how old are we?

[Leszek Vogt]

I'm with Drew on this....feeling half my age. Sure, have arthur knocking on the door, but I hike my hill almost religiously and there is a good chance I'll pull into 90's ? Last time I almost forgot my birthday...it's a number anyway....and it has no psychological meaning (not for me). Like anyone, I sometimes wake up feeling 120+, but retiring at 57 was the BEST thing that ever happened; travel, take images, explore...staying and eating healthy....a loop of sorts.

[faberryman]

I began shooting 4x5 at 19, but lost my way. I have returned to it. It's like riding a bicycle, once you learn it, it will never leave you.

[Armin Seeholzer]

Meanwhile I'm 60 but almost no one believes it, so I like it;--)))

[ben_hutcherson]

29.

I'm new to LF, but got seriously into photography in '05(when I was 17) first with 35mm and then graduated to MF. I dumped a lot on 35mm gear when stuff was cheap(I have a lot of good manual focus Canon glass). I did give in and pick up a cheap DSLR which has served me well, but my heart is still and always have been in film. My first Velvia transparency on the light table changed that, and my first 6x6 of the same gave me even more of a "wow."

As I've become a bit more financially stable, I have bought some better MF gear(although I'm using Bronicas since the "H" word is still out of reach for me) to supplement the Rolleiflexes I've had for years. I've wanted to get into LF for years, but finally bought a Speed Graphic a few months ago.

Right now, I'm focusing on just learning my way around handling and the basic movements I can get with it. A local shop has offered me my choice of monorail(they have 8 or 10) plus my choice of 210mm lens for $300 total, something I plan on taking up, but I'm still really lusting after a good wooden field camera. I can't help but probably pick that up, but I'd still like a better "normal" lens in the 150mm range. I'm also trying to avoid getting to G.A.S that comes with a new platform, but I can't get around the fact that there's a lot of "stuff" that goes with LF.

BTW, I'm a chemist by training and in my "full time job" along with a part time lecturer at the university where I work. I love teaching the chemistry of photography, something that actually amazes a lot of students even though some have shot film since it's apparently now a "hip" thing to do. I've just been there all along chasing(and often failing at ) good compositions along with good technical quality. I've never bought into the Lomography craze. I was walking around the other day with some Plus-X in a Canon Pellix with a crummy meter, and then shot some more with the same lens on an FTb. When I was showing the results, I was amazed at how many students went nuts over the underexposed images with mirror induced defects from the Pellix vs. the technically much better photos from the FTb.

[Fr. Mark]

Ben,

Welcome aboard. I got back to film a few years ago and rapidly went to LF. I like the contact print approach to things. I also find the chemistry of film and alt printing interesting. As a chemist too, I'm pretty sure you will appreciate the work that Dr. Michael Ware has been doing with Iron based alt process work particularly the new cyanotype process he developed in the 1990's but some of his work extends to other metals (Pt, Pd, etc). If you put his name and "cyanomicon" into search engine, I think you'll find him quickly. My background was in Organic Synthesis aimed at new drug discovery and later sales of scientific equipment before eventually moving into doing clergy work. I still love chemistry and get excited by things like finding a triple beam balance for $25 the local antique mall. I had an art teacher in elementary school who had some H glass as you say. She made some nice photos with it, 8x10 is not as demanding from such a large negative as it is from 35mm. But, H is not the only exceptional brand of LF gear, most all of it has good optics, I think. It was all for pros and serious hobbyists, at least stuff since the advent of 35mm's popularity starting in the ?1960's? That 210 mm lens is a more/less normal lens for 5x7...just saying. It's possible it covers 8x10, too, where it'd be a (I think) moderate wide angle. Sometimes I think I want a Rolleiflex, to use on family trips or for other times when the LF rig feels to big to tote along. There's a certain freedom in not having to choose what lens you are going to use. Someday I may get a Rollei but I either need to figure out scanning or enlarged negatives or be happy with quite small contact prints! I got to handle one about a year ago and was impressed with how the controls are laid out so that everything is in the right place for my hands. I also like the waist level view finder, too. Another thought, monorails can be used in the field. I've been known to drag around a Sinar P, which is about as big and heavy as it gets (I've got it set up for 5x7 currently). Once it is on site, it is an extraordinary tool. That said, I've also got a limited movements wood 8x10 and three non-standard holders that I bought minus lens and bellows in various pieces for $20 that I want to finish fixing up and make/buy a lighter tripod and use as my walking around camera.

[ben_hutcherson]

Mark,

Thanks for your nice message.

My background is actually a bit diverse. I started out as a synthetic organic chemist, but ended up as an analytical chemist working with organic-functionalized palladium nanoparticles. I now work as a scientific instrument specialist.

In any case, his alternative processes sound interesting, and the mention of Pd has me interested given my background in nanoscale uses of it.

As the Rolleiflex goes, I actually have both a Rolleicord Va(second to last model) and a Rolleiflex Automat III. Both have the same 75mm 3.5 Schneider Xenar(their Tessar equivalent) which is a fantastic lens especially at less than full aperture.

I can't begin to say how much I love using a Rolleflex-they're honestly one of the most well thought out and naturally handling cameras I've used, plus they are quite small and light(I find that mine can almost disappear in my hands). Unlike even the "H" word, there's no messing around with feeding a film leader through a labyrinth and making sure everything is feeding correctly then lining up arrows. When you want to swap rolls, you just move the spool, put the new one in, feed the leader between the two rollers at the bottom, hook it on the take-up at the top, and then give a half crank or so to make sure everything is feeding right. Then, you just keep cranking until it stops. When I'm holding it at waist level, I find that my thumbs fall right on the shutter speed and aperture dials, and the read out is easy to see by just barely moving your eyes forward of the finder. The shutter release is virtually silent, and with a quick flick forward and backward on the crank you're ready to go again. Compare that to a medium format SLR, where the mirror makes a tremendous "clunk" and advancing the film does the same when it resets the mirror.

I love waist level finders and find them very natural to use, although they require a bit of "recalibration" if you're trying to track action since they're upright but reversed left to right. All the WLFs I've used have a pop-up loupe for fine focusing. Rolleis also have a few other interesting finder features-my Rolleiflex has a mirror that can be flipped down and viewed through an aperture in the back of the shroud to give an upside down but correct left to right eye-level image. The front panel can be dropped out of the finder to give a wire-frame finder(like on a Speed/Crown graphic).

I do get a lot of enjoyment out of my Bronica, but it's a different experience. The SQ is small and nimble compared to cameras like the Pentax 6x7s, but there's still a lot more going on than in a TLR. A standard 80mm 2.8 lens for an SLR(whether Hasselblad or otherwise) is a LOT larger than the same lens on a TLR, not the least of which because on the TLR the entire front lens board is moved for focusing. The SQ of course is a Hasselbad clone and it has a lot of "idiot proof" features to keep a fast moving event photographer from messing things up(the camera won't fire with the dark slide in place, the film back can't be removed if the dark slide is out, the lens won't come off unless the film has been advanced, etc) but it can also be frustrating. Also, unlike Hasselblads, the Seiko shutters are electronically timed and don't really go out of time with wear/use(of course they're also dead at all but 1/500 without a battery).

At the moment, the only LF lens I have is the 137mm 4.7 on my Speed Graphic. I know this isn't the best around, but from what I've seen in my use of it, it's good enough. Although part of me wants to get a nice 150mm lens, I also like the idea of having something a bit wide and something a bit long rather than compromising with a single.

As for scanning-I have a Coolscan V for 35mm, and an Epson V700 that can do anything up to 8x10. I've been really pleased with it. Earlier this evening, I was playing with the wet mount attachment to scan some MF Provia I shot about 10 years ago. This film has been coiled since it was processed, and it has been very difficult to get a good "normal" scan of it. Wet scanning is an absolute pain in the rear, but I was really pleased with the results I was able to get on one particular frame that I liked on the light table but looked pretty underwhelming on the screen. Unfortunately, bubbles are an unending enemy in wet scanning. Being the cheapskate I am, I am actually using some salvaged TLC plates that I washed the silica gel. My scanning/mounting fluid is spectroscopic grade heptane. In any case, I was able to finally get a nice wet scan, although I did have to spot out two bubbles in Photoshop.

[John Kasaian]

I age faster during tax season

[GlobalMic]

I am 30, have a kid and thinkthat my life only started)

[Ken Sinclair]

Well... after some 60-odd years under the dark-cloth (of which 30+ were spent in a Scientific Research Center), I'll be hitting the double sevens later this year... but... I am still looking forward to humphing either my 4x5 Linhof or my 8x10 B&J 'woodie' (but most often both) out to the car and take them for a 'spin'... just to see if I can find and collect some photons that might otherwise 'go to waste'.

Ken

[Dignum]

I am 28, Shooting 8x10 for 7 years now

My big film addiction gets stronger every year!

www.shanedignum.com