What does it do so special? I try to use a Cambo Legend. They still look like snap shots.
Why is the Cambo wide still so $%
What does it do so special? I try to use a Cambo Legend. They still look like snap shots.
Kevin Taylor
Bonehead amateur
Try shooting with intent and purpose.Originally Posted by metalsmith
... or pointing it at something interesting.
Steve.
I think if you were more specific about the problem you would get better answers.
If your images are looking a bit like Snapshots, consider how 'snapshot cameras' acheive that 'snapshot' look.
Snapshot cameras use an average, or normal focal length lens, and with a small, fixed aperture, (say, f/16, or smaller).
If you have the 4 X 5 version of the Cambo Legend, the average, normal lens is about 150mm to 210mm.
What lens or lenses do you have? Are you shooting at lower apertures, (reducing your DOF)?
A short DOF image is-not a normal/traditional 'snapshot' look. Snapshots usually have a vast DOF, (from tiny apertures).
Try using something wider or longer in a lens. It looks like the lenses on a Cambo Wide are normally 47mm to 58mm.
In 35mm camera speak, that's akin to using 11mm to 16mm lenses. Not a 'snapshot looking' image maker at all.
Wider lenses cost more money, (format doesn't matter), wider lenses...you need a thicker wallet; even more so in LF.
In the wider lenses used for LF, (say, wider then 72mm), you will probably want/need a center filter. Again...very spendy.
With the wider/widest lenses, a brighter focusing screen will probably be needed, too. Once again, even more money.
Recessed lens boards and/or bag bellows add to the cost of using wide/ultra wide lenses, too.
However, something you have over a snapshot camera; in LF...you have movements. Learn to use them.
Can you say Tilt? Swing? I knew that you could!
Marc
***Nude Images NSFW***
None of these images look like snapshots.
As someone else has said here, "These, I Like."
Have a look at Stephane's image of Dominique - post #1010:
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...94-Nude/page51
Or, CBK's untitled image from January - post #1072:
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...94-Nude/page54
Also, look at some of Gandolfi's work; ie...Kala - post #973:
http://www.largeformatphotography.in...94-Nude/page49
Yes, subject matter can be difficult. I did find a blog about the Cambo wide and how a particular photographer used it. At initial impression it appears to be a point and shoot. Much more then that it is.
My 4x5 has a 210 f5.6 lens, I have been shooting outdoors and stopped down - giving lots of DOF. Marc, thank you for the considered response. I agree, "I like these" I have much to learn. I'm not sure I can spell sclemphelg but I'm starting to understand it.
Kevin Taylor
Bonehead amateur
The Cambo Wide is expensive because more people want one than there are cameras for sale, and are willing to out-spend others who want one when it becomes available.
They apparently believe it is precisely made enough to provide value at that price.
Note that the required alignment precision is much greater with very short lenses for which the Cambo Wide was designed than is conveniently provided by fully adjustable view cameras intended for field use.
Rick "noting the difference between price and cost" Denney
Consider the following example:
You desire to make a photograph of a floor mosaic. Your desired view and perspective requires a camera placed 32 inches above the floor with the film vertical.
Scheimpflug tells us that the film plane, the plane at right angles to the rear node on the lens (which for most large-format lenses on flat boards is near enough the plane of the lens board), and the subject plane (in this case, the floor surface) must all intersect on a line.
To achieve that in this example, an 8" lens will be tilted down 14 degrees--which is arctan(8/32). That's the angle needed for the lens plane to intersect the line where the film plane and the floor meet. (Note that format does not change this outcome--it would be true with any 8" lens, no matter whether it is used on 8x10 or a DSLR.)
But a 2" lens only needs to be tilted down 3.6 degrees, because lens plane is closer to the film and approaches the Scheimpflug intersection at a shallower angle.
In both cases, the focus plane is turned from vertical at infinity to horizontal at 32" below the camera's centerline. The 8" lens requires four times as much movement to achieve the same effect. Thus, the longer the lens, the bigger the required movement for a given effect. And the bigger the required movement for a given effect, the less of that adjustment is affected by any given error.
For this reason, cameras designed for very short lenses (either because they are very wide or because they are used on small formats) need more precision in the movement controls. Conventional view cameras, especially those with "finger" control, become excessively fiddly with lenses of 2 or 3 inches and shorter. And those are the lenses for which cameras like the Cambo Wide were made.
Rick "who knows how fiddly movements with a 47mm lens and an ungeared view camera can be" Denney
Here's a thought. When a camera back is precisely vertical most vertical lines in a photograph "line up" and the photograph has a formally composed appearance. Typically tripod mounted LF cameras are used in this way. When you start to hand hold you frequently give up this formal discipline and get photographs which have the same "sloppy lines" as most snap shots. Yes, of course, that may be an intentional effect. But I am suspicious that cockeyed lines may be what the OP is reacting to. As an aside, if you use even a cheap digital camera, but keep the back straight you can produce photographs with quite a bit of the LF "sensibility".
Hello Kevin,
After high school I went to school for art. When I started shooting 35mm, I took what I had learned from those art classes and applied it to shooting my camera. It really helped my photography.
Your local community college is great. Especially classes like Design 1 and 2.
Just a suggestion that helped me.
Alan
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks