Didn't think I was dissing smaller formats?
You make it sound as though I was advocating '8x10 or bust'. I didn't think I said that; I surely didn't mean anything of that nature. The original point was that a view camera doesn't 'force' a photographer into any particular style: you can have sharp, fuzzy, or anything. They're versatile. And I also specifially said there were some things view cameras don't do well, and gave a couple of examples. Encyclopedic? No, nor encyclopedic in length.
Originally Posted by wogster
One thing, though: you said that you wouldn't be surprised to see some folks take a shot with their 4x5 and then the same shot with a DSLR. I've been thinking about that and, for the life of me, can't figure out why I would want to do that. It sounds like a bad solution to not being able to make up one's mind, although I suppose that it's a natural extension of the conceptual need to have cameras in every possible format. After all, if you might need them then I suppose that you really ought to take all of them along with you when you're out photographing. What if you didn't have one and missed something?
Didn't intend that you were dissing other formats, just trying to add some more info to the thread,,,
Originally Posted by mjs
See my Blog at http://clickandspin.blogspot.com
The greatest advance in photography in the last 100 years is not digital, it's odourless stop bath....
About the string trick, you can get a small electronic laser rangefinder for about ~$30 from Sonin.
I am currently rigging one on a hot shoe to do scale focusing. You don't want to shine the thing in someone's eyes, but.... you get very precise distance measurements from ~2-60 ft , with no strings attached
Sounds like a good idea I had thought of getting one, but they'll be more expensive here in Turkey :rolleyes:
That's fine for modern lenses, but if you shoot with funky old lenses that have wacky field curvature or diffuse focus, you really have to look at the groundglass to decide where the focus is most aesthetically pleasing, and with field curvature as you have on a Petzval, you can't even measure using a focus scale and a rangefinder or tape measure, because the "focal plane" isn't a plane. In an article on soft focus lenses from the age of soft focus lenses mentioned a while back on the LF forum, several photographers were asked to focus a lens on the same subject, and they each picked different focal points based on aesthetic preference. Julia Margaret Cameron made the same argument in the nineteenth century.
Originally Posted by keithwms
What the string does is give you a fixed subject distance, and then you can place the focus precisely where you want it based on the groundglass image. You could do the same with the groundglass and a rangefinder, but it wouldn't necessarily involve a focus scale.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
So, you compose,
focus on the subject,
close the shutter,
cock the shutter,
load the film,
pull the slide,
look at the subject and blast her with a laser ?
Dude, won't fly in the portrait business.
I take the string and walk over and ask her to just touch the knot with her cheek,
and, she's in focus again.
Shoot. it's about the people, not the gadgets.
Dude, nobody's forcing you to use any gadgets I sometimes like to shoot with wooden boxes too! My two favourite cameras are from 1903!
Anyway... your proposed workflow is much too laborious. For my purposes it's more like this: Point the camera at a subject, pop the beam quickly on the subject to get the distance, set that distance on the lens, and fire. Waistlevel composition is optional.
Or simply use the distance meter to decide on optimal DOF settings.
So... no fine composing through a VF or GG, no stopping down, no close or cocking of shutters, no pulling of slides, and no model getting blasted with a laser! :rolleyes:
Ya tie your model with a knot to the end of the rope and shoot them with a Taser. Don't y'all know anything?
Originally Posted by keithwms
tim in san jose
P.S. a 1903 Taser if you want to be authentic.
Where ever you are, there you be.
I was going to make a tongue-in-cheek remark about drugging models but then I remembered that editor from shutterbug, Bob Shell. Oops.
I mean, that's one way to make sure you get them in focus. They surely won't be moving.. ever.