andrewhua

<blockquote> <p>Mamiya makes 45mm & 82mm tubes for the RB, and they can be stacked (but not more than one of each).</p> </blockquote> <p>Is it optically unviable to stack multiples of these tubes or just practically difficult to work it?</p>

<p>How does turning a view camera on its side change the swing and tilt movements when a square front standard has movements that pivot from a central point on the top/bottom and on the sides? In other words, how does a square, which is symmetrical, with central pivot points for both swing and tilt, even change when turned on its side?</p> <p>And if a yaw-prone view camera, when turned on its side, achieves advantageous yaw-free movements, why isn't the front standard constructed on its side in the first place?</p>

<p>Hi</p> <p>On some occasions, engaging the depth-of-field (DOF) lever on an RZ lens will close the shutter blades.<br> This usually only happens immediately after attaching the lens and ceases after resetting the lens and reattaching it.<br> Does anyone have experience with this and would know what the cause is?</p>

<p>Thanks, Charles</p> <p>Is no adjustment of the time in the first developer require between the first tank of six sheets and the third tank of only four sheets? Or is your main point here that I should be performing tests? If I happen to be stubbornly complacent about testing would you recommend sticking to 6'15" for the three processing runs as long as the processing is completed within a suitable timeframe?</p>

<p>Hi</p> <p>I intend to attempt developing six 4x5 sheets of Fuji Velvia 50 at a time using 1000mL of working solution (Tetenal Colortec E6 3-bath kit).<br> I would like help clarifying the processing times given the above specified conditions.</p> <p>The instructions provided suggest a time of:<br> 6'15" for the first developer when processing 1-4 films*, and<br> 6'30" for the first developer when processing 5-8 films*.<br> (*a roll of 135/36 or 120)</p> <p>Given that six (6) 4x5 sheets is about proportional to one-and-half (1.5) 120 roll-films, should both the 1st and 2nd lot of six sheets be given 6'15"? Then increased accordingly for subsequent lots?</p>

<p>Thanks for the offer John; I've simply pasted the formula you provided into a cell and entered the image circle value as you instructed which resulted in a more conservative 38mm or so. It seems correct to me.<br> Thanks again.</p>

<p>{EDIT} I made an irrelevant and incorrect comment.</p>

<p>I might have made a rookie's mistake. I have a feeling that the culprit is my lens hood which I was under the impression had an angle of view which was sufficiently wide without intruding on the lens, but it seems I've either misinterpreted the lens hoods' specs or have been misled.</p>

<p>Regarding my lens, by observing when the vignette begins to move onto the ground glass, I would say that I have a little over 20mm of rise in portrait format. Am I interpreting the data incorrectly? Could Davis' data actually be indicating "max rise" as total rise AND fall? Or should I be expecting more from this lens and thus be suspicious of a dud lens?</p>

<p>Thanks, John</p> <p>To answer your question, I stopped down to f22 in all cases.<br> A difference of 2mm wouldn't account for the quite prominent arc of the image circle edge that shows on my negatives.</p> <p>I'm a little confused about how to use your equation. Is the equation giving a solution for maximum rise with a given image circle?</p>

<p>Hi</p> <p>I recently purchased a Fujinon 150mm f5.6 CM-W and have shot a few negatives with it and I've risen the lens past its coverage for some images. <br> According to the list here: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/lenses/LF4x5in.html, this lens has a maximum rise at portrait orientation of 40.64mm, but it seems from my negatives that this value is the amount of rise for the centre of the top-side of the negative to meet the edge of the image circle, rather than the corners of the negative. In other words, this value seems to be the amount of rise that results in the corners of the negative passing outside of the lens' coverage.<br />Is this correct? Must I recalculate the rise for the corners to be sitting within the coverage? Or is there something off with my lens?</p> <p>Andrew</p>

<p>Thanks, Maris, for your encouragement and well wishes.<br> Thanks, WW, for being thorough.</p> <p>I'm actually a local and have photographed with a tripod and medium format camera in Melbourne for a few years now without ever having been questioned about it, this, in places as crowded as Southern Cross Station and Flinders St, as well as many other locations in the CBD. The way I see it, an individual with a tripod is about as harmless and unobtrusive as a parent with a baby stroller, hence the unlikelihood of being questioned, at least as far as I can say from personal experience. However, were I to be asked, I would simply say that photography is a personal hobby.<br> What I gather so far is that there is no comprehensive, explicit information on which buildings are prohibited from being photographed with the intention if public display or exhibition; it seems I must follow up on the rules case by case.</p>

<blockquote> <p>You’ve clearly stated the function of the gallery it to display for sale: that’s commercial in so far as you are in business to sell your goods and/or services.</p> </blockquote> <p>So, photographic art in a gallery is commercial if they are on sale?</p>

<p>Thanks for your responses, so far; it has been enlightening.<br> What I was hoping to find was a comprehensive list of sites/buildings that would are prohibited from being included in a commercial photograph but there seems to be few such explicit notices, case in point, Sydney's foreshore, or Melbourne's Shrine of Remembrance; but it seems I will have to resort to investigating the matter on a photo by photo basis for each subject I'm concerned with.<br> William W, what if the primary purpose of a gallery is the display of art but the option for purchasing the art is available? Is the work art photography or commercial photography? This is like a case of quantum duality where the piece is art when only "looked at" and commercial when someone pays money for it !</p>

<p>It looks to me that the equivalent of the ASMP in Australia would be the AIPP (<a href="http://aipp.com.au">http://aipp.com.au</a>) or ACMP (<a href="http://acmp.com.au">http://acmp.com.au</a>) but even here I have difficulty finding the right information. For a more specific example, and one that may be more nation-independent, take a church; if I've taken the front facade and would like to include it in exhibition and there is an interested buyer, would there be something prohibiting the use of the building in the image?</p>