|
somnambulist posted:In what way is it different? (MF raw compared to FF) Well I don't know about you, but if you look at a 30x60" (I am assuming inches here) this close in a gallery setting -- then, seriously, they're looking at it wrong. You go up to this size for impact, not to look at it up-close and intimate. I've seen 35mm film stuff printed this big and it looked fine to my jaundiced eye. Also my own medium format stuff printed to 24" (admittedly less than 30") with nice paper and gallery lights which - again - also looked completely fine even upon closer inspection. (I found reflections in the paper/glass a much more annoying problem.) I'd ask myself if I'm not just rationalising my gear-lust after happening upon some cash. That said, I'm a film shooter and thus resolution and technical quality are quite low on the list of my priorities.
|
#
¿
Aug 29, 2016 09:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 15:06 |
|
|
Sludge Tank posted:Fellers I'm sorry if this is too e/n for the thread. First of all, sorry to hear that. The posters above already gave good life advice, which I think you should follow, so I'm not going to reiterate that, but try something slightly different: I get that everyone is a little bit different, so please don't take this as 'straight' advice, but see it as me telling you, basically, what I'd do. When I'm feeling down I usually drag myself out to shoot regardless, I sometimes find that it helps me to process my emotions that way. Walking, even without shooting is great and I think a psychologically important thing that a lot of people don't do enough. Then, again, I'm also a person who will force himself to shoot through slumps and generally won't-- can't put down the camera for more than a couple of consecutive days. Looking back, I do however find that my emotional state is reflected in the pictures that I took during certain periods- and I find this interesting (looking back, not while I'm feeling poo poo) as this establishes a sort of rhythm and you recognise patterns. I recognise this sounds a bit new-age bullshit; let's pull back a bit. Maybe, if you're trying to get back into it, try something less "serious" than large format, which I remember you shooting. (And shooting well.) I've been shooting a range of different formats form 6x9 down to 35mm half frame. The latter feels especially therapeutic when I feel stuck in life or stuck shooting MF. It's low cost, grainy pictures of whatever, most cameras don't even offer focus. I don't feel I have to take it as seriously and I can sort of process my life and emotions though it. It also enables me to explore new shooting styles and concepts which has definitely widened my range of 'expression'. Again, not for everyone but maybe worth a shot.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
SMERSH Mouth posted:I may just get a Minolta Autocord instead. There are so many Rolleiflex models, but I'm really only interested in the 75mm Planars or Xenotars, and there aren't many I can find right now that really jump out at me. As a long-time Rolleiflex user, who has too many of those drat things, this jumped out to me. So, I guess, prepare for a knowledge-dump. First of all on a budget you can't go wrong with an Autocord, the focus lever is made from a brittle alloy called Zamak which often is broken. But that complaint aside, the Autocord is a really competent and well made camera. The lens is a competent tessar-copy and the focus screens on those are excellent. Other good TLR options are Kowa, Ricoh and then, with caveats, Yashica (lens good, body hmm). Now, onto Rolleiflex. First of all there is this persistent internet myth that the 75/3.5 versions with Xenotar or Planar are somehow better than their 80/2.8 brethren. In my personal experience, from the experience of other photographers, this is not borne out. In all historical catalogues the 75mm versions were sold cheaper and also use cheaper-to make lens designs. Rollei's own MTF charts bear this out, yes even for the fabled 6-lens version, which again was mainly devised so it would be cheaper to manufacture. Super nerdy horses-mouth MTF here. Regarding the Rolleiflex models from C-F, I personally like the C,D,E models best as they have no interlocks between shutter and aperture and usually come without the light meter, that usually at this point is just a burden and not a feature. They sometimes still have the old-time ground-glass screen in there, which allows for VERY accurate focus but of course vignettes severely. The thing with the F and later F "whiteface" models is that the shutter and aperture are linked together, which are then linked to the meter and DOF preview scale. This means two things: first, the mechanism is more complex and easier to gum up and become stiff, the second thing is that selecting combinations such as f/2.8 at 1/30 is difficult and requires first setting a higher aperture, selecting your shutter speed, then dialing the aperture back "down" -- annoying. They do however usually have the best screens of the bunch. Edit: Almost forgot: Lens wise the main difference between the Planar and the Xenotar versions is not one of "goodness", however you define that, but one of design philosophy. The planar offers even but not outstanding sharpness across the frame, the Xenotar by comparison offers outstanding center sharpness and average-to-good corner sharpness. A word about those super-fast screens that sellers love hock to users: I've found that the faster the screen, the greater the apparent depth of field and thus the harder it will be to focus without a focus aid such as a loupe, a split or a combination thereof. Yes I have two cameras with maxwell screen, no I'm not exactly a fan. Don't get me wrong, it looks pretty, it just doesn't use that well especially for moving or dim subjects. A great compromise between brightness and ease of focus is those Mamiya 67 screens, which are plentiful and can be cut to size. VomitOnLino fucked around with this message at 05:32 on May 31, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2017 05:29
|
|
|
At a photographers/camera nerd gathering with beer and food someone brought an Intrepid and I took a look at this thing (Intrepid, more like insipid) and it looked like a wobbly, finicky POS. The owner mistook my cautious interest for my me liking it then tried to first sell -- then give(!) it to me, the price gradually dropping to free. I refused. There's so many great used and new 4x5" bodies out there I don't understand the point of it at all. It's like that stupid Yashica digicam piece of Kickstarter hype-poo poo. It's trash for idiots. Don't be an idiot dude. Or all those morons overpaying $100s of dollars for plastic compacts from the year 1990~1999 all of which by now have been all beaten within inches of their life. Stick with something proven. I only dabbled 4x5 briefly so I'm not gonna lean out of the window too far here, but I picked up a used body for next to nothing and then slowly accumulated some lenses for it. Getting something that's made for pro use means that you won't be pulling out your hair over stupid half-cooked bullshit later. Oh, and when I sold it on I made like 98% of my money back because, you know, it's a camera people actually want vs plastic trash for hipsters. Tl;dr: If I were you I'd listen to the Dorkroom old hands which both ansel autisms and MrBlandAverage are.
|
|
#
¿
May 24, 2019 07:50
|
|
|
As a general rule, with black and white - especially cubic grained film such as FP4 and TriX - when in doubt just overexpose it a stop or two. It really does not matter. 2-3 stops barely registers in the highlights but you get more shadow detail. And if you're wet printing 5 stops or more is still totally salvageable. The same is true for color negative also. Just roast that film
|
|
#
¿
Aug 7, 2019 04:28
|
|
|
I don't think having stuff cut off by the frame is a problem. It has been, in fact, a technique at least several hundreds of years old to imply a world existing outside the confines of the frame. The Japanese ukiyoe are kind of famous for it. (And slanted "camera" angles to create dynamism.) I think there's no problem as long as the cut off elements don't interfere or are cut off in a way that detracts from the overall image.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2019 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 15:06 |
|
|
I wouldn't worry about the missed focus too much. Both of these shots look very fine to me. The best shots usually survive slight technical deficits while bad shots can not be saved no matter the technical perfection. Seconding the Nikkor-M 300. For the brief time I tried LF I liked that lens quite a bit.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2020 02:32
|
|