Printable View
Why would you use Efke 25 in this case? If you are ALWAYS shooting with that flash, maybe it makes sense. But if I ever plan to shoot outdoors without flash, I at least want to stop down my Angulon to f/16 at least (maybe f/11 in a pinch if the corners aren't important) and I'll need faster film that if I'm going to hand hold it in anything less than bright sun.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuditorOne
Rick,
You make an excellent point, and it's one that I've been troubled by with this product: the idea that cropping 4x5 is akin to "zooming in." Sure, but then you've just converted your "large format" 4x5 to a "medium format" 3x4 inch or 6x7/6x9cm. If that's how the camera is intended to be used, then that ought to be clearly understood by everyone--especially given the rules of this site which limit displays of images less than 4x5.
Press photographers could easily crop their images because the print size was so small. One of things I value about large format photography is the ability to print "large" with amazing detail.
Holy cow, I guess I did not read the rules.
Images less than 4X5 not permitted, which explains 'safe haven for small format and Polaroid threads.
Never occured to me shooting 2X3 sheets in holders is too small for here.
Where do I go?
Corran warned me this is a huge problem here.
I won't start, except to say 'scanners'!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Roberts
But carrying a medium format camera doesn't give you the wide angle option without another lens or zoom and then you are into far more weight and bulk. This will be light, easy to carry, cheap and versatile using this method.
I've never seen anything on this site indicating that cropped images are not allowed, just that they need to be made on film of at least 4x5. Most of mine are at least slightly cropped but then the same is true of my medium format and even 35mm images too.
Don't be so quick to say things "aren't allowed" Michael.
I believe the definition of what is/isn't LF was defined by the mods as taken by a camera that allowed movements and/or sheet film. Or something to that effect. 6x12 and 6x17 images with roll-film holders on a 4x5 or 5x7 camera is most certainly allowed and common.
Oh, I use Arista EDU 100 and FP4+ as well. I may even go looking for some Kodak 100 TMX. I rarely use ISO 320 or 400. But I love the tonality of Efke 25 and a little fill flash can really show that off in the right circumstances. Even with ISO 100 or 125 film I find a bit of fill flash makes for a very nice photo.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Cole
Besides, a Christmas project using fill flash in a light, point and shoot 4x5 camera just sounds like a lot of fun. And, who knows, I may find I really like the results.
Bryan,
I did not say images less than 4x5 "aren't allowed;" I said "given the rules of this site which limit displays of images less than 4x5."
So, specifically, the Usage Guidelines state:
"For the purposes of this forum, we define "large format" as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film. We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras). "
So, images of less than 4x5 that are NOT exposed in a view camera of 4x5 or larger with a roll-film adapter, or a technical 4x5 view camera, or an old-style press camera would not meet the definition. I would say the Travelwide is not any of these, and that images from a Travelwide that are cropped to 6x7 or 6x9 would not meet the definition. But I will let Rick or one of the other moderators decide this. I don't make the rules, I just know they exist. Hell, you could crop a 4x5 to 35mm size; then what would be the point of this being a LF site at all?
Ben, if you see this, I give up. I tried making a constructive suggestion about expanding the range of your camera. I now regret doing that. At the very least, you know you already have several very loyal supporters for the Travelwide. Best of luck with your production and distribution.
Oh nonsense. It uses 4x5 sheet film in holders. The negative size is 4x5. No one is going to care if it's cropped. That's just picking nits to be a spoil sport. It doesn't say images less than 4x5, it says FILM. No one cares if you don't use all the film area. Do you always print full frame? I certainly don't. The world doesn't always fit in the proportions of my negative, or image size of my lens for that matter.
Silly me, so 2X3 Press cameras shooting sheets are not allowed, according to how I read those rules above.
Specious.
Randy, the way I read the rule, if it is shot in an old-style press camera, it is allowed even if it "would otherwise be considered 'medium format.'" But, again, this is for the moderators to decide.
Thanks Michael, in my usual way, I might break rules, as there are no rules to Art or invention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Roberts
The Travelwide is a view camera (ground glass) so regardless it'll be allowed, with roll film or otherwise I would think?
Anyway, enough of that diversion, back to scanning my roll film shot in a Crown Graphic...
Okay, now you've got me intrigued. It sounds like you guys have no shortage of ideas here - I can't wait to see what else you come up with!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Syverson
I personally doubt I'd ever shoot my 127 or 135 wide open on a simple box camera like the Travelwide. Stop down, hyperfocal distance, shoot!Quote:
Originally Posted by dave_whatever
Hey, Ben - I have the perfect idea for a stretch goal! You know how Google Glass is getting all sorts of press right now? Steal their thunder - create a wearable Travelwide!
Provide a welding hood that has been modified with a bracket over the vision port for mounting the Travelwide. The user could then walk around observing the world through their 4x5 - and when they see something worthy of recording (a cute kitten, maybe) they could stop, focus, slap in a film holder, pull the dark slide and expose.
It'll be the hot new thing, I guarantee it!
(Warning - satire alert)
Folding 4x5 or 6x6? There are a lot of great medium format folders available. I think you guy but the sweet spot with a lightweight 4x5.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Syverson
The design is for a collapsible 4x5. It is super early in the design phase and has a number of things to be worked out. At the moment it is more of a concept and a very rough sketch. There are plenty of hurdles to overcome. Hopefully we can work on it more after the Travelwide is in production & shipping. Realistically, it will probably be a very long time before there is any kind of physical working prototype. If we get it to a good working prototype phase then we may share some specifics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Larry Kellogg
Glad to hear that it would be 4x5, but you're right, those ideas should be pursued after the TravelWide is shipping. ;-)Quote:
Originally Posted by jnl
Yes. And it isn't a "problem". It's the Large Format Photography Forum, after all. We have to draw the line somewhere, or it will end up being a general photography forum and large-format photographers will have to sift through posts to find their subject. Other forums fill that need.Quote:
Originally Posted by Corran
But we do, of course, allow smaller formats to be discussed in the Lounge.
Rick "hoping for great additions to the image-sharing forum from these cameras" Denney
No, not specious. It is a rule that was established at the founding of this forum by its owner. We have had long discussions about this in many, many threads over the years. Everyone tries to conflate the line we draw in this forum with the definition of "large". But that definition is elusive, and in many ways unresolvable. Each person inevitably seeks to include what they do and exclude what they don't want in the definition. That way lies madness. So, we just draw a line, and stick to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
It has nothing whatever to do with whether its possible for a Wanderlust camera to support a longer lens. And arguments about it will pollute this thread.
Any image made using this camera is acceptable for posting in this forum, even if made using a rollfilm holder.
Rick "let's get back to the camera discussion" Denney
Yup. Do you remember the Rollei 35? One of the smallest full-frame 35mm cameras ever made. 40mm fixed Tessar or Sonnar lens, scale focus. The lenses were fast, but nobody used them that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ford
There are cameras designed for precise focusing of a wide-open lens, but the Travelwide isn't one of them. Its use case is wandering around a strange city, capturing scenes in a way that can support good-sized prints that retain a sense of endless detail and a smooth tonality characteristic of large format, using a lightweight and cheap camera that can be thrown in a suitcase. It can be used for other things, of course, but that's what it was optimized for. Making it better at other things would make it heavier and more expensive.
I highly respect Ben and Justin for their good sense in sticking to the use case and requirements. And I think they have, at the same time, unravelled the notion that large format requires bulky and complicated equipment and exacting technique. If there's a bit of focus error or camera shake, it won't matter for the biggest prints most people make at home, which is maybe 16x20--only a 4x enlargement.
Sure, there are uses for longer lenses. I'm the one that modified a top-rangefinder Speed Graphic that is cammed for the 127mm lens by adding a side Kalart adjusted for a 8-1/2" Ilex Paragon. But the lens is big and heavy, and the camera is hard to use hand-held. And though I travel constantly, I've never yet taken it with me.
Rick "thinking the more limited camera that actually gets used beats the more flexible camera that doesn't" Denney
Just obtained: Ikelite made a high-eyepoint viewfinder for underwater use on a Nikonos. Unlike the Nikon viewfinders, it has flat ports front and rear, and therefore focuses on dry land. It came with white-line masks for 35mm, 28mm, 20mm, and 15mm.
By high-eyepoint, I mean for a diver wearing a mask, so the eye relief is measured in inches, and is fabulously wonderful on a dry-land camera. To accommodate the wide field, the view is fisheye--lots of barrel distortion--but the white-line frames are shaped to show the actual edges of the field. Of course, the aspect is 3:2, but it wouldn't take much to make the appropriate marks with a Sharpie pen.
It's big--no, huge--at 4-1/2" tall, but pretty tough and made of plastic, so it's not as heavy as it looks. I'm thinking that I'll put correction marks on the back side of the 20mm mask, and switch it between the Travelwide 90 and 65.
These come up from time to time and they are not too expensive (usually <$100) when they do appear. Not compact, but plenty goofy enough for this camera.
Here's the one I bought (seller's picture):
Attachment 93786
This one has knob-adjusted parallax correction, and like all underwater stuff, the knob is big and clearly marked. Some don't have the knob-controlled parallax corrector, but instead the shoe is just bolted to the finder with a bolt that can allow it to be adjusted manually. That is actually preferred for the underwater dudes, but for this application, I suspect the one with the knob-adjustable parallax would be best.
You wouldn't have to worry about rain with this puppy, heh. When tightened on the top, it could easily be used as a carrying handle for the camera.
Far more compact, but still under a C-note, is the Russian turret finder for the Fed, Kiev, and Zorki rangefinders. Obviously, only the 28mm position of the turret is useful (and then only for the 90, using the lines at the sides). This one would be a low-eyepoint design with a small pupil and unsuitable for those who wear glasses. There are affordable adjustible finders for the Leica, such as the VIOOH and a similar version made by Walz, but they only go to 35mm, which isn't wide enough for these cameras.
Rick "reporting on cheaper options than the >>$100 Voigtlander and similar models" Denney
I Wander how strong the flash mount will be?
I think it will be fine for this. And if it does break, it's easy enough to file it flat and mount a metal cold shoe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Moe
Rick "who did also wonder" Denney
I plan to pop one of those Linhof folding sports type viewers on it. Cheap, sturdy, folding but may need calibration. no biggie, at all. My goal is to keep it small.
I already have a Voigtlander 21mm lens and finder for my Leica M4-2 so the finder wont be a problem. I also like the idea of the included wire frame finder, simple and rugged. (and you can't put finger smears on a wire frame finder)
Hey, only 51 more cameras to go to reach 1000 cameras!
i touched a lens element once, i made myself stand in the corner...
I've been shooting with the Super Angulon 90mm ƒ/8, and it's an easy lens to love. Incredibly sharp, even wide open!
I'm still getting the hang of home developing, which explains the weird artifact in the bottom left of the Cleveland skyline shot.
http://bensyverson.com/images/2013/4...kyline-700.jpg
(Handheld, ƒ/16 at 1/250 on HP5)
Detail from the above:
http://bensyverson.com/images/2013/4...detail-700.jpg
http://bensyverson.com/images/2013/4...nd-jon-700.jpg
(Handheld, ƒ/8 at 1/15 on HP5)
I must admit, I am really looking forward to it. I use a boxy fujica 6x9 camera a lot, so carrying one of theese around with 3 film holders in a bag is just the same as a fujica really.
The Travelwide 90 with lens and 6 holders weighs about 1500g all together, so yeah, that's pretty close to the Fujica, which I think clocks in at 1400g or so! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mdm
Unless you want a lens on the front of the Fujica... the body is 1290g and the lens is 763. (Empty, or curb weight). Looking forward to shaving that down a bit with the Travelwide. Oh Yes... and nearly doubling the acreage on the negative :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Syverson
I can't help wondering if that bank is owned by or otherwise affiliated with Olympus.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Syverson
Nice, Ben, how are you developing your stuff? Are you using trays or some kind of plastic tank? What are you using to develop? I just got access to a professional darkroom at the International Center for Photography (ICP) and can go wild, LOL. They have D76 on tap, ha ha.
4x5 negatives are just amazing. I can see detail half a mile from my apartment in my shots. Last week, I took my Wisner into Central Park and had a lot of fun shooting the cherry trees in bloom. I had some nice conversations with people. I let a woman look at the ground glass and she stuck her nose up against it. I told her she could stand back a bit. People are so used to squinting through viewfinders that they have no idea there is another way to photograph, although Live View is kind of like a view camera.
I'm looking forward to receiving the TravelWide! It's going to be a blast to shoot with a little GorillaPod, although your handheld shot at 1/15th is pretty amazing.
Thanks, Larry! I'm using the "Taco method." It's really easy, but you need to be a little careful when loading the film into the tank.
We've had a frustrating couple of days on the Kickstarter. Yesterday we actually lost more backers than we gained, which was a terrible feeling. They came all at once, which makes me think we got a negative blog post or something, but I can't find anything... And I don't want to look too hard for something negative. In any case, I'm hoping that the numbers continue to go up rather than down...
I noticed that.
I am sure that is normal.
Some follow the herd, and some get lost.
You are more than covered, the Odds are with you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Syverson
Ah, ok, I thought maybe you had a Jobo. I was hoping ICP had a Jobo but I haven't seen one yet. The "Taco" method is probably going to be my first attempt at developing 4x5, as I'm already using Patterson tanks for developing 35mm film. Thanks for that link. I read the part about moving the hair band part way through the fix/wash cycle in order to clear the backing, otherwise you can get a line on the film, according to this: "Also, BE CERTAIN to move the band a bit about half way through the fixing and washing. This clears all the film backing, which otherwise shows up as a faint line on the film after it dries." I hadn't thought of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Syverson
It's strange that you lost some backers, I certainly didn't see anything negative. You're way over plan though, so I wouldn't worry too much. Maybe a few people got scared off by the cost of 4x5 film. By the way, I'm going to go try that Arista EDU stuff in order to see how it turns out.
People can be funny about these things sometimes. They can be all excited one day, then completely negative the next. In some cases they will withdraw their backing and then a bit later decide to buy after all. Others probably did not understand what they were getting in the first place. Once they understood that they needed to buy a lens, buy film, even buy the inserts that accepted the film, they decided to drop out. There will also be a few who have other issues, monetary, family, etc. where the money really is needed for something else. Finally, there are a few smart asses out there who think it is cute to bid and then drop out, or not pay at all. You probably don't want to have to deal with those anyway.
You still have an excellent chance to far exceed your goals. In fact, I do believe that you still have a pretty good chance to hit 1,000 backers before the end.
Relax, enjoy for a bit. Remember, in just a few more days you will be waist deep in another frustration. Trying to get your camera manufactured and working...at a price where you can box it, ship it and still make a couple cents for your hard work.
Ha, very good advice. :) Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by AuditorOne
Hum, it was $102k the last time I looked, was $107k when I looked before refreshing (still had the tab open) and $108k now after refreshing the window, so I wouldn't worry about it.
Noticed that too, very disturbing. I'm hoping for 1000 cameras and it's not even my project! It would just be neat to sell that many in 30 days. At this moment that is only 44 more cameras.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Syverson
It makes a person not want to check the computer but every 3 or 4 days. But I don't have that strength. Got to know.
There are currently 880 backers. If we subtract the backers that are getting prints (10) and add the ones getting both cameras (123)--that makes 993 cameras pre-purchased. So 1000 cameras is just a few pledges away. This project is wildly successful by any measure.
Ben, Justin - I wouldn't worry, I've seen absolutely zero bad stuff about the project on the web. I think you're just seeing the typical Kickstarter project cold feet.
Onward to 1000 cameras!
1000 cameras pledged--huzzah!
My count is 964, but we are close!!
Check my math--886 backers, all getting at least one camera except for the 10 at the $25 pledge level-->that's 876 backers. 125 backers are receiving the 90mm and 65mm cameras--that's another 125 cameras--->876+125=1001 cameras.
Hmm, I see 50 early birds, 572 TW90s, 79 TW65s, 125 combos (250 cameras), and 14 packages, for a total of 965.
Edit: We have a number of backers who have not selected a reward—they're either pledging $1 or $10, or they're pledging purely to support the project. One generous individual contributed $500 and has not selected a reward. I'm going to send a message before the project ends to make sure these people know what they're doing.
Ahh, I didn't realize you could just pledge without selecting an award. The $500 contribution is generous indeed--thank you, kind stranger.
Meh, 1000 as a milestone is just an artifact of counting in base 10. Don't sweat it: no matter how you slice this, it's already a fantabulous achievement.
Use binary: there are already 1111000101 cameras on order.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oren Grad
There are 10 kinds of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by moose10101