|
Spedman posted:And I'm guessing with no guarantee that it'll work either? Yep. I got a box with 5 sheets left for that reason. I might take a gamble on a full box sometime...
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2013 07:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
well hello  
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2013 20:27
|
|
|
I got an Angulon 90mm f/6.8 to use on my Travelwide, whenever it gets here. This thing is tiny. I already have a Nikkor-SW 90mm f/8 but it's huge in comparison.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
Aeka 2.0 posted:Do I just suck with split prism? I seem to have more misses in focus with split prism on my Mamiya than the fuzzy focus thing that is on my Blad. I make sure the split line isn't broken, I even wiggle the camera a bit to make sure the split is true and I'm off really bad sometimes. Whats everyone's focusing screen of choice? Is it consistently off in the same direction and by the same amount? Maybe your screen was installed incorrectly or it's out of calibration and needs to be shimmed or something.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2013 19:27
|
|
|
pootiebigwang posted:Does anyone use a mechanical self timer on their medium format stuff? I bought a Kopil self timer but it doesn't extend far enough to fire the shutter on my Hassey and am wondering if anyone has a recommendation. IIRC you can adjust the Kopil by loosening the knurled tapered part and pulling on the shaft (that's what she said  )
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
Santa is strapped posted:So guys, this is a thing: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/96793993/hasselnuts-hasselblad-camera-iphone-digitalback-ki More like Hasselbad, am I right?!? LOL!!!!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:So I bought a Sinar Norma because I don't already spend enough money on this hobby. This is my first foray into large format and have a small issue. When I try to do big rises or shifts the bellows just won't let me, I can only get about 25mm focusing on things in my house (so this will get worse when I take it outside and focus at things further away). My lens is a Fujinon 135mm f/5.6, so wide normal. I did some reading and I think I'll need to get a bag bellows to get good movements out of any wide (or wide-ish in this case) lenses? Is this less of a problem for cameras with a smaller front standard? Given that you said 135mm is "wide normal" I'm going to go ahead and assume you mean a 4x5 Sinar Norma, not the 8x10. What do you mean when you say the bellows won't let you do big rises/shifts? Can you take a picture of the camera and bellows in this situation? This is the sort of problem I'd expect to have with a 75 or 90mm lens, not a 135mm lens. Are you maxing out the rear movements without realizing it? Don't forget that you can shift the rear standard in the opposite direction as the front to get more movement. If the problem is that you're getting vignetting at extreme rises/shifts, consider that wider plasmats like your 135mm don't have a ton of coverage, and that's more likely to be a limiting factor than your bellows. MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Sep 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 20:32
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Yes, 4x5. The 4x5 diagonal is ~154mm. 228mm is the diameter of the image circle at f/22, yes (it's smaller at larger apertures), but you'll see vignetting in the corners before you do 74mm of shift - think about moving a box around inside a circle. It's really strange that you're having this problem with movements + close focus. I wonder if your bellows are just really, really stiff?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Needing a recessed lensboard for a 135mm lens seems a little ridiculous... what if you pull the bound-up parts away from the standards while moving the standards?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Genderfluid posted:god that camera is pretty It's a joy to use, too.  
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 20:15
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:I looked at Chamonix, but they're a lot money to lay out when I'm not even sure I'll like large format and I couldn't find a used one anywhere. I work out of my car mostly anyway so it's not liking I'm climbing a mountain with it and a cheap monorail will give me good exposure ( Used Chamonix cameras come up for sale at least a few times a month on the Large Format Photography Forum. There was just one this past week for $750. Go sign up now - you don't get access to the buy/sell subforum until 30 days after you register.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2013 20:44
|
|
) to large format. I can already tell lugging this thing around is going to be a pain so I'll probably end up buying a Chamonix or some other field camera later if I like it.
|
eggsovereasy posted:So after trying to take the Norma out, I just don't want to mess with a camera this cumbersome and I'm going to return it and buy a field camera that can at least fold up and fit in a bag. As far as I can tell, asymmetrical rear tilts are only really useful for tabletop macro and such. It'd make using tilt a lot faster if it were on the front, but, well, that'd make the front standard a lot more complicated and not nearly as light. I say skip it. edit: to clarify, asymmetrical tilts make it so it (ideally) only takes one pass to dial in your tilt. However, rear movements affect perspective, which makes rear asymmetrical tilts not really work for most of the kind of stuff I do. With practice it won't take more than 2 or maybe 3 iterations to get the focus right on front tilt. Pro tip: since the front tilt is around the lens axis (assuming a centered lensboard), start with rise/fall zeroed out and find how much tilt you need before dialing in rise/fall. MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 17:22 on Sep 23, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2013 17:17
|
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Reala is like Ektar without any redeeming qualities. 400H is the shiznit though. I agree with this. In my experience, similarly to Ektar, when Reala works, it works great... but it's not nearly as flexible as Portra or even 400H. 400H, by the way, wishes it could be Portra - similar approach to color, but less dynamic range and more grain.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2013 14:09
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:Well then. Anyone wanna swap a box or two of Reala for a box or two of some nice black & white? I've found I have been demolishing my B&W stocks and not so much my colour. which is mostly due to the fact that I have been really going hard with long exposures, and I have the HI Tech 10 stop ND, which as you might know has a ghastly blue hue. Acros loving owns for long exposures. No reciprocity failure to think about, just shoot as metered up to 1000 seconds.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2013 14:43
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:That is really handy to know. Thanks a bunch. Fomapan is a nightmare!! (Which I had tonnes of) Indeed. Check this out: http://consumptive.org/technical/Fomapan_100_Schwarzchild_Effect.pdf 4 stops of correction needed at 100 seconds metered exposure 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2013 14:55
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:I spent the bulk of my day drooling over Pentax 645's. 645 
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
Demon_Corsair posted:I find the anr glass is best at trapping dust between the glass and the negs. No matter how much I try, there is always a ton of dust there. I have actually gone back to the default epson holders. This was my experience too. Awkward Davies posted:Shot 5 rolls over the weekend. Did the math. Realized that between buying/developing/scanning I'm paying over a dollar a frame. Be more selective and do your own scanning and film makes a lot more sense.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2013 17:46
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:So on Chamonix's website it says the 4x5 cameras use Linhof lens boards, do they mean Linhof Tech or Linhof Kardan? They look a little different and thus I assume they are different or maybe it doesn't matter? Technika-style lensboards.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 1, 2013 22:18
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:I was fitting my 10 stop ND filter to my camera outside just now (on a ship), the wind picked up and ripped it out of my hand and I watched in slow motion as it sailed like a lost kite down to the water and disappeared. We commit this filter to the deep... Does the ship machine shop have a welding mask? The glass will function as an ND filter.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2013 09:09
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:So dark cloths are pretty expensive. Is there anything a $60 dark cloth brings that a towel or blanket doesn't? The BTZS focus hood is rainproof. I've used the Chamonix in the rain plenty of times without worry by pulling the hood forward to cover everything except the lens' front element. If you don't care about that, yeah, just use a black t-shirt.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 10, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
To add to what Spedman said about LF film costs - 4x5 color negative and slide film both cost me about $4/sheet + $2.15 or $2.25 for processing. Sometimes I think about 8x10 and then realize I don't have a good way to handle the film and develop the B&W, so I probably won't do that until I live in a house with a room I can make sufficiently dark to use as a darkroom. I have about $3500 into LF - that's the Chamonix, v700, 65mm, 90mm, 135mm, 150mm, 210mm, 300mm, and way too many film holders and backs and accessories. It'd be more like $1800 if I'd stuck to the Chamonix, one lens, and the v700. Sludge Tank posted:are you havin a giggle mate
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2013 15:39
|
|
|
Elderbean posted:Also, does it look like large format film will be around for awhile? Black and white will be around for quite a while yet. The days of color are probably limited (and you can't get color 5x7 anymore, though there's still a reasonable selection of 4x5 and 8x10), but it's not clear how limited. We can always fall back on coating our own plates...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 11, 2013 20:01
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:So, I took the Chamonix out today and absolutely loved using it. I think these photos would have been better in color, but color sheet film is expensive and I figure I'd gently caress it up and I didn't want to wait until I had a big enough back log to make using my Tetenal kit worth using. I did scratch a couple negatives loading or unloading them and now I really understand why some people use a changing tent rather than a changing bag, poo poo's pretty cramped in there when dealing with sheet film. Next time I'll probably just do it in my makeshift darkroom so I can spread out a little on the table I have in there. Welcome to the club  I use those binder clips for drying my film - I just attach it on a corner with the rebate, which I'm going to crop out anyway. With practice you get the hang of clipping it as close to the edge as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 12, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
What did you get if you clicked on the [...] inside the popup?
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:Are 90mm and 210mm good starters for 4x5? 135mm, 90mm, and 210mm are my most used focal lengths, in that order. I'd want something in between 90mm (~24mm equivalent on 35mm) and 210mm (55mm equivalent on 35mm). Don't forget that with LF you have movements, so it's easier to get everything you want in the frame. If you want to start with 2 lenses, I'd get a 90mm and a 135/150mm first.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2013 03:15
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:Thankyou. And probably a silly question but my lee filter bracket will screw into these lenses with appropriate adapter rings? Yeah, LF lenses have normal filter threads. Lens brands in LF seem to matter less than in smaller formats; it's all about getting the right combination of focal length, coverage, maximum aperture, and price. 150mm lenses are a dime a dozen. For 90mm, if you have the money to spend, the only choice in my mind is the Nikkor-SW 90mm f/8. The f/4.5 version is huge in comparison (and you have to remove the rear element to mount it on the Chamonix) and not as sharp. If you can deal with the ground glass being 1 2/3 stops darker, the f/8 version is the best you can get - it even covers 5x7 with movements. My 90, 135, 150, and 300mm are all Nikkors because they're newer and I wanted to have less chance of the shutter failing than with an older lens. That didn't stop the shutter on my 135mm from breaking last month, though... edit for more on 90mms: the Schneider 90mm Super Angulon f/8 is a good, somewhat cheaper option. I think there's also a Fujinon based on the Super Angulon design. I wouldn't get anything besides the four options I named - as far as I know, they all have drastically less coverage (like the non-Super Angulon) or drastically worse quality. edit2: I forgot the Grandagon 90mm f/6.8. Also decent and less expensive than the Rodenstock of which it's a rebadged version. MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 15:54 on Oct 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:Also just out of curiosity, is there any way of fitting an A12 back to the F2? Well, there's these: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Moveable-Adapter-For-Hasselblad-V-Back-To-Linhof-Sinar-Toyo-Wista-Horseman-4x5-/370906480594 But I think you're better served getting a rollfilm back meant for 4x5 in the first place, like the Graflex backs: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Graflex-Graphic-22-Roll-Film-Back-120-Film-6x6-FOR-4x5-graflex-back-film-/221300198583
|
|
#
¿
Oct 19, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:Returned the Super Angulon 90mm f/8, going to save up for the f/4.5. Only a couple of hundred more... good choice? There isn't an f/4.5 large format Super Angulon 90mm, though there is an f/5.6. If the f/5.6 is only a couple hundred more, either you're getting an amazing deal on the f/5.6 or you got ripped off on the f/8. If you're talking about the Nikkor-SW 90mm f/4.5 - it's brighter than the f/8, sure, but it's not as sharp. I'd have stuck with what you had.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:derp sorry I meant f5.6. eggsovereasy posted:On keh the f/5.6 is about 150 more than an f/8. I did forget there was an older, non-XL f/5.6. I'd still take the f/8 for the smaller size - I never use even the f/8 wide open. If you're planning to use a wide angle lens wide open and you really want the extra stop, sure... Eggsovereasy, between the Nikkor-SW f/8 and the Grandagon I'd take the Nikkor. I can't overstate how sharp it is.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2013 05:28
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:I think the second one is pretty cool. Not a fan of including film borders in images though. But otherwise how can people tell how cool I am for using film??
|
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2013 00:50
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:After shooting 35mm for the last 5 years or so, I'm really considering making the leap to MF. The tipping point was probably seeing my friend's Portra 400 scans at ridiculously large resolutions with virtually no grain. You should be able to pick up a Mamiya RB67 in that price range, though you'd have to stretch your budget to get more than one lens. Both the 90mm and 127mm are good normal-ish lenses. Either should work as a starter lens, but if you can't stretch the budget a little to also pick up a 65mm for landscapes, get the 90mm instead of the 127mm. Finally, the 180mm would be my choice for a portrait lens.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2013 22:20
|
|
|
deaders posted:I got that complete Bronica ETRS setup for around $400 on KEH. You could put together the basic camera with one lens for $300 easily. How about not an ETRS? Friends don't let friends shoot 645.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Oh, in relation to the IR film talk on the previous page: I'm pretty sure only 35mm cameras can use IR frame counters - there's no sprocket holes to count on 120...
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2013 16:50
|
|
|
Quantum of Phallus posted:Excellent, just wanted to make sure, thanks. Depends on format. Most people use the diagonal of the format to determine an equivalence: 135 diagonal: 43.3mm 645 diagonal: 69.7mm (~1.6x, so 80mm on 645 is like 50mm on 135) 6x6 diagonal: 79.1mm (~1.8x, so 90mm on 6x6 is like 50mm on 135) 6x7 diagonal: 89.6mm (~2.0x, so 100mm on 6x7 is like 50mm on 135)
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
ExecuDork posted:And while we're messing up unit conversions:  where are you getting this? It's about 155mm, so about a 3.6x factor.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 05:35
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:If you exclude the areas covered by the film holder it's a bit smaller, but I guess if you do that for 4x5 you need to do it for the medium formats as well.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2013 06:41
|
|
|
Front rise is by far my most often-used movement on 4x5. East Burnside by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2013 07:39
|
|
|
big scary monsters posted:I finally got my MOD54 about six weeks after ordering and it doesn't have the dummy sheets with it. Are these meant to come as standard and are they important? It'd be nice to have them but I'm pretty sick of dealing with the lovely customer service from this third party supplier. I didn't get dummy sheets either and I ordered directly from MOD. I'd recommend sacrificing 3 sheets so you can get the hang of loading all 3 slots on a side without having the sheets touching each other. MrBlandAverage fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Nov 9, 2013 21:18
|
|
|
That loving tree. 65mm on 4x5 is pretty wide. That F**king Tree by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr Some of the people lined up to take a picture of that loving tree.  That F**king Tree by Isaac Sachs, on Flickr
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2013 06:04
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:This is nice, how much movement can you get with a 65mm lens? It varies by lens - some don't even cover 4x5 (meant for 6x9) but this one (Caltar II-N 65mm f/4.5 - a rebranded Rodenstock Grandagon) covers 4x5 with enough room for ~10mm of movement at infinity, and a little more with closer subjects like this one. There's definitely also a little vignetting, which is why center filters exist, but they're unreasonably expensive, so I'm flying without. I had the same problem with inversions in the Mod54 reel at first, so I switched to using the twirly stick - but then I got pretty bad overdevelopment near the 'fingers' on the reel. What I do now is really, really slow inversions, like 5-10 seconds for one inversion, so the liquid doesn't move around so forcefully, and I'm getting much better (but still not perfect) results. On Tuesday I'll be getting a new tank for my Jobo so I can use it for 4x5. I can't loving wait.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2013 18:48
|
|