roger_urban3

LF sheet film will be around for a long time. Digital marketing hype, notwithstanding.

 

For me, digital is good for only one thing: crappy instant snapshots.

 

At some big photo show at Helix, some digital salesman (with about 6 months experience in photography) bragged and showed me their digital output. Took me about all of 1/2 second to point out the jaggies and digital artifacts. His response ignored the faults completely "Ya, but all the pro's are going digital and leasing because it pays for itself!"

 

If you shoot film, you can always have a great shot drum scanned and made into a picture. That seems to be the best way to get any digital results that I've seen.

 

At least you'll have the neg or slide to project or make darkroom prints too, if you are inclined that way too.

 

My .02cents.

Hi Danny!

 

The 110XL rules. I also got the 72XL and 58XL. The 80 wasn't out at the time I bought it, but I still probably would have gone with the 72 as I wanted something just a tad wider than the 80. They are all so sharp it's scary!

Does the 903SWC or 905SWC have jamming problems too? Or is it exempt from them because it doesn't use a mirror?

My monitor is set at 1280 by 1024 pixels, and when displaying the 39meg TIF of the Brunette, I see a lot of jaggies with her hair on her forehead.

 

In short, I really wondering if the picture is limited to the 13" size mentioned earlier.

Tom,

 

Did you ever handle the Contax 645? I'm wondering how you feel it compares with the H1 as far as being perfect or near-perfect MF autofocus camera.......

You can't go wrong with either one. But, have you considered the zoom, I think which covers 55-100 or thereabouts?

John, have your company send me a job application....! <kidding>

 

Ulrik, you're allowed a minor nitpick, but keep in mind that most folks pronounce Rolleiflex as "Roll-E-flex" not "Roll-EYE-flex", and you therefore have your work cut out for you if you're really intent on stamping out every spelling error you come across. As long as both threads have both spellings they'll still come up on your internet searches.

 

Nevertheless, good luck!

I'd be tickled pink to see this technology incorporated into Technical Pan, but hey, that's because much of the time I'm a high resolution addict.....

Hey, is that Eddie Murphy in the Roll-1305.jpg ???

You might want to do some research on taking a slower speed film and pushing it, but my guess is the Kodak 400CN (C41 process) will get you the best combo of grain/speed.

It's all subjective.

 

I ditto the comments from the above posters, but especially Ed Buffaloe.

 

5x7 is actually my preferred LF format, with 8x10 a close second. There's more film real estate, vs 4x5. More flexibility with lens choices, considering you have a 4x5 reducing back handy. A 5x7 bellows gives you more draw for longer lenses, and more movements, at least on my Wisners.

 

http://www.freestylesales.com has reasonably priced sheet film, but occassionally you can find deals on Ebay.

I've not done LF macro, only set up the view camera with a variety of enlarging lenses and looked at the results on the ground glass. The sun was going down fast and I was just curious how large an image I could get.

 

My subject was a window screen, specifically, a small section of it, and as I changed lenses and zoomed in further I ended up oncentrating on one small little square. In comparable size, this would be about equivalent to a #8 or 10 pitch type of font.

 

 

I think my best results were with Rodenstock Rodagon-G 50mm and 150mm lenses. I was able to enlarge the little square on a window screen so that it was about 2" square on the ground glass.

 

Depth of field was extremely thin, as you would expect, but the image looked sharper/crisper with the Rodagon-G's than what I saw with any other enlarging lens, as well as regular view camera lenses, some of which I also tried turning around backwards too.

Great lens. Got mine for a steal on Ebay because it had a tiny dimple/ding on the front element filter ring. No big deal, glass is perfect. Mine came without a shutter. Sent it to Schneider Optics in NY, and they thought they had a #2 filter (yes, a #two)in stock somewhere but turns out it still didn't fit my lens. As the story goes, Linhof or whoever had a number of lenses made that fit some other type of thread size, and long story short, I got a Copal-3 and had Steve Grimes attach it for me. When all was said and done I think it still ran me about $800.

 

It's a heavy lens, and outweighs my Rodenstock Sironar-N several times.

 

But, for beautiful out-of-focus background portraits, like in a natural setting, Whoa!

 

Great bokah too.

"Streaks, spots, dust, water marks and other such gremlins seem to be driving forum members to the point of contemplating suicide."

 

Humorous, but good point!

 

Durst also makes a heater/fan with filters that is good for sheet or roll film.

 

A cheap-o solution is to use a closet garment bag, one that you would use for hanging suits in. Modify it as necessary to hang film.

I got low contrast with XTOL 1:5 at 68degrees, but don't remember the time. The density was little on the thin side too. The exact info is posted on some other thread here, somewhere. I was more or less experimenting trying to see what else worked with Tech Pan besides the expensive Technidol, trying XTOL at different dilutions and times.

One thing I'm not sure if you are aware of.

You may get more than you bargined for when using a soft focus lens.

 

That is, when I look at the ground glass image when using a 300mm Imagon soft focus lens, for example, I can see what the soft focus effect looks like. However, when I get the transparency or neg developed, I always see more soft focus than was readily apparent on the ground glass! I don't know if my eyes are playing tricks on me, or what.

 

This may or may not happen with some of the other lenses by other manufacturers, as I haven't used any others so don't know.

You got yourself a nice lens. I also have one. It is heavier than the current version, but still is a nice hunk of glass.

 

When I got mine, I purchased a (Pentax?) skylight filter for it at the same time.

 

Maybe they still make them?

Best "samiches" in town: Bergoffs on Adams, 2 blocks west of the Art Institute.

 

Best place to overpay for camera equipment: Central Camera on Wabash

 

Best day to go to Art Institute: Tuesday (entrance is free)

 

Best place for overpriced cheezy touristy trinkets and such: Navy Pier

 

Best time to visit Chicago: July/August

 

Best view: From the top of Sears Tower (about $10/person)

 

Biggest camera store around: Helix, on Racine Avenue (about 12-15 blocks due west of Art Institute between Adams and Jackson.

Dagor77 has some of the most entertaining and creative descriptions/stories. A real character. Heck, I find myself checking out his auctions just to read what he has to say, regardless of whether or not I'm interested in bidding.

 

Where ever he gets his steady stream of lenses, I don't know. He must be well connected. I have purchased from him and have nothing but PRAISE.

Speaking of "Ethics in the Wild", what about that recent story of Ray Wallace, who admitted faking the famous video of Bigfoot in the mountains? That video has been featured on many TV shows, with scientists measuring the footsteps, the gait, etc.

 

http://www.bfro.net/news/Wallace.asp

 

Or, pranksters making their own X-File type photo's of UFOs....?

 

The truth may be out there, but so is the untruth.

How about some of you guys posting some examples, some with and without the center filters, and then showing what photoshop can do on the one without a center filter so we can compare photoshop to the picture taken with the center filter?

"Either of you have any experience with a Repromaster?"

 

You betcha: 240mm Repromaster.

 

One of the lesser-known but well kept secrets of darkroom haunts. Compares very favorable with my 240mm Rodagon.

Where can I find plans on constructing one of these? I'd like to see how it works with multiple fluorescent bulbs.

Would a lint remover work the same way for you?

"For many years (40? 50?) the combination of Tri-X sheet film and HC110B developer has been a revered combination. It creates a negative with a certain look to it that many photographers, pros to amateurs, find both compelling and pleasing. "

 

Could someone post some links to sites that can show me what this 'certain look' is all about?

 

Especially since I just purchased some fresh 8x10 Tri-X this past weekend.....