ron_shaw

I have received two emails saying my account was automatically switched to Premium, and I was charged $29.95. Is this a scam, or did this really happen. If it is real, I want it refunded promptly, and never to do this without my consent.

I have a Speed Graphic, and its a really great camera. It does have limited movements compared to a monorail, but it has plenty for nature work. Some have mentioned that the SG's dont have forward tilt, just backward. This isnt true, and just shows that the users arent that familiar with the camera. To get forward tilt with the SG, drop the bed, and use the rise and backward tilt to bring the lens back to normal. Now, the backward tilt can now be used as forward tilt (and plenty for extreme DOF shots). Also, you dont need moderrn lenses for color work. I have shot nothing but chromes through my SG, and I have many shot with an old uncoated Optar lens. The color saturation and sharpness is great. Compared to shots taken with a modern lens, people cant pick which was shot with which. Of course, you can get into situations where the lack of coatings will cause problems with contrast, but if you use the lens with care, there is no need to avoid older lenses, at least to start with.

I have a 162mm Optar, made by Wollensak, which performs very well. It appears uncoated, but chromes are well saturated and sharp. Into the sun shots suffer contrast due to the lack of coating, but when used properly, its a great lens. Optars are quite a bargain, usually.

'An uncoated lens isnt good for color'.

What this debate really comes down to is making prints, apparently.

As far as the rest of the photo process, its almost the same. It uses

lenses, light proof bodies, apertures and shutter speeds. What about

those of us that only shoot chromes? Are we not 'doing art'? I

consider my art to be done behind the camera, not in a dark room. I

dont rely on any manipulation of the image, either digital or in the

dark room. I do it all behind the camera, and the chrome tells me if I

did it well. Is digital that much different? Its just another way of

recording light. One uses chemicals, the other uses bits. They both

have their quirks. I dont see it as a big threat.

Its easy to visualize why the light falloff exists off axis. Imagine

your eye at the center of the film plane, looking at the aperture

hole. It looks more or less round, doesnt it? Now move your eye to the

corner. The 'round' aperture now becomes an elipse. Less light! The

shorter the focal length, the narrower the elipse, and the less light

at that point on the film.

A little soft at 8X? Thats not too bad. After all, its the equivalent

of a 32x40 print. See how sharp 35mm would be at that size!

To calibrate a newly reshuttered lens, first mount a (different) lens

that you know is correct. Set your camera up on a tripod, aimed at a

brightly lit wall. Set the reference lens to a given F stop, and using

your meter (on reflective setting), measure the center of the ground

glass. Now replace the reference lens with your new unknown lens.

While measuring the center of the ground glass with your meter, adjust

the aperture control until you get the same reading as your reference

lens. This position of the aperture control is now the same F stop as

the reference lens. Mark the position. It is now easy to calibrate, as

each larger F stop number (smaller aperture), is a 2:1 ratio.

I shoot in color only (in LF). I like color. I shot lots of B&W when

I first started in photography some 30 odd years ago, and I enjoyed

it, but then I discovered Kodachrome, and rarely shoot B&W now (maybe

1 roll a year in 35mm). I just find that to me color is an important

element. I think a lot of LF shooters who use B&W do so because its

easier to do your own processing and printing. I dont do that myself,

so I stick to chromes only in LF. And I like them sharp, too!

I'm suprised also. I would expect the yellow flower to indicate a

faster shutter speed than the gray card, all things being equal. This

is the reason I almost always use incident metering. I find I get more

keepers with incident.

Maybe having the best one you already have overhauled would be

cheaper. The 127 Ektar is very capable. Check with Steve Grimes about

a CLA here: http://www.skgrimes.com/

Use the 203 Ektar. Nice lens, and long enough to reduce perspective

distortion, too. If you have an old skylight filter laying around, a

few drops of clear nail polish on the surface (or even a bit of

vasilene) can also make an effective soft filter. Personally, I prefer

sharp portraits. If you want a softer look, why even use LF? Look

through Kodaks excellent book 'The Portrait' for great

portrait examples, all sharp as a tack.

I've seen lots of Yashicamats, in all flavors, and I have also never heard of one with a Carl Zeiss lens. The Yashinons can give excellent performance, especially the ones on the 124. Even the 3 element lenses like they used on the 'D' models were good performers.

Ive never heard of any problems either. These lenses are NOT like the old chrome barrel lenses for the 330 (and even those were usually reliable).

Lens design is not really of any importance. Like you mentioned,

image circle is the most important (it must cover your film and

provide for movements). You will find that the more modern designs

with large circles of coverage are more complex designs, using up to 6

or more elements.

In reguards to the selenium meters accuracy, I have a cheap Vivitar 35 handheld meter, using a selenium sensor, and I find it very accurate for outdoor use. I even use it on 4x5, with excellent results. Its main problem, as Frank mentioned, is sensitivity. Not usable indoors. I use it as a backup now, since I got a Gossen meter which has better low light sensitivity, as well as incident metering, which I prefer to reflective.

Im sure it can be done. Contact Steve Grimes at http://www.skgrimes.com/

Check this site for good information on lens quality:

http://www.hevanet.com/cperez/index.html

It seems it is quite difficult to find a bad lens for LF work. The

one bad example Terry and others found was defective.

The Ektar is an excellent lens, and performs very well. The Geronar

is a budget 3 element lens, but will work well also. The two newer

lenses should also perform very well, and probably have more coverage

than the Ektar or Geronar, as well as having a newer (and possibly

more reliable) shutter. If you can afford the Sironar or Symmar, I

would recommend one of them. If you are on a strick budget, I would

recommend the Ektar.

I like the neutral palate of Kodak EPN, which is designed for

accurate color reproduction. I find it works best for me when exposed

at its rated ISO of 100.

Chaco canyon, northeast of Gallup is a great place to get good

photos. It should be on your map.

As the diagonal of 4x5 is 168mm (minus the hold down rails, etc), I

would think that when focused at infinity, you would have no

movements. However, you will probably never be focused at infinity,

but at some hyperfocal point (closer), which will increase the image

circle. How big your image circle is, and therefore how much you will

have for movements, depends on how close you are focused.

I use a lot of Provia, and I like it. It serves 90% of my LF needs. I

dont think you will find that it needs anything unusual in the line of

filtering. Treat it like your standard reversal film, and it should do

fine. I rate it at 100, and get good results. Like most reversal

films, it can use a warming filter when used in the shade, and I often

use a polarizer with it on landscapes. Other than this, I use no

filters.

The Speed Graphic is limited to about a 75mm minimum because of the

extra thickness of the focal plane shutter mechanism. The Crown, with

no FP shutter, can use a shorter FL lens.

I agree with Simon. The differences in your choice of film will be

far greater than the differences in modern lenses. Its rare to find a

LF lens that isnt 'sharp enough', even with older vintage lenses.