Silent Street

It's a location I am very familiar with both for MTB and bushwalking, and each time I have gone to Lake Tekapo the weather has been D R A C K and required waterproofs and woolies!! You've pictured it with the sun shining, which annoys me! There looks like a fair bit of compression of the elements of the scene; I'm wondering if you were hanging around for the sunrise / sunset / afterglow over the mountains and the calm of the lake? Summer lupins (a declared noxious weed in New Zealand) make this place a magical riot of colour all around here and around the shoreline of the lakes under the brow of Mount Cook / Aoraki.

If you are a 'newbie' at LF, I would recommend you get an LF on loan to try out. The process requires the patience of a hindu cow, and the movements/symmetry etc do not necessarily come naturally to beginners. The camera you mentioned is superb and full-featured, but it will require time to set up and adjust. The one problem I have noticed with the Wista is discolouration of the brass fittings and arms (like rust); it is not a camera that takes kindly to use at the beach or high humidity, and definitely not in visible salt spray or rain. The 90mm lens would be a useful "all-rounder", while a 65mm would give you a very, very wide view with a corresponding requirement to have a strong foreground "principal anchor/lead-in" rather than a swathe of nothingness. And a light meter will also be required, either for textbook readings of the scene or go int the deep end and become a Zonista! And lots...and lots of holders: nothing is more infuriating that having a beautiful scene in front of you and the last holder with the last sheet of film is all that is available when you just know that you want more. My own LF is a [Honduran mahogany] Ebony SV45TI with 90 and 65 lenses and 10 holders (currently with a member of staff interstate). This is quite enough to cart around, even on light walks. For spontaneity (something that will quickly prove to be absent with LF!) though I prefer the Pentax 67 or Hassie 503CXI. A thorough grasp of lighting, exposure and compositional metrics would I think be a requirement, with foundation in MF and manual metering (handheld metering). How far you go in building it up depends on how badly the bug has bitten you! LF lenses are no longer made by Schneider-K or Nikon, so the used market is a good place to start. No shortage of films to choose from in B&W or colour, but if you do not process colour yourself, individual sheets of LF film often turn out to be the same cost in processing as a roll of 120 film! That is certainly the case where I am ($8.70 per roll of 120 film vs $11 per sheet of 4x5 — E6).

That procedure is described in the Pentax 67 owner's manual. It is an unfortunate fact that some people have substituted the necessary but hard to find Pentax key with a screwdriver, and mangled the film advance mechanism! The second, very uncommon method is with Pentax 67 bodies which have been factory modified with the multiple exposure facility (next to the 120/220 film selector).

I do not agree nor see it as a problem. And "any reflective reading is pretty unreliable and error prone" is a funny sort of statement. Even in the context of the rather trivial difference in spot coverage (typically 1% vs 5%) is relatively very, very reliable and error-free in skilled hands. Would you say the same thing about error prone readings with the multispot / averaging of the Olympus OM4? If so, why? Where to point the meter? Well, where do you point your car?? Like anything in life, it is easy once you have been taught and know what to do, when and why and the reasoning behind it. I have met plenty of amateur photographers who have started absolutely clueness with a multispot meter and mastered the basics in under 4 days, applying the methodology to the unforgiving medium of transparency film (within 0.3 stop). With a spot meter sweeping the scene, your readings will be of a bright area of the scene, but not the brightest; then another area of the scene will be darker, but not the darkest. You can finished there and average all readings taken, together with more ("doubling spots") or continue with a mid-tone reference reading, either in the scene or with a grey card. The big trouble with incident meters is that they assume the scene is average, when it obviously is not! Incident does have its valued uses, especially in strong backlit compositions (e.g. portraiture), but in the landscape it have limited accurate, interpretive application. Be aware that incident and spot meters do not necessarily, nor strictly, accord to the 18% grey measurement; variations between incident and spot are widespread (especially with Sekonics; it is not a fault, but the fact that incident [12.6%] and spot [16.2%] are different systems) and it is incumbent upon any photographer to understand these differences and how they can impact critical work situations.

I am well familiar with Rowland through his inclusive and very detailed responses on apug.org where similarly nauseating threads spring up like rabbits about Kodachrome. Kodachrome isn't coming back. Ever. But don't let that discourage the beans out there from getting hyperexcited over ... nothing at all. I would recommend that legions of hyperactive keyboard jockeys carrying on about Kodachrome to get cracking and use existing films and become engaged with photography skills. From what I have seen, it's all talk, talk, talk and ... frankly, absolutely piss-poor, very ordinary, unremarkable photographic efforts. But really, it is not enough to "used to work in film manufacturing". It is the here and now and future that is very, very different, especially at Kodak. Randrews needs to read up on the problems Kodak faces with Ektachrome (apug.org), much less the fantasy vision of Kodachrome. RM sets out everything in clear and concise detail about Kodak, a subject that has really, really, really tested his patience. • What is going on with all this html formatting I have to pick out like ticks??

Chasing windmills. Ektachrome 100 is not available and faces an uphill battle to actually bring it to fruition, even if you consider the spin from Kodak's PR machine. And you are assuming, rather wildly, that it will be the Ektachrome of the past. It will not be. None of the engineering or chemical input exists at Kodak to recreate the original Ektachrome emulsions (same with Kodachrome); everything must be reconstructed from the ground up. Kodak does not have this capacity at this time or in the near future so it is very much a "wait and see" game. Do not compare archival stability of Kodachrome vs Ektachrome because both films are entirely different emulsions in terms of technology. Especially Kodachrome. And after Wilhelm's spectacular fall from grace a few years ago with his oddball flawed methodology of comparing RA4 and Ilfochrome Classic archival stability, no wonder people turned away in droves.

Carrying 22kg of MF or LF kit into the wilds and back, intact! I am not troubled by practical considerations such as cost, insurance or the production of images for print. The real stress and pain is in the back!!

What is Farcebook??

Definitely. However, the standard 2CR5 battery for the EOS 1N is generally not the most reliable for powering image stabilisation. The power drive booster E1, fitted with either standard AA alkaline or AA lithium batteries is a much more reliable source of power. Canon's IS has gone through multiple iterations and engineering changes since the first 75-300 IS lens came out in 1995. The lenses today (especially the L-series) are not so power hungry but heavy, persistent use will still tax the smaller battery. Consider the PDB for added ergonomics too.

Speaking from long professional experience and multiple meters, the Sekonic L758 is a multispot/incident/averaging/flash exposure meter (and how it averages can also be varied e.g. mean-weighted, average or additive/subtractive, in addition to a swag of additional tweaks), worth its weight in gold if you are an analogue (film) photographer and proficient in Zone exposure or "sweeping" a scene's contrast in difficult lighting, very especially using transparency film for print reproduction where exposure must be tightly controlled. There is only very limited value in applying these meters to your own 5D MkIII camera's onboard meter, be it evaluative, spot/avg, CWA or partial (and variants thereof) — any one of which is more than capable in experienced, proficient hands. Exposure profiling is one potential (and sometimes, useful) application with the Sekonics, but many amateur photographers give up on it and eventually fall back to the camera's capability.

Film winding pawl stripped (?). That is to say intermitten or persistent wind-on or no wind-on. The Pentax 6x7 dates to 1969, and problems must be routinely expected in cameras of this age with a long, long history, including brutal professional use. Fault situations are many and numerous, including those affecting the shutter, mirror activation solenoid, shutter speed accuracy and power. As you are not using leaf shutter lenses, idiosyncracies affecting use and operation of these and the camera don't need to be addressed. In the absence of not having loaded the film correctly (4 complete strokes to frame 1), a problem is likely.

Do you count web-crawler hits? These are responsible for a huge number of 'ticks' on web counters, much more than actual site page-by-page visitation. Cache holds and reloads also count as hits. Oh dear. Why am I accorded one day off a fortnight, run off my feet teaching 35mm, MF and LF analogue? Here's a reason: people are not that impressed by digital. A "novelty"!? LOL. Another throw-away comment devoid of basis or fact. Consider: how about those who produce their exhibition work up to a standard, not down to a price? They don't rely on "salesmanship", but skill in their craft and experience, something far too often missing in so very, very much digital photography I have to judge. Haha. OK, show me the evidence please of this statement. Here is one professional who is not stepping up to digital.

You got a good deal! For the purpose of promotion of your exhibition, the journalist/photographer is within their right to photograph and reproduce under the terms of fair use in print media (for the purpose of announcing or promoting an exhibition), unless you have specifically stated (in writing, never verbally) that photography of the exhibition is not permitted — by media, visitors/viewers or anybody else. Your bigger problem will be exhibiting in the age of smartphones where people will casually whip out a phone and photograph whatever takes their fancy. Where it ends up after that is anybody's guess. But it could also be used to misrepresent and/or misappropriate i.e. sold as the work of somebody else for their profit and enjoyment, rather than yours. Once uncovered, proving the works is yours through legal channels is the single biggest (and costliest!) headache in this day and age. Copyright? Yeah, she'll be right, mate. Unfortunately, the reality is you would need a second mortgage on the house to see through the battle! It is fortunate that many established, reputable galleries forbid the use of photographs; indeed, I know of many that require that phones and cameras be left with reception or security.

Day dreaming... Nikon, as with Canon, does not have all its fingers in the analogue world as it pursues the mantle of leadership in digital imaging. Besides which, there are thousands and thousands of F6 cameras (and countless more decades and decades old still in use) out there and they will do the task for any accomplished (rather than beginner) photographers, and continue to do so into the future. And Ektachrome... Will not be anything like the ECN of years ago (for those that remember!), nor for that matter will the rumour mill's constant churning and salivating over the prospect of Kodachrome MkIII (again, when/if it eventuates, it will be nothing at all like the original).

Ektachrome in whichever incarnation was never archivally stable. Kodachrome, yes, but it depended a lot on the quality of the storage of images, namely keeping the slides in archival quality sleeves, in dark storage. My own Kodachrome slides date back 60 years across two generations of family, along with my own from the 1970s to early 1990s (before I switched to Fujichrome). All of these are stored in archival sleeves in ring binders in their own cupboards. I have never had a slide projector, instead, I am one of these who have constantly printed from slides through the traditional Ilfochrome Class (years ago) to now hybrid RA-4 process.

Bleeding of LCD screens in any camera can readily be attributed to prolonged storage (rather than use) in very high temperatures where recovery of the LCD matrix is permanently hindered by damage rendered. That fact you are coming across so many may point to other causes not immediately obvious (and thus, Buyer Beware). Many devices do suffer LCD bleed (coffee machines are one), not just cameras or data backs! I have used Nikon, Canon, Pentax and Hasselblad cameras for more than three decades with not a single case of LCD bleed. But I experienced it with a Ricoh GR1 way back in 1999 (repaired under warranty). Cars with digital LCD speedometer readouts left in the sun, and indeed struck by very hot sun repeatedly, can also develop bleed. A little education and caution goes a long way!

TMax 100 and 400 has been blighted in recent times by backing paper transfer to the emulsion, known to have been caused by a number of factors including improper distribution-head storage prior to going out, but it is also known to occur with films exposed to high humidity and wet conditions. The problem has at this time not been fully resolved and is inconsistently reported. No such problems with ACROS 100 despite the backing paper being made by the one, same manufacturer (not Kodak). ACROS 100: Huge tonal range, very smooth and faithful. Many users favour it in pinhole cameras for a creamy, dreamy affect. Reciprocity is not a problem. Tolerates a lot of varied processing regimes. TMAX 100 / 400 Venerated Kodak evergreens of the so-called "T-Grain technology" that provides supersharp negatives and enlargements. Backing paper problem (mentioined above) has been addressed but now the numerals are quite faint and difficult to see in older cameras using ruby windows for watching frame numbers! My favourite is ACROS 100, chiefly because the changes made to TMax backing paper is making a once-favoured film a pain to deal with.

The bulk of my colour (RVP50) production work takes place in rainforests where spectrals are a major hindrance. So a KSM CPOL is used 99% of the time on any lens to "clean up" spectral flares. But sometimes spectrals are desired to reflect the inherent nature of a rainforest e.g. falling rain on myriad leaves creates a very beautiful sheen, not so much on rocks. As no sky is in the frame (it's blocked out by the canopy overhead, but for shame, it still lets rain tumble down!) there are no problems with uneven spread. In open landscape photography a polariser is not the best choice because of the partial effect over the sky. Less of a problem with heavily clouded landscapes but judgement should be exercised. The lenses in use (Pentax 67) are 45, 55, 75, 90 and 165mm.

Ah, so it's all manual! More power to you. o_O

Thanks Steve. I did have a membership to photo.net which appears to have lapsed. It was started in 2003 I think.

Really? For years my production images were scanned on an Epson V700. Images are now drum scanned because I print very large (1 metre across) from 6x7. There is a difference, especially with the cost! But that is built into the presentation price of the finished work when going up for sale. Film vs digital? This is not a competition (only the naive think it is), but a choice, and neither is superior to the other. Those with a solid grounding in classic foundation photography were brought up on and continue to use, as a preference, film — as in my case, there are legions of others. I don't use digital very often even though I have two digital cameras.

A Pentax 67 with MLU will handle the cold, but it is not the best beast for extended, repeated outings in bitter cold because cold-soak can freeze the internal mechanisms, and particularly the mirror solenoid and gears. Condensation can also work its way in and give rise to further problems. There is a separate, hard-to-find external battery connector for the P67 which takes the place of the battery clasp and allows you to store a working battery in your knickers, tethered to the camera by a cord. One could even be fashioned with parts garnered from an electronics store. It's workable, though strife-prone if ye should forget about it and go for a walk... :( The 'horror stories' you speak of are more likely reflective of the advancing age (and even clumsiness of 6x7 / 67 owners) of many 1969-vintage Pentax 6x7 cameras, not so much the 1990-era improved bodies. Lack of use is the biggest killer of these cameras, and the idiosyncracies they have need to be considered — meter coupling chains, TTL prism fitting/removal, focusing screen anomalies ... the list is a big one! e.g. after shooting, leave the shutter speed dial on either X or B; left on any shutter speed will affect accuracy over time. Similarly, the shutter should not remain cocked for an extended time or the shutter mechanism will drift in accuracy. Lots of people address this by winding on just before the next shot. The P67 places a huge amount of friction on the film drawn across the shutter gate and onto the take-up spool. In very cold conditions, the film can become brittle and tear. Wind on slowly and steadily. I've used my Pentax 67 without fuss or fanfare in ghastly outback heat (46°c) and awful cold (for me!) around 3°C (any lower and you will find me in bed, not outside!!). Nothing to be envious of the guy with the digital camera. Does he print to 1 metre across? Or just dump everything on the computer, never to be seen again? o_O

Choice of ... lemme see ... 1,600 cafés roundabouts here for flat whites and nibbles... :p I should have mentioned that the best nights for star trails is on or after a New Moon. Even silvery crescent moons can shed enough light over time to turn the star scape into daylight! And go far, far away from cities. We have the outback here, but it's a long, long way any which way that is chosen! I do not know if the RB67 is battery operated or all manual, and thus if battery operated you would need to determine the maximum amount of time the shutter could be held open without depletion. The EOS 1N mentioned earlier has a miniscule battery drain on Bulb.

"Starscape"? Static or moving?? I don't use my Pentax 67 for starscapes (or as we more commonly term them in Australia, startrails, because its battery will not hold out for the hours of exposure), but I often use my ancient Canon EOS 1N with intervalometer and 17-40mm zoom over a period 6-7 hours. Film: ISO100 to 200 is fine. Nothing fancy required; some people prefer ISO 400. Lens: A 50mm is a good starting point. Anything can be used. Set the aperture to one stop down from wide open Exposure: Bulb mode, for as long as you want. Plan on tripping the camera 2 hours after sunset and ending long before the first glimmer of dawn light. Impact: Fine a good "foreground anchor" for the shot to add interest. Vast skies with circles of millions of stars might be pretty, but they are also boring without a strong balacing focal interest e.g. an abandoned farm house or shed illuminated by a camping lantern. __________________________________________________________ The image (below) is over a 6 hour mid-summer period starting at 9.30pm. The stars are rotating around the South Celestial Pole (the 3,000th faintest star, if that is of interest...). The tree (and my tiny tent is at the very base of it, but not shown) is actually bolt upright but skewed comically because of the 17mm focal length. Exposure 6.5hr @f5.6; Provia 100 @ EI125 to add a bit of contrast. The diagonal 'stripe' is the International Space Station passing through! :)

First suspect: a pawl in the film advance gear mechanism has stripped. This can occur due to heavy use and age of the camera, although the 1990-era Pentax 67 did have a number of engineering improvements and is not as strife-prone as the 1969-vintage Pentax 6x7. Repairs entail cannibalising another Pentax 6x7 or 67 body (parts are not backward compatible) which leads to circular redundancy and a much-increased risk of future unreliability. The question is whether the cost of repairs will potentially be more than the worth of the camera; it's a great camera, absolutely, but its age is catching up to it, and millions still in circulation develop some sort of fault (or faults, plural) in time.