Search:

One minute you write "having the film in a plane in sky is more radiation than the X-ray machines in case you were wondering .."

Then you write, "at least if it is shipped, it ONLY gets radiation...

More Internet "confusion". It depends on what the radiation level is set on the TSA machine. They can set it LOW or HIGH. And it depends on the ISO of the film.

If you mail film it gets...

I would think that it depends on what film format you are using and how much movement you expect.

Can you be more specific?

For what's it's worth, you were on the right track.

A Triple may not be a Home Run, but it's a lot better than a Single!

I always put my film in X-RAY proof film bags -- lead lined and pretty cheap -- just in case.

I always ASK for a hand inspection.

Chances are the TSA agent will not know "what you got", but if...

From my rough calculations, step #4 & #5 are too much.

I like grain -- and I don't just mean in my sandwich bread. However, when I want a grainy photo I usually reach for Kodak 2475 in my Minolta MG-s 16mm sub-mini.

I'll have to try some rear tilting (and swinging) the next time I use my 37mm Mamiya Fisheye. Never tried it with the fisheye -- which always has bent trees!

Me either. I just use front rise & fall.

And, as you point out, let's not forget about all the anti-science ignoramuses who got in the way! Imagine where we might be today if the "Dark Ages" never happened. Who knows, digital cameras...

That's a very interesting opinion, and one that I generally share -- but generally don't share it with others.

You should consider posting it on INSTRUCTABLES.com

Instructables is a community for people who like to make things. Come explore, share, and make your next project with us!
...

That's why it attracts us masochists.

How about "photography SHOULD be fun!!!"

I never said that I denied being Mr. Adams.

It works the other way too.

I was once at the famous GOOSENECKS overlook in Utah -- very very early one morning. Trying to get a shot under the perfect sunrise. I was all alone -- or so I...

In some ways "post-visualization" makes more sense.

What he did accomplish was to put labels on human emotional processes -- so that we were finally able to start talking about them rationally. Kind of like the first blind man describing an elephant...

Interesting. For me, it's the opposite -- where I set up the camera determines what focal length lens I will use.

How about, in order to make a panorama, you have to use a panoramic camera (or filmback).

Thanks for this information. I assume that Fuji made a GX macro, which would probably be GREAT on a 4x5!

ADDENDUM: I see that Fuji never made a lens for the GX specifically for macro work. Too...

Are you complaining or gloating?

Since they are wood, just place each between two damp (NOT WET) towels and place a few heavy books on top. They will flatten out in a day or two. Then place them for a couple of more days between...

The only opinion that I have regarding LF that is unpopular with other people (if I'm interpreting the question correctly) is that I can get much better photographs than they can with their $10,000...

I'm not familiar with the Fuji 6x8 lenses, but they need an IC of 110mm to cover 6x8. Increasing the IC to 135mm or 140mm would seem sufficient for the camera's movements -- not 160mm/4x5".

Here...

Or maybe just a "bruised" apple.

The GX lenses don't have an IC that covers 4x5" -- except if used for macro shots, and even there, better options are available.

Since OP Alan9940 states "I currently own a Fuji W 125/5.6" (80°), but wants something sharper, I've got to assume that he is using 4x5". If that's the case, anything with a 100° coverage is way too...

That explains it. Those f8 lenses are overkill for 4x5".

Are you shooting 4x5"?

This topic reminds me that I've got some rolls of 20" Kentmere RC paper waiting to be used. A 20x100" print would be impressive.

I too have the EBC 125mm NW f5.6, and think it's great. You might try that, but be aware that it came with THREE different front threads -- 46mm, 52mm (what I have), and 55mm. Otherwise they are...

Just curious, does it automatically know the width of the roll or do you have to tell it?

We certainly have come a long way from Mario's original question:

What do you suggest as a diameter for filter? 86 or 82mm?

Thanks
Mario

I've never experienced it, but it sure is reminiscent of the examples of bromide drag that I've seen -- whatever it is. Just one more reason I use tubes.

What goes around comes around.

There are too many people that get too attached to their gear. It just sits in the closet until the estate auctioneers basically give it away. This is just one of the reasons why some great gear is...

Before I read your explanation, I looked at the picture, and thought "HANGER DEVELOPMENT".

I don't use hangers, and don't claim to be knowledgeable regarding their use. Others will jump in, I'm...

There are lots of 95mm UV/Protective filters for under $25, but for typical large format filters, like O2, K2, 25A, you are lucky if you find one for $75. On the other hand, in 77mm they are easy to...

I agree. You might as well look for a needle in a haystack. It's in there!