|
Post by Peter S. on Aug 31, 2007 14:10:49 GMT -5
Dear Michael,
You showed us some wonderful pictures. I especially like no 2 and 6. But the first one is also very good. Foggy weather offers some great photographic options - and You did succeed to use them!
The 2.8/35 W.Rokkor is a very good lens. Besides it is a pretty useful focal length. It offers quite some additional coverage compared to the normal - while still offering the neutral character of the normal. In Your pictures 4,5,6 You see also, that the heavy backlight that is formed by the fog does not affect the contrast of the frame. I am sure most zoom would fail here.
Do You got the later version with 49mm filter thread or the early MD one, which is a clone of the last MC lens?
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Apr 23, 2007 10:01:25 GMT -5
Dear Curt,
I like the coal ship - I think all the subdued tones are very appropriate to that theme.
Btw, a question to the British: might the airplane be a Halifax?
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Apr 27, 2007 12:35:40 GMT -5
Dear fellow camera collectors, dear friends,
I found out one reason that screwed most likely the biggest part of the bunch: The shutter of my 4/50 Distagon stuck. Silly me, that I didn't notice this until one shot I was shure I did operate the camera correctly turned out to be black! Well, I got it to the repair shop - and he told me, it were no big problem to fix it - but it would cost me 250$ - I agreed, as a new, used Distagon would be more expensive - and a fixed one would serve me well for the next few years.
But, jmi, I don't mind of frames were screwed - as long as there are enough good ones coming out of a roll. I think, I'll try to get a bunch of Kodak E100G 120 film next week. I tested it in 135 format. And I found that it was the best film I used so far w.r.t. accuracy of color.
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Mar 23, 2007 4:27:05 GMT -5
Dear John,
in picture No. 5 there is a flock of coots. Those are very common here.
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Mar 22, 2007 13:50:02 GMT -5
Dear fellow camera collectors, I finally found some time to scan the second film. I exposed two until I found the time to send the film to the lab, well, I had to find a lab processing the 120 film, but I found one... I spoiled three or four exposures, but the rest came out pretty good. I had a peek under a microscope at work - the detail is incredible... but I don't got the means to get this into the digital realm. Anyway, my first shot had been taken around the time of sunset on a stormy evening. I walked a few meters, and got this view over the lake. I hope the detail of the lake is OK - it looks terrible here at work, but it is pretty OK on my monitor at home. On the following morning the storm had gone away, and the lake was giving the impression of a mirror. Some haze let it look like being infinite. Here's one I took from the ferry when driving home from work. Maybe a day or two later. And another morning shot (I have to walk the dog each morning, and I can go to the shoreline) Finally I would like to show You a night shot. It was taken with the 5.6/250 Sonnar on a night with full moon. It is the view from my balcony. The exposure was a bit more than 5 minutes at f/8. This is the one that suffers the most from my poor scanning technology - but I like the slide. Best regards & Thanks for Looking Best regards Peter PS: hints and critique is as always very welcomed.
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Jan 11, 2007 16:13:01 GMT -5
Dear Wes,
Your editor selected a superb piece of work from You ... but of course You managed to do it. And I like it - it resembles me on a lecture on history of architecute I attended (although studying electrical engineering - but it was possible to attend non-EE courses, too, and I was glad about that opportunity).
I find it interesting, how the classical styles were perceived in later periods. But I allways was surprised, that Greek elements allmost on all instances were blend through the Roman style. I.e. walls and columns were put together - arcs and straight walls were put together - everything is put together. The Greek never would have blended different categories together. Not in philosophy nor in architecture.
And apparently the architect of this former buidling did follow the Greek example (btw. it were permissible to have Korinthean columns on the outer rows and Ionic ones in the center where there might have been two floors of columns above each other - the Romans didn't care on these subtle nuances).
A second point I see in Your picture, is the fact, that the corner columns were inclined towards the center of a Greek temple. Here this is supposed to be an artifact of the rectiliniear wide angle lens tilted to the top. But the Greek did this, because they felt, it would be appropriate to the eye of the watcher.
Maybe we got an seasoned architect in our rows, who can it explain better than I (besides the language barrier - I am heavily running out of English words, and can't remember the Greek ones after twenty years).
Anyway, I liked to watch this photo very much. Maybe You can show us more!
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Oct 3, 2007 4:16:43 GMT -5
Dear fellow camera collectors, this is one of the first pictures I took with that 3.5/100 Planar. While I think, that the 80mm are a bit more useful for me, I have to say, that I am overwhelmed by the performance of this lens. It was stopped down a tiny bit (F/5.6) which was maybe more out of a personal habit rather than a lens induced necessity. The photograph is no special piece of art (the car in the background is not exactly pleasing) but the way the dog is isolated from the blurry background works pretty well IMHO. Best regards Peter And, er, here it is... Zorro in the morning light
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Jul 27, 2007 9:30:57 GMT -5
Hi Craig,
If You seek an inexpensive way to MF then I think a TLR is the best way to go - those things sell off for little money. And they tend to give very good results. Just be sure the thing works OK. The Bronica is excellent, too - and very good value for the money (way better than Hassie/Zeiss).
Digital backs for MF are extremely expensive - and they will always be, due to the big sensor that is required. Then You have to struggle with a crop factor, that renders all Your wide angles useless. Plus there are a lot of pro's with little income keen on getting one second hand. So there is less offer than demand - i.e. the second hand prices are high.
Rick suggested a flatbed scanner as an alternative to a dedicated film scanner in my recent post on the Nikon 9000 scanner. That's the best way into digital MF. The second best way is to get the latest full frame 35mm DSLR... plus some good glass.
... just my 2 cents
Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Jul 25, 2007 20:29:20 GMT -5
Rick,
I asked the lab, where I sent my films to - they want 20€ for _one_ MF scan in something I would label as medium resolution. Do You have to pay 2$ for one picture or for the complete film (in which case I would stop scanning, too)?
That LS9000 is OK. But it is loud, slow, and at least the Nikon Scan S/W is buggy. I think about trying Vuescan. But the research phase is not over yet.
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Jul 25, 2007 18:57:11 GMT -5
Gene, Yes, the Hasselblad is not the allways-with-me camera. It is heavy and slow to operate. Slides are OK, but paper prints from negatives are usually quite expensive. A MF slide projector might show the MF qualities - but how often would You set up scanner and silverscreen? I like the haptic feeling of the classic cameras so much, that I rather decided to invest in the scanner rather than in a DSLR with some lenses. But MF (irrespective of the brand, with a possible exception of Lomo and the like) is so fundamentally different from current digital equipment, that I would refuse to chose in favor for just one of it - a D200 might render my XD-7 useless (if there weren't the lots of Rokkor glass, of course), but not the 500c/m. On the other hand, the amount of money I could get by selling the MF setup is not so much, that it would open some possibilities otherwise were impossible for me. So there is no pressure to sell it. And since I like it very much... Btw in that half of a year I own the camera (now with a small selection of lenses, backs, second body...) I took 8 films so far - er, just got a few more scans ready... so I stop ranting for two of them. River Thur, 80mm Planar, Fuji Velvia, underexposed, but corrected due to great scanner... and another one, taken only 15mm below the first place... River Thur, same lens, same wrong exposure... This is a hell of a nice place. I am there sometimes when driving from the HQ of the company to my working place. Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Jul 24, 2007 16:37:19 GMT -5
Dear Gene,
Well, the quality of that Hasselblad gear when it comes to bragging is beyond doubt. The 500c/m is a pure fun device - that's clear, too (unless You have to lug it around for more than 15 minutes....). But, my wife says my pictures simply would not justify being taken in MF - I don't know whether she thinks APS would fit my artistic ability - but she says, there were way too much nonsense in between my good picture. I.e. first I should learn to take only good pictures before spending substantial resources into (former) pro equipement.
To some extent she may be right.
But I should not say that. I should say (and I _want_ to say): I felt that lens/scanner/whatsoever envy - until the point, I got money for overtime. More than an additional month's salary. Needless to say, I could not resist...
And I have to confess: I love MF. The big viewfinder is great - and the rectangular format is an extremely pleasing alternative to the 3:2 format. In my limited experience the square format is pretty resistive in landscapes - but it is great for persons (not my cup of tea, anyhow) and objects (from pets to architecture). So intrinsically one does not need nor the bulky (and expensive) long telephotos neither those ultra wide angle lenses, that let You photograph the nose of Your neighbor in the same size than St Peter in the near background.
The smaller aperture does however make me want to use that Provia 400x more often. It is often a bit offensive to take the tripod always at one's side.
Dear John,
I have a HP 7400 since a couple of years (I prefer scanning my handwritings to making Visio drawings for my work) - and I dislike the way HP does not care for taking measures against their programming flaws. Not a single firmware update in four years - and enough bugs that earn being wiped out.
The mere resolution may be sufficient for that hobby web publishing. But the dynamic range - and even more important, the lack of automatic dust removal made me ruling flatbed scanners out. I don't do more than one LF exposure (I don't dare to regard it a picture) every two month. So I made up my mind to skip LF compatibility (which would have resultet in an Epson flatbed scanner).
And the time that needs to be separated from normal family life is way less for the film scanner compared to the flatbed scanner. That was in the end the ultimate argument. Today I scanned a 35mm film that had been forgotten in a letter from the lab in a bit more than an hour. It took my about for hours to do that with my old Minolta scanner (that might have a small quality advantage in proper exposed slides). So I removed the flatbed scanner from my desk - and it was a fun to do so...
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Jul 24, 2007 14:50:02 GMT -5
... and bought a MF film scanner. I bought the Nikon, as I didn't see a reasonable alternative. It resulted in a longer discussion with my wife, that not necessarily was held in the spirit of affection. But it was too late - I had ordered it already. My wife went to Verona to see Aida - I stayed at home (I had to work and to keep the dog). I got the scanner yesterday - and since then I spent all the time I could manage to get it working. There is still an issue that makes it impossible to use some of the more elaborate restoration techniques. I also see that it has less resolution than my Minolta Scanelite 5400 (I). But it got a better dynamic range, and I think the colors are more consistent. I had an issue with flare on the Minolta, the Nikon seems to be better here. On the first night I scanned the first two MF films (if You are inclined to see the results: I replaced the pictures in my two posts: 'My first Hassie film' and 'My second Hassie film' here and in the general photography section. You may need to refresh the page). I also was able to scan two images, that I couldn't get pictures from with the flatbed scanner. The first one was underexposed, maybe by 1..1.5 F-stops. Due to the high dynamic range of the scanner the picture came out very pleasing... Zorro taken with a 5.6/250 Sonnar on Velvia 50, scanned with the Nikon LS9000 I took the second picture during a short stop when driving home from work. The exposure was ca. 3 minutes. That can be veryfied by the ferry, that smears through the frame - there are too many ferries to avoid this. And the light was that good only for some minutes. I was lucky that I took the picture. Schloss Maurach, the city of Constance, & Mount Säntis most likely taken with the 2.8/80 Planar, underexposed, curves adjusted to fix this. Note the ferry. Or look at the rest of the scenerey ;-) So, I have to stop camera (in my case: lens) collecting for the rest of the year... but, I think, it was worth the effort. Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Jul 26, 2007 16:51:34 GMT -5
Dear friends,
there are a couple of lakes here - but with the exception of the second picture all other lake pictures show the Lake of Constance - I got a lot of pictures from this as it is literally just in front of my doorstep.
The second picture was taken on the Lake of Pfaeffikon - and this is were I work. Every day after lunch in the cantina we have a short walk around the premises - and come along that place. The picture is taken at sunset in late winter earlier this year.
And yes - I enjoy the Hassie - today I took it with me while having a hike near Mount Säntis (this is the big mountain shown on some of my Lake of Constance pictures. I now have three rolls of exposed film - the weather was great. My boss told me, I had too much unused old holiday days - I immediately planned the hike :-)
Best regards Peter
PS: Galen, the most important (and most tedious) thing to do, when trying to make a good photograph of a tree is to find a solitary one. It must not have any wires through the neighboring sky, Then at least one viewing axis should exist, that got an even background (the less and the more even the better). Oaks and chestnut trees often have been planted at road crossings here in the German speaking part of the world. Most often a bench is installed on these trees. This customs is very old - otherwise You could not find that old and mighty trees solitary on an old road crossing (the crossing here is not used by cars, just a few bicicle drivers and predestrians).
So You can find them - on my picture You can spot a garbage bin, which is installed besides the (even more ugly) bench. I also would have been lucky, if the background forrest were more far away. I will contiune to photograph it anyway, since I don't got a better oak tree.
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Jul 25, 2007 16:17:26 GMT -5
The short telephotos may be overlooked by most landscape photographers. I have to confess that I rarely use them, too. The main handicap is that one needs to run a lot around, since the optimum standpoint quite often is more than a bit away from the place, where one first spots a photo possibility. A normal lens is less demanding in this respect. And there are simply a lot of situations, where the optimum 150mm spot is not accessible.
Maybe the highlands are open enough that this restriction does not hurt too much.
But again, I think doing landscapes with a 150mm lens means putting much more effort into the search for the optimum standpoint than were necessary for shorter focal length. With a normal or moderate wide angle one can shot immediately when spotting a nice scene. A short WA is a bit different, too - but situations where those are the first choice seem to be pretty rare, too.
I often heard opposite reports - mainly from WA buffs. But at least for me I came to different conclusions. But I am of course far from being a master photographer - so caveat on my rants.
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Mar 19, 2007 16:49:25 GMT -5
[Hassie vs. TLR - interchangeable lenses]
Dear Bob,
for the time being I try to explore the 80mm first. When I carry the camera I try to guess the angle it covers, then I have a peek to the view finder. Thus I learn to estimate the impression of the lens before I start fiddling with different lenses - I did this for my Minolta 35mm gear.
Besides of the three lenses I got, the 80mm fits the best to my viewing habits. I don't do much wide angles - and look on the first picture. It looks wide, and it is done with the 80mm. There is no single 50mm picture in the lot so far.
On the long side the 250mm is too long for daily usage. I will hunt down a 150mm, which will become my second option behind the 2.8/80.
[Velvia 50]
I like this film - but I find the Velvia 100F even a tiny bit more comfortable. I got no sharpness issue with the 100F either. I got the Provia 100F by a mistake, and I give it a try prior to complaining and sending it back.
I see quite some good b/w photography. Most of it is protraiture, which is not my thing - at least I didn't realize it so far. For me color is the first choice. I come from water color painting and color is very important for me. I saw however what Ansel did...
[Nitpicking]
I have enough self-ashuredness not to break down under critique. I think Your opinion on art is absolutely true. On the other hand there is some aspect of craft in photography, too. And here critique can help. And when I know, I would have stopped down further, if I had a tripod with me, than I do accept the nitpicking on foreground blurriness - as I already felt it.
Things get worse if You knew I am pretty perfectionistic. But maybe this shines a bit through my photographs.
But back to the Hassie vs. Rollei or some other TLR: I know all of my stuff would have come out with a TLR in exact the same way. There is no need for gear-madness here - the square format and a decent normal lens is everything it took on the technical side... a Walzflex or a Minolta Autocord would have been fully sufficient. I could afford the Hassie, and thus the Hassie is OK, too, of course - but it was not necessary.
My friend Klaus put a roll of Illford B/W into one of his backs. I may try one out...
Best regards Petre
|
|