|
try it with a lime posted:Here's a thing: And Approximate equivalents of lens focal length 35mm 4x5 8x10 20mm 65mm 120mm 24mm 75mm 155mm 28mm 90mm 200mm 35mm 115mm 240mm 45mm 150mm 300mm 52mm 180mm 360mm 63mm 210mm 420mm 90mm 300mm 600mm 105mm 360mm 720mm 135mm 480mm 900mm From the toyo website
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 08:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:03 |
|
|
Here's a PDF with all that stuff that I keep laying around https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4huWXAhxTlweXpEMU16Vjh5TW8/view?usp=sharing
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 10:09
|
|
|
Awkward Davies posted:I'm the guy who commented on your 'gram about the handle and the folding focus hood. This is what I was talking about : You know, I never really shoot at waist level, but for my dumb Instagram gimmick poo poo, it may be better for a brighter image in the waist-level finder. I just wish I could have a brighter image without carrying one more thing around.
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 14:03
|
|
|
8th-snype posted:Here's a PDF with all that stuff that I keep laying around Ah, that's super handy!
|
|
#
?
Aug 25, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
what the gently caress posted:And This table seems to be based on horizontal AOV. In my experience, comparing diagonals works better when you have different aspect ratios. In that case it'd be more like this: Approximate equivalents of lens focal length 35mm 4x5 8x10 20mm 75mm 150mm 24mm 90mm 180mm 28mm 105mm 210mm 35mm 135mm 270mm 48mm 180mm 360mm 55mm 210mm 420mm 80mm 300mm 600mm 95mm 360mm 720mm 120mm 450mm 900mm I've always most enjoyed using 35mm on 35mm film. The most directly comparable experience on 4x5 is my Nikkor-W 135mm and on 8x10 it's my Fujinon-W 250mm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 05:03
|
|
|
FWIW, 120mm on the 4x5 is very very close to 80mm on 6x6, just a bit wider only. Though I'm starting to enjoy using 150mm on the 4x5.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 05:29
|
|
|
alkanphel posted:FWIW, 120mm on the 4x5 is very very close to 80mm on 6x6, just a bit wider only. This makes it sound like you're comparing vertical AOV.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:This makes it sound like you're comparing vertical AOV. Yeah I basically pointed them at the same scene and saw that they captured the same scene, except that the 4x5 had more space on the long side.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 06:22
|
|
|
i just bought a big wood grip and strap lugs for my p67 but i looked on ebay and these are very tempting. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
iphone pic of 8x10 plate of Tasman Bridge, Hobart.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 12:30
|
|
|
That's a really nice plate, good stuff 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 13:19
|
|
|
Thanks buddy. I got my roster for work today. Another 5 months down at the ice again starting in December. Started to stockpile on some chems. Getting very excited to take it down there. I believe I may actually be the first person to take WPC down there? I know Hurley used glass negs/dry plates but I don't think WPC has been done down there before. With that intense UV and this fast etherless collodion I reckon I could get exposures in the 1/125 - 1/30 range at f.5.6
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
what the gently caress posted:Thanks buddy. I got my roster for work today. Another 5 months down at the ice again starting in December. Started to stockpile on some chems. Getting very excited to take it down there. I believe I may actually be the first person to take WPC down there? I know Hurley used glass negs/dry plates but I don't think WPC has been done down there before. With that intense UV and this fast etherless collodion I reckon I could get exposures in the 1/125 - 1/30 range at f.5.6  I was wondering what happened to that guy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:Oh poo poo I just realized you're sludge tank I was hoping my horrible posting would have been enough of a give away.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 13:58
|
|
|
what the gently caress posted:Thanks buddy. I got my roster for work today. Another 5 months down at the ice again starting in December. Started to stockpile on some chems. Getting very excited to take it down there. I believe I may actually be the first person to take WPC down there? I know Hurley used glass negs/dry plates but I don't think WPC has been done down there before. With that intense UV and this fast etherless collodion I reckon I could get exposures in the 1/125 - 1/30 range at f.5.6 That would be rad getting to shoot wpc down there, perfect for low contrast landscapes. Just don't create an environmental emergency down there by spilling your silver bath on a penguin or something. I do have a book of the first photographers that went down to Antarctica, and they shot dry-plate and were making carbon prints from them, definitely not wet plate.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Ah man if you get a chance to see that The Photograph and Australia exhibition I seriously recommend it. They have some of Frank Hurley's large carbon prints there. I don't know if they were from film or plates (they were pretty sharp/fast so maybe film?) loving incredible. I've never seen a print like that and in the flesh, up close, the resolution was mind blowing. Well worth seeing. Was a really humbling/encouraging exhibition to see.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Is 4.5x6 a decent format? There's a Semi Leotax near here for $55, I believe it's a Semi Leotax DL based on the picture. 16 exposures on a roll of 120 sounds neat but of course your negatives come out smaller. Interesting-looking camera: (the pics in the ad are poo poo but this looks like the same thing)
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 16:57
|
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Is 4.5x6 a decent format? There's a Semi Leotax near here for $55, I believe it's a Semi Leotax DL based on the picture. 16 exposures on a roll of 120 sounds neat but of course your negatives come out smaller. Interesting-looking camera: I took this with FP4 on a Mamiya 645. It's not bad.  Corgg. by Devin Wilson, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
There's nothing inherently wrong with 645 cameras, but take in to account you're getting the worst of both worlds between 35mm and MF. On the other hand, folders are nice and compact and there are worse ways to spend $55.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
try it with a lime posted:There's nothing inherently wrong with 645 cameras, but take in to account you're getting the worst of both worlds between 35mm and MF. On the other hand, folders are nice and compact and there are worse ways to spend $55. Yeah it won't be bad but for the price I would get an old 6x9 folder instead.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
$55 is certainly worth it to get your feet wet in medium format. Shoot black and white so you don't blow C41 money if there's a bunch of light leaks in the bellows or something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Wide angle on a 6x7 is fun. Wheeling by Paul Frederiksen, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
voodoorootbeer posted:$55 is certainly worth it to get your feet wet in medium format. Shoot black and white so you don't blow C41 money if there's a bunch of light leaks in the bellows or something. Labs here charge double the price for B&W processing. Are the materials actually cheaper if you develop yourself?
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
iSheep posted:Labs here charge double the price for B&W processing. Are the materials actually cheaper if you develop yourself? Much cheaper, and the 35mm gear/chems I already have would transfer right over to 120, excepting the enlarger's negative carrier.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Black and white is dirt cheap. I think I've got about 90 dollars of equipment and chemicals and I have enough to process about 150 rolls.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
I'm running out of permawash before anything else, I'd have expected it to be the developer first but I've switched to stand development so I'm only using 5mL at a time. Edit: just realized why, it's because I use the same bottle in both film and paper dev, and unlike fixer I can't re-use it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Then I've got no idea why the are charging more for the processing of B&W.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
iSheep posted:Then I've got no idea why the are charging more for the processing of B&W. Because all C41 gets processed the same way regardless of film speed/emulsion/whatever. Not counting stand processing, which a lab isn't going to do, B&W dev has to be timed differently for every emulsion. They're also probably doing much smaller volumes of B&W with similar fixed costs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
C41 is strap it to a card and bang it in a machine. B+W means one of the lab staff has to watch a dev tank with a timer for half an hour. Wayyyyy more labor intensive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:Because all C41 gets processed the same way regardless of film speed/emulsion/whatever. Not counting stand processing, which a lab isn't going to do, B&W dev has to be timed differently for every emulsion. They're also probably doing much smaller volumes of B&W with similar fixed costs. Got it. I kind of figured as much.
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
 Katrina, an English rose and phenomenally beautiful stranger, in London. by Simon Chetrit, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
 Pagoda Street by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
 
|
|
#
?
Sep 1, 2015 16:10
|
|
|
 Proof of concept: forest mushroom cyanotype from medium format negative on... log by Alex, on Flickr Who says you can't contact print 6x6?
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
That's frickin' rad
|
|
#
?
Sep 2, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
 img209 by Benjamin Gibb, on Flickr img200 by Benjamin Gibb, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 3, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
What up guise, new to the MF party. I got a Pentax 67 and shot my first roll and scanned it. I'm a terrible photographer but still super pumped. Enjoy my facebook photos.  img053 by Harvard J Nasty, on Flickr img054 by Harvard J Nasty, on Flickr img039 by Harvard J Nasty, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 00:43
|
|
|
HNasty posted:What up guise, new to the MF party. I got a Pentax 67 and shot my first roll and scanned it. I'm a terrible photographer but still super pumped. Enjoy my facebook photos. Congrats on your new blunt weapon!
|
|
#
?
Sep 4, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
 Clementi by alkanphel, on Flickr  Sunset Way by alkanphel, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 5, 2015 10:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 12:03 |
|
|
Pham Nuwen posted:Is 4.5x6 a decent format? There's a Semi Leotax near here for $55, I believe it's a Semi Leotax DL based on the picture. 16 exposures on a roll of 120 sounds neat but of course your negatives come out smaller. Interesting-looking camera: 6x4.5 is fine, it's the camera that makes the difference. With MF/LF it's all about film flatness and front-standard alignment and rigidity, because small misalignments mean hosed-up corners due to the shallower depth of field. I have a GS645 that's nice and stiff with a meter and a coated Planar, it's fantastic. A 75/3.5 lens is considered fast for a triplet, so you're in for some soft corners and field curvature when you're wide open. On the other hand once you're down a couple stops you'll do OK. You don't have a rangefinder, so you'll have to guess ranges, which can compound these isssues. I have a non-RF Ikonta with a coated Novar triplet that I like shooting with Ektar as my "holga" because it tends to produce a lot of wonky results. That lens should be similar, but somewhat more flare-y since it's uncoated. Triplet lenses handle flare better than other uncoated lenses because there's fewer surfaces for the light to flare on. I think that's a good deal assuming it works, I'd say look it over carefully and give it a shot. Wind the lens and make sure it fires - even a novice should be able to hear a noticeable difference between speeds up to 1/125 at a minimum, past that it's just how quick the "snap" happens. The low speeds (below 1/30) tend to stick but you use them less. Take a flashlight and shine it through the bellows while you look for pinholes from behind. If you can talk them into it, take it into a bathroom and it will be easier. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 03:25 on Sep 8, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2015 03:21
|
|
