Thank you...I cringed when I saw my response....
Thank you...I cringed when I saw my response....
A little HTML knowledge can be a dangerous thing. (Don't forget to close that tag next time... besides underlining should be reserved for LINKS.)
Regarding the original question: stick with your view camera. Don't give up on it. Although it is MUCH different than 35 and MF, it is worth doing. I think that's why we all do it. (Of course I just bought a Pentax 67; I HAD to have it.)
No need to say the above is good advice - it nearly always is on this forum. My two cents is to keep logging onto this forum, and read lots.
It is a steep learning curve, but can be made shorter by going out on some shoots with other LF users nearby (if there are any). Watch how it is done. I must say that the person who sold you the camera really should have spent more time finding out about your needs and experience level before selling you such a technical piece of equipment. The next month will either see you give up in frustration or get bitten by the LF bug in a big way. Don't give up - put the bug repelant away and let him bite!
I regularly use one of Nikon's most expensive and heaviest light meters (the F5) with my LF camera. To get around the f-stop shortfall, use the exposure compensation button, dialing in plus exposure for each stop above the min aperture (eg. f45 will be +1 and f64 will be +2). I also dial in my filter factors (eg.+2 for the polariser). When you use Velvia (my suggestion for you to be overblown ;-)) just stick with the matrix metering system until you're more confident about spot metering. The matrix system is VERY accurate in 95% of the situations we encounter when shooting transparencies.
Everybody has given you some good answers so far. Here are a few I would suggest.
If it's possible where you live, take a class. I relatively new to LF and I started by taking a class at my local community college. It was fantastic. Now if my wife could only see what a necessity a 4x5 camera is. If you can't take a class, then I'd suggest following a sequence like we did.
We learned to set up the camera, focus, etc. We learned to load, unload, develop film. We took pictures in the zero position. Get used to this. When you're comfortable, move on. We learned one movement at a time. For example, open your lens wide and take a picture of a scene with foreground, midground, and background at zero position. Now use the front tilt (focus according to the instructions on the LF page) to increase the depth of field and take the picture at the same aperture. You'll appreciate what the tilt can do for you.
I agree that you should get a heavier tripod. In my class, we used mid-line Bogens for Calumet field cameras. The kits also included a dark cloth and a Gossen light meter that did incident and reflected readings, but no spot. While spotmeters would have been nice, I got some really nice shots by metering my palm and opening up a stop.
You've got a nice outfit, but it takes a while to get used to the way you take pictures. I think LF has made me a better photographer and my 35mm photography will improve from this.
Good luck. Dave
You will not be able to focus a 300mm lens of normal optical design on that camera. The bellows draw is too short on a stock 45FA to allow this. An alternative is to get a 300mm telephoto design lens such as the Fujinon 300T. This lens requires only about 180mm of bellows draw and will work quite nicely. There are some other limitations of a tele lens used on a technical field camera, but for the typical landscape work most do with that type of instrument, the Fuji or similar lens will work fine. At least it did on mine.
" P.S. Instant films are just to controll the composition etc. they are very bad in resolution! " have you ever tried the polaroid Type 55 negative.
Don't make it any more complicated than required.
For this reason, I wonder about trying to use transparency film. If you don't mind bracketing, perhaps this will work. Transparency film has a narrow margin of error; you have to be within about a half stop of optimum to get decent results. On the other hand, negative color film is more forgiving. It requires a contact print to see your results, but it's easier to get a good negative than a good positive. Plus, I seem to get better color prints with negatives than with transparencies.
There're too many complexities involved in using a spot meter with either B&W or color. Go for a standard meter that has both reflective and incident capabilities. Again, don't make it any more complex than you need at this point.
Getting a fresnel lens, as someone has already suggested, is a great idea. The image will be easier to see, all be, it's still inverted and reversed! I was delighted when I got a camera with a fresnel lens. Unless the camera is specifically made for the alternative, mount the fresnel so that the gg is between the fresnel and the lens.
As for lenses, I've always liked the combination of Symmar-S lenses with Super Angulons of about the same age. (Within a few years.) Caltar-S II lenses are Symmar-S lenses in disguise, and are very reasonably priced.
For camera movements, you might want to stick with rise and fall, and perhaps some shift, until you get more experience. This is about all you need for landscape photography.
Have fun. LF is worth the terrific results and the additional controls that can be achieved.
Hello everybody,it's really heartening to receive all the help you guys rendered to me.Thanks a great deal!!! I followed ALL the advice given.The first thing I did was to inspect the gg.I realised the grain-side was facing me rather than the lens so I turned it the other way.Secondly,there was another piece of glass in between the gg and the lens.I tossed it around and realised it can be used as a magnifying glass so I reckoned the function of it is to magnify the image onto the gg.But my logic tells me the image should fall on the gg first before it get magnified so I actually re- assembled the elements in the following order: the magnifying glass followed by the gg clear side followed by the grainy side,then the lens.Did I get the order correct? Many of you mentioned a fresnel lens...but what is that or how does it look like? Many also mentioned using a 4x loupe...I am going to get one since i need it to inspect the negatives as well, but did many of you actually hold the loupe in one hand while using the other hand to focus?(I am just imaging how difficult that will be, as now I am already struggling with one hand with the focussing knobs and one hand holding my darkcloth T-shirt)Yes, I am going to get a proper darkcloth as many of you suggested too. After re-assembling I tried another shot.I was able to control exposure much much better now.The instant film looked much better and i can see more details this time with lots of DOF.Though the image wasn't as soft as before,it wasn't tack sharp either.(you know,bitingly sharp as what I would expect from what a LF negative should look like, or as clear as what i saw on the gg)I was wondering is it the nature of the instant film which couldn't really resolve better than a good film or there are still some operator's error on my part that I have overlooked? I have decided to first get myself the loupe and the darkcloth,try the instant film again and this time actually expose the same thing using the Provia film with the Quickload.Send it for processing and observe the outcome.I suppose I should be able to learn or realise something when I compare the two. I have not done any processing on 120 film before let alone 4x5 so I wonder how much more expensive 4x5 processing/printing will be compared to 120 processing/printing.I am thinking of getting the 6x12 back for my camera because I like panaromas but some posters in other threads mentioned the option of cropping 4x5 is better.If that is true, the additional bonus I can think of would be: a 90mm lens will be enough instead of having to look for a 75mm or 65mm to provide a 24mm equivalent in 35mm for the 6x12 film. How can i make better sense about this? Thanks to all of you who extended your helping hand, I am truly grateful to all of you and this forum.In a place where there aren't many LF photographers around,your advice are the only means I've got.I am enjoying learning to use this type of camera and I am determined to nail a good photography with it.(I actually had fun taking it apart while figuring all the concepts and functions of all the different parts)The day will come when i finally be able to take a good satisfying photo from it and when that time arrives,be very well assured that every time when I look at those pictures, they will remind me how they would not have been possible without all the help you guys've given! May all of you be truly blessed.Best regards.
Armin, it's not that I feel the need to explain Ellis's post, but since you bring up Ansel Adams in yours, let me ask you if you've ever seen AA's book "Polaroid Photography". I believe this book is out of print now, but can be found in most libraries. I checked one out of a local library a few years ago and xeroxed the chapetr that dealt with Type 55, but he also covers extensively most of the other emulsions that were available back in the mid 70's when this book came out. He was using some of the print films for final art as well, including Type 52. My primary recommendation for someone beginning large format, would be to get a 545 back and spend some time shooting polaroid films.
Hi limmengwei, in your second posting you mention a glass sheet that acts as a magnifying glass. That is your fresnel lens, and I think that with your camera, it should be placed between the ground glass and the protective clear glass for you to get the best results. The order of assembly (from inside out) is GG, frosted side to the lens, fresnel lens and then the protector. Assembling your camera this way should remove that last bit of fuzziness yu are seeing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks