr. Monday! Thanks again. You've helped me figure things out in the past. All the best.</p>

<p>Not sure. I do see 29mm and 30mm filters on e- that were for Isolets, Agfas, and other folders. Most were slip on types. I'd prefer a screw in, so I want to be sure of the size.</p>

<p>I have a Goerz Dagor 150mm Series lll, and the filter size appears to be 29mm or 30mm, not sure. Is this a series sized filter? I'm not familiar with the tiny sizes, and I probably will look into step up/down rings. Any ideas on how best to rig this lovely lens? Ample coverage I must admit, better than the Fuji W.</p>

<p>Yes, but that was the price for the Tech lll, which if I were to buy would require the cutting down to fit, which is what I did with the Chinese model. I lost 60mm, but still have enough length for the kind of close ups I do. This oldie is very nice indeed. Clean as a whistle and lightweight for field carry. </p>

<p>Thanks Charles,<br> I went through ten years of randomly ruined negatives with the original bellows and finally decided to ditch it. When I did take it off, I noticed it had disintegrated more than I realized which is why I was always plugging it up with black rubber cement. The good news is that my man in Hong Kong just said to cut three pleats in on the one thats too big and it will fit, and I think that will be fine for me. I was reluctant to opt for that at first, but the next option is several hundreds of dollars more for a leather bellows made here. Linhof wants more than one thousand dollars for theirs. </p>

<p>I'm happy to have this version, despite the Camera Quest dismissal. The front standard was machined for tilts, and the overall construction is not only solid and fine, but striped of all extraneous hardware is quite lightweight. Now I need a 183mm square bellows though, and that might be an expense I hadn't anticipated. I cleaned this camera up and replaced the wore leather with a hard cream colored enamel. </p><div></div>

<p>Looks like I have a Technika ll then. </p><div></div>

<p>Number 3228. That's the lowest serial number in my experience. I'll get on it. Thanks.</p>

<p>I have my second Chinese nylon bellows that is too big for my Linhof Tech lll. The first time they sent a Tech lV, or so they said, and we returned for a lll, which turns out to still be too big. I'm wondering if it's my fault. I have always believed I had a tech lll, but now I'm not sure. The front standard was fixed, then machined to tilt. I suppose the only way to get the correct bellows is to send them a schematic of the rear where this thing mounts. Duh. Two months at this and counting. Oh well too windy to shoot anyway.</p>

<p>Whew, that's a relief. Thanks Bob and Matt.</p>

<p>Thanks. I thought the DVD could not be edited but the information once displayed by View or any editor could be edited, but I see my mistake, as I'm viewing only what is on the disk. So then, can I copy NEF and still get another NEF, or do I have to settle for TIFF at this point?<br> As for other back-ups/archives, I am doubling up on hard drives,(which don't last, but avail NEF editing ) and two sets of DVD's, then will put them in Glacier, or something, on-line. It seems that if the hard drives fail, I'm no longer able to access NEF's again. Strange deal this digital. Maybe I'll go back to film after all.</p>

<p>Hi, I just made a hundred DVD+R's of my NEF files, and then discovered I had no editing abilities when I replayed the DVD's. There is a lock at the bottom of the thumbnails, and no ability to use any sliders. I'm viewing from NX-i. Wow.<br> I seem to remember checking this early on, and finding things to be OK, but now I wonder what I did.</p> <p> </p>

<p>Chris, Well I'm pretty sure it's not an optical illusion, ( unless everything is ) I've looked it over pretty closely under bright lights. There's one blade that seems to remain flatter because it is advanced into the circle more. When opening up, the circle does not merely expand, it actually gets a bit oblong and tilts to one side. Open a little more and it achieves a more normal looking circle.<br> Thanks Clive, I'm done worrying it.</p>

<p>It's a peculiar shape even opened up. I've never seen anything like it. It takes on a slightly different shape, all asymmetric, at each aperture. Wonderful lens, I just wanted to make sure things were OK, given that I bought it used and was surprised to see this shape. Thanks for the responses all.</p>

<p>Sorry, trouble uploading. Try this. Looks oddball to me.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's a picture.</p>

<p>Sorry no pictures. My eyes are screaming this morning, too stressed for macro work. The iris works fine, and smoothly, so I don't know if there's any cause for alarm. I would say one blade just seems higher up that the others. Wondering what Andy didn't like about the images. So far I'm bowled over with the superb sharpness combined with a very full bodied rendering.</p>

<p>I have a used version, and it's astounding in all ways, but I was just curious about the non-symmetrical iris. Or is this just mine? I've never even seen such an oddly shaped iris. Everything seems to be working just fine. I don't even have to make any exposure compensations, as I was informed a 2/3 overexposure was common with this lens. Mine exposes the same as any lens. But what's up with this mis-shaped iris?</p>

<p>The Tokina wides are great, and the price is very reasonable. I also have the excellent primes 35mm and 50mm f/1.8 for a D7000, and I added a Nikon 18mm-140mm which is sharp all over the place, and so pleasing to use. I would forget spending big money on fast lenses. The camera iso's are so good, why not just pump it up a bit and save the cash. Also those kit lenses you have are both good and sharp too, and I suggest not falling into that trap of thinking they're holding you back. No way. A good photographer would blow your mind with any chunk of glass on the market. And this bokeh thing is ridiculously out of hand, people spending a thousand bucks for a yummy out of focus background. The star filter of it's times.</p>