If ever there was a vindication for LF...

[Kevin Crisp]

I have not found the SL66 backs trouble prone, I have 5 backs and use them interchangeably on two bodies. BUT, you have to know that the shutter must be cocked before you mate the back to the camera. If you force it on there despite a modest amount of resistance, you break it and you need a special hook to reach up inside and get the camera unlocked and ready to go. The system has lots of interlocks and when something doesn't move or go together easily, it is telling you something.

I'd have to agree that on a long trip, a decent travel 4X5 outfit with three lenses is much easier to lug around than the Rollei. It just depends on whether you want to deal with reloading film holders on the road.

[Jack Dahlgren]

The fact that the artist posted the photo is sufficient evidence that it was as he intended. What gives you have the right to question that?

And why should anyone care about your expectations? You seem to have an inflated opinion of self.

- Leigh

What gives you the right to continue to insult people? Or are you just a troll?

[Brian Ellis]

Good point.I use this program quite a bit http://www.heliconsoft.com/heliconfocus.html I shot this shell with 12 exposures adjusting the focus in even increments from the front of the board to the back thus rendering everything in focus.I wasn't aware you could do the same thing in Photoshop, but I'm still using CS3.Is this a feature on the newer versions, or is there something I'm missing in CS3?

Wow, 12 exposures! That's a lot more than I've done. I usually only make 3-4 exposures. Very nice photograph (as were the others you posted).

I'm not sure when the ability to make multiple exposures and stitch like this was first introduced in Photoshop. I've had almost every version of Photoshop from PS4 on and I have trouble remembering what came in with what version. I know I did this on CS4 and didn't do it on CS3 but that wasn't necessarily because it couldn't be done in CS3, I probably just didn't know how to do it back then. I learned the technique in workshop I attended about a year ago when I had CS4.

In that same workshop the instructor demonstrated the program you're using but I don't really know anything about it so I don't know whether Photoshop does the exact same thing you're doing or not. But in general I know you can do what we're talking about on CS4, I'm not sure about CS3.

[Drew Wiley]

Thanks for that clarification, Kevin. I was probably only about twelve years old when
my brother was shooting Rollei, and they were eventually stolen and never recovered.
The SL66 was used by Richard Kaufmann for his noteworthy carbon color prints of the
high Sierras back in that era. A backpacking friend of mine who carries an analogous
MF Contax outfit usually ends up with just as much weight as I do with a 4x5 and
conventional holders - both around 75 lbs for three or four days out. And no tilt feature with the Contax. The Zeiss lenses are marvelous, but no match for the much
bigger film size of 4x5 or 8x10.

[John NYC]

Over and over again I get convinced that the On Photography forum is the most counterproductive on this site. Give the OP a break, for goodness sake.

[Chris Strobel]

Wow, 12 exposures! That's a lot more than I've done. I usually only make 3-4 exposures. Very nice photograph (as were the others you posted).

Hey Brian,

Yeah for objects like the shell I've played around and 12 is about optimum.I've done some landscapes (very few) with up to 20, but it gets tricky when the light starts changing.I was wondering about photoshop because with Helicon I'm having trouble processing 16bit Tiffs with it.In 8bit it works great, and can process 12 images from my 5DmkII in about 3-4 min., but in 16bit it just stalls.So I'm always searching for new things to try.Thanks too for the kind word.

Chris

[John NYC]

Hey Brian,

I was wondering about photoshop because with Helicon I'm having trouble processing 16bit Tiffs with it.In 8bit it works great, and can process 12 images from my 5DmkII in about 3-4 min., but in 16bit it just stalls.So I'm always searching for new things to try.Thanks too for the kind word.

Chris

If you haven't seen this guy's work doing stack macro shots of insects, it's pretty outta sight. He uses Zerene Stacker.

This one is 150 exposures...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnhallmen/5237351583/

[Rust Never Sleeps]

...it's looking at the sample images of the (very tasty) Pentax 645D digital "medium format" (though it's on the small side of MF) camera. This one is particularly telling:

http://dpreview.com/galleries/review...review-samples
(I recommend looking at the original size - 16MB JPG)

Taken with a 120mm f/4 Macro lens stopped down to f/14 (already way past its optimum I should think). On this gigantic image, at high magnification, one very small plane of focus is extremely crisply rendered, with most of the shot completely out of focus. Surely, taken at f/14, this was not the intent.

The advantage over 35mm digital for this particular shot is minor at best. I am quite confident that, shooting my 50-year-old Symmar 150mm wide open even, I could create a much more detailed and convincing rendition of the scene (apart from the poorer contrast) simply because of camera movements. Never mind at f/14! That's a $100 lens on a $1000 camera.

Man, I'm glad I got into large format :-)

Digital opens some nice doors:
1 Able to change ISO in camera
2 Able to shoot until out of memory, no running out of film
3 Not have to worry about developing film, thus saving time and money
4 Able to send client a project the same day of shoot

After that I don't see what the big fuss over digital is especially after some of the bad doors digital opens:
1 Expensive and shitty resale value
2 Some cameras don't have much in the used market, so you have to buy new
3 A new camera comes out every year to year and a half, making the camera you just bought a couple of months ago obsolete and old school pretty quick.

I think it just pisses off some people that like philosomatographer stated, you can take a old camera like a Speed Graphic or a Tech IV with a lens from the 60's or 70's with modern B&W or color film and the result will spank digital. Folks for some reason think that if a certain technology is digital like CD's, DVD, or Digital Capture, it must be superior. I have heard high end turntables in nice audio systems that sound ridiculously good. Just like I have viewed well made 40x50 prints from 4x5 or 8x10 that floored me.

I used to shoot a Pentax 6x7 and while the camera was great and I learned a lot with it, getting near-far shots completely sharp was a pain in the ass and a lot of shots just couldn't be pulled off. A medium format issue not the Pentax 6x7 but the Pentax 645D will suffer from this too. I'm expected to put up with this for ten grand for the camera alone, um thanks but no thanks. I can see a portrait studio getting the camera but for landscape shooting it doesn't make much sense. I rather have a 35mm digital with tilt/shift lenses if I was dead set on getting into digital which I am not. Cheers...

[Chris Strobel]

If you haven't seen this guy's work doing stack macro shots of insects, it's pretty outta sight. He uses Zerene Stacker.

This one is 150 exposures...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/johnhallmen/5237351583/

Wow, thats pretty awesome and freaky work!Thanks for that link John.Just tried the Zerene Stacker demo.Works well, but takes almost twice the time of Helicon to stack on my aging machine.P.S. like your LF city shots quite a bit.Always like viewing them on you flickr site.Always inspirational.

Chris

[Robert Hughes]

Yeah for objects like the shell I've played around and 12 is about optimum.

Hmmph. Looks like a candidate for one good shot, with a better lighting setup.