Nikon announces new flagship **FILM** SLR – the F6!

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:

[SNIP]
Shen Ho I don't know, but certainly Toyos have always seemed like
good value for money to me.

http://www.badgergraphic.com/search_product2.asp?x=2594 Sells
new about $625
http://www.kgcphoto.com/Reviews_&_Tutorials/shen-hao_and_lf_lenses.htm
Short review.

Thanks I'll take a look at those.

[SNIP]
It would definitely work, and is similar to an earlier idea I had. I
was looking into some project panorama cameras, like 6x12 from
folder bodies, though all the solutions require a focus mount. If I
stumble upon a cheap focus mount, I still might give it a try.

Sounds like a very nice thing. A moderately compact 6x12 could be
a lot of fun.

The idea is just to graft together two folder bodies, which is very easy
construction. Some care needs to be exercised to ensure everything is
aligned properly, but there are no technical obstacles. The focus mount
would allow for a solid bellows, either high strength plastic, composite
fibre, or aluminium.

Is that like the Longfellow idea? Never seen one, but the idea sounds
practical enough.

Canham makes a 6x17 back that fits (some) 5x7 cameras. Of
course, it ain't cheap, but the idea of modifying one to make a poor
man's Fuji G617 is tempting if I ever decide I can afford the one, but
still not the other. A lot of LF lenses cover 5x7 with limited
movement, which means they'd cover 6x17 and still have a bit of
movement to spare if I wanted to give the thing a rising/falling front.

Using two 6x9 folder bodies would work, and I think I have seen a
couple done that way. Of course, the focusing mount is still the main
issue with these. It would be easier to use the same aspect ratio on a
masked 6x9, maybe even allowing some rise or fall.

My concern with making one by joining two bodies would, I suppose, be
keeping the film flat over such a long length, though the folders would have
pressure plates and guides so it would 'just' be a matter of joining them
such that the pressure plates stayed in the same plane.

How do you make the join? Brazing sounds like the 'natural' solution, but
isn't something I could do (well enough) myself. I can see a set of
parallels on a surface plate to hold the bodies in the right relationship to
each other, but on reflection I suppose I'd worry that brazing might mean
the joint distorted as it cooled.

OK, maybe it needs a mechanical fastening - screws - but then the bodies
would need to be jigged to hold them firmly in the right relationship while
drilling (a magnetic chuck would be good...) I'm sure there is already a
much better answer - I just don't know what it is yet.



Yeah, the rock star life . . . maybe we need to perpetuate that
myth every once in a while. ;-)


Tricky balance between making ourselves look cool, and attracting
too many newbies into the industry... ;-)

Hey, well I am almost a newbie. I graduated in 1998, though I started
off doing print design work. The photography work only really took off
a little over two years ago. I did have some stuff published in 1992, but
I don't really consider that a start to a career.

I think I was first published in '84, though I'd done work before that so it
may have been earlier. So that's the date I point to if a client wants to
know when I got started 'seriously'. However, I've done a lot of other
things in the interim, and only went back to photography as a job a couple
of years back.

I'll let you know how it goes on Saturday!

On which note, I am expected to turn up with a camera, of course. . . .
..

I get that all the time. Usually I just grab one of the Polaroid cameras
when I am feeling a bit lazy, or plan to do some drinking. Of course,
with a little P&S, you could always play Terry Richardson. ;-)

Polaroids aren't exactly pocketable though, are they? Hmmm, Terry
Richardson - not sure how convincing I'd be.

At least when I looked at the Robert White site I also saw they had
some very cheap used Lee filters that I wanted (£20 each) and,
better yet, a Polaroid back for my new Arca-Swiss.

If you mean a 545, these things are all over the place used. I think the
new price is a bit much, unless you get a deal where they throw in lots
of film with it.

No - the Arca is a 6x9 and there is no 'generic' back solution. Any
Polaroid back that fits the baby Graflok mount has to have the film plane
further back than ordinary backs, because Polaroid doesn't make small enough
film, so in effect the film area 'overhangs' the mounting hardware for the
back. This means either a set amount of focus adjustment is needed, or you
have to use a special ground glass with the glass set further back than a
normal one. This is the solution I've been using on my modified Century,
using a Horseman baby Graflok Polaroid back. (This is why on the mamiya RB
the Polaroid back doesn't fit the same way as a normal back - you have to
remove the revolving back adapter first.)

The thing for the Arca fits by slipping out the normal back (which is
removable anyway so you can turn it for portrait or landscape) and then
fitting the Polaroid back in its place. Not quite as convenient as just
slipping in a 454 or 550 like in 4x5, but as good as it gets for 6x9 and
SOooo much better than having to refocus, and changing either extension or
position in the process, ...

The Arca has been busy in the studio today - personal project
involving 'reject'/blemished fruit and vegetables, mostly lit by a
single
large Bowens wafer striplight with a 4000Ws Elinchrom head in it,
and a reflector for limited fill. Some 6x8 frames on Tech. Pan, and a
number of Velvia 6x7s. Shiny things, like tomatoes, of course look
particularly nice with the highlight from the striplight.


Accentuating the curve with the line. Think like a classical painter, and
all kinds of ideas come forward.

I hadn't consciously thought of it like that, but you're right. My mother's
a painter and my father an early music scholar who was always taking me to
galleries as a child, so I grew up surrounded by that sort of thinking. I'm
sure it has helped my photography in ways I am hardly even aware of.
Several of the groups I've had for teaching have - for a couple of reasons -
been painters who also photograph, and they are such a pleasure to teach:
they already know how to _see_.

I shot an apple with almost the same setup this morning to finish a roll.
As this was higher magnification I needed a smaller stop to get the DoF I
needed and was also losing more light to extension: all told I needed a
measured 8 pops, which I reckon to be about an actual 15 for Velvia. I
wanted to give a little more shadow fill, and also warm the shadow a tiny
bit. So for 8 of the pops I used the palm of my hand as a 'pale pink'
reflector, moving it slightly between pops. Not a practical option for
anything much bigger than 'apple size', but it's going to be fun to see how
it works out.


Peter

Bandicoot wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . .
[SNIP]
It would definitely work, and is similar to an earlier idea I had. I
was looking into some project panorama cameras, like 6x12 from
folder bodies, though all the solutions require a focus mount. If I
stumble upon a cheap focus mount, I still might give it a try.

Sounds like a very nice thing. A moderately compact 6x12 could be
a lot of fun.

The idea is just to graft together two folder bodies, which is very easy
construction. Some care needs to be exercised to ensure everything is
aligned properly, but there are no technical obstacles. The focus mount
would allow for a solid bellows, either high strength plastic, composite
fibre, or aluminium.

Is that like the Longfellow idea? Never seen one, but the idea sounds
practical enough.

Okay, something like this:

http://www.fotomancamera.com/ Obviously, this is somewhat refined, though the
shape is not much different. The idea of using two folder camera bodies, is
that the film transport mechanism, and roll holders, are already figured out.
Altering the guide rails and pressure plate is a separate procedure. Get that
part done easily, then concentrate on a lens mount with focus.



Canham makes a 6x17 back that fits (some) 5x7 cameras. Of
course, it ain't cheap, but the idea of modifying one to make a poor
man's Fuji G617 is tempting if I ever decide I can afford the one, but
still not the other. A lot of LF lenses cover 5x7 with limited
movement, which means they'd cover 6x17 and still have a bit of
movement to spare if I wanted to give the thing a rising/falling front.

Using two 6x9 folder bodies would work, and I think I have seen a
couple done that way. Of course, the focusing mount is still the main
issue with these. It would be easier to use the same aspect ratio on a
masked 6x9, maybe even allowing some rise or fall.

My concern with making one by joining two bodies would, I suppose, be
keeping the film flat over such a long length, though the folders would have
pressure plates and guides so it would 'just' be a matter of joining them
such that the pressure plates stayed in the same plane.

I think any 6x12 or 6x17 will have film flatness issues. The hope is to get
reasonably straight and close to exact distance as possible. This is also why
the same aspect ratio for masked down 6x9 cameras would be just as effective,
and maybe even better resolution. However, if you wanted to do contact prints,
then bigger is better.



How do you make the join? Brazing sounds like the 'natural' solution, but
isn't something I could do (well enough) myself.

No, think cold solutions, like doing bodywork on automobiles. A small amount of
something generically called "Bondo" would provide the smooth transition. The
metal is far to thin for any heat beyond silver soldering. The body casing
could be bolted together, or bonded and riveted (like a race car) construction.
The more sturdy you make one, the heavier it gets, though the idea is to be
lighter than a block of aluminium.

I can see a set of
parallels on a surface plate to hold the bodies in the right relationship to
each other, but on reflection I suppose I'd worry that brazing might mean
the joint distorted as it cooled.

Exactly, I think you have the idea. The other choice is to remake a pressure
plate, since it is mostly just a flat piece.



OK, maybe it needs a mechanical fastening - screws - but then the bodies
would need to be jigged to hold them firmly in the right relationship while
drilling (a magnetic chuck would be good...) I'm sure there is already a
much better answer - I just don't know what it is yet.


Building a small and secure jig is quite easy. Just some wood blocks and clamps
would do it. Some of the fancy woodworking benches already have some secure
clamp and alignment pieces.


. . . . . . . . . . .

I'll let you know how it goes on Saturday!

On which note, I am expected to turn up with a camera, of course. . . .
.

I get that all the time. Usually I just grab one of the Polaroid cameras
when I am feeling a bit lazy, or plan to do some drinking. Of course,
with a little P&S, you could always play Terry Richardson. ;-)

Polaroids aren't exactly pocketable though, are they?

Only if you have very large pockets . . . but it is easy enough to just sling
one over your shoulder. My friends like that "old school" approach, and have
fun with me using these Polaroids.

Hmmm, Terry
Richardson - not sure how convincing I'd be.

While I am not too crazy about his images, his technique and approach are
somewhat unique . . . not to mention the consequences. Maybe Rankin would be
more your style.



At least when I looked at the Robert White site I also saw they had
some very cheap used Lee filters that I wanted (£20 each) and,
better yet, a Polaroid back for my new Arca-Swiss.

If you mean a 545, these things are all over the place used. I think the
new price is a bit much, unless you get a deal where they throw in lots
of film with it.

No - the Arca is a 6x9 and there is no 'generic' back solution. Any
Polaroid back that fits the baby Graflok mount has to have the film plane
further back than ordinary backs, because Polaroid doesn't make small enough
film, so in effect the film area 'overhangs' the mounting hardware for the
back. This means either a set amount of focus adjustment is needed, or you
have to use a special ground glass with the glass set further back than a
normal one. This is the solution I've been using on my modified Century,
using a Horseman baby Graflok Polaroid back. (This is why on the mamiya RB
the Polaroid back doesn't fit the same way as a normal back - you have to
remove the revolving back adapter first.)

Sounds overly complex. You did just give me an idea with the RB67. I suppose
just grafting the revolving piece onto a block of aluminium would work for a
project camera.


. . . . . . . . . .

The Arca has been busy in the studio today - personal project
involving 'reject'/blemished fruit and vegetables, mostly lit by a
single
large Bowens wafer striplight with a 4000Ws Elinchrom head in it,
and a reflector for limited fill. Some 6x8 frames on Tech. Pan, and a
number of Velvia 6x7s. Shiny things, like tomatoes, of course look
particularly nice with the highlight from the striplight.


Accentuating the curve with the line. Think like a classical painter, and
all kinds of ideas come forward.

I hadn't consciously thought of it like that, but you're right. My mother's
a painter and my father an early music scholar who was always taking me to
galleries as a child, so I grew up surrounded by that sort of thinking. I'm
sure it has helped my photography in ways I am hardly even aware of.
Several of the groups I've had for teaching have - for a couple of reasons -
been painters who also photograph, and they are such a pleasure to teach:
they already know how to _see_.

I mostly started in formal art as a painter, and I still show some of my works.
Due to the time required, I have only done a few paintings in the last couple
years. Anyway, the painting and drawing abilities probably help and influence
my photography more than anything else. Those skills are also useful when doing
composites, or manipulating images.



I shot an apple with almost the same setup this morning to finish a roll.
As this was higher magnification I needed a smaller stop to get the DoF I
needed and was also losing more light to extension: all told I needed a
measured 8 pops, which I reckon to be about an actual 15 for Velvia. I
wanted to give a little more shadow fill, and also warm the shadow a tiny
bit. So for 8 of the pops I used the palm of my hand as a 'pale pink'
reflector, moving it slightly between pops. Not a practical option for
anything much bigger than 'apple size', but it's going to be fun to see how
it works out.

Peter

You might benefit by going to an art store, and picking up an assortment of
papers. There are also different boards that can be found in colour, which make
nice reflectors. I use this stuff often.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Bandicoot wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . .
[SNIP]
It would definitely work, and is similar to an earlier idea I had. I
was looking into some project panorama cameras, like 6x12 from
folder bodies, though all the solutions require a focus mount. If I
stumble upon a cheap focus mount, I still might give it a try.

Sounds like a very nice thing. A moderately compact 6x12 could be
a lot of fun.

The idea is just to graft together two folder bodies, which is very easy
construction. Some care needs to be exercised to ensure everything is
aligned properly, but there are no technical obstacles. The focus mount
would allow for a solid bellows, either high strength plastic, composite
fibre, or aluminium.

Is that like the Longfellow idea? Never seen one, but the idea sounds
practical enough.

Okay, something like this:

http://www.fotomancamera.com/ Obviously, this is somewhat refined, though the
shape is not much different. The idea of using two folder camera bodies, is
that the film transport mechanism, and roll holders, are already figured out.
Altering the guide rails and pressure plate is a separate procedure. Get that
part done easily, then concentrate on a lens mount with focus.



Canham makes a 6x17 back that fits (some) 5x7 cameras. Of
course, it ain't cheap, but the idea of modifying one to make a poor
man's Fuji G617 is tempting if I ever decide I can afford the one, but
still not the other. A lot of LF lenses cover 5x7 with limited
movement, which means they'd cover 6x17 and still have a bit of
movement to spare if I wanted to give the thing a rising/falling front.

Using two 6x9 folder bodies would work, and I think I have seen a
couple done that way. Of course, the focusing mount is still the main
issue with these. It would be easier to use the same aspect ratio on a
masked 6x9, maybe even allowing some rise or fall.

My concern with making one by joining two bodies would, I suppose, be
keeping the film flat over such a long length, though the folders would have
pressure plates and guides so it would 'just' be a matter of joining them
such that the pressure plates stayed in the same plane.

I think any 6x12 or 6x17 will have film flatness issues. The hope is to get
reasonably straight and close to exact distance as possible. This is also why
the same aspect ratio for masked down 6x9 cameras would be just as effective,
and maybe even better resolution. However, if you wanted to do contact prints,
then bigger is better.



How do you make the join? Brazing sounds like the 'natural' solution, but
isn't something I could do (well enough) myself.

No, think cold solutions, like doing bodywork on automobiles. A small amount of
something generically called "Bondo" would provide the smooth transition. The
metal is far to thin for any heat beyond silver soldering. The body casing
could be bolted together, or bonded and riveted (like a race car) construction.
The more sturdy you make one, the heavier it gets, though the idea is to be
lighter than a block of aluminium.

I can see a set of
parallels on a surface plate to hold the bodies in the right relationship to
each other, but on reflection I suppose I'd worry that brazing might mean
the joint distorted as it cooled.

Exactly, I think you have the idea. The other choice is to remake a pressure
plate, since it is mostly just a flat piece.



OK, maybe it needs a mechanical fastening - screws - but then the bodies
would need to be jigged to hold them firmly in the right relationship while
drilling (a magnetic chuck would be good...) I'm sure there is already a
much better answer - I just don't know what it is yet.


Building a small and secure jig is quite easy. Just some wood blocks and clamps
would do it. Some of the fancy woodworking benches already have some secure
clamp and alignment pieces.


. . . . . . . . . . .

I'll let you know how it goes on Saturday!

On which note, I am expected to turn up with a camera, of course. . . .
.

I get that all the time. Usually I just grab one of the Polaroid cameras
when I am feeling a bit lazy, or plan to do some drinking. Of course,
with a little P&S, you could always play Terry Richardson. ;-)

Polaroids aren't exactly pocketable though, are they?

Only if you have very large pockets . . . but it is easy enough to just sling
one over your shoulder. My friends like that "old school" approach, and have
fun with me using these Polaroids.

Hmmm, Terry
Richardson - not sure how convincing I'd be.

While I am not too crazy about his images, his technique and approach are
somewhat unique . . . not to mention the consequences. Maybe Rankin would be
more your style.



At least when I looked at the Robert White site I also saw they had
some very cheap used Lee filters that I wanted (£20 each) and,
better yet, a Polaroid back for my new Arca-Swiss.

If you mean a 545, these things are all over the place used. I think the
new price is a bit much, unless you get a deal where they throw in lots
of film with it.

No - the Arca is a 6x9 and there is no 'generic' back solution. Any
Polaroid back that fits the baby Graflok mount has to have the film plane
further back than ordinary backs, because Polaroid doesn't make small enough
film, so in effect the film area 'overhangs' the mounting hardware for the
back. This means either a set amount of focus adjustment is needed, or you
have to use a special ground glass with the glass set further back than a
normal one. This is the solution I've been using on my modified Century,
using a Horseman baby Graflok Polaroid back. (This is why on the mamiya RB
the Polaroid back doesn't fit the same way as a normal back - you have to
remove the revolving back adapter first.)

Sounds overly complex. You did just give me an idea with the RB67. I suppose
just grafting the revolving piece onto a block of aluminium would work for a
project camera.


. . . . . . . . . .

The Arca has been busy in the studio today - personal project
involving 'reject'/blemished fruit and vegetables, mostly lit by a
single
large Bowens wafer striplight with a 4000Ws Elinchrom head in it,
and a reflector for limited fill. Some 6x8 frames on Tech. Pan, and a
number of Velvia 6x7s. Shiny things, like tomatoes, of course look
particularly nice with the highlight from the striplight.


Accentuating the curve with the line. Think like a classical painter, and
all kinds of ideas come forward.

I hadn't consciously thought of it like that, but you're right. My mother's
a painter and my father an early music scholar who was always taking me to
galleries as a child, so I grew up surrounded by that sort of thinking. I'm
sure it has helped my photography in ways I am hardly even aware of.
Several of the groups I've had for teaching have - for a couple of reasons -
been painters who also photograph, and they are such a pleasure to teach:
they already know how to _see_.

I mostly started in formal art as a painter, and I still show some of my works.
Due to the time required, I have only done a few paintings in the last couple
years. Anyway, the painting and drawing abilities probably help and influence
my photography more than anything else. Those skills are also useful when doing
composites, or manipulating images.



I shot an apple with almost the same setup this morning to finish a roll.
As this was higher magnification I needed a smaller stop to get the DoF I
needed and was also losing more light to extension: all told I needed a
measured 8 pops, which I reckon to be about an actual 15 for Velvia. I
wanted to give a little more shadow fill, and also warm the shadow a tiny
bit. So for 8 of the pops I used the palm of my hand as a 'pale pink'
reflector, moving it slightly between pops. Not a practical option for
anything much bigger than 'apple size', but it's going to be fun to see how
it works out.

Peter

You might benefit by going to an art store, and picking up an assortment of
papers. There are also different boards that can be found in colour, which make
nice reflectors. I use this stuff often.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

Gordon Moat wrote:


I think any 6x12 or 6x17 will have film flatness issues. The hope is to get
reasonably straight and close to exact distance as possible. This is also why
the same aspect ratio for masked down 6x9 cameras would be just as effective,
and maybe even better resolution. However, if you wanted to do contact prints,
then bigger is better.


Take a 6x9 film back and enlarge the opening. You only need to increase it
1.5 cm per size. I think something like my Adapta-roll 620 would work
easily. It uses a knob to advance the film so all a person would have to do
is increase the number of turns. OTOH it would need a 4x5 camera to hold the
adapter so it's not a small solution. But cheap and not too complex. The
stock opening is 2 1/4 by 3 1/4"

Nick

Nick Zentena wrote:

Gordon Moat wrote:


I think any 6x12 or 6x17 will have film flatness issues. The hope is to get
reasonably straight and close to exact distance as possible. This is also why
the same aspect ratio for masked down 6x9 cameras would be just as effective,
and maybe even better resolution. However, if you wanted to do contact prints,
then bigger is better.

Take a 6x9 film back and enlarge the opening. You only need to increase it
1.5 cm per size. I think something like my Adapta-roll 620 would work
easily.

Might work well enough, though I would be back to making an aluminium block carrier
for the body. With a folder, there is no room to enlarge, since the bellows becomes
the limit to the width, often closer to 82 mm. The back idea is one direction, and
there are some 6x12 and 6x17 backs already on the used market. Older 6x9 backs are
slightly more common, but old 6x9 folder cameras are numerous.

It uses a knob to advance the film so all a person would have to do
is increase the number of turns. OTOH it would need a 4x5 camera to hold the
adapter so it's not a small solution. But cheap and not too complex. The
stock opening is 2 1/4 by 3 1/4"

Nick

The need for a 4" by 5" camera would make hand held shooting, and even walking
around carrying that camera much more effort. Ideally, I would like to keep a
solution as simple and compact as possible.

Another direction is the old Polaroid Pathfinder cameras, which are not too tough
to get out to large format size. Making a 6x12 from one would not be that
difficult. The rangefinder mechanism would be an added bonus. A 6x17 from one would
be possible, but only with some very extensive modifications, or a new fabricated
body.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . .
[SNIP]

Okay, something like this:

http://www.fotomancamera.com/ Obviously, this is somewhat
refined, though the shape is not much different. The idea of using two
folder camera bodies, is that the film transport mechanism, and roll
holders, are already figured out. Altering the guide rails and pressure
plate is a separate procedure. Get that part done easily, then
concentrate on a lens mount with focus.

The Fotoman looks very impressive (shame about the pictures in the gallery,
they need some customers who can supply with some better images). The price
looks very reasonable, really - I guess that shows what you can do when you
manufacture in China. They talk on that site about supplying 'cones' - the
front part of the camera with the focusing mount - separately for a variey
of specific lenses. Not a help for your current project, but it could be an
interesting source of focusing mounts at a much lower cost than the
Schneider ones...

Anyway, yes, this seems like the shape of the Longfellow. There's an
interesting variant of this in the shape of the "Patz 616":

http://www.patzimaging.com/Patz616.html#

This uses two 6x9 folders to make a 6x16 back, onto which is fitted a custom
bellows mounted on a scavenged rail from an old (35mm) macro bellows,
complete with shift, and then an old 90mm lens and shutter. Some of this is
overkill, but it looks like fun. Sort of cross between a
Fuji/Horseman/Linhof and a V-Pan.

(Slightly) more relevant to what you are doing, I expect you've seen:

http://bigcamera.com/articles/Mamiya%204x5x6x12.htm ?

[SNIP]

It would be easier to use the same aspect ratio on a masked 6x9,
maybe even allowing some rise or fall.

True, but if I want one of these it is partly because panoramics look good
in _big_ enlargements, and partly because I want to use some seriously
wide lenses to get very extreme perspectives. My widest rectilinear MF
lens, the 38mm Super-Angulon XL, is a pretty wide lens on 6x9 (my holders
are nearer to 6x8), but a _really_ wide lens on 6x12. The horizontal AoVs
are equivalent to about 18mm and a whopping 11mm respectively, on 35mm.
Enough to make Cosina Voigtlander blush...

The equivalent figures for a 47mm are 22, and 14 - again, the 6x12 format
allows some extreme perspectives that cropping 6x9 won't get for me. These
are truly extreme of course, and something to use for only a few subjects:
not enough to justify the new cost of buying a 6x12, and enough that if I
built one I'd probably want to use some slightly less extreme lenses too. I
actually like panoramic formats using quite long lenses (which is why I wish
Hasselblad would make a 135mm or similar for the X-pan.)

This is still a distant thought for me though - I want to play with the idea
of using that 28mm Pentax on 6x9 first.

[SNIP]

How do you make the join? Brazing sounds like the 'natural'
solution, but isn't something I could do (well enough) myself.

No, think cold solutions, like doing bodywork on automobiles. A small
amount of something generically called "Bondo" would provide the
smooth transition. The metal is far to thin for any heat beyond silver
soldering. The body casing could be bolted together, or bonded and
riveted (like a race car) construction. The more sturdy you make one,
the heavier it gets, though the idea is to be lighter than a block of
aluminium.

[SNIP]

Building a small and secure jig is quite easy. Just some wood blocks
and clamps would do it. Some of the fancy woodworking benches
already have some secure clamp and alignment pieces.

Ah, that all sounds reasonable. Clamping them down on a surface plate and
riveting them ought not to be too tricky. The back door would be very long,
so maybe I'd rivet the whole length of it, top and bottom, to a thin
stiffening piece.

[SNIP]

I'll let you know how it goes on Saturday!

Well, it's Monday night and I think I've almost recovered. I had a good
time - as far as I remember, but there's at least a couple of hours that I
don't remember at all. Anyway, I seem to have taken about thirty more
pictures than I remember as well, so I guess when I get the films developed
I'll find out!

[SNIP]

Polaroids aren't exactly pocketable though, are they?

Only if you have very large pockets . . . but it is easy enough to just
sling one over your shoulder. My friends like that "old school"
approach, and have fun with me using these Polaroids.

I can see that - even with digitals, there is someting about passing round a
print.

Hmmm, Terry Richardson - not sure how convincing I'd be.

While I am not too crazy about his images, his technique and approach
are somewhat unique . . . not to mention the consequences. Maybe
Rankin would be more your style.

Probably... ;-)

[SNIP]

on the mamiya RB the Polaroid back doesn't fit the same way as a
normal back - you have to remove the revolving back adapter first.)

Sounds overly complex. You did just give me an idea with the RB67. I
suppose just grafting the revolving piece onto a block of aluminium
would work for a project camera.

I'm sure it would, and you can buy them from Mamiya. I'm not sure if it
would revolve easily without some machining of the block, but it could be
done. They also sell, or sold, an adapter to use the curved end magazines
from the Mamiya Press/Universal cameras, that are particularly noted for
their good film flatness. Another adapter you can get on the used market is
the Graflok adapter from a Graflex XL, which again will let you use the RB
backs, but of course doesn't revolve.

[SNIP]

I mostly started in formal art as a painter, and I still show some of my
works. Due to the time required, I have only done a few paintings in
the last couple years. Anyway, the painting and drawing abilities
probably help and influence my photography more than anything else.
Those skills are also useful when doing composites, or manipulating
images.

I paint too, though not well, and, these days, not often. But it certainly
helps one to get a real grip on compositional ideas. I show very
ocassionally - I think it also helps in 'the market' for art photography:
people have less trouble accepting that a photograph can be art when they
see that the artist also works in other media that they do already regard as
'art'.

[SNIP]

I wanted to give a little more shadow fill, and also warm the shadow
a tiny bit. So for 8 of the pops I used the palm of my hand as a 'pale
pink' reflector, moving it slightly between pops. Not a practical
option for anything much bigger than 'apple size', but it's going to be
fun to see how it works out.


You might benefit by going to an art store, and picking up an
assortment of papers. There are also different boards that can be
found in colour, which make nice reflectors. I use this stuff often.


Now, I'm familiar with that, and certainly have some tinted watercolour
paper, and probably some tinted Ingres too, somewhere around the house. But
I never thought to use it as reflector material. Thanks for that -
excellent idea.



Peter

Bandicoot wrote:

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . .
[SNIP]

Okay, something like this:

http://www.fotomancamera.com/ Obviously, this is somewhat
refined, though the shape is not much different. The idea of using two
folder camera bodies, is that the film transport mechanism, and roll
holders, are already figured out. Altering the guide rails and pressure
plate is a separate procedure. Get that part done easily, then
concentrate on a lens mount with focus.

The Fotoman looks very impressive (shame about the pictures in the gallery,
they need some customers who can supply with some better images). The price
looks very reasonable, really - I guess that shows what you can do when you
manufacture in China. They talk on that site about supplying 'cones' - the
front part of the camera with the focusing mount - separately for a variey
of specific lenses. Not a help for your current project, but it could be an
interesting source of focusing mounts at a much lower cost than the
Schneider ones...

They might be, which is why I bookmarked their site. Looks like they also
introduced some new items at Photokina.



Anyway, yes, this seems like the shape of the Longfellow. There's an
interesting variant of this in the shape of the "Patz 616":

http://www.patzimaging.com/Patz616.html#

This uses two 6x9 folders to make a 6x16 back, onto which is fitted a custom
bellows mounted on a scavenged rail from an old (35mm) macro bellows,
complete with shift, and then an old 90mm lens and shutter. Some of this is
overkill, but it looks like fun. Sort of cross between a
Fuji/Horseman/Linhof and a V-Pan.

That one I have seen before, though it looks like some of the project cameras
that show up on EBAY. Not a bad way to do it, though perhaps too much for hand
held shooting. Definitely tripod material.



(Slightly) more relevant to what you are doing, I expect you've seen:

http://bigcamera.com/articles/Mamiya%204x5x6x12.htm ?

Yes, that is another way to do it, though it looks fairly bulky and heavy.



[SNIP]

It would be easier to use the same aspect ratio on a masked 6x9,
maybe even allowing some rise or fall.

True, but if I want one of these it is partly because panoramics look good
in _big_ enlargements, and partly because I want to use some seriously
wide lenses to get very extreme perspectives. My widest rectilinear MF
lens, the 38mm Super-Angulon XL, is a pretty wide lens on 6x9 (my holders
are nearer to 6x8), but a _really_ wide lens on 6x12. The horizontal AoVs
are equivalent to about 18mm and a whopping 11mm respectively, on 35mm.
Enough to make Cosina Voigtlander blush...

I guess that is a good reason to push that to 6x12. The 2:1 aspect ratio is
interesting, and I think only Horseman really offer much in 6x12.



The equivalent figures for a 47mm are 22, and 14 - again, the 6x12 format
allows some extreme perspectives that cropping 6x9 won't get for me. These
are truly extreme of course, and something to use for only a few subjects:
not enough to justify the new cost of buying a 6x12, and enough that if I
built one I'd probably want to use some slightly less extreme lenses too. I
actually like panoramic formats using quite long lenses (which is why I wish
Hasselblad would make a 135mm or similar for the X-pan.)

I seem to remember you using the 90 mm on the XPan. With that Xpan to Nikon
converter, you could use a longer lens, though there is no rangefinder
coupling. I had thought they would come out with some more lenses by now,
though I think some of the financial turmoil might have delayed further
development.

My feeling is that 21 mm to 24 mm range (35 mm equivalent) is a nice realm for
wide angle shots. Going wider than that makes shot choices much more difficult,
and limits the effectiveness of the results.

A different direction can be had with the Seitz Roundshot cameras, some of
which offer variable range of sweeps. While mostly intended for 360ª images,
they can do lesser areas. The look is different than a straight panorama.



This is still a distant thought for me though - I want to play with the idea
of using that 28mm Pentax on 6x9 first.

Any idea of the flange to focal plane distance? I could do a loose EPS mock-up
for you to play with the idea.



. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Polaroids aren't exactly pocketable though, are they?

Only if you have very large pockets . . . but it is easy enough to just
sling one over your shoulder. My friends like that "old school"
approach, and have fun with me using these Polaroids.

I can see that - even with digitals, there is someting about passing round a
print.

I suppose someone will come out with a digital that can print from the camera.
Of course, that might be a direction for Polaroid in the future.



. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

on the mamiya RB the Polaroid back doesn't fit the same way as a
normal back - you have to remove the revolving back adapter first.)

Sounds overly complex. You did just give me an idea with the RB67. I
suppose just grafting the revolving piece onto a block of aluminium
would work for a project camera.

I'm sure it would, and you can buy them from Mamiya. I'm not sure if it
would revolve easily without some machining of the block, but it could be
done. They also sell, or sold, an adapter to use the curved end magazines
from the Mamiya Press/Universal cameras, that are particularly noted for
their good film flatness. Another adapter you can get on the used market is
the Graflok adapter from a Graflex XL, which again will let you use the RB
backs, but of course doesn't revolve.


Okay, I think I will look into the Graflex XL adapter. Not rotating the back
would make a smaller camera. This is starting to seem like an RB67 version of a
Hasselblad SWC.


[SNIP]

I mostly started in formal art as a painter, and I still show some of my
works. Due to the time required, I have only done a few paintings in
the last couple years. Anyway, the painting and drawing abilities
probably help and influence my photography more than anything else.
Those skills are also useful when doing composites, or manipulating
images.

I paint too, though not well, and, these days, not often. But it certainly
helps one to get a real grip on compositional ideas. I show very
ocassionally - I think it also helps in 'the market' for art photography:
people have less trouble accepting that a photograph can be art when they
see that the artist also works in other media that they do already regard as
'art'.


Some of my clients like that I am formally trained as an artist, and that I
exhibit my works. I have chosen some of that work to fit into my portfolio
update, so I suppose that is another benefit to doing this.


[SNIP]

I wanted to give a little more shadow fill, and also warm the shadow
a tiny bit. So for 8 of the pops I used the palm of my hand as a 'pale
pink' reflector, moving it slightly between pops. Not a practical
option for anything much bigger than 'apple size', but it's going to be
fun to see how it works out.


You might benefit by going to an art store, and picking up an
assortment of papers. There are also different boards that can be
found in colour, which make nice reflectors. I use this stuff often.


Now, I'm familiar with that, and certainly have some tinted watercolour
paper, and probably some tinted Ingres too, somewhere around the house. But
I never thought to use it as reflector material. Thanks for that -
excellent idea.

Peter

It is all about providing a unique vision. Anyone can now buy a very good
camera, but the ideas are knowledge that cannot be acquired through purchase.
Providing that unique vision, creative ideas, and solutions not easily
imagined, are why there will always be a market for some professional
photographers.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:
[SNIP]
The Fotoman looks very impressive (shame about the pictures in the
gallery, they need some customers who can supply with some better
images). The price looks very reasonable, really - I guess that shows
what you can do when you manufacture in China. They talk on that
site about supplying 'cones' - the front part of the camera with the
focusing mount - separately for a variey of specific lenses. Not a
help for your current project, but it could be an interesting source of
focusing mounts at a much lower cost than the Schneider ones...

They might be, which is why I bookmarked their site. Looks like they
also introduced some new items at Photokina.

Me too ;-)




Anyway, yes, this seems like the shape of the Longfellow. There's
an interesting variant of this in the shape of the "Patz 616":

http://www.patzimaging.com/Patz616.html#

[SNIP]

That one I have seen before, though it looks like some of the project
cameras that show up on EBAY. Not a bad way to do it, though
perhaps too much for hand held shooting. Definitely tripod material.


Definitely. Still, it's a lot more portable than a 6x17 back on a 5x7
camera, so I could see it as a landscpape field camera. More work than I
could see myself doing though.

[SNIP]

It would be easier to use the same aspect ratio on a masked
6x9, maybe even allowing some rise or fall.

True, but if I want one of these it is partly because panoramics look
good in _big_ enlargements, and partly because I want to use
some seriously wide lenses to get very extreme perspectives. My
widest rectilinear MF lens, the 38mm Super-Angulon XL, is a pretty
wide lens on 6x9 (my holders are nearer to 6x8), but a _really_
wide lens on 6x12. The horizontal AoVs are equivalent to about
18mm and a whopping 11mm respectively, on 35mm. Enough to
make Cosina Voigtlander blush...

I guess that is a good reason to push that to 6x12. The 2:1 aspect ratio
is interesting, and I think only Horseman really offer much in 6x12.

I used to think 2:1 was very odd - like the famous Adam double cube room in
the house whose name I've just forgotten: nice in theory, but just doesn't
work out. But I think that was because I'd only seen it badly used, as a
sort of poor man's 617 - ie. used for 'panoramas'. 'Panoramic panoramas'
need some sense of movement, or maybe 'flow' is a better word. But the 2:1
format is very static - once I started thinking of it like that I began to
see more places it would work: in essence finding good compositions for 6x12
is more like finding them for 6x6 than it is for either 'short' formats like
6x7 or even 35mm _or_ panoramic formats like X-Pan or 6x17. I want to
experiment with the 2:1 ratio for still life sometime - may do a few crops
from 6x9 just to see how I like the idea.

Horseman is joined by Linhof (and maybe Silvestri) in the 612 camp, but I
agree it is unusual. The Sinar Zoom back supports the format too. Perhaps
this is due to the compositional challenge it poses, but I suspect more
because if people are going for 'panoramic' on 120 film, a 617 body is much
sexier.


The equivalent figures for a 47mm are 22, and 14 - again, the 6x12
format allows some extreme perspectives that cropping 6x9 won't
get for me. These are truly extreme of course, and something to use
for only a few subjects: not enough to justify the new cost of buying a
6x12, and enough that if I built one I'd probably want to use some
slightly less extreme lenses too. I actually like panoramic formats
using quite long lenses (which is why I wish Hasselblad would make
a 135mm or similar for the X-pan.)

I seem to remember you using the 90 mm on the XPan. With that Xpan
to Nikon converter, you could use a longer lens, though there is no
rangefinder coupling. I had thought they would come out with some
more lenses by now, though I think some of the financial turmoil might
have delayed further development.

Yes, I do have the 90mm. Once you go to the panoramic format with it, it
has a horizontal AoV about equivalent to a 50mm lens on the standard 35mm
frame - which is nice and makes it very useful, but I still wish there was
something longer. There was a persistent rumour of Hasselblad planning a
135mm at one time, but nothing happened. I'm hoping maybe there was some
tuth behind the rumour and such a lens will eventually appear - but as you
say, times have been 'interesting' at 'blad lately. Still, not like them
not to try to drag users into a 'system' - and the lenses are actually made
by Fuji. Given the slow speed of the X-Pan lenses, I would think the
rangefinder would probably be OK to focus a 135mm, if it was, say, an f4 or
5.6 - I've not checked this though.

If I can think of a way to cobble up the body mount without spending a lot
at a machine shop I might think about the adapter idea in order to
experiment with some other lenses on it. Wonder how it would do with the
CZJ 180mm Sonnar.... ;-)


My feeling is that 21 mm to 24 mm range (35 mm equivalent) is a nice
realm for wide angle shots. Going wider than that makes shot choices
much more difficult, and limits the effectiveness of the results.

I won't argue with that in principle. I think one sees a lot of terrible
extreme wideangle shots because they are hard to use and so many people
don't think about the issues sensibly. And they really do only suit a
fairly small number of subjects. However, that also means that when used
well, _and_ for an appropriate subject, an extreme perspective can make
for a shot that has impact and is good - as opposed to one that has impact
but is annoying, as can so often be the case!

I've been using some fairly extreme wides for quite a long time and have got
used to them, before they became the mass market 'plaything of the moment'
that they seem to be now. I don't say that makes me a 'master' - but in
giving me time to come to terms with their numerous limitations, it has also
given me an appreciation of their (fewer) real strengths. All of which is
really very obvious, and you know good composition at least as well as
anyone who hangs out on this group - but some of us choose one way of seeing
and some another.

I don't, for instance, know why I like (on 35mm) 200mm, 300mm, and 600mm
perspectives - yet hardly ever find myself reaching for my 400mm. There are
just some sets of near to far relatioinship - at any focal length range -
that appeal to 'my eye' more than others.

But I still don't use the extreme wides very often, for all that.


A different direction can be had with the Seitz Roundshot cameras,
some of which offer variable range of sweeps. While mostly intended
for 360ª images, they can do lesser areas. The look is different than a
straight panorama.

Yes, I think there are a couple of others in this category, like the
Globus-scope. I've never really thought that the swing lens / rotating slit
/ revolving camera approach is one I feel at home with. The odd things it
does to straight lines are very interesting, but personally I don't think
they fit into my vision. I have seen some exciting pictures made this way
by other people though.




This is still a distant thought for me though - I want to play with the
idea of using that 28mm Pentax on 6x9 first.

Any idea of the flange to focal plane distance? I could do a loose EPS
mock-up for you to play with the idea.

Thanks - guess I should've said "a 6x9 capable body" really - since I don't
expect that particular lens to cover that much: 645 probably, 6x6 I think
(based on peering at a ground glass), and maybe 6x7 if I'm very lucky and
don't mind the light falloff.

Anyway, the K-Mount registration distance is (by design) the same as that
for M42, that is: 45.46mm. Thanks - a mock up of that would be helpful.

Remember we talked about 'pancake' lenses in this thread a while back?
Pentax brought out a DA 40mm f2.8 Limited at Photokina as a _very_
pancaked lens for the digital bodies. Since this is aperture-ring-less (boo
hiss) and AF, I suppose the relative difficulty of gripping it doesn't
matter much. I'm wondering if the optical design is the same as the M 40mm
f2.8.

[SNIP]
I can see that - even with digitals, there is someting about passing
round a print.

I suppose someone will come out with a digital that can print from the
camera. Of course, that might be a direction for Polaroid in the future.

Yeah, I'm sure someone will. And then all the kids will think it's really
cool, and a new thing...

[SNIP]

Okay, I think I will look into the Graflex XL adapter. Not rotating the
back would make a smaller camera. This is starting to seem like an
RB67 version of a Hasselblad SWC.

LOL - actually, that sounds like quite a good idea. The LF world has
several lenses that would cover - a Mamiya-Schneider or Mamiya-Rodenstock
joint effort would make a very interesting alternative to the SWC...

[SNIP]

Some of my clients like that I am formally trained as an artist, and that
I
exhibit my works. I have chosen some of that work to fit into my
portfolio update, so I suppose that is another benefit to doing this.

I slipped two items of my digital art into my portfolio once to show someone
and forgot to take them out - later I was surprised by how much favourable
interest they generated in other people. I've not put any of my paintings
in - to date - though.

[SNIP]

It is all about providing a unique vision. Anyone can now buy a very
good camera, but the ideas are knowledge that cannot be acquired
through purchase. Providing that unique vision, creative ideas, and
solutions not easily imagined, are why there will always be a market for
some professional photographers.

I think that is true now more than ever. It has become so much easier to
make 'acceptable' technically OK pictures that - in the eyes of those that
think about it at least - I think people are noticing that what sets a good
photographer apart is not simply that their pictures are sharp and properly
exposed, but something (or things) that are much more personal, and much
harder to emulate.

I guess by definition we are gear heads to an extent, since we hang out in
this equipment group and like tinkering with stuff - but I certainly know
how many of my favourite images came from very cheap and ordinary equipment.
It takes some people a lifetime to learn that - after all, the manufacurers
would certainly like to keep it a secret!

I was stuck in the studio again today, when I'd rather be outside. But
needs must, and the winter will see many more studio days. But still, even
for rather 'straight' shots (of jewellery, today, so more hard light
sources) I try to make them 'different' in some way - and that's not just
about sales and image: it's about my sanity!

(All those flash pops and I find I have a headache at the end of the day,
even with closing my eyes. I'm seriously thinking about buying a pair of
welding goggles...)



Peter

Bandicoot wrote:

. . . . . . . . . . . .


It would be easier to use the same aspect ratio on a masked
6x9, maybe even allowing some rise or fall.

True, but if I want one of these it is partly because panoramics look
good in _big_ enlargements, and partly because I want to use
some seriously wide lenses to get very extreme perspectives. My
widest rectilinear MF lens, the 38mm Super-Angulon XL, is a pretty
wide lens on 6x9 (my holders are nearer to 6x8), but a _really_
wide lens on 6x12. The horizontal AoVs are equivalent to about
18mm and a whopping 11mm respectively, on 35mm. Enough to
make Cosina Voigtlander blush...

I guess that is a good reason to push that to 6x12. The 2:1 aspect ratio
is interesting, and I think only Horseman really offer much in 6x12.

I used to think 2:1 was very odd - like the famous Adam double cube room in
the house whose name I've just forgotten: nice in theory, but just doesn't
work out.

ALPA recently introduced a special masked back for the Biogon that is 36 mm by
72 mm, so 2:1 ratio. It almost sounds interesting enough to try something like
that. I set up a better test rig for the 35 mm PC-Nikkor, and got a solid
measured 84 mm image circle. Not enough for full 6x9, but would work for some
masked down format on a 6x9 body. There is maybe an extra few millimetres of
coverage, but too much fall off to count on that for a variety of shooting
conditions.

But I think that was because I'd only seen it badly used, as a
sort of poor man's 617 - ie. used for 'panoramas'. 'Panoramic panoramas'
need some sense of movement, or maybe 'flow' is a better word. But the 2:1
format is very static - once I started thinking of it like that I began to
see more places it would work: in essence finding good compositions for 6x12
is more like finding them for 6x6 than it is for either 'short' formats like
6x7 or even 35mm _or_ panoramic formats like X-Pan or 6x17. I want to
experiment with the 2:1 ratio for still life sometime - may do a few crops
from 6x9 just to see how I like the idea.

The 2:1 ratio is something we experimented with in college. I even used it for
a couple paintings. It can work, but part of the image needs a strong focal
point.



Horseman is joined by Linhof (and maybe Silvestri) in the 612 camp, but I
agree it is unusual.

I thought about the Linhof when I typed that, but it is much more expensive
than the Horseman, and somewhat rare on the used market. The early Linhof 6x12
cameras look like someone's garage project . . . very unlike Linhof.

The Sinar Zoom back supports the format too. Perhaps
this is due to the compositional challenge it poses, but I suspect more
because if people are going for 'panoramic' on 120 film, a 617 body is much
sexier.

That might be why the Xpan follows that ratio, rather than a smaller ratio. All
the 617 cameras are very huge, make scanning difficult, and require large
enlargers for chemical printing.




The equivalent figures for a 47mm are 22, and 14 - again, the 6x12
format allows some extreme perspectives that cropping 6x9 won't
get for me. These are truly extreme of course, and something to use
for only a few subjects: not enough to justify the new cost of buying a
6x12, and enough that if I built one I'd probably want to use some
slightly less extreme lenses too. I actually like panoramic formats
using quite long lenses (which is why I wish Hasselblad would make
a 135mm or similar for the X-pan.)

I seem to remember you using the 90 mm on the XPan. With that Xpan
to Nikon converter, you could use a longer lens, though there is no
rangefinder coupling. I had thought they would come out with some
more lenses by now, though I think some of the financial turmoil might
have delayed further development.

Yes, I do have the 90mm. Once you go to the panoramic format with it, it
has a horizontal AoV about equivalent to a 50mm lens on the standard 35mm
frame - which is nice and makes it very useful, but I still wish there was
something longer. There was a persistent rumour of Hasselblad planning a
135mm at one time, but nothing happened. I'm hoping maybe there was some
tuth behind the rumour and such a lens will eventually appear - but as you
say, times have been 'interesting' at 'blad lately.

It might be possible in the future, since they did go so far to make an Xpan II
version. However, it might take a few years until the next update, if there is
one.

Still, not like them
not to try to drag users into a 'system' - and the lenses are actually made
by Fuji. Given the slow speed of the X-Pan lenses, I would think the
rangefinder would probably be OK to focus a 135mm, if it was, say, an f4 or
5.6 - I've not checked this though.

I think a bigger issue for the longer lens would be the zooming viewfinder. If
they went with a device like the Leica finder 1.25x magnifier, then they could
go to a 135 mm without trouble. Magnifying the 90 mm framelines would do well
enough. Even an Xpan to V system adapter could accomplish that.



If I can think of a way to cobble up the body mount without spending a lot
at a machine shop I might think about the adapter idea in order to
experiment with some other lenses on it. Wonder how it would do with the
CZJ 180mm Sonnar.... ;-)

That would be quite a stretch for focus guessing. The lens should cover, but I
think the chance of focus errors would limit your scene choices.




My feeling is that 21 mm to 24 mm range (35 mm equivalent) is a nice
realm for wide angle shots. Going wider than that makes shot choices
much more difficult, and limits the effectiveness of the results.

I won't argue with that in principle. I think one sees a lot of terrible
extreme wideangle shots because they are hard to use and so many people
don't think about the issues sensibly. And they really do only suit a
fairly small number of subjects. However, that also means that when used
well, _and_ for an appropriate subject, an extreme perspective can make
for a shot that has impact and is good - as opposed to one that has impact
but is annoying, as can so often be the case!

Okay, fair enough.



I've been using some fairly extreme wides for quite a long time and have got
used to them, before they became the mass market 'plaything of the moment'
that they seem to be now. I don't say that makes me a 'master' - but in
giving me time to come to terms with their numerous limitations, it has also
given me an appreciation of their (fewer) real strengths. All of which is
really very obvious, and you know good composition at least as well as
anyone who hangs out on this group - but some of us choose one way of seeing
and some another.

I suppose that is it . . . matching the gear to the creative vision.



I don't, for instance, know why I like (on 35mm) 200mm, 300mm, and 600mm
perspectives - yet hardly ever find myself reaching for my 400mm. There are
just some sets of near to far relatioinship - at any focal length range -
that appeal to 'my eye' more than others.


I rarely use any lenses longer than 180 mm, and more often use 35 mm to 105 mm.
My selection is probably much narrower than many people on this group.


But I still don't use the extreme wides very often, for all that.

Intriguing for me, but not something I would use often. Basically, I guess that
is why I do not want to spend much money on getting a wide view set-up.


. . . . . . . . .




This is still a distant thought for me though - I want to play with the
idea of using that 28mm Pentax on 6x9 first.

Any idea of the flange to focal plane distance? I could do a loose EPS
mock-up for you to play with the idea.

Thanks - guess I should've said "a 6x9 capable body" really - since I don't
expect that particular lens to cover that much: 645 probably, 6x6 I think
(based on peering at a ground glass), and maybe 6x7 if I'm very lucky and
don't mind the light falloff.

Anyway, the K-Mount registration distance is (by design) the same as that
for M42, that is: 45.46mm. Thanks - a mock up of that would be helpful.

Really close to 46.5 mm, so I will just slightly change the location of the
lens. Give me the rear element diameter as well, since that is the most
important aspect of the lens. Also, if you can measure the distance from the
lens mount to the rear element (the inset), that is another useful distance.
This would be an Illustrator EPS, with the various parts on Layers that can be
switched off and on as needed.



Remember we talked about 'pancake' lenses in this thread a while back?
Pentax brought out a DA 40mm f2.8 Limited at Photokina as a _very_
pancaked lens for the digital bodies. Since this is aperture-ring-less (boo
hiss) and AF, I suppose the relative difficulty of gripping it doesn't
matter much. I'm wondering if the optical design is the same as the M 40mm
f2.8.

The Nikon 45 mm f2.8 has such a small focus ring, that I did not like using it.
Too many new lenses are going this direction, because the companies are too
cheap to do a proper design. The least they could do would be a lever like on
some of the Voigtländer lenses.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[SNIP]

Okay, I think I will look into the Graflex XL adapter. Not rotating the
back would make a smaller camera. This is starting to seem like an
RB67 version of a Hasselblad SWC.

LOL - actually, that sounds like quite a good idea. The LF world has
several lenses that would cover - a Mamiya-Schneider or Mamiya-Rodenstock
joint effort would make a very interesting alternative to the SWC...

The ALPA 12 can take a Mamiya back, so they sort of do that, but at a high
price. A slightly simpler design could be much less expensive. Still a problem
of the focusing mount expense, but something that could be worked out.



[SNIP]

Some of my clients like that I am formally trained as an artist, and that
I
exhibit my works. I have chosen some of that work to fit into my
portfolio update, so I suppose that is another benefit to doing this.

I slipped two items of my digital art into my portfolio once to show someone
and forgot to take them out - later I was surprised by how much favourable
interest they generated in other people. I've not put any of my paintings
in - to date - though.

The paintings are basically illustration work, though there should be a limit
to those, unless you want to do illustration work. I charge the going rate for
that, which means I get very few requests for this in San Diego.



[SNIP]

It is all about providing a unique vision. Anyone can now buy a very
good camera, but the ideas are knowledge that cannot be acquired
through purchase. Providing that unique vision, creative ideas, and
solutions not easily imagined, are why there will always be a market for
some professional photographers.

I think that is true now more than ever. It has become so much easier to
make 'acceptable' technically OK pictures that - in the eyes of those that
think about it at least - I think people are noticing that what sets a good
photographer apart is not simply that their pictures are sharp and properly
exposed, but something (or things) that are much more personal, and much
harder to emulate.


A more hand done, or one-of-a-kind, approach seems to be the next popular move.
Of course, some consider that sloppy. I do lots of wide open, ultra short DoF
shots, but some people ask why everything is not in focus. many people are so
use to the results of slow zoom lenses, or P&S images, that a short DoF shot
confuses them. Panning shots are another area that confuse many people.


I guess by definition we are gear heads to an extent, since we hang out in
this equipment group and like tinkering with stuff - but I certainly know
how many of my favourite images came from very cheap and ordinary equipment.
It takes some people a lifetime to learn that - after all, the manufacurers
would certainly like to keep it a secret!

Part of the implied promise in the marketing is that the new cameras are so
good, people will never again take bad photos. While they might be technically
better, this still ignores creativity.



I was stuck in the studio again today, when I'd rather be outside. But
needs must, and the winter will see many more studio days. But still, even
for rather 'straight' shots (of jewellery, today, so more hard light
sources) I try to make them 'different' in some way - and that's not just
about sales and image: it's about my sanity!

(All those flash pops and I find I have a headache at the end of the day,
even with closing my eyes. I'm seriously thinking about buying a pair of
welding goggles...)

Try the LCD ones . . . they switch over instantly. I am not a fan of lots of
lighting either, so I limit how much of that I do. With some imagery, it is
necessary. The best is still natural light, but only if nature co-operates. ;-)

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com

"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Bandicoot wrote:
[SNIP]

ALPA recently introduced a special masked back for the Biogon
that is 36 mm by 72 mm, so 2:1 ratio. It almost sounds interesting
enough to try something like that. I set up a better test rig for the
35mm PC- Nikkor, and got a solid measured 84 mm image circle.
Not enough for full 6x9, but would work for some masked down
format on a 6x9 body. There is maybe an extra few millimetres of
coverage, but too much fall off to count on that for a variety of
shooting conditions.

That'll do for quite a few standard sizes: 645 is only 70mm diagonal, 6x6 is
78mm diagonal, X-Pan is just 69mm. Come to that, 6x7 is an 89mm diagonal,
so you're very nearly there for that too. In any case, a 35mm lens on 6x6
would be pretty impressive.


But I think that was because I'd only seen it badly used, as a
sort of poor man's 617 - ie. used for 'panoramas'. 'Panoramic
panoramas' need some sense of movement, or maybe 'flow' is a
better word. But the 2:1 format is very static - once I started
thinking of it like that I began to see more places it would work:
in essence finding good compositions for 6x12 is more like
finding them for 6x6 than it is for either 'short' formats like 6x7 or
even 35mm _or_ panoramic formats like X-Pan or 6x17. I
want to experiment with the 2:1 ratio for still life sometime - may
do a few crops from 6x9 just to see how I like the idea.

The 2:1 ratio is something we experimented with in college. I even
used it for a couple paintings. It can work, but part of the image
needs a strong focal point.

I used it for an abstract painting once, but that was a 'special case' in
that I treated it almost as two square compositions that played against one
another.


Horseman is joined by Linhof (and maybe Silvestri) in the 612
camp, but I agree it is unusual.

I thought about the Linhof when I typed that, but it is much more
expensive than the Horseman, and somewhat rare on the used
market. The early Linhof 6x12 cameras look like someone's garage
project . . . very unlike Linhof.

Like this?:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/ws/eBayISAPI.d...e=STRK:MEWA:IT

Yes, they do look very home-made, which as you say is not typical Linhof at
all. Even the latest ones look a bit 'boxy' - though they are clearly very
well made.


The Sinar Zoom back supports the format too. Perhaps this is
due to the compositional challenge it poses, but I suspect more
because if people are going for 'panoramic' on 120 film, a 617
body is much sexier.

That might be why the Xpan follows that ratio, rather than a smaller
ratio. All the 617 cameras are very huge, make scanning difficult,
and require large enlargers for chemical printing.

I couldn't scan 6x12 in-house either, but at least it can be printed with a
4x5 enlarger. 6x17 needs at least a 5x7 enlarger.

[SNIP]
Given the slow speed of the X-Pan lenses, I would think the
rangefinder would probably be OK to focus a 135mm, if it was,
say, an f4 or 5.6 - I've not checked this though.

I think a bigger issue for the longer lens would be the zooming
viewfinder. If they went with a device like the Leica finder 1.25x
magnifier, then they could go to a 135 mm without trouble.
Magnifying the 90 mm framelines would do well enough. Even an
Xpan to V system adapter could accomplish that.

Two interesting ideas. I'd thought of the finder as an auxilliary, like the
one for the 30mm is, but an eyepiece magnifier would be an interesting
alternative. The X = V adapter I like the idea of, but I suspect 'blad
might think it would simply mean X-Pan users buying a lot of used V system
lenses, rather than increasing their sales of new glass. Also, Fuji might
not like the idea. Still, maybe some third party...

An X = P6 adapter would be what I'd like. That'd let me put my 120mm Zeiss
and 150mm Schneider glass on it. I agree focusing the 180mm Sonnar might be
a bit of a stretch! Still, another adapter possibility is something with an
X body mount and a ground glass at the right registration distance: focus,
remount the lens without moving the focusing ring, and away you go. I can't
see anyone making one commercially, but if I had an adapter to use the
lenses, it would be tempting - and fairly easy - to make such a focusing
tool.

[SNIP]

Any idea of the flange to focal plane distance? I could do a
loose EPS mock-up for you to play with the idea.

Thanks - guess I should've said "a 6x9 capable body" really -
since I don't expect that particular lens to cover that much: 645
probably, 6x6 I think (based on peering at a ground glass), and
maybe 6x7 if I'm very lucky and don't mind the light falloff.

Anyway, the K-Mount registration distance is (by design) the
same as that for M42, that is: 45.46mm. Thanks - a mock up of
that would be helpful.

Really close to 46.5 mm, so I will just slightly change the location
of the lens. Give me the rear element diameter as well, since that is
the most important aspect of the lens. Also, if you can measure the
distance from the lens mount to the rear element (the inset), that is
another useful distance. This would be an Illustrator EPS, with the
various parts on Layers that can be switched off and on as needed.

For the Pentax shift lens, the rear element diameter is ~ 20.1mm, Inset ~
5.8mm. These measurements may be off by several hundredths as I was trying
to work out how to take the measurements without having steel tipped
instruments touch the glass...


Remember we talked about 'pancake' lenses in this thread a
while back? Pentax brought out a DA 40mm f2.8 Limited at
Photokina as a _very_ pancaked lens for the digital bodies.
Since this is aperture-ring-less (boo hiss) and AF, I suppose the
relative difficulty of gripping it doesn't matter much. I'm
wondering if the optical design is the same as the M 40mm f2.8.

The Nikon 45 mm f2.8 has such a small focus ring, that I did not
like using it. Too many new lenses are going this direction, because
the companies are too cheap to do a proper design. The least they
could do would be a lever like on some of the Voigtländer lenses.

At least with the 'pancake' lenses the control surfaces were small because
they had to be. To many modern lenses have them small because the
manufacturers assume few people will ever use them. There are plenty of AF
lenses with full sized focus rings (and not only those with clutches) so it
is cost, as you say, plus fashion, rather than really being about
practicality.

If you like focusing levers, that brings us back to the Konica S3 we were
talking about ages ago...

Okay, I think I will look into the Graflex XL adapter. Not
rotating the back would make a smaller camera. This is starting
to seem like an RB67 version of a Hasselblad SWC.

LOL - actually, that sounds like quite a good idea. The LF
world has several lenses that would cover - a Mamiya-Schneider
or Mamiya-Rodenstock joint effort would make a very
interesting alternative to the SWC...

The ALPA 12 can take a Mamiya back, so they sort of do that,
but at a high price. A slightly simpler design could be much less
expensive. Still a problem of the focusing mount expense, but
something that could be worked out.

An equally complex design made by anyone other than Alpa could be much less
expensive...

[SNIP]

It is all about providing a unique vision. Anyone can now buy a
very good camera, but the ideas are knowledge that cannot be
acquired through purchase. Providing that unique vision,
creative ideas, and solutions not easily imagined, are why there
will always be a market for some professional photographers.

I think that is true now more than ever. It has become so much
easier to make 'acceptable' technically OK pictures that - in the
eyes of those that think about it at least - I think people are
noticing that what sets a good photographer apart is not simply
that their pictures are sharp and properly exposed, but something
(or things) that are much more personal, and much harder to
emulate.


A more hand done, or one-of-a-kind, approach seems to be the
next popular move. Of course, some consider that sloppy. I do
lots of wide open, ultra short DoF shots, but some people ask why
everything is not in focus. many people are so use to the results of
slow zoom lenses, or P&S images, that a short DoF shot
confuses them. Panning shots are another area that confuse many
people.

I like very shallow DoF for some things - witness another thread where I was
talking about the f1.2 lens. But I think you are right, many people have
got so used to massive DoF that they are puzzled when it isn't there - all
the same, look how popular shallow DoF, often manipulated with movements (or
badly faked with PS) has become in, particularly, food photography. You
also still see it in movies and TV sometimes - maybe as a director's badge
of honour: "hey, look at me, I can get shallow DoF so I must be shooting on
35mm, not mini DV, right? ;-)" (CSI is a classic example.)

I was using very shallow DoF on one of those jewellery shots yesterday, as
it happens: a diamond tennis bracelet snaking off into the distance with
just a shallow band of sharpness across it, which was where it crossed a
line of light from a projection spot - and therefore where the diamonds were
producing the most fire - and with just enough resolution left at each end
to tell where the clasps were.

[SNIP]

(All those flash pops and I find I have a headache at the end of
the day, even with closing my eyes. I'm seriously thinking about
buying a pair of welding goggles...)

Try the LCD ones . . . they switch over instantly.

I'd wondered about those. Come to think of it, I bet Sharon has a pair (no
jokes, please) so I could borrow them to try.

I am not a fan of lots of lighting either, so I limit how much of that I
do. With some imagery, it is necessary. The best is still natural light,
but only if nature co-operates. ;-)

I love natural light, and live in a house that gets it from all four sides
so can pick and choose - also in a country not overly cursed with lots of
days of high contrast sun! One of my SI shots was an example of this: a
tray of quails' eggs shot just with the light from a cloudy sky (example of
shallow DoF too.) The vast majority of all my flower work - outside or in
the studio - is lit with natural light.

But I also enjoy the challenges of creating effects with artificial light
sometimes, or of using it subtley in an interior so that it enhances the
scene without it being apparent that anything artificial has been added.



Peter