jan_h._voigt

<p>As some others pointed out, it's a matter of taste, of personal preferance. Personally, I love heavy, but small cameras, with a medium weight fixed focal length lens in front of it and another one in my pocket. No need for a lighter camera, as I don't carry twenty zooms...</p>

<p>Btw, I don't feel comfortable with todays ergonomically shaped bodies either, as they aren't made for my pianist's hands. I feel better with the simple design of many old manual cameras, like screw-mount Leicas. I do even prefer the awkward handling of a simple folder, as awkward finger movements seem natural for me, while the ergonomic grips don't. Can't really explain that.</p>

<p>As far as I can tell from pictures (never had one in my hands), the shutter of the Imagon is a pretty standard one, which of course has aperture blades. Used without disks, the sharpness/softness should be controllable with the aperture. Stopped down, the Imagon should be quite sharp.</p>

<p>That's why I suggested a beamsplitter. The only big problem will be aligning the two cameras in a perfect 90° angle and with the same distance to the beam splitter. No soldering, just mirroring one of the images in post processing and stitching them together. Of course, you will have to use manual mode in order to get a homogenious exposure and using a wireless shutter release will not synchronise the two cameras perfectly, but the cost will be less than 100 $ and there is no harm done to the cameras.</p>

<p>If you don't want a big gap between the two half pictures, you could try a beam splitter which would cost you 1 stop but at least you might be able to get it work. If you use lenses with enough flange focal distance, it might even be possible to do it without disassembling the two cameras. Just use an IR shutter release to get them at least close to being synchronised and that's it.<br>

Have a nice weekend!</p>

<p>The focal length of the magnifying glass should be about the distance between the magnifying glass and the ground glass. Using my fathers Rolleicord as a reference, this distance is about 67mm which converts into about 15 diopter. Not available in cheap reading glasses, but every eyeglassmaker should be able to make one for you. As you don't need coating and the material doesn't matter, it should not be too expensive.</p>

<p>Another idea would be to cut down a magnifying glass (preferably a plastic one due to easier handling), at 67mm focal length this would have a magnifying factor of about 3.7. A magnifying factor of 3.5 or 4.0 might be sufficiently near that to suit this application. Better you try if it works at the working distance before you cut... ;-)</p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>Agfaphoto uses whatever they can get. There were at least two different films in the CT Precisa cans after the old Agfa stuff was sold out: One Kodak and one Fuji. I don't know if there were even more different emulsions sold as CT Precisa. You could try the DX simulator:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.imageaircraft.com.au/DXsim/">http://www.imageaircraft.com.au/DXsim/</a></p>

<p>Good luck!</p>

<p>The easy way is searching for auctions (not "buy now"-items) at that internet auction site. Look for serial numbers on cameras and lenses, read descriptions of their development to determine the exact model and put all this information into the description when you offer the items. Or simply put a film into it, go out and shoot - it's addicting, just done that myself... ;-)</p>

<p>The Contarex by the way is a nice camera with nice lenses, but slightly too bulky for my taste. Nevertheless, I would use it if I had one.</p>

<p>Well, the amount of chlorine produced is not that great as hypochlorite cleaners are not that concentrated. Used outside it should be no problem if one works carefully. The benefit of this mixture is the nascent chlorine which is very reactive and therefore oxidizes about anything. The downside is that maybe some coatings can't stand this aggressive cleaning mixture - and any metal used for building lenses definitely can't. That's why I prefer the classic method to clean glass: Water and dishwashing agent, if something doesn't go away, I try rubbing carefully with some paper towels wetted in water/dishwashing agent mixture. After that, use some distilled water to prevent water marks. Alternatively, you can use ethanol or isopropanol for the whole process. For these methods, you don't need to get each single lens element out of its mount.</p>

<p>Do you get payed for that? Then take a flash with you, learn "dragging the shutter" (see <a href="../beginner-photography-questions-forum/00ZRd2">this thread</a>). You may or may not have time to experiment with available light between the flashed shots. If not, feel free to experiment with whatever you like. But then, you don't need to upgrade your camera. Use it like some people above said or get a cheap EOS film body and some high speed B&W film.</p>

<p>I read somewhere that the original Velvia was only ISO 40 in normal E6 chemistry but ISO 50 in Fuji chemistry. Never read this about the new Velvia 50.</p>

<p>I have an old linhof tripod ("Combi Profilstativ kurz" which is german for something like combi profile-legged tripod short) which is very inexpensive at least in the german version of that well known internet auction site. Most of them go for 15-25€ without a tripod head. It is quite light (way lighter than my fathers old velbon or his not so old, half-plastic cullmann but without head) and rock stable. I even use it sometimes with my old Plaubel large format camera which weights more than 5kg.</p>

<p>Add a good lightweight head with quick release (I don't know a cheap good one, tell me if you found it) and there you are.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ricardo,<br>

There is more than one method to come to the result in the sample image that began this thread and no one method is “correct” or “better than” any other.<br>

For example, if JHV were shooting in that club I suspect (he?) would be very comfortable using: Av mode / CWA metering and Exposure Compensation. On the other hand, typically, I would use Manual Mode and Spot Metering, using the spot meter to evaluate the (different) backgrounds in the frame, as I moved around shooting. Both methods can be very quick in execution.<br>

Practice makes for efficiency and speed.<br>

To be good at this, IMO it is also necessary to understand how <strong>each different method</strong> of execution will work – <strong>and practice each and experiment</strong>; and also learn how each camera function works - for example the differences between Spot and CWA metering: that was a very good question to ask.<br>

After practice and experimentation, then usually one way of doing things will become "the typical" for you.<br>

This is a very valuable thread and I have bookmarked it for further reference, my thanks to all, also.<br>

WW</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Thank you William for expressing my thoughts! (You're right btw., Jan is the german version of John or Ian and is therefore a male name)</p>

<p>And thanks to everyone who contributed to this thread as I rarely have seen such a nice and analytical discussion in a forum before.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can we sidetrack this a bit? ie Can you explain what is "Flash Sync Speed" mode - possible to show 1-2 pics - how the picture will turn out ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Flash sync speed is just the fastest shutter speed of your camera where the full frame is opened for a moment so that a flash can be used, often 1/125 or 1/250 s. Flash sync speed mode is an automation that sets your camera to that speed automatically when you use a TTL-flash or the internal flash.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>What's a bummer with my Pentax K100D is it loses Exposure Compensation settings once the camera is shut off. And if I leave it on for long durations to retain this setting shooting with flash, my batteries soon die. Certainly with a more expensive camera with a dedicated battery pack this won't be an issue.<br>

Just thought I'ld include that for those planning on using EC with cheaper cameras having fewer features.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, that's right. I love my Contax 167MT where exposure compensation is just a dial and auto-exposure-lock saves the exposure until I switch the camera off or the batteries die. The latter happens after a few weeks or so...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Hi Jan H. Voigt,<br /> Thanks for your comments, can you please further explain on the "center weighted metering" and the "spot" metering mode?<br /> using the original pic as reference.... [...]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Plain old Center-weighted metering measures the light in the whole image, just rating the center a bit higher than the rest. In general, highlights are often overrated by the metering system as they often are several stops brighter than everything else in the picture. This would lead most likely to blown-out spotlights with washed-out colours in the background and underexposed hotties in the foreground if there was no flash. As you want to adjust the ambient exposure so that you get nice coloured spotlights in the background and as-near-as-possible-to-unexposed hotties in the foreground, you will need some exposure compensation, -2 EV is often just right. Add the flash and your hotties are there.</p>

<p>(Classic) spot metering measures the light in a spot in the middle of the viewfinder (modern digital cameras somtimes are capable of spot metering an other spot). To be exact, it's not a spot but a small circular plane aroud that spot that is measured. Using this technique, you can adjust the background exposure to a Spotlight in the background which will lead into perfectly exposed spotlights and with that to nice coloured spotlights which is what you want. That's why you don't need exposure compensation here.</p>

<p>Maybe this is the fastest way to get the picture: Set the camera to aperture priority and the flash to auto for the right ISO setting and the right distance range (or maybe to the right TTL-flash setting, don't know what your camera provides), spot meter a spotlight, press the AE-Lock button, point onto the eye that you want in focus, half-press the shutter release to autofocus, recompose, shoot.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The words “intelligent use” are very important.<br /> Please see the end of my previous.<br /> In Av Mode the camera will select the Tv which it will use – this MIGHT NOT be what we want if the background is darker than the foreground subjects which the camera might be metering.<br>

I am unsure what the phrase “<strong><em>you might need fast action</em></strong>” means? <br /> Would you please explain that phrase, in the context of this thread / club photography<br>

WW</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course, one needs some practice to guess quickly which amount of exposure compensation will work right. In a club, it often works good with Exposure compensation set to -2 with center-weighted metering or with no exposure compensation and spot metering a light spot of the background, as highlights are often overrated in dark situations.</p>

<p>By "you might need fast action" I mean that in a club, the two hot girls you found might dance away if you have to fiddle with your settings for half a minute before you are ready to shoot. If the lighting situation does not really change, of course, you can test, find the right settings and then go scouting for the girls...</p>

<p>You can have it simpler making intelligent use of automatics. As you might need fast action, just use aperture priority. Set the exposure compensation to e.g. two stops underexposure. Use automatic flash or TTL-flash depending on your camera. My camera switches automatically to x-sync speed in aperture priority mode if I connect a TTL-flash (even if the flash is set to non-ttl automatic or manual), so I have to use the classic 1-pin hot shoe for my Metz flash if I want to abuse the aperture priority mode this way. The downside is that I have to watch out that the shutter speed doesnt get faster than x-sync speed (unlikely in a dark club) and that I can't use ttl-flash-metering - but the accuracy of my Metz's built-in sensor is sufficient to trust it.</p>

<p>You may or may not use second curtain sync. If your camera or camera/flash combination doesn't provide it, don't worry.</p>

<p>There were many small companies here in Germany which built nice folders. If you really want to shoot with it, I'd suggest you to get one with a Tessar type lens, in most cases it will be a Tessar, a Xenar or a Skopar. If you go 35mm, you might even get a Schneider f/2 Xenon from some camera manufacturers (Kodak, Balda, ...) or you could get a Voigtländer Vito or Vitessa with an f/2 Ultron.<br>

There are not so many 4,5x6 choices around. A really rare one that I have encountered is the Semi Prince. My sister's piano teacher of russian origin got one with a Schneider Xenar f/2.8 in a Compur shutter from her mother who was a photographer. I have absolutely no clue on which way that camera got into the USSR...</p>

<p>You could put these lenses on a view camera and fit a PhaseOne back on the other side. The downside is, you would need to use your hat as a shutter...</p>

<p>Sorry, but I didn't know that your camera doesn't support the groundglass exchange officially. However, there are split-image focussing screens for the 30D:</p>

<p>http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/item--Canon-30D-Focusing-Screen--prod_30D.html</p>

<p>not exactly cheap, but if it works for you, it might be worth that money.</p>

<p>Good point, but that depends on the Camera you got. There were some cosmetically different versions of the exakta mount, some with and some without the knob. If you have an Exakta with that knob on the release lever, you could remove it without losing any functionality.</p>

<p>Well, a fully manual camera has no real limitations exept slower speed... But I have met lenses that are not capable of rendering the subject the way I like it. Example? The Zeiss Biotar 58mm f/2. Loved by many for its soft focus effect and swirly bokeh, I prefer the Tessar because of higher sharpness and contrast. So I think, if a particular piece of gear is limiting you is just a matter of photography style and taste.</p>

<p>"It works" and "It's convenient" are two different things... Unfortunately, I have never had a Topcon lens or camera in my hands, but seeing internet pictures of the mount, it seems to have the same orientation. So, of course, you can mount Topcon lenses with the scales in the right place.</p>

<p>If you mount the automatic diaphragm lenses of the Exakta on a Topcon, it will have the "ear" on the wrong side, so you have to close the diaphragm with the left hand and release the shutter with the right hand. If there are Topcon lenses with external automatic diaphragm, it will be the other way round mounted on an Exakta, but I haven't seen one yet. All Topcon automatic diaphragm lenses I am aware of have the unique Topcon diaphragm connection in the mount. I do not know how this affects the mounting of an automatic Topcon lens on an Exakta or an Exakta lens on an automatic diaphragm Topcon camera.</p>

<p>If I had to choose, I'd get an M9-P. It is chrome, but mor importantly, it has an engraved top plate instead of the red dot, just like the lovely, small screw mount Leicas.</p>

<p>In my experience, the films with 3200 ASA box speed aren't the best for 1600 ASA use. They are around 1000 ASA with a very low contrast, designed to be pushed for increasing the contrast. If you want to use them at 1600 ASA, try a high contrast developer, otherwise rate them a minimum of 3200 ASA.</p>

<p>I have used Delta 3200 at 3200 ASA developed in Spürsinn HCD-2 which gave me a lower contrast image quite like HP5+ at box speed, and I love to use Delta 3200 for night shots at 25600 ASA (developed in Spürsinn HCD-2 as well). It dislikes underexposure then, but well exposed it is really nice, especcially in medium format. Here is a 35mm sample picture:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/14306732&size=md</p>

<p>I second John, sounds like you answered your own question. As a completely manual focussing person (exept for my old digital P&S which focusses way slower than I do manually), maybe I can give you some advice. I'd suggest to try a split-image focussing screen, this makes manual focussing easier and faster - at least for me. A good rangefinder is nice for focussing on the eyes, too, however, there is no coupled add-on rangefinder for SLR's yet, although with today's electronics that shouldn't be a technical problem.<br>

For something moving, just some hints: You often don't really need shallow depth of field. Use a slower aperture and a slower shutter speed, blur the background by moving the camera with the object. You can sometimes even use a quarter second or so with the aperture completely closed for half of the measured exposure and fix the moving object by using a flash. In both cases, of course, you have to preset the distance.<br>

I don't know how deep you dug into the settings of your camera yet, nor do I know what settings your camera provides, maybe you just need to set the autofocus system to one spot in the middle, focus on one eye and then recompose. But maybe the spot is not small enough or not exactly in the middle of the screen so that you measure the nose or something in the middle. Deeply recessed eyes are hard to nail even for a good autofocus system.<br>

Whatever you do: Do what suits you best!</p>