Affordable 12x20 lenses

[MintTin]

So im finishing up a design for a 12x20 tintype camera and I am in the looking for a lens stage. The idea of this build is to stay as cheap as possible and the fact that tintypes take an eternity to expose I dont really have a need for a shutter, just a lens cap. The one I keep reading about is the nikkor 21.25" ektanon but I cannot seem to find one for sale, or any of the other lenses for 12x20 I keep reading about. Im looking for something just a little wide. Is there any copy/process lens thats in the sub $200 range that will cover 12x20 and give me a little bit of movement? One that can be found on ebay? I also have yet to determine the final length of the bellows, probably around at least 48" for some wiggle room. But I'm thinking I need to just find a lens that is cheap and somewhat available first. Love the forum btw, glad I found it!

[Andrew Plume]

IMO, you're going to be fairly lucky to find a suitable lens under $200 for 12 x 20

if you haven't seen it, take a look at this great online resource:

http://www.allenrumme.com/lensdb/DBIntro-1.html

plenty of the old style cheaper process lenses aren't that wide, since I'm pretty sure that they weren't intended for that use - you can pick up a fairly cheap Taylor, Hobson Apo Process lens but seeing wide will be an issue - btw Steve Goldstein on here has, in my opinion, a couple of truly great Kowa's currently listed FS, they're more expensive, are both shuttered, I'm not sure if they will cover 12 x 20 but will definitely 'hold their value' - good luck

regards

andrew

[goamules]

So im finishing up a design for a 12x20 tintype camera and I am in the looking for a lens stage. The idea of this build is to stay as cheap as possible ...lens thats in the sub $200 range that will cover 12x20...

You and everyone else. Sorry for the glib reply, but this is the most common fallacy seen in photography forums. That you need to start wetplating with Ultra Large Format, and that you need the Mammoth lens "really cheap." You can't build a backyard race car and then ask for a cheap Ferrari engine to go in it either.

There are places you can buy a single mensicus lens which is pretty much a magnifying glass, fairly cheaply. Or one of the the original achromat (two lenses cemented together, behind an iris) meniscus landscape lenses. Stopped down to F11 or more, they are sharp. These lenses are the cheapest bet

[Steve Goldstein]

One good choice would be a 355mm G-Claron in barrel. This will be sharp and covers 12x20 stopped down, but may not meet your desired price point as Garrett rightly points out. As it happens I just listed a one of these in shutter as part of my "Getting out of 7x17 sale - Part 2" post in the FS section. It doesn't meet your price objectives, sorry.

[William Whitaker]

But you will not get Sharp, Cheap, and Large coverage at the same time. Pick any two.

And don't even think about Fast... Sorry, don't mean to kick you when you're down, but you might as well be looking for the fountain of youth.


The one I keep reading about is the nikkor 21.25" ektanon but I cannot seem to find one for sale

That's the Kodak 21 1/4" copying ektar. (Nikon didn't have anything to do with it, AFAIK). That's an ƒ/11 lens, so isn't really in the speed class you probably want for wet-plate/tintype. They do show up from time to time on Ebay.

[William Whitaker]

Probably the most economical route to a reasonably fast lens with big coverage would be one of Reinhold Schable's Wollaston meniscus lenses (http://www.re-inventedphotoequip.com/Home.html). His 500mm is ƒ/6.9 and will just cover 12x20. Besides, Reinhold is a great guy to work with. Check the recent post here (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?111352-Verito-and-Reinhold-Wollaston-Shootout) comparing his Wollaston to a Verito. Note that I threw the "sharp" requirement out the window. These are both soft-focus lenses. But depending on your aesthetic goals, the Wollaston may be worthy of consideration.

[Dan Fromm]

Interesting discussion. 12 x 20 wants a lens that will cover 590 mm. Ain't no lenses priced under $200 delivered that will cover 12 x 20 sharply, except perhaps the 900/10 Apo Saphir I bought for that price (delivery included). You'll have to wait a long long time for another to turn up at that price.

The combination of high coverage, sharp, and inexpensive is hard to find. You'll have to give up on one of cost, coverage, or expense.

[Emil Schildt]

You and everyone else. Sorry for the glib reply, but this is the most common fallacy seen in photography forums. That you need to start wetplating with Ultra Large Format, and that you need the Mammoth lens "really cheap." You can't build a backyard race car and then ask for a cheap Ferrari engine to go in it either.

There are places you can buy a single mensicus lens which is pretty much a magnifying glass, fairly cheaply. Or one of the the original achromat (two lenses cemented together, behind an iris) meniscus landscape lenses. Stopped down to F11 or more, they are sharp. These lenses are the cheapest bet

I think I'll make a reverse thread.. :)

I have all the lenses I need - but needs the camera... and knowlegde to follow... ;)

[goamules]

I'm in the same boat man. Anyone got a sturdy 16x18 studio camera to sell me? I've got a couple lenses that need BIG!

[Andrew Plume]

........and yes

subsequent posts pretty well confirm my initial post, you're not the only one looking for such a cheapo lens, and as Will rightly said, Reinhold's lens should be well worth considering

andrew

[MintTin]

One good choice would be a 355mm G-Claron in barrel. This will be sharp and covers 12x20 stopped down, but may not meet your desired price point as Garrett rightly points out. As it happens I just listed a one of these in shutter as part of my "Getting out of 7x17 sale - Part 2" post in the FS section. It doesn't meet your price objectives, sorry.

Yea this is the only one I have even found an ebay listing for, under 300 but still a little pricey. And I cant seem to find a fs section here, probably restricted im guessing.

[MintTin]

You and everyone else. Sorry for the glib reply, but this is the most common fallacy seen in photography forums. That you need to start wetplating with Ultra Large Format, and that you need the Mammoth lens "really cheap." You can't build a backyard race car and then ask for a cheap Ferrari engine to go in it either.

There are places you can buy a single mensicus lens which is pretty much a magnifying glass, fairly cheaply. Or one of the the original achromat (two lenses cemented together, behind an iris) meniscus landscape lenses. Stopped down to F11 or more, they are sharp. These lenses are the cheapest bet


Uuummm not just starting out but thanks for the assumption. Lol. But yes, a single mensicus lens is the key word im looking for. Dont need an actual camera lens, or photo specific gear, unless I want to add 0's to the budget. The camera is about $90 in materials for frame of reference.

[coisasdavida]

You could try Surplus Shed.

[Jim Galli]

I want a car that gets 140 miles per gallon, that has 600 hp and looks like a Ferrari for under $900 please.

Now that I got that out of my system, the ubiquitous Turner Reich if you can find the 15 - 24 - 35 inch one, the single groups are anastigmat's and would cover. I tried the Kodak lens on an 8X20 and found it sickeningly weak in the corners. Never picked up another Kodak again. YMMV

[MintTin]

I want a car that gets 140 miles per gallon, that has 600 hp and looks like a Ferrari for under $900 please.

Now that I got that out of my system, the ubiquitous Turner Reich if you can find the 15 - 24 - 35 inch one, the single groups are anastigmat's and would cover. I tried the Kodak lens on an 8X20 and found it sickeningly weak in the corners. Never picked up another Kodak again. YMMV

Man If you could only capture your sarcasm you would be world famous.

[Jim Galli]

Man If you could only capture your sarcasm you would be world famous.

I gave you useful information after the sarcasm. Got to admit, you sort of begged for it. The Kodak lens sucks. The TR might be a usable answer. There are no 12X20 lenses that fit in all of your categories. Garrett was just nicer about it than me. Pick any 2. Even 2 would be asking a lot. Pick one.

[Dan Fromm]

MintTin, you have to understand that you're not the first poster who wants to shoot very- or ultra- large format on a shoestring to ask about good inexpensive lenses with large coverage. We get perhaps six a year. They all have wonderful dreams that they're trying to make real but not all have the means to do it. Most vanish after a while and we never know what became of them. Every once in a while one finds a lens that realizing its dream requires at a great price and tells us about it. We rejoice for and with the lucky ones.

But on the whole the dreams are impossible and the dreamers who present them are very wearing.

[MintTin]

Wow the reason why I ask is because what I use for 11x14 cost me $55 shipped. Its not my first time around the block. Im not on here with 4k post because im busy shooting with the other people that came and left.

[Jim Galli]

Wow the reason why I ask is because what I use for 11x14 cost me $55 shipped. Its not my first time around the block. Im not on here with 4k post because im busy shooting with the other people that came and left.

Well, there ya go. Why would you waste time here. You got a sharp, fast, lens that covers 1114 for $55 bucks, then heck $100 should be overkill for the 1220. Maybe you can find 2! Oh, and I'm pretty prolific myself. And I still find time to try to offer free help here. See ya.

[William Whitaker]

Sorry if the reception committee seemed harsh. But then again, we might be forgiven for expecting something different from someone who's been "around the block". Pursuing old processes is demanding and expensive enough. So is ULF. Put them together and you have a very tall order. There are some very talented and knowledgeable people on this forum. And they've all had their dreams, too. You can learn a lot from them if you want.

[MintTin]

Sorry if the reception committee seemed harsh. But then again, we might be forgiven for expecting something different from someone who's been "around the block". Pursuing old processes is demanding and expensive enough. So is ULF. Put them together and you have a very tall order. There are some very talented and knowledgeable people on this forum. And they've all had their dreams, too. You can learn a lot from them if you want.

Im fine with harsh. Sarcasm is childish and frankly, pathetic.

[goamules]

Wow the reason why I ask is because what I use for 11x14 cost me $55 shipped. Its not my first time around the block. Im not on here with 4k post because im busy shooting with the other people that came and left.

Cool. Can you leave now too?

Set phasers to "ignore."

[Andrew O'Neill]

But I'm thinking I need to just find a lens that is cheap and somewhat available first. Love the forum btw, glad I found it!

Hope you still like the forum...:)
It's pretty hard to find something less than $200 that will cover 12x20 with some movements. Bite the bullet and spend a few hundred or consider making your own with meniscus lens. Good luck!

[Oren Grad]

Wow the reason why I ask is because what I use for 11x14 cost me $55 shipped.

May I ask what lens this is? Maybe that will generate some ideas.

[Jim Fitzgerald]

I picked up an Ilex 15" Process Paragon some time ago for about 40.00. This lens is sharp and covers my 1114. You can find them on the bay all the time.

[Andrew Plume]

Man If you could only capture your sarcasm you would be world famous.

Sir - this is Jim's style, it's not imo sarcasm - JG is one of the best resources around this forum, people do want to help you - they just post with their kind of humour

andrew

[Andrew Plume]

Wow the reason why I ask is because what I use for 11x14 cost me $55 shipped. Its not my first time around the block. Im not on here with 4k post because im busy shooting with the other people that came and left.

you can't 'shoot' imo 24 hours a day, people on here shoot for part of that time and give what they have remaining, generously, for the benefit of all on here

......................just my few cents worth

andrew

[HoodedOne]

You might want to take a look, at the Agfa Repromaster 213/9.25. It can be found very cheap, and should cover 12x20.
But I don't know if you like it this wide.

[Andrew Plume]

and there's also the 240mm version too

andrew

[Philippe Grunchec]

A convertible Wollensak n°7 Raptar Ia?

[Lachlan 717]

You might want to take a look, at the Agfa Repromaster 213/9.25. It can be found very cheap, and should cover 12x20.
But I don't know if you like it this wide.

The one that I had didn't cover 7x17", so, if this true for all of these lenses, this won't fit the criteria.

[HoodedOne]

The one that I had didn't cover 7x17", so, if this true for all of these lenses, this won't fit the criteria.

That's not what you said 3 years ago.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?77844-213-repromaster-11x14-coverage

[Andrew Plume]

..............oooooooo

andrew

[StoneNYC]

Im fine with harsh. Sarcasm is childish and frankly, pathetic.

Way to welcome yourself to a forum by insulting everyone lol.

On a side note, why the heck does everyone always say the full size? Why not just say "a lens to cover 20 inches"

All lenses I know of are ROUND.

So a lens that covered 12x20 also covers 18x20 and 16x20 and 8x20 etc etc.

I just always found it strange.

And finally, to be PC and talk about the topic itself, there are lenses out there that can be had for a reasonable price, you just have to look, problem is they are often in inconvenient places, like I found a great 600mm lens to cover well over 14" (probably 17") but it was in ENGLAND and I'm in the USA so even though the lens was only $100, the shipping made it $200 and the seller just didn't want to bother with the hassle of forms etc.

Such is life...

Good luck in your quest but look for a large process lens if you want that coverage cheaply...

[Nicolasllasera]

Actualy not right Stone. A SA 90mm XL will cover 4x10 but not 8x10. And a 16x20 is a little bigger than 12x20. So it is important to give the two sizes.

[StoneNYC]

Actualy not right Stone. A SA 90mm XL will cover 4x10 but not 8x10. And a 16x20 is a little bigger than 12x20. So it is important to give the two sizes.

Really?? But... So why would they limit the height, that also means the lens has to be mounted in the way THEY want it not how you like (like I prefer the PC trigger to be right at the top). And the lens is round not oval, so why would they limit the area? What am I missing?

[adelorenzo]

Really?? But... So why would they limit the height, that also means the lens has to be mounted in the way THEY want it not how you like (like I prefer the PC trigger to be right at the top). And the lens is round not oval, so why would they limit the area? What am I missing?

The image circle needs to cover the diagonal of the format. 4x10 has a smaller diagonal than 8x10.

Think about a 4x10 rectangle that just fits when centred inside a circle. If you double the height of the rectangle you would push the corners outside of the circle.

[Nicolasllasera]

Exactly what Adelorenzo said. The XL gives a circle image. But big enough to cover the diagonal of 4x10, not 8x10. My 210mm XL just covers 12x20 but I doubt it would cover 16x20.

[StoneNYC]

The image circle needs to cover the diagonal of the format. 4x10 has a smaller diagonal than 8x10.

Think about a 4x10 rectangle that just fits when centred inside a circle. If you double the height of the rectangle you would push the corners outside of the circle.

Oh I gotcha now! Thanks, Duh!! I'm slow hah!

[MintTin]

Way to welcome yourself to a forum by insulting everyone lol.

On a side note, why the heck does everyone always say the full size? Why not just say "a lens to cover 20 inches"

All lenses I know of are ROUND.

So a lens that covered 12x20 also covers 18x20 and 16x20 and 8x20 etc etc.

I just always found it strange.

And finally, to be PC and talk about the topic itself, there are lenses out there that can be had for a reasonable price, you just have to look, problem is they are often in inconvenient places, like I found a great 600mm lens to cover well over 14" (probably 17") but it was in ENGLAND and I'm in the USA so even though the lens was only $100, the shipping made it $200 and the seller just didn't want to bother with the hassle of forms etc.

Such is life...

Good luck in your quest but look for a large process lens if you want that coverage cheaply...

I call it like I see it. They asked for it.

[Andrew Plume]

well Mr Tin, you may just have alienated yourself per se...........................bitter comments like this one are scarcely constructive.................

andrew

[StoneNYC]

I call it like I see it. They asked for it.

Look, I'm not exactly beloved here, I've ruffled a few feathers and I also call it like I see it, but when I first joined, I didn't go around calling everyone names, I waited till I knew people and could judge personalities and was humble because this was a new place and no one knew me yet...

Just think about it if you decide to stick around.

[pierre506]

So im finishing up a design for a 12x20 tintype camera... Is there any copy/process lens thats in the sub $200 range that will cover 12x20 and give me a little bit of movement? ...I also have yet to determine the final length of the bellows, probably around at least 48" for some wiggle room...

Dear Tin,
I used to want to suggest RODENSTOCK APO RONAR, NIKON APO NIKKOR, SCHNEIDER G-CLARON WA,etc., lenses for you.
Yes, they are relatively cheaper, but not good for you according to your description.
Your demandings are
1, using in domestic
2, bellows longer than 48in
3, tintype
4, coverage over 12x20in
5, price about $200

You have to spend hundreds (or thousands) of dollars to build a strong ultraviolet Ray light system in your studio if you wanna take WP portraits using such kind of copying/process lenses.
Yep, they are cheaper but slow.
Even you want to shoot the still lives in your room, I am also afraid of the drying of your collodion because of the very long exposure.

Is it a real predicement?

[StoneNYC]

Dear Tin,
I used to want to suggest RODENSTOCK APO RONAR, NIKON APO NIKKOR, SCHNEIDER G-CLARON WA,etc., lenses for you.
Yes, they are relatively cheaper, but not good for you according to your description.
Your demandings are
1, using in domestic
2, bellows longer than 48in
3, tintype
4, coverage over 12x20in
5, price about $200

You have to spend hundreds (or thousands) of dollars to build a strong ultraviolet Ray light system in your studio if you wanna take WP portraits using such kind of copying/process lenses.
Yep, they are cheaper but slow.
Even you want to shoot the still lives in your room, I am also afraid of the drying of your collodion because of the very long exposure.

Is it a real predicement?

Well, He/she does have the option of the SUN... Everyone forgets that one... Ed Ross uses the sun for his nudes...

But I don't know that much about wet plate work so that might not be the whole story.

[pierre506]

Well, He/she does have the option of the SUN... Everyone forgets that one... Ed Ross uses the sun for his nudes...

But I don't know that much about wet plate work so that might not be the whole story.

Dear Stone,
Yes, the collodion plates should keep wet between the whole process.
That's why the huge petzval and aero lenses are so expensive now because they have bigger aperture and faster than the normal lenes (normally > =f4, and RARE).
I saw some ED ROSS works. I believe ED also used the petzval lenses for his Nudes under the sunshine.
It's easy to find right lenses for Tin if he just shoots films.

P.S. I am confused because I used to have the same idea with you about the lens coverage. I believed the lens coverage was round. A lens that covered 12x20 also covers 18x20 and 16x20 and 8x20 etc etc.

[StoneNYC]

Dear Stone,
Yes, the collodion plates should keep wet between the whole process.
That's why the huge petzval and aero lenses are so expensive now because they have bigger aperture and faster than the normal lenes (normally > =f4, and RARE).
I saw some ED ROSS works. I believe ED also used the petzval lenses for his Nudes under the sunshine.
It's easy to find right lenses for Tin if he just shoots films.

P.S. I am confused because I used to have the same idea with you about the lens coverage. I believed the lens coverage was round. A lens that covered 12x20 also covers 18x20 and 16x20 and 8x20 etc etc.

Good point, f/4 is a lot wider than f/11 etc.

And yea, now I understand why it's different thanks to the nice person who explained it above.

This will be crude but...

This is a lens that is round...


( )

This is a lens that has a 8x20

(---)

This is a lens that has a 18x20

(|||||)

The taller part exceeds the image circle so you have corner falloff because the other coverage is in the CENTER or the lens, but the higher area ends up at the edge of the image circle.

[Andrew Plume]

yes, guys it can be fairly confusing but there's been some great constructive feedback here regarding coverage etc etc

now, here's a dead easy one.............a lens that covers 20 x 24, must..............?? cover all of the previously mentioned ULF sizes, yes?

regards

andrew

PS - Mr Tin, 'build some bridges' - come out and apologise and become a contributing member......................?? - it costs nothing in financial terms on here

[ic-racer]

I wonder how many hours or days of one's life would be devoted to creating a single successful 12x20 wet plate? If it were me I'd use the best lens I could find.

[goamules]

Me too. But have you seen the poor quality of plates that a lot of novices produce? Wetplate is popular because it is not digitally perfect. So you'll see out of focus portraits with comets and pinholes, tears, pour lines, developer burns, and a host of other flaws. Those practitioners usually refuse to buy a manual or take a workshop, and try to make their cameras from cardboard boxes covered in tinfoil, and use old jelly jars for lenses. Their hipster results are award winning, and they get new girlfriends and host gallery wine tastings. It can be a weird world.

[Kimberly Anderson]

Perfection.


Me too. But have you seen the poor quality of plates that a lot of novices produce? Wetplate is popular because it is not digitally perfect. So you'll see out of focus portraits with comets and pinholes, tears, pour lines, developer burns, and a host of other flaws. Those practitioners usually refuse to buy a manual or take a workshop, and try to make their cameras from cardboard boxes covered in tinfoil, and use old jelly jars for lenses. Their hipster results are award winning, and they get new girlfriends and host gallery wine tastings. It can be a weird world.

[goamules]

Esquire magazine fawning all over poor plates of stars at Cannes: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/sundance-tintype-portraits-2014#slide-11
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/sundance-tintype-portraits-2014#slide-14

[ghostcount]

Esquire magazine fawning all over poor plates of stars at Cannes: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/sundance-tintype-portraits-2014#slide-11
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/sundance-tintype-portraits-2014#slide-14

"...painstakingly shot by ace photographer..."
"...Now with even more gorgeous shots!"
"...And even more now."

Wow! If I need a self-esteem boost maybe I'll submit a few. :o

[StoneNYC]

Me too. But have you seen the poor quality of plates that a lot of novices produce? Wetplate is popular because it is not digitally perfect. So you'll see out of focus portraits with comets and pinholes, tears, pour lines, developer burns, and a host of other flaws. Those practitioners usually refuse to buy a manual or take a workshop, and try to make their cameras from cardboard boxes covered in tinfoil, and use old jelly jars for lenses. Their hipster results are award winning, and they get new girlfriends and host gallery wine tastings. It can be a weird world.

Hey! I like my 11x14 cardboard box camera dammit! :)

111161
111162

But I think the jelly jar lens idea might help improve my focus a bit...

111163

Why doesn't the OP just use a pinhole, that's a lot less expensive... The extra money can go toward a book :munch:

[StoneNYC]

"...painstakingly shot by ace photographer..."
"...Now with even more gorgeous shots!"
"...And even more now."

Wow! If I need a self-esteem boost maybe I'll submit a few. :o

One of the "stars" taken was an acquaintance/friend of mine, I asked him about it, he said the photographer took 2 shots, and the light was super super blinding bright, and that it was fun to watch and be a part of. When I told him I also shot large format he couldn't quite get the concept that wet plate and large format are different animals, but he liked the portraits he got. I didn't tell them they were flawed, because it wasn't important, he liked them and isn't they what's important? That people enjoy them and that people know that non-digital is still an option?

But I do agree, some of the worst pour jobs I've ever seen.

[pierre506]

Why doesn't the OP just use a pinhole, that's a lot less expensive..:

Stone, I could not imagine pinhole + domestic + collodion result.

[William Whitaker]

Why doesn't the OP just use a pinhole, that's a lot less expensive...

Wet-plate/collodion needs lots of light, hence fast apertures. A pinhole won't work, even with very bright lights.


the light was super super blinding bright

[goamules]

Nothing wrong with that cardboard camera! I've heard tell of a wetplate camera made out of a pumpkin even.

On the speed you need for wetplate lenses, here are some physics you run up against.

- In bright, open shade, an F3.8 Petzval exposure is usually around 5-10 seconds.
- In a room near a bright window, that F3.8 lens would be around 30 seconds.
- With the usual compact florescent light bank, it might be at 60 seconds.

A wetplate will start to dry out in about 4-5 minutes. So if your exposure time with an F8 or F11 lens starts to be that long, your plate edges will lose all sensitivity. As in be black with no image. As the plate drys inwardly, more of the plate becomes useless. So that is one limit.

The other is portraits. People don't like to sit still for more than about 20 seconds. Your shots will often be blurred if they can even hold it. Another limit.

That's the reason fast lenses in studios with so-so lighting were and are used. Also they are very sharp and nice! Outdoors, you can use a pretty slow lens for a landscape or still life. Stopped down to F16 you may be at a 45 second exposure in open sun. In shade, double it. Before 10AM or after 4PM, double or triple it again.

[Andrew Plume]

...........heck Garrett

I've heard of a 'pumpkin' style wet plate Camera too................isn't that a coincidence, seem to remember they're made somewhere down your way too...................:):)

best

andrew

[Andrew Plume]

Esquire magazine fawning all over poor plates of stars at Cannes: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/sundance-tintype-portraits-2014#slide-11
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/culture/sundance-tintype-portraits-2014#slide-14

....err, I wasn't overly taken with these

andrew

[StoneNYC]

Stone, I could not imagine pinhole + domestic + collodion result.


Wet-plate/collodion needs lots of light, hence fast apertures. A pinhole won't work, even with very bright lights.

Guys, I was being facetious...

[StoneNYC]

Nothing wrong with that cardboard camera!

I've heard tell of a wetplate camera made out of a pumpkin even.


Hah! I love that camera! And the images were pretty cool :)

Maybe the moisture in the pumpkin helps keep the collodion wet ;)

[Andrew Plume]

the OP aka 'Mr Tin' seems to have gone very quiet..................

andrew

[Andrew Plume]

Look, I'm not exactly beloved here, I've ruffled a few feathers and I also call it like I see it, but when I first joined, I didn't go around calling everyone names, I waited till I knew people and could judge personalities and was humble because this was a new place and no one knew me yet...

Just think about it if you decide to stick around.

well Stone.............you certainly helped (out) with those two shots of your lady friend recently, anymore lurking around...........?

regards

andrew

[StoneNYC]

well Stone.............you certainly helped (out) with those two shots of your lady friend recently, anymore lurking around...........?

regards

andrew

Which lady friend? If you mean those two long exposure shots? Then I'm headed there right now to do an epic "kill my film supply" shoot of mostly nudes but mostly 35mm and 120, but I do have 12 sheets of HP5+ and 3 packs of Polaroid pack film.

Essentially, I've had a whole bunch of used an old film that I've traded for and or just been playing around with, but I really want to start to hone just a few types of film that I can use in all formats, so I kind of want to get rid of all this extra film so were just going to have a run of different kinds of shooting all this crazy film including some Paul Giambrio (spelling?) blue Polaroid stuff I've had in my fridge.

Then I'm selling my 4x5 Polaroid (Fuji 45) back. As I only have 2 more packs of FP100C45 left and I'll use one then I'll sell the back with the other pack.

So, I'll have more in a few hours :)

[Andrew Plume]

Hi Stone

.........the blonde lady with the ciggie who was freezing her wotnots off outside and who then posed on your floor

andrew

[StoneNYC]

Hi Stone

.........the blonde lady with the ciggie who was freezing her wotnots off outside and who then posed on your floor

andrew

Yup, just got done shooting...


The last of my Paul Giambrara Blue Polarood film
111201

She even stoked the fire to keep us warm this time :) yes I framed this purposefully :-p yes she's fine with that.
111202