|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
Of all the film sizes it'll probably last the longest as you can't really do LF digital. Also, film isn't going anywhere soon despite what some people may say. Edit: you can get any Kodak films in nearly size if you special order through KB Canham, and you've got Ilford doing their special annual runs, plus the esoteric German manufacturers cutting all kinds of sizes too. Spedman fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Oct 11, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Spedman posted:Of all the film sizes it'll probably last the longest as you can't really do LF digital. Except scanning backs. Which are way better than regular cameras too http://golembewski.awardspace.com/photographyGallery/vehicles/index.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 02:24
|
|
|
Beastruction posted:Except scanning backs. Not so much.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 05:42
|
|
|
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. So I have the new image view thing on flickr and evidently there is no way to link an image anymore (only Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Email, or Pinterest) and I don't think I can get the old image view back. So here are links to the two photos I got today that I liked if you want to see them. http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_hunter/10233998786/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/j_hunter/10234099413/ edit: How do you guys dry sheet film? I've been using this type of clip on a shirt hanger for roll film which worked fine since there is a lot of lead out and lead in on the rolls and I don't have to worry about it loving up the actual image, but the rebates on sheet film are very thin and I worried about how well it's holding. eggsovereasy fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Oct 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2013 23:30
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:So I have the new image view thing on flickr and evidently there is no way to link an image anymore (only Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Email, or Pinterest) and I don't think I can get the old image view back. So here are links to the two photos I got today that I liked if you want to see them. There's all kinds of stuff missing on the new image view (or I'm dumb and can't find stuff) - you can opt out though. Click Help & Feedback, and then Opt out...
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 03:11
|
|
|
Oh my god, you guys are making the Chamonix so tempting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 04:20
|
|
|
Elderbean posted:Oh my god, you guys are making the Chamonix so tempting.     e: drat, I should probably do some dust spotting some time. big scary monsters fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Oct 13, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 04:35
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:
I just put some paper towels down on the kitchen counter and then lean the sheet film against the wall/splash back of the counter, like you would lean a ladder against a wall. Every now and then I move it a little on the paper to help wick the water of the base, drys quickly and I don't have to worry about clips on the image region of the sheet. So good to see so many goons getting the LF bug, it really is something different from all other types of shooting. As for a portable darkroom, I'm looking into getting one of these for doing wet plate, as the cheap shower tent I've got just doesn't quite cut it: http://www.geteskimo.com/foundations/store/shopdetail.asp?params=69143*107**POP-UP_PORTABLE_ICE_SHELTER_QUICKFISH_3 <$200 and for all intensive purposes is light tight
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 07:44
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:So I have the new image view thing on flickr and evidently there is no way to link an image anymore (only Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Email, or Pinterest) and I don't think I can get the old image view back. So here are links to the two photos I got today that I liked if you want to see them.  Nashville Sporting Goods Co. by jhunter!, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 09:10
|
|
|
Spedman posted:As for a portable darkroom, I'm looking into getting one of these for doing wet plate, as the cheap shower tent I've got just doesn't quite cut it: I have on of those things and there is a TON of light leaks, it's dark yes but not a dark room. Don't know how dark you need but plan on some light proofing especially in bright light.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 15:56
|
|
|
Pablo Bluth posted:When you view the image, there's the arrow-out-of-a-box icon. Open up that, select 'Grab the HTML/BBCode', Select the desired size and the bbcode radio button, and there's your link. They changed the image view screen for some people (slowly rolling out the new version) and this is what I get now:  dedian posted:There's all kinds of stuff missing on the new image view (or I'm dumb and can't find stuff) - you can opt out though. Click Help & Feedback, and then Opt out... This worked to get back the old view though, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 17:20
|
|
|
What did you get if you clicked on the [...] inside the popup?
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
Ferris Bueller posted:I have on of those things and there is a TON of light leaks, it's dark yes but not a dark room. Don't know how dark you need but plan on some light proofing especially in bright light. That's really good to know, I might invest some time in getting the tent I've got light tight before spending more cash on another problem.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
MrBlandAverage posted:What did you get if you clicked on the [...] inside the popup? Those three grey buttons with Wordpress, Blogger, and Livejournal logos.
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 18:08
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:They changed the image view screen for some people (slowly rolling out the new version) and this is what I get now:
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 21:11
|
|
|
Anybody in the Seattle area looking for a 4x5? I was browsing craigslist for stuff and this seems like an okay deal: http://seattle.craigslist.org/see/pho/4123832819.html
|
|
#
?
Oct 13, 2013 22:15
|
|
|
Are 90mm and 210mm good starters for 4x5? Reading a few articles seems to be the general consensus. All looks very exciting.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 02:56
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
Thankyou. And probably a silly question but my lee filter bracket will screw into these lenses with appropriate adapter rings? Any lens brands you would recommend?
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 03:40
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
My grandfather's old Mamiya 6 (the folding type) has a Copal shutter that is stuck. I got a quote of ~$100 to send it in for CLR which seems to be more than what the thing is worth. Does anybody have any info on how you'd go about un-sticking this thing? I want to shoot MF and would love to use this old camera.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 13:43
|
|
|
Get it fixed. Mamiyas are dope and a hundred bucks isn't a bad entry fee for shooting medium format on something that isn't a Soviet garbageheap.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 14:14
|
|
|
Pretty sure $100 wouldn't ever get you a working-order 6.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 14:28
|
|
|
Well, it's not the "good" Mamiya 6. It's the one from the 1940s: not the other one from later:  I'd expect that my grandfathers is probably only a few steps above a Soviet camera. Which, honestly, I probably wouldn't mind. I'd just rather not have to buy a Holga or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Well, it's not the "good" Mamiya 6. It's the one from the 1940s: A "for parts" Mamiya 6 folder sold on eBay recently for $122, it's worth something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 15:44
|
|
|
Couldn't you maybe find another shutter for less on ebay and replace it? Maybe with some cheap LF glass or something and just exchange the glass. Copal shutters are really common... (That's not your camera, right? This one seens to have a Compur shutter).
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 15:55
|
|
|
Primo Itch posted:Couldn't you maybe find another shutter for less on ebay and replace it? Maybe with some cheap LF glass or something and just exchange the glass. Copal shutters are really common... (That's not your camera, right? This one seens to have a Compur shutter). No, that's just one I found on Google image search. I looked at prices for Copal shutters and one site had them in the $800-1000 range, but I can't imagine that being the case for the one I have. In any event maybe I'll just send the camera in for a CLR, especially if a broken one sold for $122.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:Thankyou. And probably a silly question but my lee filter bracket will screw into these lenses with appropriate adapter rings? Pretty much any Schneider, Fujinon, Zeiss, Nikkor, or Rodenstock will do you just fine. The only thing to beware of are "budget" type lenses. These days it doesn't cost much to just buy the high-end lenses, since most people got rid of LF a decade ago. For example take "normal" lenses. Back in the day most people would be just fine with a triplet lens. They're sharp enough when you stop them down, and they were cheap and common. If you were an advanced amateur (or a pro in earlier parts of the century) you might have a Tessar, or during the later parts of the century you might have had a Plasmat type. But nowadays you can just buy a Plamat type for $150 or so, so it's not worth spending much cash on the "lesser" options unless you are into shooting retro lenses. Do note that there are "off-label" lenses that those companies produced for other companies to sell under their own brand names. For example the Caltar-IIN is actually a Sironar-N I believe. Note that speed is not necessarily indicative of quality or any other feature. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Oct 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Well, it's not the "good" Mamiya 6. It's the one from the 1940s: Any rangefinder-focus MF folder is a "good" camera. The Six is a very nice folder that's both collectible and very usable. Seriouspost get it fixed up, don't butcher it with amateur repairs and stuff. If you have to buy shutters for your lenses that will get expensive. Particularly if it's not one of the standardized large-format shutters, in which case they may have to machine custom spacers to adapt the threads and get the cells spaced out properly. $800-1k is definitely high but that's not out of the possible for getting a lens re-shuttered with a new modern shutter. Primo Itch posted:Couldn't you maybe find another shutter for less on ebay and replace it? Maybe with some cheap LF glass or something and just exchange the glass. Copal shutters are really common... (That's not your camera, right? This one seens to have a Compur shutter). I really really think this is ill-advised. This isn't a LF camera where you can focus on a ground-glass, this is a rangefinder camera with lens-to-camera linkages that he will have to disassemble and rebuild. Theoretically the lens-to-film distance should be exactly the same, but why loving risk it when the camera is still repairable? No offense $122 isn't a lot to pay to get your grandpa's camera running again. Pretty much any CLA costs at least $50-75 even assuming no parts. And even if you buy another Six for less than $122 then that camera would be old and gummy too, whereas if you pay to clean it you know the camera is good for another couple decades. That camera is one of the better folders ever released, just spend the money and take care of it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
Oh wow, I didn't realize it was that decent of a camera. I did some research and it seemed like people said that if you got a camera like this to make sure you bought one that didn't need work, because it wasn't cost effective to fix them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 21:15
|
|
|
ZippySLC posted:Oh wow, I didn't realize it was that decent of a camera. I did some research and it seemed like people said that if you got a camera like this to make sure you bought one that didn't need work, because it wasn't cost effective to fix them. There's generally four things that make a folder really top-tier: 1. Flatness and rigidity - essentially, the lens has to be parallel to the film, which has to be kept taught. This has to happen every single time you unfold the camera, which isn't a trivial task. The lens generates suction as it moves forward, the film has its own curl, the rangefinder has to be accurate (if present), and this all has to be precise to at least within a couple arcminutes I'd imagine. Every single time you open the camera. 2. Lens coating - Folders were a popular product right before/after World War II and died within a decade or so after that. Coating was discovered during WWII and considered a military secret, so coated folders only appear for a brief span between WWII and about 1955-1960. I'm pretty sure Mamiya Sixs are all coated. 3. Lens formulas - without coatings, every single air-to-glass surface causes a loss of contrast, so early folders were made with simple formulas. A "consumer" level camera might have a meniscus lens, a "prosumer" would have a triplet, and only the "pro" bodies would have a Tessar (4 elements). Mamiya Sixs all (if I remember) have Tessar lenses, which is the best you can easily get. A few have nicer lenses but they tend to be expensive ($1000+). 4. Rangefinder - At the time, the expectation was that you would be able to estimate distance with reasonable accuracy, and then you just dial that in on the camera. It's really not that critical unless you're up close and wide open. If you really sucked they sold "auxiliary rangefinders" which mounted in your flash shoe and would tell you the distance so you could put that in on the main camera lenses. Only really high-end bodies integrated the rangefinder into the viewfinder like a modern rangefinder does. A lot of bodies like the Super Ikonta C and the Mess. Ikonta had separate rangefinder windows, and that was considered pretty great at the time. The Mamiya Six does really well on all of these. It has a unique focus system which supposedly really helps the flatness problem. It has a coated Tessar with either a separate or integrated RF system. So I mean - is it a $1k camera? No. But that's about as good a shooter camera as you can get. If you get it cleaned up it'll do great. There's maybe three different vintage cameras I would say pass those four standards. You have the Bessa, you have the Super Ikonta, and you have the Mamiya Six. There's also a few modern folders like the GS645 (very finicky) and the Fuji GF670 or Plaubel (which costs $1800 and about $2100 respectively). Now - if you run into parts issues? Then you're probably boned. If you genuinely lose or break some part then you will probably need a spare body to be a parts donor, and the economic feasibility of fixing it declines pretty rapidly if it's something major. The same is true of whatever you buy off eBay of course. Don't confuse it with the Mamiya 6 either, of course. The 6 has some really bad parts supply issues and many of the bodies aren't economically repairable because Mamiya stopped making the needed parts. That's even worse because it's an intricate modern electronic rangefinder system. When a board dies it's basically just toast. The winding assembly is also notoriously fragile. e: tl;dr  fix your grandpa's camera
Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Oct 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
This site has a lot of good information about folders, if someone else is interested.
|
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 22:26
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:This site has a lot of good information about folders, if someone else is interested. I know the guy fixes cameras for a living, and isn't an optical engineer, but he says dumb poo poo. quote:Lens coating has to do – as I understand it and having read this and that – with the light transmission through the glass elements. A coated lens will allow more light to reach the film than an uncoated lens. Thus, theoretically, if a coated lens reads f8 at 1/125, then an uncoated lens should be set at f5.6. I say theoretically because I’ve ignored that simple math and simply set my uncoated lens to whatever my modern lightmeter told me the light/shutter setting should be. And I get perfectly exposed pictures. So much for theoretical optical physics. It's not a matter of darkening the image really. At worst case, a Tessar produces 22-40% loss due to flare, which is less than a stop worst-case. At that point inaccuracy in shutter timings and such is an equally significant error. And depending on the lens it could be much less, the fewer air-glass interfaces the better. Unless you really try to flare it out, you probably won't get that much loss. Instead it results in a loss of contrast, and fucks up your image by producing gigantic flared-out areas. And the fact that he views contrast as "making the image darker" suggests his optical prowess is.. lacking. I wouldn't argue with the guy on repairing them or which cameras he likes, but I'd take his optical advice with a grain of sale. That's far too fine a difference for him to notice with different cameras using prints made from print film, and I highly doubt he's sat down with a test rig and shutter timer and densitometer like he'd need to detect the difference. Flare can absolutely destroy pictures, and it can produce drops in resolution a long time before it destroys a photo entirely. There are extremely quantifiable, easily testable benefits to coating, and he's dumb to make an assertion like that. If your lens is uncoated I highly recommend you seek out lens hoods, because that's how the lens was meant to be shot. By the way I wasn't trying to imply that other folders were bad or anything, but those are the ones that immediately spring to mind as the models that were built to high standards. Overall a Mamiya Six is a very nice folder as they go. One other thing to consider is front-cell focusing. The way modern camera lenses focus is the entire lens moves forward and back inside the helicoid as a unit (unit focusing). There's a "cheat" you can use on simple lenses. If you move the front group forward, it changes (shortens?) the focal length of the lens and the lens focuses closer. However you also worsen distortions and make the image softer. This, along with relatively poor wide-open performance on all but the nicest cameras (compared to modern lenses) was one of the big reasons a lack of a rangefinder wasn't considered a big deal. People tended to focus farther out, or not shoot wide open, or both. The Mamiya Six is basically a "unit focus" type, except the film moves instead of the lens. X-sync/electronic strobe synchronization came even later than coating and is consequently another very desirable feature. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 00:47 on Oct 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 14, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
Paul has already ardently covered most of it, but I guess as the resident folder-nut I'll pitch in my couple of cents. Basically what Paul said is true, lenses aside, there's three tiers of folders, if you may. The (usually) front cell focusing, scale focus models. The better rangefinder models. And the "king" class of unit focusing rangefinder models. The Mamiya Six (Written out as opposed to the more modern model '6') is one of the last group. There were triplet models (which Mamiya usually produced themselves, called Sekor T.) but those were of lesser quality. The Olympus lens however, is a nice, usually coated, Tessar copy. And, while you can even get folders with Planar (5 lens elements) copies, it seems like a rather questionable investment, as folders, while quite portable, have many things working against them image quality wise. One, already mentioned is the film flatness. Folders are usually quite small and thus have a tight film path and not much allowance for the pressure plates. Another point is the stability of the front standard, if this is off by even a mere millimeter, it means that the image the lens projects will be slightly de-centered, thus shifting the focus plane. And last but not least, rangefinder focus allows only for so much accuracy, especially in older folders which were made which much cruder film in mind, the tolerances aren't as tight as one might like. As you probably guessed, all these issues are also compounded by age. And last but not least, the bellows. If it's dried out, every opening and closing cycle will increase the chance to create pinholes, which are too small to see in normal conditions (use a dark room and a bright flashlight) - but will show up on your pictures just fine. Edit: If the Mamiya Six you posted is yours then it's a very late model, which has automatic frame-counting, a self cocking shutter on advance and is basically one of the most automatic and fool-proof folders there is. The downside is, that if those heavily interlinked mechanisms ever gum up, you're in for a hair-pulling exercise. I speak from experience...  Edit: Edit: So much ranting and no picture. Let me alleviate that! tl;dr Folders are cool, especially as people cameras, but are troublesome to maintain. 
VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Oct 15, 2013 |
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
I actually have 2 Mamiya Sixes. Both late model Automat II's. On one, the bracket for the lens is slightly torqued, so it's not perfectly straight. Any idea who might be able to fix it, or at least try?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 04:01
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Pretty much any Schneider, Fujinon, Zeiss, Nikkor, or Rodenstock will do you just fine. LF lenses are a weird rabbit hole to go down. I wouldn't say to stay away from budget lenses depending on the look you are trying to achieve. I intentionally bought a 180mm Xenar as my normal lens because I like they way they render OOF areas for portraits rather than the clean look of plasmats. It's worth looking at examples before deciding what to purchase. To be fair, I do have a bunch of plasmats and if you are only going to have one lens that design is probably the safest choice for general use.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 09:05
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:e: tl;dr Ok, I'm convinced! VomitOnLino posted:Edit: If the Mamiya Six you posted is yours then it's a very late model, which has automatic frame-counting, a self cocking shutter on advance and is basically one of the most automatic and fool-proof folders there is. The downside is, that if those heavily interlinked mechanisms ever gum up, you're in for a hair-pulling exercise. I speak from experience... Mine is definitely self cocking. I don't believe it has an automatic frame counter. I'll try to post some pictures of the actual camera I own (as opposed to the GIS image I posted the other day) tonight.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 12:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 06:28 |
|
|
ShotgunWillie posted:I actually have 2 Mamiya Sixes. Both late model Automat II's. On one, the bracket for the lens is slightly torqued, so it's not perfectly straight. Any idea who might be able to fix it, or at least try? You could try certo6.com ... don't know about any other "Folder specialists" out there... Had a so-so experience with him. Might be expensive, though. ZippySLC posted:
Ah sorry, I worded it badly. With automatic frame counter, I mean automatic frame spacing. E.g. you line up the arrows when loading the film, the camera then does the rest. It definitely has that as all automatics do. It does not have the Rolleiflex' automatic film sensing, that'd be quite crazy!
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2013 12:46
|
|