|
Post by moltogordo on Feb 27, 2018 3:30:39 GMT -5
I disappeared for quite a while. Three strokes and poor health. Back in the thick of things now, and will drop in now and then to contribute. No longer collect much but I'm still interested in cameras and talking about them. Mostly large format and pinhole stuff now . . .
|
|
|
Post by moltogordo on Feb 27, 2018 3:21:59 GMT -5
I've tried to get the Sawyer's Mark IV version for my collection, Frank, but they're much more difficult to come by than the Topcon version!!!
|
|
|
Post by moltogordo on Aug 1, 2015 22:31:02 GMT -5
Thanks so much!!
|
|
|
Post by moltogordo on Jul 30, 2015 15:03:48 GMT -5
Thanks Phil. This one really deserves a restore job. I have two parts cameras, but it's the shutter, and they're gone on all three. We have no guy in Canada that can do this that I'm aware of.
Any recommendations in the US or elsewhere?
|
|
|
Post by moltogordo on Jul 28, 2015 4:46:09 GMT -5
Really nice stuff! I'm a TLR freak, and to see the variants of the camera through these shots is just delightful. That Voigtlander is really a find, and your user immaculate!
|
|
|
Post by moltogordo on Jul 28, 2015 4:41:04 GMT -5
Had to work at getting this picture because the shutter on my Primo Jr., a beautiful TLR that takes 127 film, needs an overhaul and is very erratic. I got lucky with this shot. Taken on Macophot 100, 1/60th (or whatever ) at f8, developed in HC110 1:63 for 12 minutes. Scanned negative. The Primo Jr.: The photograph:
|
|
|
Post by moltogordo on Jul 28, 2015 4:29:01 GMT -5
It's wonderful to see folks working in these old processes, and hybridizing them with digital. The effect here is just beautiful, and completely suited to the subject. That's important!
I'm a professional musician, and seeing these old folk instruments in photo techniques of the period is simply charming to the max! Thanks for posting it!
|
|
|
Post by moltogordo on Jul 28, 2015 4:22:16 GMT -5
I recently obtained a Burke&James 5x7 Grover, circa 1948. I added monorails to my collection because right now they're dirt cheap, and I'm very fond of working with them. The camera is shown below. It really is a pig, but a very lovable and frustrating pig, weighing in at about 20 pounds! Film is expensive in this size, and so many large format users load enlarging paper into their film holders (especially with 8x10 or 11x14 cameras), and either contact print the resultant paper negative, or scan it and manipulate the reversal of tone and flipping of image in their photo processing programs. It's also a legitimate fine-art medium, producing rather different effects than printing from a negative. I thought I'd give the process a try. Shooting on enlarging paper means you're effectively using an ASA of about 4-6. In the case of my first attempts, I loaded some very old Ilfobrom Velvet Stipple into my holders, and developed the negatives in Dektol 1:3. Contrast control here is a problem, so the next batch I use I'll soup them in HC110 at 1:100. You'll clearly see, on looking at the prints, the velvet stipple pattern almost making the picture look like a graphic. I have lots to learn about this, but I can tell you it's a lot of fun! Shown below is the camera I used, and the Schneider 210mm f5.6 Symmar, the negative, and the reversed positive underneath that. I exposed at 1/2 second and f11, and also used a Cibachrome drum to process the paper. The photo is of the same stump I've posted before. I like it . . . it's a half mile max from where I live, bordering on the wilderness green, and there is a gravel parking area right there so I don't have to lug heavy cameras a country mile. I think it's fairly photogenic. Thanks for looking in! My Burke&James 5x7 Grover, Taken with a Pentax K10 and 35mm f2.8 Pentax Limited Macro A scan of the paper negative: And the final posiive, reversed and worked on a bit in GIMP
|
|
|
Post by moltogordo on Jul 28, 2015 4:16:13 GMT -5
I recently obtained a Burke&James 5x7 Grover. I added monorails to my collection because right now they're dirt cheap, and I'm very fond of working with them. The camera is shown below. It really is a pig, but a very lovable and frustrating pig, weighing in at about 20 pounds! Film is expensive in this size, and so many large format users load enlarging paper into their film holders (especially with 8x10 or 11x14 cameras), and either contact print the resultant paper negative, or scan it and manipulate the reversal of tone and flipping of image in their photo processing programs. It's also a legitimate fine-art medium, producing rather different effects than printing from a negative. I thought I'd give the process a try. Shooting on enlarging paper means you're effectively using an ASA of about 4-6. In the case of my first attempts, I loaded some very old Ilfobrom Velvet Stipple into my holders, and developed the negatives in Dektol 1:3. Contrast control here is a problem, so the next batch I use I'll soup them in HC110 at 1:100. You'll clearly see, on looking at the prints, the velvet stipple pattern almost making the picture look like a graphic. I have lots to learn about this, but I can tell you it's a lot of fun! Shown below is the camera I used, the Schneider 210mm f5.6 Symmar, Ifobrom Velvet Stipple Grade 1, the negative, and the reversed positive underneath that. I exposed at 1/2 second and f11, and also used a Cibachrome drum to process the paper. The photo is of the same stump I posted before. I like it . . . it's a half mile max from where I live, bordering on the wilderness green, and there is a gravel parking area right there so I don't have to lug heavy cameras a country mile. Thanks for looking in! My Burke&James 5x7 Grover, Taken with a Pentax K10 and 35mm f2.8 Pentax Limited Macro A scan of the paper negative: And the final posiive, reversed and worked on a bit in GIMP
|
|
|
Post by moltogordo on Jul 24, 2015 12:03:51 GMT -5
On the way to the forum, I had motherboard problems and lost my bookmarks, including to this forum. I was gone for a while. Making a long story I'm back. On the thread topic, I was trying to find a nice, reasonably priced Nikon F2 to add to my collection. En route, I needed a part for my Linhof Color Kardan (I still shoot a lot of large format), and I found a part for $300. Pretty steep. But I also found a complete Kardan including the part for $119.00. Are you kidding? I snapped it up. A spare bellows, standards, lensboard and the part I wanted for 1/3 the price of the part? It got me thinking, and some research proved my right. Big monorails are a glut on the market right now. Lots of old photographers retiring. Big cameras are cheap. So I added the monorail category to my collection and now have 11. Some incredible bargains. I got the camera of my dreams, a Toyo GX, for $345. My copy is mint. This is a current camera that retails for $6,500 Canadian. Why would somebody buy a new one? In Canada at least, used equipment is not deductable, so a new pro cannot write off the acquisition as they could a new camera. In any case, my latest acquisition is large. Very large. My first 5x7 monorail. I obtained a Burke&James "Grover", c. 1948. A bit of a clunker, a bit kitschy. I got two, actually, junkers. One for $60, and one for $75, from which I assembled one camera. With the Davis tripod I mounted it on, photography with this 28 pound combination can be classified as exercise! I've had more fun with my monorails over the past few months than with almost anything else I own. I present to you my Grover, and the first 2 photographs (same subject) I took with it. Shanghai 5x7 film, developed in HC110 1:63 for 14 minutes, Schneider Symmar 210mm f5.6 lens, 1/20th at f26. Thanskf ro looking in.
|
|
|
Post by moltogordo on Apr 11, 2015 20:58:42 GMT -5
Can't call myself a Canonite, but I'm a collector. I also have a Canon Rebel because I own the fabulous MP-E 1-5x lens, and now use Canon for much of my closeup work. Beautiful stuff, but you'll still have to pry my K3, MX and LX out of my cold, dead hands.
But answering your question, I go for the straightforward ne elegant FTb - It's the Canon user of my collection, and I have along with it a Canon 50mm f1.8 FD lens, a Canon 100mm f2.8 FD lens, and am looking for a 28. I'm also looking for a good, used F1.
I can think of nothing bad at all to say about this camera. If I had to be limited to one 35mm camera, a guy could do a lot worse. Its rugged, reliable, like the QL loading . . . . two thumbs up.
|
|
|
Post by moltogordo on Apr 5, 2015 3:56:30 GMT -5
Another point that seems forgotten in the digital domain is a well known wet darkroom fact - a sharper print is not necessarily a better print. You can take a film, say, HP5, and shoot two identical exposures. Develop one in a solvent developer such as D76, and another in an acutance developer such as FX1 or even Rodinal at 1:12, and the sharper developer (acutance) will not always produce the better or more pleasing print. Subject matter, adjacency effect and other things come into play here.
If sharper was always better, everyone would be using FX1 or Tetenal Blue for souping. But it is not so. Sharpness is not always the issue it's made out to be.
But no matter what the domain, I've never known anyone that likes blown highlights or no shadow detail. So you keep that RAW file handy if you have to haul some of that stuff out.
|
|
|
Post by moltogordo on Apr 5, 2015 3:34:08 GMT -5
Mickey - film shots both wrong, DSLR shots both right. 50%
I have an 11x14 print of the Pastoral River scene that would knock your sox off. And an 11x14 of the little creek that you'd say was not very good at all. But on the screen it's fine.
The guys on the Large Format forum (many of them world class photographers) know exactly what I'm talking about here - computer screens are useless to show how good the medium really is.
|
|
|
Post by moltogordo on Apr 4, 2015 22:31:07 GMT -5
I have the Pentax K10, Kx, and K3, as well as a Rebel Ti3. I shoot on RAW+ on every camera, and put the Jpg on maximum quality on the camera settings. They all have it. It makes a huge difference. Start with a top notch Jpeg you'll never need a RAW file. I have and use a RAW converter if I have to, but I have never found a high quality Jpeg to be an inferior vehicle. As a matter of fact, because I use a handheld meter and the manual settings on my camera, I seldom use the RAW files . . . my Jpegs are good enough for use with minimum manipulation. Here's another pet peeve and a constant source of both amusement and frustration to me. A computer screen can only resolve at most 1.5 mp of information. I find it interesting that people say they have a 24 mp camera, but shoot only RAW because they "want the most quality out of their DSLR." A properly processed Jpeg from a 6 mp camera and a properly processed Jpeg from a 24 mp camera will be indistiguishable on a computer screen. Think I'm full of it? There are two pictures below. One was made by a 4x5 camera, shot on a Linhof. The other was made by a sub-miniature camera (half-frame) which has less than 1/20th the negative area. Guess which one is which? Further, here are two shots, one made with a 24mp Pentax K3, the other with a 6mp K100. Guess which is which. Can't eh? Nobody can. Over 98% of pictures are currently displayed on computer screens which cannot resolve over 1.5 MP. And the net can only display Jpegs, not Raws. The only way you can tell a RAW file from a Jpg file is with an 11x14 enlargement and a magnifying glass. Yes, you CAN pull more information from a RAW file if you blow highlights or destroy shadow areas, but on a properly handled Jpeg from a high quality processor like GIMP you can't tell the difference. That being said, I keep my RAW files, for printing and reprocessing JPEGS pulling out highlights or shadow detail from bum exposures.
|
|
|
Post by moltogordo on Apr 4, 2015 15:25:41 GMT -5
lesdmess said: "Just to clarify, the DSLR "scan" of the negative is not as good as a flatbed scan of the silver print?" Yes, on my equipment. My scanner doesn't do negs well - I've had nothing but trouble and will NOT buy a new scanner. It does prints very well. It's individual. I LIKE the quality of a scanned print, especially on textured paper. Also, it's easier to "fine tune" than a DSLR picture of a negative. Remember, the DSLR way is another picture, actually, and has to be correctly exposed and done. The print is already there, or I wouldn't scan it. philbirch said: "I've done many of my old 6x9 negs that way. Done properly with a good lens there is no reason why I shouldnt be better than scanning a print. I'd keep the light source a fair bit behind the neg so none of it comes up in the resultant image." I find it a bit "colder" - I print on paper that I would present or frame. But yes, it should be just as good as a scan. My scanner doesn't scan negatives worth two hoots, and yes, I've spent a lot of time trying. ONE MORE THING AND I'M CAPITALIZING THIS FOR EMPHASIS; A NEGATIVE FOR SCANNING AND A NEGATIVE FOR PRINTING ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. A DENSER NEGATIVE (like I make for printing) doesn't scan very well, but the DSLR conversion is much better. I'M A PRINTER. I DON'T WANT TO COMPROMISE WHAT I AM GOING TO PRINT. Stephen said: "You have found the problem overlooked by most users of digital, the screen is near useless at displaying a good shot. Even with a big monitor it is nowhere near enough resolution to do full justice to the digital file." Yes, and this is really the point of the whole argument, methinks. We all find our own ways to deal with things, but no matter what we do, we are still crippled by that 1.5 megapixel screen. It's hilarious, really. We buy 24 mp cameras and they're basically no better than a cellphone on the screen. I belong to the Large Format Photography forum . . . those guys, many of them world class, bemoan the same thing. Your demo shot in the thread is wonderful, by the way. The shots I posted worked well, but would anyone doubt that the 6x9 would look better printed? Yet, on the screen, it really doesn't do much that the half frame shots don't. In any case, I now have a way outside the darkroom! Thanks for your input, guys!!
|
|