|
Paul MaudDib posted:You didn't look very hard. Polaroid rangefinders have been around forever in the low-cost segment. Alpenhause makes great compact travel rangefinders that take sheet film, and Peter Gowland has had fixed-focus or helicoid-focus aerial cameras (a big point and shoot) for ages. In medium format there's the Fuji GA645, and folding/box cameras have been around, like, forever. It's not that I believe they don't exist, it's just that for me personally, p&s wouldn't enter my mind as a methodology for LF/MF.
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2013 08:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
Lots of missed opportunities here, in my opinion. Can you talk a little about what you were going for here and why this one made the cut? Because right now all I'm seeing is a shot that isn't even attempting to accomplish something. I'd really like to hear your thoughts before I say anything more than that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 13:07
|
|
|
My new home made 8x10 sliding box camera. Built out of 12mm thick plywood and all cut with a handsaw. The lens is a big C-Claron Schneider lens I picked up at a photography swap meet, and the wet plate holder is from Chamonix. The lens being the whole reason I built the camera, it'd break any other camera I have that I would mount it on. I’ve just got to finish it off with a elasticated back made from MDF, and I’ll need to find some frosted glass/acrylic. But in the meantime I'll just some baking paper as the focusing screen. Oh, and I built it in portrait orientation, I found I shoot nearly 80% that way:  Compared to the Dorkroom unit of measure the ME Super on top:  I'll shoot some paper with it next weekend once I get it finished off, and once I get a big dipper tank built I'll do some 8x10 tintypes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
Spedman posted:My new home made 8x10 sliding box camera. Built out of 12mm thick plywood and all cut with a handsaw. The lens is a big C-Claron Schneider lens I picked up at a photography swap meet, and the wet plate holder is from Chamonix. The lens being the whole reason I built the camera, it'd break any other camera I have that I would mount it on. I’ve just got to finish it off with a elasticated back made from MDF, and I’ll need to find some frosted glass/acrylic. But in the meantime I'll just some baking paper as the focusing screen. Oh, and I built it in portrait orientation, I found I shoot nearly 80% that way: Rad as gently caress, also just make some legit ground glass. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum216/78392-making-ground-glass-focus-screen.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 13:54
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Lots of missed opportunities here, in my opinion. By all means give me advice as I need it! I really liked the framing between the trees and the lines leading up from the steps. I still have a lot to learn about posing and directing the people I shoot as I don't know the first thing about doing it (which probably shows) and a lot of times I end up just saying "stare at the lens" and hope I like the expression I am getting. This was also while wandering with my girlfriend so it was pretty spontaneous. Please feel free to tear it down and rip it to poo poo, as I respect the hell out of your work and can't get better without some input.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
Spedman posted:My new home made 8x10 sliding box camera. Sweet. How do you light-seal the sliding area, some felt glued to the wood? Does it have any kind of guide rail or otherwise, and how easy is it to focus precisely?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 17:06
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:By all means give me advice as I need it! I really liked the framing between the trees and the lines leading up from the steps. I still have a lot to learn about posing and directing the people I shoot as I don't know the first thing about doing it (which probably shows) and a lot of times I end up just saying "stare at the lens" and hope I like the expression I am getting. This was also while wandering with my girlfriend so it was pretty spontaneous. Please feel free to tear it down and rip it to poo poo, as I respect the hell out of your work and can't get better without some input. She's cute, and the setting is nice, but she's just sitting there.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:She's cute, and the setting is nice, but she's just sitting there. Yes, as opposed to just standing there, with slightly angled hips?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 18:13
|
|
|
Five freshly CLA'd Yashica TLRs are on their way back to me. Will get here tomorrow. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 18:33
|
|
|
Spedman posted:My new home made 8x10 sliding box camera. Built out of 12mm thick plywood and all cut with a handsaw. The lens is a big C-Claron Schneider lens I picked up at a photography swap meet, and the wet plate holder is from Chamonix. The lens being the whole reason I built the camera, it'd break any other camera I have that I would mount it on. I’ve just got to finish it off with a elasticated back made from MDF, and I’ll need to find some frosted glass/acrylic. But in the meantime I'll just some baking paper as the focusing screen. Oh, and I built it in portrait orientation, I found I shoot nearly 80% that way: I like that camera. The 8x10 is pretty nice too.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 18:43
|
|
|
 What focal length is your C-Claron? Is it the 477/6.7?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:By all means give me advice as I need it! I really liked the framing between the trees and the lines leading up from the steps. I still have a lot to learn about posing and directing the people I shoot as I don't know the first thing about doing it (which probably shows) and a lot of times I end up just saying "stare at the lens" and hope I like the expression I am getting. This was also while wandering with my girlfriend so it was pretty spontaneous. Please feel free to tear it down and rip it to poo poo, as I respect the hell out of your work and can't get better without some input. Well I'm not trying to say it's crappy or anything, but there's nothing going on. It's pretty much like what D-Rex said. I kind of disagree with him about the setting. I agree that it's nice, but you're not using it to make anything photographic with the subject. I really don't feel like you're using the power of your MF camera, either. The DOF is somewhere in the middle, but still not really finding or isolating anything in a way that makes me care about what's going on. I don't really feel like you've used the square format to full effect in the composition, but that's pretty subjective. There's little to no consideration given to lighting. And yeah, your subject just isn't doing anything. You obviously posed her, but to do absolutely nothing. Honestly, if I didn't have an idea for this particular setup, I'd just distract the model with some chitchat and then grab the shot when I thought she was unguarded. At least that could have the potential of showing an interesting spontaneous moment. Otherwise, pose the shot as if you're catching something as it's happening. If you're having trouble thinking in the square format, look for some inspiration: Richard Avedon Lillian Bassman Irving Penn Vivian Maier All excellent square format shooters.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 21:39
|
|
|
The Clit Avoider posted:It's not that I believe they don't exist, it's just that for me personally, p&s wouldn't enter my mind as a methodology for LF/MF.  It was actually probably the original methodology for MF, which really became popular with stuff like box cameras due to low cost, decent IQ (from the negative size), and being a roll film instead of a sheet film (easier for consumers to handle). At best you'd have an aperture control (f/11 and either f/16 or f/22), sometimes not even that.Spedman posted:My new home made 8x10 sliding box camera. Built out of 12mm thick plywood and all cut with a handsaw. The lens is a big C-Claron Schneider lens I picked up at a photography swap meet, and the wet plate holder is from Chamonix. What is a C-Claron? Some kind of copy lens? How does it compare to a G-Claron?
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 21:52
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 22:05
|
|
|
8th-samurai posted:Rad as gently caress, also just make some legit ground glass. http://www.apug.org/forums/forum216/78392-making-ground-glass-focus-screen.html Cheers for that, I'd been thinking about making my own as I wasn't too keen on trying to get a glazier to cut me a couple of 8x10 pieces (I'm restoring a 1905 Derogy wetplate field camera too). I'll have a search around today for someone to sell me some glass, and I should be able to find a source for the silicon carbide too and just order it through work. Paul MaudDib posted:What is a C-Claron? Some kind of copy lens? How does it compare to a G-Claron? MrBlandAverage posted:
I really I'm not 100% sure its a C-Claron, I asked over at the Large Formate Forum and thats what they seemed to think it is. All I know is that it's got a Schnieder badge on it, a serial number that puts it being made in the 1970's and an f-stop range of 5.6-11. The focal length is around 240mm and it appears to be made for doing 1:1 copies, so the whole camera ends up being relatively compact. On the baking paper ground glass the image looks very sharp, and seems to easily cover the full 8x10. As for comparisons to the G-Claron, I'm not entirely sure, but I think it's just a simpler/less featured version of the same lens design. My lens appears to be coated too, which is a positive. nielsm posted:Sweet. I thought I'd need some felt or whatever to seal it up, but I think the flat black pain I've used and that it's a pretty tight fit seems to do the job of keeping it light tight. I haven't put a guide rail in or anything that fancy (lacking skills really), but I'm probably going to router a groove into the base board to lock the back plane down when it shifts. Precise focusing is fairly easy as its all very solid, you can shift a mm or two quite easily without feeling like it's going to shift out of focus by its self.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
McMadCow posted:Well I'm not trying to say it's crappy or anything, but there's nothing going on. It's pretty much like what D-Rex said. I kind of disagree with him about the setting. I agree that it's nice, but you're not using it to make anything photographic with the subject. Thanks for this write up as it is putting lots into perspective, as well as for the recommended artists. Pretty much everything you said hits the nail on the head. I have only been using the square format for a little more than 2 months so I agree I still struggle sometimes with shooting for that perspective, but that is something I hope will evolve the more I use it. I'll take her back out there when the sun is a little lower for a bit more dramatic lighting and keep the rest of your critiques in mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 7, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
 Fallen Trees by Tenbux, on Flickr Tenbux Tincan fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Apr 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 00:17
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:
Yeah, I know what you're getting at (and I have a number of folders with minimal controls), but it's quite a frustrating methodology to shoot with. I just don't like relying on the negative's size to make up for the shortcomings of the camera/operation. I must admit though, as I sit and run through the options in my head, that L&F p&s is actually more appealing as time passes. Just so long as I could stick something other than the Angulon in it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 06:36
|
|
|
The Clit Avoider posted:Yeah, I know what you're getting at (and I have a number of folders with minimal controls), but it's quite a frustrating methodology to shoot with. I just don't like relying on the negative's size to make up for the shortcomings of the camera/operation. I must admit though, as I sit and run through the options in my head, that L&F p&s is actually more appealing as time passes. Just so long as I could stick something other than the Angulon in it. With some minor modification you should be able to stick any other 90mm on there. With limited close-focus capability, you might be able to use something as long as a 100mm Wide Field Ektar or something like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
 Knots by Tim Breeze, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 22:49
|
|
|
 Junk, Jalan Besar, 2012 by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 8, 2013 22:59
|
|
|
 Courthouse by Tenbux, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 9, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
My uncle is looking to sell some film gear and he's offered to sell it to me for what a used camera dealer is offering him. Here's the list: Mamiya 645 1 - Mamiya 645 AFD with a Mamiya 654 AF 80mm 1:2.8 Lens 1 - Mamiya 645 AF 55 to 110mm 1:4.5 Zoom Lens 2 - Mamiya 645 120 / 220 Motorized Backs Mamiya RB-67 1 - Mamiya RB-67 Pro-S Body with Prism Finder & 120 / 220 Motorized Back 1 - Mamiya RB-67 Pro-S Body with Metered Prism Finder & 120 / 220 Motorized Back 1 - Mamiya Sekor C 37mm 1:4.5 Lens 1 - Mamiya Sekor C 50mm 1:4.5 Lens 1 - Mamiya Sekor C 65mm 1:4.5 Lens 1 - Mamiya Sekor C 90mm 1:4.5 Lens 1 - Mamiya Sekor C 180mm 1:4.5 Lens 1 - Kenko 2X Mamiya RB TelePlus Converter 1 - Honeywell Pentax 1° / 21° Handheld Light Meter They offered $943 for everything but that's way too much for me to spend and a lot of this seems redundant. I'm thinking I'll ask him for the RB-67 with metered prism, plus maybe the 37mm, 65mm or 90mm, and 180mm? I'd like at least something wide, something normal-ish, and something long. I also have no idea what to offer for that stuff since they only have him a lump estimate. Thoughts?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 17:39
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:My uncle is looking to sell some film gear and he's offered to sell it to me for what a used camera dealer is offering him. Here's the list: Buy all the RB stuff for $750 or something and flip one of the bodies and the 37mm fisheye on eBay for $400. A great deal for everybody. edit: My RZ67 kit is a 50, 65, 110, and 180. That's all the focal lengths I really need for anything. MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Apr 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 17:49
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:My uncle is looking to sell some film gear and he's offered to sell it to me for what a used camera dealer is offering him. Here's the list: If you had the $950 for everything, you could part it out and flip the extra for some good cash. I'm tempted to offer to throw in for one of the RB-67 bodies w/ finder and back, the 645AFD, and/or the Honeywell/Pentax meter.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2013 17:58
|
|
|
In this case you fine people may be seeing some Mamiya gear show up in the sale thread soon. Is the 645 so pricey because autofocus MF gear is rare? The way I see it, I have digital for professional junk when I need autofocus and medium format film for making arts, so manual is OK. If at all possible I might even hang on to the 37mm because it seems like the kind of thing I would regret selling later.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 02:33
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:In this case you fine people may be seeing some Mamiya gear show up in the sale thread soon. Is the 645 so pricey because autofocus MF gear is rare? The way I see it, I have digital for professional junk when I need autofocus and medium format film for making arts, so manual is OK. If at all possible I might even hang on to the 37mm because it seems like the kind of thing I would regret selling later. There are about 4 versions of the 645AF (with the AFDIII being rebranded to PhaseOne), but they are worth around $900+ for the AFD w/ back and lens. The zoom is worth close to that again on its own. It's a killer deal (if you can pick it up for that) or an epic shafting by the dealer. They are expensive because a) MF gear is expensive in general b) MF gear that interfaces with digital backs (the AFD model) is very rare. The only real competition in that space is the Hassy H series and the (discontinued) Contax 645. c) It's a really nice camera per se I borrowed one for a couple of weeks to test drive, and other than screwing around, I don't think I used the AF because it's slow as hell. But I never missed it, because the viewfinder is huge and bright and awesome. It's also small and agile enough to use as an everday cam, as opposed to the tanklike RB. The main downside - aside from the relatively small negative - is that it's too DSLR like. Everything involves pressing stupid little buttons and scrolling wheels. That's the main reason I ended up with a Contax 645 (well, also the fact that someone practically threw it at me for far less money than it was worth). If you end up with it, at least give it a test drive. BrosephofArimathea fucked around with this message at 14:44 on Apr 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
$943 for everything is an offer so low it's an insult. As has been said, the 645 AFD + 80mm lens is worth that (or slightly more) alone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2013 11:36
|
|
|
New 4x5s! These colors are a bit weird and they're a still a bit dusty but there you have it. Antman by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  A local Georgia couple by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  Yeong by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr  Texas Plates by dorkasaurus_rex, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:Guys, this is a bag-able 4x5 camera so, uh, i put in $99 for the 90mm one. now something tells me i won't be able to find a lens for it under like $500 because the market in LF glass will actually dry up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 20:44
|
|
|
90mm f/8s are around that price anyways. Good luck. I'm in for the 90 and luckily own a compatible lens already.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
I just got a roll back from my Kowa, the first frame seems great, the rest look overexposed by about 3-4 stops. I checked my light meter and it's hunky dory, so I don't think that was the issue. It looks like the blades seem to be sticking/opening up very slowly from f/8-22 when I use the DOF preview switch on the lens. Would this be related to my problem? I'm not sure if it would be cheaper to hunt down a new 85 f/2.8 or have it CLA'd if that's the case. (Or cut my losses entirely and switch to a MF system that actually has available parts) burzum karaoke fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Apr 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 23:26
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:New 4x5s! These colors are a bit weird and they're a still a bit dusty but there you have it. your color balance is pretty off on all of these
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
only if you mean off-the charts cool-looking
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
Genderfluid posted:your color balance is pretty off on all of these I know. I'm very bad at scanning, but I'm by far the worst at color correction. I don't think I have the eye for it yet. What would you change?
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:I know. I'm very bad at scanning, but I'm by far the worst at color correction. I don't think I have the eye for it yet. What would you change? They all look very green to me.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:I know. I'm very bad at scanning, but I'm by far the worst at color correction. I don't think I have the eye for it yet. What would you change? Try this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_qeZOWqchM, I think its XKCD Larper. I made a rough looking focusing screen out of some cheap picture frame glass and some sand paper and go my 8x10 camera working. This is shot with the lens wide open on some Ilford Multigrade paper developed in some Rodinal (I couldn't be bothered getting any proper paper dev):  First thing, the lens doesn't cover 8x10 wide open, however, it does if the object being focused on is close enough (I'm honestly not sure if this how all large format lenses work), but I'm guessing it's because the lens is a 1:1 copying lens for A4 documents, so the lens is to be not designed to be so close to the focal plane. Tomorrow I might try some RA-4 paper with it, see if I can get some cheap 8x10 colour happening.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 12:15
|
|
|
If it is a C Claron it might not cover 8x10 at distance you could try it stopped down to see.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 13:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
8th-samurai posted:If it is a C Claron it might not cover 8x10 at distance you could try it stopped down to see. I think you're right, I think it'll be good for close portraits but not for any focus greater than a focus greater than 1-2m. I do have an old brass lens that I might mount on there tomorrow if I get time.
|
|
#
?
Apr 13, 2013 14:40
|
|