If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#221
|
|||
|
|||
Bandicoot wrote:
"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. Maybe I will just graft it onto my extra 6x6 folder body for now, and not mask it down at all. I guess that is close enough to a Biogon and SWC (38 mm). It also might give me 2 mm shift in any direction. Maybe I will try the panorama camera afterwards, and then go 36 mm by 72 mm. Things to consider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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. You found one! Sure looks home built, except for the price. Things like that lead me to believe I can make something that works, and has reasonably good looks. 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. Really a huge additional expense for what I do. However, there are a few panorama stock imaging companies that are only taking medium format panoramas submissions currently. Most do the scanning for you. [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... Fuji make the H1, so maybe an H system to X system adapter . . . though I think you are right about most buying used lenses. Regardless, it should not be too tough to make an adapter. An accessory rangefinder in the hot shoe, and using the distance marks on the lenses, could be another solution. 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! The 120 mm might work okay, though you still have an issue of proper framing and parallax correction. 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. Ground glass focus restricts you to tripod shots, and only on one roll of film, until you remove the lens. I like the accessory rangefinder idea and focus distance scales better. You would be surprised how accurate you can be with something like that . . . I almost never have a focus error with my folder cameras, even at very close distances near minimum focus distance. [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... No adventure in that . . . anyway, I should have something in EPS for you by this weekend. Then you can play around a bit, and see how things fit together. Besides, the measurements only need to be close to test the concept. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 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... The Silvestri is another direction, though that one is not much lower in cost. I think these things are about ten times the cost to produce the body, just going by the local CNC machine rates. Really, you could almost draw the proper dimensions on a napkin using a wide marker, and most of the local talent would get you a really nice finished piece (or several) in very short turn around. We have many former aerospace industry and former defence industry people locally, so rates are near $US 50 to $US 70 an hour. In my opinion, the lens with focus mount should be the most expensive part. [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. The short DoF was one reason I did some food photography. The look was very unique, compared to anything else the client had seen. 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.) In the movies, and television, it is possible with Super 16, but really tough with 1/2" DV gear. Honestly, those shots can be done cheaper and easier with Super 16 film cameras, and often are done that way. Many television shows are still done on film, since the hope of syndication means future transfer to HD (or the next greater standard); basically films future proofs formats in television . . . strange, but true. 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. Sounds nice. Hope the client (and customers) like it. [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. Dating a welder? (You don't have to answer that) 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! Natures soft box in the UK sky? 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. I missed the eggs, but maybe I did not have any coffee that day. ;-) 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. Using a mini maglight (torch in UK), you can add a small spot of warmth in food and product photography. A mini clamp, or stand, can help position that light better. You probably already tried that, but if not, give it a go. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#222
|
|||
|
|||
"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
... Bandicoot wrote: "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. Maybe I will just graft it onto my extra 6x6 folder body for now, and not mask it down at all. I guess that is close enough to a Biogon and SWC (38 mm). It also might give me 2 mm shift in any direction. Maybe I will try the panorama camera afterwards, and then go 36 mm by 72 mm. Things to consider . . . . . . Sounds like an easier way to make something to live with for a while, see how well it works, how much you like it... how often you use it... 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. You found one! Sure looks home built, except for the price. Things like that lead me to believe I can make something that works, and has reasonably good looks. Pure conicidence that I'd come across it just before reading your post. I agree, the clunky appearance does sort of offer encouragement that it can't be that hard to make something functional! Someone else is selling a Linhof 617 currently too, but with no lens or focus mount. Still not something I'm going to buy - not currently anyway. [SNIP] 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. Really a huge additional expense for what I do. However, there are a few panorama stock imaging companies that are only taking medium format panoramas submissions currently. Most do the scanning for you. Interesting - any of them take X-Pan I wonder? Though that at least I can scan myself (Minolta DiMage Scan Multi-Pro). Would be very interesting if I do fix up some sort of 6x12 for myself. [SNIP] 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! The 120 mm might work okay, though you still have an issue of proper framing and parallax correction. Yes, a finder that worked for distance shots wouldn't be too hard to make, but parallax correction would need some thought. 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. Ground glass focus restricts you to tripod shots, and only on one roll of film, until you remove the lens. I like the accessory rangefinder idea and focus distance scales better. You would be surprised how accurate you can be with something like that . . . I almost never have a focus error with my folder cameras, even at very close distances near minimum focus distance. I wasn't thinking of putting a ground glass on the camera, but putting it on the lens. ie., taking the lens off the body to focus it, and then re-attaching it. Sure it's clunky, but it's precise, gives DoF preview, and for 90% of the shots I'd want to use it for, the camera is on a tripod anyway and the extra time wouldn't be a big issue. But you see why I say I can't see anyone doing it commercially. An accessory rangefinder would work pretty well though, as you say, and these things can be very accurate. If I ever made an adapter to put other lenses on the X-Pan I expect I'd ideally want both options. Come to that, having the GG 'lens-adapter' would be useful (to me) for previewing DoF even with the current X-Pan lenses. [SNIP] 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... No adventure in that . . . anyway, I should have something in EPS for you by this weekend. Then you can play around a bit, and see how things fit together. Besides, the measurements only need to be close to test the concept. Thanks - will be very interesting. [SNIP] 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... The Silvestri is another direction, though that one is not much lower in cost. I think these things are about ten times the cost to produce the body, just going by the local CNC machine rates. Really, you could almost draw the proper dimensions on a napkin using a wide marker, and most of the local talent would get you a really nice finished piece (or several) in very short turn around. We have many former aerospace industry and former defence industry people locally, so rates are near $US 50 to $US 70 an hour. In my opinion, the lens with focus mount should be the most expensive part. Not seen taht one, though Silvestri is not known for being cheap either. Sadly machine shop rates are higher here, largely because few people seem interested in doing small or one-off runs. Agree about the focus mount - but _basically_ it's just a piece of aluminium with pair of brass or bronze lined screw threads, shouldn't be hard to have that machined either, then you can calibrate it with a ground glass. Your comment about the napkin reminds me of an anecdote about Picasso. Fairly late in his life he wanted some furniture made and sketched a rough design which he took to a local cabinet-maker, who said that yes, he could make it. "How much?" asked Picasso - "Oh, no charge... if you'll just sign the drawing." [SNIP] 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. The short DoF was one reason I did some food photography. The look was very unique, compared to anything else the client had seen. Ahh, so you're to blame... 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.) In the movies, and television, it is possible with Super 16, but really tough with 1/2" DV gear. Honestly, those shots can be done cheaper and easier with Super 16 film cameras, and often are done that way. Many television shows are still done on film, since the hope of syndication means future transfer to HD (or the next greater standard); basically films future proofs formats in television . . . strange, but true. Interesting, I can see how that would be so. And even Kodak seems to be supporting Super 16 quite well over here, with some new emulsions in the past year or so. One of my cousins is married to a film cameraman, I must talk to him about this stuff sometime. 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. Sounds nice. Hope the client (and customers) like it. Thanks - so do I. I might put a shot or two from this shoot into the file I make up my portfolio from, since it is a slightly new departure for me. And who knows when I'll next have 14 carats of flawless diamonds in my hand?... [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. Dating a welder? (You don't have to answer that) We're just good friends ;-) 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! Natures soft box in the UK sky? Yep, the best there is. With the garden photography I do I am always looking for that 'soft silver' light - so many owners expect me to want a bright sunny day, and I have to explain that that is the last thing I need. Light rain can be good too. 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. I missed the eggs, but maybe I did not have any coffee that day. ;-) It was this one: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/23332478/medium Lovely soft light, shot by an East facing window in the afternoon, 35mm, with a 100mm lens. This one is another natural light shot that I happen to have had in the SI, with slightly harder light: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/24309630/medium This one is on 6x7, using an RFB in my 4x5 stand camera. If you know wine, you can have fun drooling over the names on some of those corks! 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. Using a mini maglight (torch in UK), you can add a small spot of warmth in food and product photography. A mini clamp, or stand, can help position that light better. You probably already tried that, but if not, give it a go. Poor man's hosemaster (kinda)! I found I could never get an even beam with a Maglite, though that didn't matter in long exposures if it was moving. I got a Surefire a while back - just to keep in the camera bag to stop me tripping over roots while finding my way to pre-dawn landscape locations - and found that has a much more even beam, so have used that a couple of times with good effect. I must experiment with an LED torch sometime to see how film responds to that light - could be useful for cooler effects, if the emission isn't too 'spikey'. So many ideas to try, so little time! Peter |
#223
|
|||
|
|||
Bandicoot wrote:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Really a huge additional expense for what I do. However, there are a few panorama stock imaging companies that are only taking medium format panoramas submissions currently. Most do the scanning for you. Interesting - any of them take X-Pan I wonder? A couple did in the past, but I guess they had too many submissions on 35 mm film. Those two now only want medium format roll film submissions, though that might change in the future. Though that at least I can scan myself (Minolta DiMage Scan Multi-Pro). Would be very interesting if I do fix up some sort of 6x12 for myself. I guess the reason there is still a market for these medium format panoramas, is that they are not the majority of images. It also is one of the realms without many vertical images. The 6x12 format is not a bad way to go, and there are many 4" by 5" lenses that would work well for that. [SNIP] 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! The 120 mm might work okay, though you still have an issue of proper framing and parallax correction. Yes, a finder that worked for distance shots wouldn't be too hard to make, but parallax correction would need some thought. 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. Ground glass focus restricts you to tripod shots, and only on one roll of film, until you remove the lens. I like the accessory rangefinder idea and focus distance scales better. You would be surprised how accurate you can be with something like that . . . I almost never have a focus error with my folder cameras, even at very close distances near minimum focus distance. I wasn't thinking of putting a ground glass on the camera, but putting it on the lens. ie., taking the lens off the body to focus it, and then re-attaching it. Sure it's clunky, but it's precise, gives DoF preview, and for 90% of the shots I'd want to use it for, the camera is on a tripod anyway and the extra time wouldn't be a big issue. Still sounds slow, and better for tripod mounted cameras. ALPA had a short video clip (German only) of one Swiss photographer using a ALPA 12 with ground glass and a long lens. It looked slow, and too much like large format work, so IMHO the advantage of having a compact ALPA was somewhat lost. I would hate to drop one or the other while changing around . . . still think an accessory rangefinder is the best answer. But you see why I say I can't see anyone doing it commercially. An accessory rangefinder would work pretty well though, as you say, and these things can be very accurate. If I ever made an adapter to put other lenses on the X-Pan I expect I'd ideally want both options. Come to that, having the GG 'lens-adapter' would be useful (to me) for previewing DoF even with the current X-Pan lenses. Maybe a small box attachment to mount the lens and ground glass. Of course, you know that you would be viewing the scene upside down. [SNIP] 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... No adventure in that . . . anyway, I should have something in EPS for you by this weekend. Then you can play around a bit, and see how things fit together. Besides, the measurements only need to be close to test the concept. Thanks - will be very interesting. I forgot to ask, is this e-mail valid for you? If not, send me a regular e-mail so I have your proper address. [SNIP] 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... The Silvestri is another direction, though that one is not much lower in cost. I think these things are about ten times the cost to produce the body, just going by the local CNC machine rates. Really, you could almost draw the proper dimensions on a napkin using a wide marker, and most of the local talent would get you a really nice finished piece (or several) in very short turn around. We have many former aerospace industry and former defence industry people locally, so rates are near $US 50 to $US 70 an hour. In my opinion, the lens with focus mount should be the most expensive part. Not seen taht one, though Silvestri is not known for being cheap either. Sadly machine shop rates are higher here, largely because few people seem interested in doing small or one-off runs. Agree about the focus mount - but _basically_ it's just a piece of aluminium with pair of brass or bronze lined screw threads, shouldn't be hard to have that machined either, then you can calibrate it with a ground glass. I think I need to know more about focus mounts, and calibration to lenses. It seems to me that each lens focal length needs a different focus mount travel, but I just do not know if that is true. Your comment about the napkin reminds me of an anecdote about Picasso. Fairly late in his life he wanted some furniture made and sketched a rough design which he took to a local cabinet-maker, who said that yes, he could make it. "How much?" asked Picasso - "Oh, no charge... if you'll just sign the drawing." I heard one about Picasso when he was approached by a woman at a café. She asked him to do a little drawing, which he promptly produced on a napkin. When the woman asked if he could have that, he replied something to the effect like, "sure . . . that will be $5000", a reply which shocked and surprised the woman. [SNIP] 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. The short DoF was one reason I did some food photography. The look was very unique, compared to anything else the client had seen. Ahh, so you're to blame... I doubt it . . . but I had been doing ultra short DoF with all my other shots, so it seemed like a good idea at the time. Of course, the best food photographer I have ever seen is Noel Barnhurst: http://www.noelbarnhurst.com/ Great stuff, just found this site about a month ago. Lots of ideas. 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.) In the movies, and television, it is possible with Super 16, but really tough with 1/2" DV gear. Honestly, those shots can be done cheaper and easier with Super 16 film cameras, and often are done that way. Many television shows are still done on film, since the hope of syndication means future transfer to HD (or the next greater standard); basically films future proofs formats in television . . . strange, but true. Interesting, I can see how that would be so. And even Kodak seems to be supporting Super 16 quite well over here, with some new emulsions in the past year or so. One of my cousins is married to a film cameraman, I must talk to him about this stuff sometime. Check out the Aaton Minima. It is very small, and can even mount Nikon 35 mm film lenses. Cost is a little high, though I have heard of some owners renting them to recoup the expense. . . . . . . . . . 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. I missed the eggs, but maybe I did not have any coffee that day. ;-) It was this one: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/23332478/medium Lovely soft light, shot by an East facing window in the afternoon, 35mm, with a 100mm lens. Nice. The crop is the only thing I wonder about, though the shot does work as it sits. This one is another natural light shot that I happen to have had in the SI, with slightly harder light: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/24309630/medium This one is on 6x7, using an RFB in my 4x5 stand camera. If you know wine, you can have fun drooling over the names on some of those corks! Interesting shot. It almost seems like a square crop could have worked too, though I like the current one. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#224
|
|||
|
|||
"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
... Bandicoot wrote: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Really a huge additional expense for what I do. However, there are a few panorama stock imaging companies that are only taking medium format panoramas submissions currently. Most do the scanning for you. Interesting - any of them take X-Pan I wonder? A couple did in the past, but I guess they had too many submissions on 35 mm film. Those two now only want medium format roll film submissions, though that might change in the future. Pity, though maybe not surprising. Though that at least I can scan myself (Minolta DiMage Scan Multi-Pro). Would be very interesting if I do fix up some sort of 6x12 for myself. I guess the reason there is still a market for these medium format panoramas, is that they are not the majority of images. It also is one of the realms without many vertical images. The 6x12 format is not a bad way to go, and there are many 4" by 5" lenses that would work well for that. I quite like the odd vertical panorama, but they are harder to 'see', harder to look at (not the way the eyes scan naturally) and also have many fewer commercial uses - definitely a specialised niche play. [SNIP] 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! The 120 mm might work okay, though you still have an issue of proper framing and parallax correction. Yes, a finder that worked for distance shots wouldn't be too hard to make, but parallax correction would need some thought. 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. Ground glass focus restricts you to tripod shots, and only on one roll of film, until you remove the lens. I like the accessory rangefinder idea and focus distance scales better. You would be surprised how accurate you can be with something like that . . . I almost never have a focus error with my folder cameras, even at very close distances near minimum focus distance. I wasn't thinking of putting a ground glass on the camera, but putting it on the lens. ie., taking the lens off the body to focus it, and then re-attaching it. Sure it's clunky, but it's precise, gives DoF preview, and for 90% of the shots I'd want to use it for, the camera is on a tripod anyway and the extra time wouldn't be a big issue. Still sounds slow, and better for tripod mounted cameras. ALPA had a short video clip (German only) of one Swiss photographer using a ALPA 12 with ground glass and a long lens. It looked slow, and too much like large format work, so IMHO the advantage of having a compact ALPA was somewhat lost. I would hate to drop one or the other while changing around . . . still think an accessory rangefinder is the best answer. But you see why I say I can't see anyone doing it commercially. An accessory rangefinder would work pretty well though, as you say, and these things can be very accurate. If I ever made an adapter to put other lenses on the X-Pan I expect I'd ideally want both options. Come to that, having the GG 'lens-adapter' would be useful (to me) for previewing DoF even with the current X-Pan lenses. Maybe a small box attachment to mount the lens and ground glass. Of course, you know that you would be viewing the scene upside down. That's the sort of thing I was thinking of. I suppose one could get fancy and include an inverting lens - indeed the whole thing could be not entirely unlike those add ons that you can get to use a long lens as a sort of spotting scope, though they focus on the aerial image, not a GG. (Not sure that that wouldn't work too though, now I think about it.) [SNIP] 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... No adventure in that . . . anyway, I should have something in EPS for you by this weekend. Then you can play around a bit, and see how things fit together. Besides, the measurements only need to be close to test the concept. Thanks - will be very interesting. I forgot to ask, is this e-mail valid for you? If not, send me a regular e-mail so I have your proper address. Well, it works if you un-munge it, but it goes to an account I check only seldom. I'll send an email from my 'regular' account. Thanks again. [SNIP] Not seen taht one, though Silvestri is not known for being cheap either. Sadly machine shop rates are higher here, largely because few people seem interested in doing small or one-off runs. Agree about the focus mount - but _basically_ it's just a piece of aluminium with pair of brass or bronze lined screw threads, shouldn't be hard to have that machined either, then you can calibrate it with a ground glass. I think I need to know more about focus mounts, and calibration to lenses. It seems to me that each lens focal length needs a different focus mount travel, but I just do not know if that is true. Well, given that a lens needing a focus mount probably mounts near its optical centre rather than at a standardised registraton distance - ie. is an LF lens - the mount has to 'start' from a different position for infinity for a different lens. But from then on, it doesn't really matter how _much_ focus travel there is, it's just that moving a long lens an inch further away from the film than its infinity position might still only give you focus at 10', whereas moving a wide lens the same amount may bring the focus to less than 1' - or even to 'inside' the front element. So you could make a one mount fits all system, but it'd need to be adjustable for different infinity positions. What you can't do is have distances inscribed on the mount and have them hold good for more than a single focal length - though you could easily enough put on a couple of different scales, if you were only ever using two or three different lenses on it. That's probably totally unintelligible... Your comment about the napkin reminds me of an anecdote about Picasso. Fairly late in his life he wanted some furniture made and sketched a rough design which he took to a local cabinet-maker, who said that yes, he could make it. "How much?" asked Picasso - "Oh, no charge... if you'll just sign the drawing." I heard one about Picasso when he was approached by a woman at a café. She asked him to do a little drawing, which he promptly produced on a napkin. When the woman asked if he could have that, he replied something to the effect like, "sure . . . that will be $5000", a reply which shocked and surprised the woman. Yet photographers all know that their friends 'expect' free pictures, and free time! [SNIP] 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. The short DoF was one reason I did some food photography. The look was very unique, compared to anything else the client had seen. Ahh, so you're to blame... I doubt it . . . but I had been doing ultra short DoF with all my other shots, so it seemed like a good idea at the time. Of course, the best food photographer I have ever seen is Noel Barnhurst: http://www.noelbarnhurst.com/ Great stuff, just found this site about a month ago. Lots of ideas. Hmmm, I need to spend some time there, some impressive work. 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.) In the movies, and television, it is possible with Super 16, but really tough with 1/2" DV gear. Honestly, those shots can be done cheaper and easier with Super 16 film cameras, and often are done that way. Many television shows are still done on film, since the hope of syndication means future transfer to HD (or the next greater standard); basically films future proofs formats in television . . . strange, but true. Interesting, I can see how that would be so. And even Kodak seems to be supporting Super 16 quite well over here, with some new emulsions in the past year or so. One of my cousins is married to a film cameraman, I must talk to him about this stuff sometime. Check out the Aaton Minima. It is very small, and can even mount Nikon 35 mm film lenses. Cost is a little high, though I have heard of some owners renting them to recoup the expense. Don't know what Phil uses most - I'll have to ask him. I know he uses both film and DV, depending on what his client wants. 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. I missed the eggs, but maybe I did not have any coffee that day. ;-) It was this one: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/23332478/medium Lovely soft light, shot by an East facing window in the afternoon, 35mm, with a 100mm lens. Nice. The crop is the only thing I wonder about, though the shot does work as it sits. Thanks. I like this tight crop, but if I'd done this one for a client I'd have left a lot more space, either to let them decide a crop, or for text overlay. For me though the crop has the same effect as the shallow DoF: you can't see all of the subject, and what you can see isn't all in focus, but neither matters, because you can see everything you need in order to know all you want to about it. This one is another natural light shot that I happen to have had in the SI, with slightly harder light: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/24309630/medium This one is on 6x7, using an RFB in my 4x5 stand camera. If you know wine, you can have fun drooling over the names on some of those corks! Interesting shot. It almost seems like a square crop could have worked too, though I like the current one. Thanks again. Yes, circles in squares are always powerful, and that remains an option to trim this one down. I like the rectangular crop partly because it has a nice balance, with the open space at the bottom, but also because it makes the subject just a tiny bit less static. Maybe I'd feel it was a bit dead if it was a square. Both certainly work, but this is my own preference (today)... Peter |
#225
|
|||
|
|||
Bandicoot wrote:
"Gordon Moat" wrote in message ... Bandicoot wrote: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Really a huge additional expense for what I do. However, there are a few panorama stock imaging companies that are only taking medium format panoramas submissions currently. Most do the scanning for you. Interesting - any of them take X-Pan I wonder? A couple did in the past, but I guess they had too many submissions on 35 mm film. Those two now only want medium format roll film submissions, though that might change in the future. Pity, though maybe not surprising. I will send you a link for one of them when I mail you the EPS file. You can investigate more, if you want to try them. They do not have any notes about there current policy on their site, though it was reported recently in an industry magazine that interviewed the company. . . . . . . . . . An accessory rangefinder would work pretty well though, as you say, and these things can be very accurate. If I ever made an adapter to put other lenses on the X-Pan I expect I'd ideally want both options. Come to that, having the GG 'lens-adapter' would be useful (to me) for previewing DoF even with the current X-Pan lenses. Maybe a small box attachment to mount the lens and ground glass. Of course, you know that you would be viewing the scene upside down. That's the sort of thing I was thinking of. I suppose one could get fancy and include an inverting lens - indeed the whole thing could be not entirely unlike those add ons that you can get to use a long lens as a sort of spotting scope, though they focus on the aerial image, not a GG. (Not sure that that wouldn't work too though, now I think about it.) I have seen the telescope adapter for older Nikon lenses. Unfortunately, it gives a round view, so it would be tough to figure out a rectangle or panorama from the view. Some sort of mask might help, but I don't know if that would be accurate. However, you could use that sort of thing as a focus estimate device. . . . . . . . . . . I forgot to ask, is this e-mail valid for you? If not, send me a regular e-mail so I have your proper address. Well, it works if you un-munge it, but it goes to an account I check only seldom. I'll send an email from my 'regular' account. Thanks again. The one you get from me will be this weekend. [SNIP] Not seen taht one, though Silvestri is not known for being cheap either. Sadly machine shop rates are higher here, largely because few people seem interested in doing small or one-off runs. Agree about the focus mount - but _basically_ it's just a piece of aluminium with pair of brass or bronze lined screw threads, shouldn't be hard to have that machined either, then you can calibrate it with a ground glass. I think I need to know more about focus mounts, and calibration to lenses. It seems to me that each lens focal length needs a different focus mount travel, but I just do not know if that is true. Well, given that a lens needing a focus mount probably mounts near its optical centre rather than at a standardised registraton distance - ie. is an LF lens - the mount has to 'start' from a different position for infinity for a different lens. But from then on, it doesn't really matter how _much_ focus travel there is, it's just that moving a long lens an inch further away from the film than its infinity position might still only give you focus at 10', whereas moving a wide lens the same amount may bring the focus to less than 1' - or even to 'inside' the front element. So you could make a one mount fits all system, but it'd need to be adjustable for different infinity positions. Massive complexity. That solution would require several distance scales to be inscribed as well. What you can't do is have distances inscribed on the mount and have them hold good for more than a single focal length - though you could easily enough put on a couple of different scales, if you were only ever using two or three different lenses on it. Okay . . . exactly . . . you have pointed out the problem with that approach. That's probably totally unintelligible... Not at all . . . though I imagined that there would be a need for a different focus mount for each focal length, and likely for each type of lens. I would be somewhat surprised if every 150 mm large focus lens could use the same focus mount, just for one example. Your comment about the napkin reminds me of an anecdote about Picasso. Fairly late in his life he wanted some furniture made and sketched a rough design which he took to a local cabinet-maker, who said that yes, he could make it. "How much?" asked Picasso - "Oh, no charge... if you'll just sign the drawing." I heard one about Picasso when he was approached by a woman at a café. She asked him to do a little drawing, which he promptly produced on a napkin. When the woman asked if he could have that, he replied something to the effect like, "sure . . . that will be $5000", a reply which shocked and surprised the woman. Yet photographers all know that their friends 'expect' free pictures, and free time! Oh . . . could you print me out an extra copy of that . . . or could you print me out several of those, when you have the time . . . no rush . . . ;-) [SNIP] 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. The short DoF was one reason I did some food photography. The look was very unique, compared to anything else the client had seen. Ahh, so you're to blame... I doubt it . . . but I had been doing ultra short DoF with all my other shots, so it seemed like a good idea at the time. Of course, the best food photographer I have ever seen is Noel Barnhurst: http://www.noelbarnhurst.com/ Great stuff, just found this site about a month ago. Lots of ideas. Hmmm, I need to spend some time there, some impressive work. Seriously, I think Noel Barnhurst is the best food photographer I have ever seen. Even approaching some of those ideas would be a step up into food photography. You should also understand that having a good food stylist on location can make a huge difference in the final images. 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.) In the movies, and television, it is possible with Super 16, but really tough with 1/2" DV gear. Honestly, those shots can be done cheaper and easier with Super 16 film cameras, and often are done that way. Many television shows are still done on film, since the hope of syndication means future transfer to HD (or the next greater standard); basically films future proofs formats in television . . . strange, but true. Interesting, I can see how that would be so. And even Kodak seems to be supporting Super 16 quite well over here, with some new emulsions in the past year or so. One of my cousins is married to a film cameraman, I must talk to him about this stuff sometime. Check out the Aaton Minima. It is very small, and can even mount Nikon 35 mm film lenses. Cost is a little high, though I have heard of some owners renting them to recoup the expense. Don't know what Phil uses most - I'll have to ask him. I know he uses both film and DV, depending on what his client wants. I have done video and film work on more than a few occasions. Unfortunately, in southern California, there are so many people now willing to work for free in this realm (just to get a chance to network, and maybe get hired), that it is no longer worth it for me to go in that direction. I enjoyed the documentary work I did, and I might return to motion imagery in the future, but for now my emphasis is still images. 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. I missed the eggs, but maybe I did not have any coffee that day. ;-) It was this one: http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/23332478/medium Lovely soft light, shot by an East facing window in the afternoon, 35mm, with a 100mm lens. Nice. The crop is the only thing I wonder about, though the shot does work as it sits. Thanks. I like this tight crop, but if I'd done this one for a client I'd have left a lot more space, either to let them decide a crop, or for text overlay. Design friendly photography . . . you have touched upon one aspect that many art directors and designers complain about with images: room for text placement. For me though the crop has the same effect as the shallow DoF: you can't see all of the subject, and what you can see isn't all in focus, but neither matters, because you can see everything you need in order to know all you want to about it. The mind creates the impression of what remains. This is why some images with nothing in focus can still work, and create interest in the subject matter, or scene. It can sometimes be tougher to capture and hold a viewers attention when everything is in focus, though that is when crops work well. If you think about your images a bit more, you might actually notice that you do think a little like a painter. ;-) Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#226
|
|||
|
|||
"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
... Bandicoot wrote: "Gordon Moat" wrote in message ... Bandicoot wrote: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Really a huge additional expense for what I do. However, there are a few panorama stock imaging companies that are only taking medium format panoramas submissions currently. Most do the scanning for you. Interesting - any of them take X-Pan I wonder? A couple did in the past, but I guess they had too many submissions on 35 mm film. Those two now only want medium format roll film submissions, though that might change in the future. Pity, though maybe not surprising. I will send you a link for one of them when I mail you the EPS file. You can investigate more, if you want to try them. They do not have any notes about there current policy on their site, though it was reported recently in an industry magazine that interviewed the company. Thanks - I can certainly send them something and see what they say. My usual people do accept pano.s, but I've thought for a while that a specialist library might get more sales from them, especially those rather unusual verticals that I do. [SNIP] Maybe a small box attachment to mount the lens and ground glass. Of course, you know that you would be viewing the scene upside down. That's the sort of thing I was thinking of. I suppose one could get fancy and include an inverting lens - indeed the whole thing could be not entirely unlike those add ons that you can get to use a long lens as a sort of spotting scope, though they focus on the aerial image, not a GG. (Not sure that that wouldn't work too though, now I think about it.) I have seen the telescope adapter for older Nikon lenses. Unfortunately, it gives a round view, so it would be tough to figure out a rectangle or panorama from the view. Some sort of mask might help, but I don't know if that would be accurate. However, you could use that sort of thing as a focus estimate device. Those adapters exist for Pentax too - but I'm not sure one used 'from stock' would do the job. Given that SLRs always focus on a GG (except when using a plain screen for photomicrography, and that's a whole different process) I suspect that the idea of using the aerial image to focus has been tried and found wanting - not that that means I can't try it too! Still I expect that _if_ I ever decided to give this a go, a little box with a GG and an eyepiece would be the best way to build such a focus and DoF 'preview' aid. Of course, if the lens I was using was an SLR one, all I'd need would be to have along a body that it fitted... [SNIP] I think I need to know more about focus mounts, and calibration to lenses. It seems to me that each lens focal length needs a different focus mount travel, but I just do not know if that is true. Well, given that a lens needing a focus mount probably mounts near its optical centre rather than at a standardised registraton distance - ie. is an LF lens - the mount has to 'start' from a different position for infinity for a different lens. But from then on, it doesn't really matter how _much_ focus travel there is, it's just that moving a long lens an inch further away from the film than its infinity position might still only give you focus at 10', whereas moving a wide lens the same amount may bring the focus to less than 1' - or even to 'inside' the front element. So you could make a one mount fits all system, but it'd need to be adjustable for different infinity positions. Massive complexity. That solution would require several distance scales to be inscribed as well. Yes, though your multiple scales could simply include an infinity mark - you'd need to eyeball the lens' alignment to the mark rather than just knowing "if I turn it all the way left it's focused on infinity" but it wouldn't be too bad. It would mean you'd end up with very short focus throw on wide lenses, and very long thrown (multiple turns, probably) on long ones, because they'd all be using the same pitch thread. Not a great answer, but workable and the cheapest way if you are only using two or maybe three different lenses. What you can't do is have distances inscribed on the mount and have them hold good for more than a single focal length - though you could easily enough put on a couple of different scales, if you were only ever using two or three different lenses on it. Okay . . . exactly . . . you have pointed out the problem with that approach. That's probably totally unintelligible... Not at all . . . though I imagined that there would be a need for a different focus mount for each focal length, and likely for each type of lens. I would be somewhat surprised if every 150 mm large focus lens could use the same focus mount, just for one example. In truth I don't know the answer to that. In theory they would: if they both focus infinity with their exit pupil 150mm from the film plane, they'll both give life-size with it 300mm out. But that assumes neither is a telephoto (or retrofocus) design. Also, the exit pupil and mounting flange may not be in the same relationship to each other in different lenses, and there's probably other issues with modern non-symetrical lens designs that I don't know about. Basically, I think it is, as you say, a separate scale at least, and a separate mount if practical/affordable for every lens. [SNIP] Yet photographers all know that their friends 'expect' free pictures, and free time! Oh . . . could you print me out an extra copy of that . . . or could you me out several of those, when you have the time . . . no rush . . . ;-) Yes, just last night I had that. On the other hand, the person who was asking had come along and acted as assistant on the shoot she was asking about, so I didn't mind that request so much. The one that really got me once was "Oh, I like that - could you do me some for me to use as Christmas cards next year?" To which, of course, the answer is that I have a standard price for cards... [SNIP] http://www.noelbarnhurst.com/ Great stuff, just found this site about a month ago. Lots of ideas. Hmmm, I need to spend some time there, some impressive work. Seriously, I think Noel Barnhurst is the best food photographer I have ever seen. Even approaching some of those ideas would be a step up into food photography. You should also understand that having a good food stylist on location can make a huge difference in the final images. I think I agree with you there, very impressive work. The food stylist seems pretty much an essential for doing complex dishes, and that's part of the reason I wouldn't look for a comission to do this sort of thing. The simpler stock type shots that are effectively still lives of ingredients, rather than portraits of finished meals, are something I do now and again, but I don't think I want to specialise in food enough to go further into it than that. [SNIP] Don't know what Phil uses most - I'll have to ask him. I know he uses both film and DV, depending on what his client wants. I have done video and film work on more than a few occasions. Unfortunately, in southern California, there are so many people now willing to work for free in this realm (just to get a chance to network, and maybe get hired), that it is no longer worth it for me to go in that direction. I enjoyed the documentary work I did, and I might return to motion imagery in the future, but for now my emphasis is still images. I can imagine how that could be a problem in your part of the world. My cousin Phil does film and TV stuff - I quite often see his name in the credits - so he doesn't need to do freebies, but I guess everyone had to start somewhere, and it's a competitive market. Fortunately he is a really nice guy, despite having survived all the competition. [SNIP] Thanks. I like this tight crop, but if I'd done this one for a client I'd have left a lot more space, either to let them decide a crop, or for text overlay. Design friendly photography . . . you have touched upon one aspect that many art directors and designers complain about with images: room for text placement. I'm always surprised how many people don't take this into account. Especially for stock work, where you don't have a design director breathing down your neck and so have to be your own designer - "what would I need if I was to use this shot for a cover/advert/background/whatever" is a question too few people ask themselves, it seems. With your illustration background you must have something of a head start in this area. For me though the crop has the same effect as the shallow DoF: you can't see all of the subject, and what you can see isn't all in focus, but neither matters, because you can see everything you need in order to know all you want to about it. The mind creates the impression of what remains. This is why some images with nothing in focus can still work, and create interest in the subject matter, or scene. It can sometimes be tougher to capture and hold a viewers attention when everything is in focus, though that is when crops work well. If you think about your images a bit more, you might actually notice that you do think a little like a painter. ;-) Yes, the 'everything sharp' school of work - a la group f64 - can be hard to keep interesting enough sometimes. Increasingly I think you're right about how far painting has influenced the way I think about putting a picture together. Like so many things we absorb from an early age it is somewhat unconscious for me, though it is probably a good exercise to think about it more from time to time - one of the reasons I think I learn as much as my students do from the teaching I do. Peter |
#227
|
|||
|
|||
"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
... Bandicoot wrote: [SNIP] Thanks - I can certainly send them something and see what they say. My usual people do accept pano.s, but I've thought for a while that a specialist library might get more sales from them, especially those rather unusual verticals that I do. Okay, I just sent you an e-mail with one link for you to explore. It is coming from my regular business e-mail. I will pass on some more, after I find my list again. Have received that and replied offline - thanks (again). [SNIP] In truth I don't know the answer to that. In theory they would: if they both focus infinity with their exit pupil 150mm from the film plane, they'll both give life-size with it 300mm out. But that assumes neither is a telephoto (or retrofocus) design. Also, the exit pupil and mounting flange may not be in the same relationship to each other in different lenses, and there's probably other issues with modern non-symetrical lens designs that I don't know about. Basically, I think it is, as you say, a separate scale at least, and a separate mount if practical/affordable for every lens. Get too complex, and then purchasing a ready made solution can seem to be a better idea. The point of doing something like this on your own is to get a simpler device at lower cost. Of course, another reason would be to develop a solution that does not exist, so something unique when finished. Yes, I think my aim is something of a 'universal' wide camera - something I can put a variety of backs on, and can use with any lens, shuttered or not, that I want to play with. You seem to have a similar idea, but giving up some of the 'universality' in return for the ease of handling that my solution will certainly lack. I think for a slight difference in overall objective, we're going to end up with very different cameras - which I suppose says it all in terms of 'getting something that doesn't otherwise exist', because no one would commercially make anything that satisfies so specific, and possibly unique, a set of requirements. [SNIP] The food stylist for the shots I did, were actually chefs who worked at those restaurants. I think that might be the first best choice in some situations, since the client that hired you would be paying them. The downside of that approach is when you get a chef that is not able to visually tweak a dish, since some foods look better at a stage of preparation that might not be palatable. The simpler stock type shots that are effectively still lives of ingredients, rather than portraits of finished meals, are something I do now and again, but I don't think I want to specialise in food enough to go further into it than that. Never really thought of "nature mort" views of food ingredients, though it could work well. Maybe I will do a set-up at the studio, just to get some practice with small lighting again. It's a very small market, but there'll always be some demand - I tend to do it to finish up rolls anytime I have the 'small photography' lighting and so on already set up. Of course, now and then I have a good idea to play with too - like the fresh fig sliced through with a bright highlight on the knife blade: I had set up the lighting for something else and was about to eat the fig for lunch when I 'saw' that the lighting could make a good shot. [SNIP] Design friendly photography . . . you have touched upon one aspect that many art directors and designers complain about with images: room for text placement. I'm always surprised how many people don't take this into account. Especially for stock work, where you don't have a design director breathing down your neck and so have to be your own designer - "what would I need if I was to use this shot for a cover/advert/background/whatever" is a question too few people ask themselves, it seems. With your illustration background you must have something of a head start in this area. I am trying to come up with a positioning statement that reflects my approach to photography. So far, the term design friendly, or even ad friendly, or text friendly, are some choices. Then the problem would be that my portfolio needs to emphasize and reinforce my positioning statement. Something like 'design friendly' or 'layout aware' sounds good, but as you say, you then have to prove it via your portfolio. This sounds like something that is better demonstrated with tear sheets than with 'clean' shots - but that can take a lot of time to build, of course. [SNIP] Yes, the 'everything sharp' school of work - a la group f64 - can be hard to keep interesting enough sometimes. I rarely have used that approach, even when I was doing architecture photography. Selective focus can emphasize focal points. When there is little visual information in an image, then an all things in focus approach can be effective. Selective lighting is an alternative to selective focus, and I certainly quite often allow shadows to block up deliberately. I think this all comes down to the difference in the way the brain analyses a photograph from a real scene: a photograph needs to work 'in a single glance' to a much greater extent, and that limits how much information it is (usually) good to have in it. Of course, there are exceptions that prove the rule, but often these relate to the idea of masses of detail all saying the same thing, not to lots of 'separate' things going on. Have you looked at Galen Rowell's book "G.R.'s Inner Game of Outdoor Photography"? It's not really your sort of photography, so you might have passed it by, but the things he has to say about how the brain interprets a picture are extremely interesting. Increasingly I think you're right about how far painting has influenced the way I think about putting a picture together. Like so many things we absorb from an early age it is somewhat unconscious for me, though it is probably a good exercise to think about it more from time to time - one of the reasons I think I learn as much as my students do from the teaching I do. Peter Painting has been a huge influence on the way I photograph. It is such a prevalent aspect of how I see, that I even notice painting references in motion pictures. My painting are somewhat removed from reality, and representational, though I think some photographic aspects also appear in some of them. In some ways, painting and photography are complimentary. I wish more people could see that complementarity - there are still those who cling to the long defunct divides between Fine Art & craft, and between art & science, and think photography and painting live on opposite sides of this imaginary chasm. Peter |
#228
|
|||
|
|||
Bandicoot wrote:
. . . . . . . . . . . The point of doing something like this on your own is to get a simpler device at lower cost. Of course, another reason would be to develop a solution that does not exist, so something unique when finished. Yes, I think my aim is something of a 'universal' wide camera - something I can put a variety of backs on, and can use with any lens, shuttered or not, that I want to play with. I would not mind a somewhat similar multi approach, though having several backs would be more to carry. The other idea is using masks on 6x9 to have other formats, though again there are a few issues in use, and there are still only eight shots on a 120 roll. You seem to have a similar idea, but giving up some of the 'universality' in return for the ease of handling that my solution will certainly lack. I just don't see using it often enough to make a really complex version, which to me would mean that a very simple, few parts, solution would be good enough to accomplish what I want. I think for a slight difference in overall objective, we're going to end up with very different cameras - which I suppose says it all in terms of 'getting something that doesn't otherwise exist', because no one would commercially make anything that satisfies so specific, and possibly unique, a set of requirements. I don't imagine too many ALPA, Silvestri, or Ebony Finesse cameras are sold either. These are very specialized, limited use camera systems. Even expanding their uses involves many compromises. There really is no one camera to do it all. . . . . . . . . . . . . Design friendly photography . . . you have touched upon one aspect that many art directors and designers complain about with images: room for text placement. I'm always surprised how many people don't take this into account. Especially for stock work, where you don't have a design director breathing down your neck and so have to be your own designer - "what would I need if I was to use this shot for a cover/advert/background/whatever" is a question too few people ask themselves, it seems. With your illustration background you must have something of a head start in this area. I am trying to come up with a positioning statement that reflects my approach to photography. So far, the term design friendly, or even ad friendly, or text friendly, are some choices. Then the problem would be that my portfolio needs to emphasize and reinforce my positioning statement. Something like 'design friendly' or 'layout aware' sounds good, but as you say, you then have to prove it via your portfolio. I am getting closer on a finalized portfolio, though of course it is dynamic and will continue to change . . . you know what I mean, I just need a good organized launching point. This sounds like something that is better demonstrated with tear sheets than with 'clean' shots - but that can take a lot of time to build, of course. Strange that many reviewers do not want to see tear sheets, but prefer to see personal work, or even fine art work. The bad part about a tear sheet approach is that I think some of my commercial work looks a little boring for a portfolio; the clients liked those images, but I did not find much excitement in them. Another idea would be to place images into mock-up advertisements, which would not be too tough to do (after all, I am a print designer (graphic designer)). I want to avoid having things from my design portfolio in my photography portfolio, though I could have some cross-over. Many things to still consider. [SNIP] Yes, the 'everything sharp' school of work - a la group f64 - can be hard to keep interesting enough sometimes. I rarely have used that approach, even when I was doing architecture photography. Selective focus can emphasize focal points. When there is little visual information in an image, then an all things in focus approach can be effective. Selective lighting is an alternative to selective focus, and I certainly quite often allow shadows to block up deliberately. Sure, I do that with some scenes. It can be just as effective, and even provide more graphic, geometric visual elements in the final images. I think this all comes down to the difference in the way the brain analyses a photograph from a real scene: a photograph needs to work 'in a single glance' to a much greater extent, and that limits how much information it is (usually) good to have in it. Of course, there are exceptions that prove the rule, but often these relate to the idea of masses of detail all saying the same thing, not to lots of 'separate' things going on. Rhythm and repetition are valid compositional choices, yet few photographers really exploit those qualities in their images . . . you just gave me an idea! I have some recent test shots from a 645 that are very geometric, and I think some might work quite well side be side, which would further emphasize the geometric patterns within them. Have you looked at Galen Rowell's book "G.R.'s Inner Game of Outdoor Photography"? It's not really your sort of photography, so you might have passed it by, but the things he has to say about how the brain interprets a picture are extremely interesting. I will see if I can find it at Border's Books, or Barnes & Noble. You are partially right, I largely pass up on anything landscape or nature photography, though I have seen some nice images. I even exhibit with a group that largely does large format nature images, some really nice examples, though I just do not see myself going that direction. I grew up in the city, and I like the urban environment much more. Increasingly I think you're right about how far painting has influenced the way I think about putting a picture together. Like so many things we absorb from an early age it is somewhat unconscious for me, though it is probably a good exercise to think about it more from time to time - one of the reasons I think I learn as much as my students do from the teaching I do. Peter Painting has been a huge influence on the way I photograph. It is such a prevalent aspect of how I see, that I even notice painting references in motion pictures. My painting are somewhat removed from reality, and representational, though I think some photographic aspects also appear in some of them. In some ways, painting and photography are complimentary. I wish more people could see that complementarity Did spellcheck pick that up? - there are still those who cling to the long defunct divides between Fine Art & craft, and between art & science, and think photography and painting live on opposite sides of this imaginary chasm. Yes, many people still think that photography should not be fine art. However, I have seen a shift in the last three years, and photography is becoming much more important in the fine art world. Part of that is due to some big name collectors (rich people) that want to buy lots of photography they consider important. Of course, I am still astounded by how much money a Gursky photo can go for currently. It is a shame that some are so narrow minded that they cannot accept any medium of creative expression. There is definitely still a higher respect for painting, though I am seeing some exhibits that are nearly half photography, and much more colour prints than I saw even five years ago. You might find this strange, but I would almost give up photography if I could make a living from my paintings. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to make that a reality, so my emphasis is on the commercial aspects of print design, and commercial photography. I enjoy my fine art work, and it keeps me creative, but it barely pays for itself. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
#229
|
|||
|
|||
Bandicoot wrote:
. . . . . . . . . . . The point of doing something like this on your own is to get a simpler device at lower cost. Of course, another reason would be to develop a solution that does not exist, so something unique when finished. Yes, I think my aim is something of a 'universal' wide camera - something I can put a variety of backs on, and can use with any lens, shuttered or not, that I want to play with. I would not mind a somewhat similar multi approach, though having several backs would be more to carry. The other idea is using masks on 6x9 to have other formats, though again there are a few issues in use, and there are still only eight shots on a 120 roll. You seem to have a similar idea, but giving up some of the 'universality' in return for the ease of handling that my solution will certainly lack. I just don't see using it often enough to make a really complex version, which to me would mean that a very simple, few parts, solution would be good enough to accomplish what I want. I think for a slight difference in overall objective, we're going to end up with very different cameras - which I suppose says it all in terms of 'getting something that doesn't otherwise exist', because no one would commercially make anything that satisfies so specific, and possibly unique, a set of requirements. I don't imagine too many ALPA, Silvestri, or Ebony Finesse cameras are sold either. These are very specialized, limited use camera systems. Even expanding their uses involves many compromises. There really is no one camera to do it all. . . . . . . . . . . . . Design friendly photography . . . you have touched upon one aspect that many art directors and designers complain about with images: room for text placement. I'm always surprised how many people don't take this into account. Especially for stock work, where you don't have a design director breathing down your neck and so have to be your own designer - "what would I need if I was to use this shot for a cover/advert/background/whatever" is a question too few people ask themselves, it seems. With your illustration background you must have something of a head start in this area. I am trying to come up with a positioning statement that reflects my approach to photography. So far, the term design friendly, or even ad friendly, or text friendly, are some choices. Then the problem would be that my portfolio needs to emphasize and reinforce my positioning statement. Something like 'design friendly' or 'layout aware' sounds good, but as you say, you then have to prove it via your portfolio. I am getting closer on a finalized portfolio, though of course it is dynamic and will continue to change . . . you know what I mean, I just need a good organized launching point. This sounds like something that is better demonstrated with tear sheets than with 'clean' shots - but that can take a lot of time to build, of course. Strange that many reviewers do not want to see tear sheets, but prefer to see personal work, or even fine art work. The bad part about a tear sheet approach is that I think some of my commercial work looks a little boring for a portfolio; the clients liked those images, but I did not find much excitement in them. Another idea would be to place images into mock-up advertisements, which would not be too tough to do (after all, I am a print designer (graphic designer)). I want to avoid having things from my design portfolio in my photography portfolio, though I could have some cross-over. Many things to still consider. [SNIP] Yes, the 'everything sharp' school of work - a la group f64 - can be hard to keep interesting enough sometimes. I rarely have used that approach, even when I was doing architecture photography. Selective focus can emphasize focal points. When there is little visual information in an image, then an all things in focus approach can be effective. Selective lighting is an alternative to selective focus, and I certainly quite often allow shadows to block up deliberately. Sure, I do that with some scenes. It can be just as effective, and even provide more graphic, geometric visual elements in the final images. I think this all comes down to the difference in the way the brain analyses a photograph from a real scene: a photograph needs to work 'in a single glance' to a much greater extent, and that limits how much information it is (usually) good to have in it. Of course, there are exceptions that prove the rule, but often these relate to the idea of masses of detail all saying the same thing, not to lots of 'separate' things going on. Rhythm and repetition are valid compositional choices, yet few photographers really exploit those qualities in their images . . . you just gave me an idea! I have some recent test shots from a 645 that are very geometric, and I think some might work quite well side be side, which would further emphasize the geometric patterns within them. Have you looked at Galen Rowell's book "G.R.'s Inner Game of Outdoor Photography"? It's not really your sort of photography, so you might have passed it by, but the things he has to say about how the brain interprets a picture are extremely interesting. I will see if I can find it at Border's Books, or Barnes & Noble. You are partially right, I largely pass up on anything landscape or nature photography, though I have seen some nice images. I even exhibit with a group that largely does large format nature images, some really nice examples, though I just do not see myself going that direction. I grew up in the city, and I like the urban environment much more. Increasingly I think you're right about how far painting has influenced the way I think about putting a picture together. Like so many things we absorb from an early age it is somewhat unconscious for me, though it is probably a good exercise to think about it more from time to time - one of the reasons I think I learn as much as my students do from the teaching I do. Peter Painting has been a huge influence on the way I photograph. It is such a prevalent aspect of how I see, that I even notice painting references in motion pictures. My painting are somewhat removed from reality, and representational, though I think some photographic aspects also appear in some of them. In some ways, painting and photography are complimentary. I wish more people could see that complementarity Did spellcheck pick that up? - there are still those who cling to the long defunct divides between Fine Art & craft, and between art & science, and think photography and painting live on opposite sides of this imaginary chasm. Yes, many people still think that photography should not be fine art. However, I have seen a shift in the last three years, and photography is becoming much more important in the fine art world. Part of that is due to some big name collectors (rich people) that want to buy lots of photography they consider important. Of course, I am still astounded by how much money a Gursky photo can go for currently. It is a shame that some are so narrow minded that they cannot accept any medium of creative expression. There is definitely still a higher respect for painting, though I am seeing some exhibits that are nearly half photography, and much more colour prints than I saw even five years ago. You might find this strange, but I would almost give up photography if I could make a living from my paintings. Unfortunately, it is very difficult to make that a reality, so my emphasis is on the commercial aspects of print design, and commercial photography. I enjoy my fine art work, and it keeps me creative, but it barely pays for itself. Ciao! Gordon Moat A G Studio http://www.allgstudio.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
It's Official: Nikon announces the D2X | Peter Lawrence | Digital Photography | 84 | September 21st 04 07:41 PM |
CANON - The Great Innovator (was: CANON – The Great Pretender) | Steven M. Scharf | Digital Photography | 104 | September 3rd 04 01:01 PM |
CANON - The Great Innovator (was: CANON – The Great Pretender) | Steven M. Scharf | 35mm Photo Equipment | 92 | September 3rd 04 01:01 PM |