pico Posted December 7, 2011 Share #101 Posted December 7, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Amy size Deardorf. The latest issue of Digital PhotoPro magazine has an article about Arny Freytag. He used to spend 4 days shooting a Playboy centerfold on 8x10 and now only has one morning to do it on digital. I remember back when I was in school there was a professor who shot mountain and landscape photos with a 5x7 Linhof. He hated 35mm and called it "miniature" photography. You couldn't use smaller than 4x5 in his class. I had heard such horror stories about him that when I was assigned his class I fought with the director for about an hour until he assigned me to another class. So what happened? I became a large format architectural photographer and probably could have really benefited from his class. Ironic! IMHO, the 8x10 Deardorf is a poor choice for architectural work unless you need the weight (heavy) and can deal with limited movements. I have two Linhofs, a field and a studio camera (4x5) and a Sinar that is superb. However, since getting the M9 I've been having so much fun the view cameras haven't been touched for months. Unlike you, I don't have to make a living from my work. Lucky me. You guys traveling with 35mm and a few rolls of film have it so easy. You have no idea what it was like to travel with 4x5, lighting, and film in holders (before Quickload/Readyload.) I hated using changing bags because images would be ruined by dust, so the film cases alone would be pretty big. This is before checked luggage was getting zapped. Bad news - Quick/Readyload films are falling from the market. I use a Calumet tent and wear gloves when loading. Skin is a major dust maker - but you know that. Thanks for your good information here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 7, 2011 Posted December 7, 2011 Hi pico, Take a look here film ruined by airport security. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
AlanG Posted December 7, 2011 Share #102 Posted December 7, 2011 Since Pico and I are now having a private discussion, feel free to talk among yourselves. I never shot any significant amount of architecture on 8x10 despite having owned an 8x10 Cambo and a Kodak All Metal Commercial View camera. My first view camera was a Linhof Kardan Color 45S. Then I got a Kardan Bi which is a phenomenally well made and very versatile camera. I mostly used that for many years along with a solid body Cambo Wide that had 47 and 65 lenses on a shifting mount. The Sinar cameras did not have nearly as much direct displacement as the Kardan Bi - especially front rise and shifts. The Sinar F was not nearly as useful and the Sinar P while precise was too heavy for field use. I was kind of a Linhof enthusiast and owned a lot of their products including 4x5 and 6x9 Super Technikas, a Technika 70 with the Zeiss lens set, a Linhof 220, and a wide variety of their accessories including their 70mm filter system and all of their color correction filters, reflex finder, compendiums, etc. I still have around a half dozen Linhof tripods and heads. I also owned or used a lot of other view cameras including Cambos, Sinars, Plaubels, and Gandolfis. I eventually got rid of the Kardan Bi and the Cambo Wide and bought a 4x5 Linhof Technikardan S. That worked for all of my 14 lenses from 35mm to 300 and was much lighter and smaller although of course it was not quite as sturdy. At that point I was using 6x9 or 6x12 roll film mostly because I was scanning images for my clients and 4x5 was overkill (and an expensive hassle) for the resolution they typically wanted... only around 40 meg files. Now does it look like maybe I have some affinity for and experience with using film? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybob Posted December 7, 2011 Share #103 Posted December 7, 2011 Now does it look like maybe I have some affinity for and experience with using film? I always knew you had it in ya. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 7, 2011 Share #104 Posted December 7, 2011 I always knew you had it in ya. Yeah and I also tried to learn from my countless mistakes. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted December 7, 2011 Share #105 Posted December 7, 2011 Since Pico and I are now having a private discussion, feel free to talk among yourselves. [... snip what reads like my camera biography ...] Now does it look like maybe I have some affinity for and experience with using film? Yep! And I love it. Let me share my latest failure, or mistake: A Horseman 6x12cm rollfilm camera with 35mm Grandagon - not the one with front rise. I was amazed that I finally found a lens/format that is just too darned wide for me. Even with the clever level and eyepiece, I have an awful time with tilted horizons (typically 2 degrees), and keystoning even when parallel and level. Back to Leica - Color was not part of my career for the most part and the M9 is liberating me to learn again. I've a lot to learn. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stealth3kpl Posted December 7, 2011 Share #106 Posted December 7, 2011 Arny Freytag. He used to spend 4 days shooting a Playboy centerfold on 8x10 and now only has one morning to do it on digital. How can that be progress? Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 7, 2011 Share #107 Posted December 7, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yep! And I love it. Let me share my latest failure, or mistake: A Horseman 6x12cm rollfilm camera with 35mm Grandagon - not the one with front rise. I was amazed that I finally found a lens/format that is just too darned wide for me. Even with the clever level and eyepiece, I have an awful time with tilted horizons (typically 2 degrees), and keystoning even when parallel and level. Yes, I shot with this lens and 6x12 also. (I mostly used 6x9 with it.) Even with the center filter there is significant vignetting. I bought that lens directly from Linhof Germany pre-installed in a deeply recessed mount and a special cable release linkage for the Technikardan. Despite that it was almost impossible to cock the shutter, adjust the aperture, or use the open shutter lever. It seemed idiotic that Linhof would expect anyone to try to work with something like this and they certainly would have modified the controls for the shutter in the old days. So I had to modify it myself by diassasmbling the whole thing and gluing on various extension levers that I made. Even still, my little finger could just barely reach in to turn the shutter speed ring and it was hard to see the shutter speeds. Prior to making these modifications, I had to adjust the lens with a little stick and it was always hard to attach the synch cord. Can you imagine one has to resort to something like that when shooting under pressure in low light with the camera in an awkward position (maybe even working on a ladder using a mirror to set the lens from behind) with supposed top of the line gear? The 47 was a bit easier to adjust. And some here wonder why I find digital to be so much easier. Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/167777-film-ruined-by-airport-security/?do=findComment&comment=1864928'>More sharing options...
plasticman Posted December 7, 2011 Share #108 Posted December 7, 2011 So the thread started with someone who thought their film had been fogged by airport security - but looking at the facts it probably hasn't... and within a few short posts, the usual suspects are back on their digital > film bandwagon. None of those people contributed to a recent thread containing good news about film use - that one faded after five or six posts. But this thread apparently contained that infinitesimal crumb of potential discomfort to film-users that could potentially be blown up out of all proportion, and strung out over 100+ posts. Good luck with the infinite, groundhog-day rerun of the same tired old arguments... No-one really cares. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 7, 2011 Share #109 Posted December 7, 2011 How can that be progress? Pete It isn't necessarily progress. But it is economics. That explains a lot of the decline of the respect of the profession in general (my opinion) along with the fact that digital makes it a lot easier for someone to quickly establish a base level of competency in the eyes of clients. Meanwhile, a lot of the skills that I spent countless hours perfecting were no longer seen as particularly important by the clients and I had to establish new skills (including shortcuts and what I see as compromises) that would hopefully keep me at a high enough level of usefulness in their minds to maintain a good income. I think I have a lot more issues to gripe about regarding film vs. digital than some on this forum (plasticman and Bill come to mind) yet I've accepted the reality of the situation and can pretty much only use film for my personal work at this point. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill Posted December 7, 2011 Share #110 Posted December 7, 2011 Now I understand. Regards, Bill Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 7, 2011 Share #111 Posted December 7, 2011 So the thread started with someone who thought their film had been fogged by airport security - but looking at the facts it probably hasn't... and within a few short posts, the usual suspects are back on their digital > film bandwagon. None of those people contributed to a recent thread containing good news about film use - that one faded after five or six posts. But this thread apparently contained that infinitesimal crumb of potential discomfort to film-users that could potentially be blown up out of all proportion, and strung out over 100+ posts. Good luck with the infinite, groundhog-day rerun of the same tired old arguments... No-one really cares. I agree that the typical casual film user on this forum is unlikely to have a concern about film fogging via a few trips though the checked bag scanners and should have no problem if they follow the rather cavalier advice that some have presented at least for film below 800 ISO. (Don't take this as advice from me and blame me if you have a problem.) I think one reason why this thread persisted is that despite the posted factual information from the TSA, Kodak, and other sources which should have ended it for anyone who wanted to determine how much risk they have, a lot of "suspect" information was being presented over and over again. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 8, 2011 Share #112 Posted December 8, 2011 More on the decline of respect for the profession of photography. (Made possible by new technology.) CNN Fires Editors & Photojournalists Because Amateurs Will Work for Free Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hhanebeck Posted December 9, 2011 Share #113 Posted December 9, 2011 Yep, I agree. I toss mine in the suitcase - no problems.Falstaff I had a very different experience tossing a good dozen rolls in a suitcase not too long ago. They were all foggy. Given that your suitcase is scanned at a much higher radiation than carry-on luggage, that made sense (afterwards!). Since then, I have never experienced a situation where my request for a manual inspection has been denied. Have heard all kinds of objections e.g. the radiation during flight is much higher, etc., but in the end I could always persist. Also carry a Domke film bag just in case I stumble across an idiot some day. Cheers, Chris P.S. RE the OP: getting a blank roll sounds more like the film was never transported through the camera or, as Andy said, maybe you left the cap on 38 times. Not that you would have noticed the two minute exposure times, right! : ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted December 9, 2011 Share #114 Posted December 9, 2011 Not that you would have noticed the two minute exposure times, right! : ) The OP was shooting with an MP. The exposure times would've been exactly what he/she decided, and not in any way affected by the presence or absence of a lens cap. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hhanebeck Posted December 9, 2011 Share #115 Posted December 9, 2011 The OP was shooting with an MP. The exposure times would've been exactly what he/she decided, and not in any way affected by the presence or absence of a lens cap. It was a joke and not a serious comment. I believe Andy was joking as well, don't you think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 10, 2011 Share #116 Posted December 10, 2011 As an aside, some pro's are moaning about the commoditisation of their profession, due to amateurs with smartphones who can supply eye witness accounts and footage immediately, at a level of quality which is sufficient for its purpose. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanG Posted December 10, 2011 Share #117 Posted December 10, 2011 As an aside, some pro's are moaning about the commoditisation of their profession, due to amateurs with smartphones who can supply eye witness accounts and footage immediately, at a level of quality which is sufficient for its purpose. And are doing it for free! Isn't that great? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Falstaff Posted December 10, 2011 Share #118 Posted December 10, 2011 I had a very different experience tossing a good dozen rolls in a suitcase not too long ago. They were all foggy. Given that your suitcase is scanned at a much higher radiation than carry-on luggage, that made sense (afterwards!). Cheers, Chris That's very unfortunate. All I can add is my experience - frequent traveling and for the last 6 years or so, always in checked in luggage. Film - colour and highest iso 800. No issues. Falstaff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted December 10, 2011 Share #119 Posted December 10, 2011 It was a joke and not a serious comment. I believe Andy was joking as well, don't you think? Yes - I believe Andy was joking. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted December 10, 2011 Share #120 Posted December 10, 2011 Alan, it is much easier to use the 35mm Grandagon on the Horseman body even with the crash bars and graduated filter, and I sympathize with the recessed lens boards for Linhof because I have similar issues with the Planar 135mm. If it were not recessed I could not close the clamshell. You did a nice job. I have two odd pieces I've not yet had to attach to a lens. It allows one to see and set the f-stop from behind the camera. I'm sure you have seen them. They aren't too suitable to field work. When using a ground glass I always made a final focus adjustment after stopping down - if I can see it! Thanks for the sharing. Nobody I know around here shoots LF. Oh, here's a 4x5 I built around a 47mm F/5.6 lens on a focusing mount. no movements. http://www.digoliardi.net/super-wide-4x5-1.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.