paul_frank

what kind of photography do you do? one big difference I found between medium and 35mm formats is the depth of field. a wideangle is not a wideangle is not a wideangle. I was used to being able to keep everything from ~ a foot to infinity in focus with a 24mm lens. The equivalent lens in 6x7 is ~ 50mm. at that focal length, the closest you can focus and keep infinity in focus as well is about 4 feet. that wasn't good enough for me so I went to large format. also, expecially with pentax, you may need a bigger tripod than what you have. the pentax 67 requires a big tripod to get you sharp pictures in the 1/30th - 1sec range. your technique has to be impeccable, but if it is, and you don't need really extreme depth of field, 67 (and pentax) is a great way to go.

 

the prism that you are used to on a 35mm slr does not come with the pentax67 body. you have to buy that seperately. there are two to choose from - one has a meter, one does not.

I just can't find the answer to this specific question so here goes:

 

<p>

 

I'm about to buy a shen-hao wooden 4x5. It has the graphlok back. Will a mamiya rb67 back fit on this camera? if so,what else will I need to make that back work on that camera? What other inexpensive and relatively easy to find used 6x9/6x7 backs are there for 4x5's with graphlok backs?

Honestly, I'd try konica impressa. It's grain is about the same as

reala but in my opinion (and I've done significant amounts of printing

with both reala and impressa) you get a little more contrast and

richer colors. I cannot really speak on exposure characteristic

except that you really need to *expose* reala. I rate it a 80 and

usually bracket at the meter setting and 1-1 1/2 stops longer. I rate

the konica at 40. It gives me great results.

it seems counter productive to change formats. If indeed nirmal is shooting 35mm, does it make sense to invest in a $3000 MF system just to get finer grain than current 100 speed films? If you shoot 35mm, and want the finest grained films possible, you have several options:

 

tech pan is the finest grained, but difficult to use and process compared to other films.

 

if you like classic films' grain, shoot pan f+

 

if you like modern films, shoot ilford delta 100 or tmax 100, etc.

 

I've shot them all, and keep coming back to pan f+ for 35mm, it's finer grained than the new 100 speed films. but i like classic grain, you may not.

what about ilford pan f+?

Again, *for now* I've ruled out 4x5. The costs are just too much for me. What relatively inexpensive 4x5's can use lenses in the 45-55mm range?

I didn't expect so much help so soon - thanks. I should have been more specific. I do landscapes, and so I'm out in the field alot to portability is important. While I use wideangles alot, I need to be able to switch lenses. Rangefinders are not ideal as I use ND grads alot. Pentax seems great except for aforementioned dof issues, which is why I am condisering a field camera w/roll film back. But of course, the ability to use a 55m lens or wider with some limited movements would be necessary.

 

Hope this helps and thanks for the replies.

I want to step up in format from 35mm. I really like the 6x7 format, but

there seems to be many options and I'm looking for some help. Here

are some specifics:

 

1. Cost is a big issue. I can spend in the $1000-$2000 dollar range only

and would prefer to spend much less. Right now I can't afford the costs

of 4x5 film/processing, so it has to be 120.

 

2. 70-90% of the time I work in the 24-28mm (35mm) range.

 

3. Pentax 67 seems a likely candidate, with a 55/4 lens, but I hear

about dof issues and I wonder if perhaps I should get a 4x5 camera with

a 6x7 back; then later on when I'm not a poor grad student I can step up

to LF. But what reasonably priced 4x5's are out there that can take a

45-55mm lens and allow for movements? All I can find in the archives

seems to be really expensive top-line cameras like a Linhoff.

 

4. I shoot vertically about 75% of the time, so a back that can rotate is

pretty much a must.

 

5. I'd like to look into a Century Graphic because all the movements I

really need are some front tilt and maybe rise, but it seems like I can't

put a 45-55mm lens on it.

 

Thanks for any help or advice you can give!

For all those wondering why I don't consider fuji's and mamiya's, I have. A new fuji gx680 body is in the $3000 range, I believe, and lenses are $1000-3000 with little to no used market. You do the math; if shutter shake is not a problem or can be managed with a complete $2000 P67 outfit, I'm not going to spend $6000 for a fuji system. Movements are not worth $4000 to me, I could buy a view camera with the difference.

Thanks for all the great help, everyone. I'll be renting a P67 rig for a weekend real soon, and I guess then I'll truly see for myself. Here's another question - I use a Bogen 3021N tripod w/ the Bogen 410 low-profile head. Is this enough tripod for the task? I will only be using 55 and 90~110 mm lenses. I rarely extend the tripod legs any more than I have to to get the shot. Since I don't plan on buying a new tripod just to rent a camera for a weekend, other than the obvious(hanging weights, etc) what additional methods (if anything) would be necessary to secure the camera? THanks!

 

Paul Frank

I'm considering moving up to P67 from Nikon. My work is landscape,

typically with 24 and 50mm lenses. After reading about the many P67

shutter shake issues, and given the fact that 90% of my exposures seem

to fall between 1sec and 1/15sec, I am a little worried. I've

heard that MLU and a sandbag on top of the camera should negate

any shake problems, but about 75% of my shots are composed

vertically. Is it just not possible to shoot P67's at those shutter

speeds? Can it be done without a sandbag on the prism? what about

when the camera is flipped vertically? Should I go with a Mamiya RB67

since I shoot so much vertical? Any help is appreciated. Thanks!

 

Paul Frank

Thanks for the input everyone. Now I have a question for Scott Eaton - What is the difference between Fujiflex papers and the Standard C/P Crystal Archive? Be as technical as you feel like. Thanks!

Is it really that impossible to put prints into magazines, calendars, etc? Ansel Adams seems to have done it plenty. But I really know nothing about *that* kind of printing. Maybe someone can shed some light on that for me.

The basic question of slide v. negative films has been beaten to death

already. But after visiting the gallery of a local landscape photographer

today, I've been thinking alot more about it(sorry if this is a long

question, bear with me).

 

The standard answer for why to shoot slides is usually cost(don't have

to pay for a 4x6 print each time), feedback of exposure errors, no worry

of whether the 16 year old at walmart balanced the colors accurately,

etc.

 

I consider myself a fine art lanscape photographer, i.e. I print my own

work myself and that is my end goal - a fine print. For me, negatives

seem the ideal film as I can apply the same concepts and controls I use

in my b&w work in my color work. I never worry about cost per frame,

because I only enlarge the "keepers." No worries about color balance, I

do it myself. I bring both types of film everywhere I go and suit the film

to the subject. However, I am noticing that just about every "fine art"

color landscape photographer out there shoots transparencies rather

than negatives, and prints by either ilfochrome(in rare cases) or by

lightjet prints. Technically(not always compositionally/emotionally) my

color prints certainly rival ilfochrome and lightjet prints from

transparencies in terms of contrast and saturation(I mainly shoot Konica

Impresa 50), and I print on the same fuji CA paper that these lightjet

digital prints come out on. So why can't I seem to find any other

lanscape photographers out there who shoot c-41 film and print their

own negatives by traditional means? I'd like to hear people's thoughts

and hear expecially from any landscape photogs who *do* shoot

negative film. Thanks!

 

Paul Frank

get the absolute longest lens you can afford, check other threads - wildlife photography begins at at least 400-500mm.

Make sure you go on the first guided tour of the morning - better light, and the seals have not been agitated by people all day yet. I found that 400mm+ was definitely needed to get pictures of male adults who are very aggressive. Baby seals often waddle right up to you, so short focal lengths are good, too. You won't have a ton of time to get every shot you want as you are required to stay with the ranger at all times. Bring lots of film, maybe two bodies(one with big glass; one with a wider lens) and you should be fine. I found that being the first group out there in the morning was ideal. Hope this helps!

You have a much better chance of getting your answer elsewhere that photo.net. Contact your state Dept. of Fish and Game or similar agancy. Different species of salmon can run at different times of the year, so timing is crucial. Also, try washington and oregon. While my specialty is in this sort of thing, I really only know California. I'm not even sure salmon make it to Idaho, as they originate from the Pacific.