DB_Gallery

My main film cameras are both medium format and 4x5 and I love them both for their strengths. In 4x5 I have a Chamonix 45N2 with 8 lenses ranging from a 65 Grandagon to a now rare 350mm F11 Apo Tele Xenar. I use both cut film holders and a 6x12 back with it. While I love the 4x5, I find medium format to be the king of the court for me. Since I prefer to shoot square I have a Mamiya 6 kit with the three lenses and a fairly extensive Hasselblad kit. The Mamiya 6 is truly a compact and yet versatile system with the body and all three lenses sharing a small satchel style bag ( Domke 803 ) with either a Leica M3 or a Fuji X100T. The downsides to the Mamiya is that it is not an interchangeable back camera so you are stuck with the film you have it in. Also the batteries have to be strong enough or the shutter can malfunction and you lose frames, this has happened without warning. The viewfinder of the 6 is about the best I have ever seen on a RF camera and is wonderful to use although the 150 gets a bit distant while the 50 fills nearly the whole frame. My all time fave and now my main system is the Hasselblad V system. I have a pair of 501CM's flanked by a motorized 500 ELX which I use for aerial work. Lenses are all CF and are 40 FLE, 50 FLE, 60, 80, 100, 120, 180, 350 and a 1.4XE. I have 12 backs including a polaroid, several finders, shades, extension tubes and a host of other goodies. This is by far my most productive system and would be the very last I would ever sell. I have traveled with a kit as simple as one body, 2 backs and a 60 & 100mm. I have also done months long road trips with a lot more, it all works amazingly well. There are lots of options out there but the really good stuff is starting to creep up in price, I think bottom was from 2008- 2011 so now is the time, at least in terms of Hasselblad, especially with the new CFV 50c back which no longer requires a cord. The jump from 35mm film to MF is a significant one in terms of image quality. You can easily see that as you compare Frank, Winnogrand and Bresson to Vivian Maier and Fan Ho, the latter using Rollie's. So pick a bike and ride it I'd say...medium format is a heck of a great ride!

<p>Got it a few hours ago, wicked sharp on it's own, pretty good with the 1.4XE. Here is my first shot ever with it, 350+ 1.4X on Acros...</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks, I'll give it a run tomorrow, hopefully it will work for what I need it to do, otherwise I will return it and dream of finding a 350 SA at a yard sale. </p>

I shoot 4x5, fun stuff, I use a Chamonix 45N2. But for EP's I would just stick with medium format, far less prone to pre-exposure dust and easier to nail the shot. Not to mention I just got done making a set of 20x24 darkroom prints from medium format and they are stunningly clear and low in grain.

I have been using a 180mm 4.0 Sonnar CF with the 1.4XE and it is great so I added a 350mm 5.6 CF today, will get it next week. I use a pair of 501CM's and a 500ELX so no mirror blackout issues. I am using all my Hassy gear strictly with black and white film, no scans, wet print only so the reports of CA with the 350mm have not concerned me so much. What I am wondering is since this is mostly for long distance landscapes or at least ones with not a lot of closer foreground subject, what is the optimum aperture with the lens alone and then as a 490mm F8 with the 1.4XE? Figure the lens will mostly be used from about 100 feet to infinity for 90% of its load. A stop down from wide open on the 180 with or without the 1.4x has pretty much been standard if there is not a lot of concern for depth of field so I figure I will start there. Either way, it would be good to know what it's optical limitations are with black and white film, if any...

I like articles like this by not photographers but an "IT Guy" who is complaining his work can not break new ground among all the candy coated and double dipped in chocolate sauce amateur cliches. And like most camera enthusiasts he has not a clue who is really killing it in landscape work in terms of income. That's good....that is certainly the way I like it! Meanwhile, after shooting landscapes as part of my full time life / career as a photographer, I am doing financially better than ever, more excited than ever and find far more fresh images than ever. Time to go fire up my darkroom, need to make some 20x24's for a new show...;-)

That CBS article, no shocker in the top paragraph, staff jobs at publications have been falling like overripe fruit off trees for years, too bad they are about to heavily dilute the style of vision these guys have. But that second paragraph....yeah, that's a winner, lol! Interview some hack low end sports portrait and sports button photographer out of the East Coast who seems to think that being young, buying the latest gear gives one a "broader skill set"...... You have got to be kidding me, these Kmart portrait studios of the sports industry practically live in the shoe treads of soccer moms, what a joke! I remember how I met some of these guys from SI. I was shooting NFL games for Upper Deck trading cards in the early 90's. Like most pro sports shoots at the time, it was fun, exciting and far more liberal in terms of rights....but it did not pay and by the mid 90's the industry showed signs of being even more rights restrictive. Like other low end dead ends, I bowed out.

I know three of the six who have been there forever and must of been pulling in over 6 figures. You can either lead your own innovation forward and chart your own course before the layoffs like I did or ride it out until it keels over and then adapt. It's a sad day but at least they stuck it out, I would probably would have too given the unique staff position.

<p>Yeah, I figure there will varying degrees of comfort given the topic. I personally have no problem with it (straight) and have photographed gay and lesbian events in my town for years. The thing that struck me the most about this work was just how strong the overall theme looked in terms of visual narrative...it's pretty powerful and yes, it is like looking back in time in a way previously unseen.</p>

<p>“Chimping” on Fire Island….</p> <p>That’s essentially what photographer <a href="http://www.slate.com/blogs/behold/2013/06/30/tom_bianchi_fire_island_pines_polaroids_1975_1983_documents_gay_life_in.html">Tom Bianchi</a> was doing when he showed his subjects the Polaroids that he was making of gay life in the 70’s on a secluded strip of beach on Long Island called “Fire Island”. In showing them the instant results, he gained the trust of his fellow beach combers as it helped to put some folks at ease who had not come out yet.</p> <p>Using a Polaroid SX70 also helped him to in real time, home in on the rich colors and whimsical layers often seen in his unique vision, a testament to a keen eye that developed into a great style in the work which was done from 1975 to 1983. In once instance, a friend had mailed him a photo of when he was making photos of men building a sand castle on the beach. He was portrayed lying on his back to get a low angle next a row of drying Polaroids stuck by their corner into the sand, like we would now open the photos on our computer’s desktop to view them.</p> <p>Bianchi had a show of his work in one of our local galleries recently, there were originals and prints anywhere from 10x10” to 30x30” for sale and all of them looked fantastic, he did well. Tom wanted to publish a book well before <a href="http://www.amazon.com/Tom-Bianchi-Island-Polaroids-1975-1983/dp/8862082703">“Fire Island Pines” </a>was released in 2013, but between the disdain of gay lifestyles in the 70’s to the ravages of AIDS that followed, it was just not the right time, especially considering many of the men portrayed in the photos passed away due to the epidemic.</p> <p>So needless to say, I was impressed with <a href="http://tombianchi.com/home/">Bianchi</a> as much as I was the depth of his work, just a really great guy who finally got to share an amazing body of work that has to be one of the strongest & deeply personal showings of photography I have had the pleasure of seeing. Glad to have my signed copy of the book.</p> <p>I made a portrait of him last week before the work went up on the walls, enjoy!</p><div></div>

I either have both or just film, never digital alone. One of my favorite grab and go setups is a small bag with a Leica M3/50mm with Tmax 400 and a Fuji X100T, it just covers things so nicely. It's also really easy to toss an Xpan in the bag with them or have room for other stuff for the day. An F100 often accompanies my D810, D750 or both depending on the job. Lately I have been shooting on mountain ski jobs with a D750/24-120 and a Mamiya 6 kit, that is a real nice and light kit that usually includes all three lenses for the Mamiya and a fisheye for the 750. Since I never want to be without a film camera even when shooting digital jobs, I have a ton of ways of making it all work together.

<blockquote> <p>I've been looking at a lot of Tri-X photos (not mine) recently and I have to say, the M9 is at least as good.</p> </blockquote> <p>LOL x 1,000!</p>

I own the 40FLE, 50FLE, 60CF, 80CF, 100CF, 120S, 180CF & 1.4XE If I could only have two they would be the 60 and 100, such a great pairing.

The image would not attach.....<div></div>

It's just ok for pics, nothing like Hale Bopp. I shot it tonight with my D750 at ISO 25,600, 4 seconds at 2.8, 200mm. I viewed through a 5" F/5 & 24mm 68 degree and showed our neighbors, caught a faint bit of tail but some nice color in the core. Last night I looked at it through my 16" F4.5 Dob with a 25mm 100 degree and it was quite intense, very green and a nice tail. But yeah....my hopes of pairing with something earthbound to make an interesting shot is waning....it's just too small....

TMY2 is an outright masterpiece, my favorite black and white film. I use it in 35mm, 120 and 4x5. With lenses from Leica, Mamiya, Hasselblad or modern LF plasmats like the Apo Sironar series, it's screaming sharp. I develop it in Xtol 1+1.

Well....due to the exceptional manner in which the admins dealt with a particularly sticky and unusual occurrence on here yesterday, I paid for 3 years of subscription. And in addition to that, I am tired of hearing my own verbal poop on here. It makes no sense at all considering how central to my life photography is and how long this site has been a place to hang out. So I too thank folks and the admins for keeping it going. I'll try to bring more to the table besides muffin stumps infused with provocation.

<p>I had a DAG converted M6 awhile back, it made what I considered to be a big difference in use, the flare drove me nuts when it happened. I now only use an M3 which is flawless regarding patch flare.</p>

It's a great place no doubt, the archive of resources is amazing and I would hate to ever lose that....but man is it quiet here now, just the same names almost like a record skipping.

I use a Chamonix 45N2 professionally, it is no low budget toy and I would prefer it over any other 4x5 at triple the price. But for long term documentary I would use either my Mamiya 6 or Hasselblad system, much easier in fast changing situations and overall production costs. I would not use my D810 or D750 however because the digital journey as not nearly as satisfying to me and the temptation to chimp is very derailing of the rhythm of my vision. Use what speaks to you, not what the photo.net arm chair experts are telling you, it's that simple.

<p>I have had a Nikon 9000ED for years now, bought it new when they were still being made, great scanner for sure. But...I have realized why Nikon stopped making them and why I might even sell it. DSLR scanning with my D810 is now on par with the 9000ED and is fairly convenient. <br> For years I had hoped to see more scanner options come out but I now realize why there are not, I could easily sell the 9000ED and take that money to have an elaborate lightbox X-Y stage built and use my D810 and 60 macro to get great scans with lots of dmax. Film scanners are no longer the future, DSLR scanning is...</p>

I think Acros is indeed spendy in 4x5, I only shoot it in 120. But for 4x5 I have no issues with the price tag of Tmax 100 & 400, seems pretty good to me in digital year 2014. For me, Kent is spot on in saying film is on the cheaper end of the equation. For example, I hit the road for 6 weeks at a time in the Spring and late Fall and when I total the overall operational budget of these highly productive shoots, film makes up about 5-8% of it. That's the way I roll, your notch code may vary...

I can only speak to my own experience and observations, so here goes. I think all photo forums and Photo.net in particular are suffering a bit due to photography it self being past its peak as of some ten years ago and is now in steady decline. What has taken over and is all the rage is the smartphone and the instant gratification movement of a photo graphic popping up and getting likes for perhaps a day on Facebook, Instagram and other fast paced platforms. I think the crowd on forums like these greatly underestimate how this shift has affected all aspects of photography, including ones that seemed to occupy higher ground in terms of quality output. I used to be very active on here when I first joined in 2001, posted photos, made friendships and all that. But what I noticed over the years as they went by is that I was spending more and more time on the web chasing down copyright infringements and simply talking about photography rather than actually doing it. In fact, anytime I am on the net at all....I am at the furthest point possible from my desired lifestyle. When I pulled nearly all my websites down in 2006 and largely stopped putting up portfolios on sites like this one, my life, my career and my focus on photography improved far more than I would have expected. So I don't "share" my photos on the web anymore, after all, no one "shares" my bills, my 401K contributions or my other expenses. So I engage with photo forums for information, to update a group about a new or outgoing product, to give an opinion on things. But even then....I really try to limit it, because for what I want out of my life as a photographer, spending time on the Internet is not photography. The forums on photo.net are an immense resource for information on photography, that is where its value is for me. As for looking at photos on the web, unless looking for something specific, I just don't do that really as a matter of choice. I hope the site sticks around, but for the most part I am not on here much because I am too busy living and making a living as a photographer.

No matter what the genre I am shooting, advertising, fine art or editorial, I like nailing everything in camera. It just works for me.

<p>Tim Holte wrote:</p> <blockquote> <p>Daniel, you stated on a previous post that you wouldn't use a D750 for a wedding because the shutter was too noisy. Change your mind yet now that you have used a D750 and can see its potential?</p> </blockquote> <p>Well I don't do weddings but I do shoot corporate journalism and some of that has to be really quiet on my part. I stand by my opinion of it being too noisy in that capacity. For everything is it is great. </p>