Has digital photography reduced your use of tripods?
Alan Browne
In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods,
then with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around, only
for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn reason?
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
David Kilpatrick
>
> In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods, then
> with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>
> Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around, only
> for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>
> Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn reason?
>
You bet. From the Konica Minolta A2 onwards, Dynax 7D, never looked
back. Stabilisation on the latest little Nikon 18-55mm which I have on
the D5000 does not seem to affect optical quality at all (some lenses
like the 24-120mm seem to suffer badly). Whatever type of stabilisation,
it makes a huge difference.
Even in conditions where no tripod would normally be used, it improves
detail.
David
C J Campbell
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
>
> In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods,
> then with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>
> Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around, only
> for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>
> Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn reason?
Actually, I am using tripods more. Digital finally allowed me to see
that a tripod makes a difference.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
Paul Furman
>
> In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods, then
> with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>
> Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around, only
> for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>
> Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn reason?
I never used a tripod much with film either, I'd just only shoot when
there was enough light. I had a tripod for the super-8 movie camera and
a bulb/cable release at one point but very rarely used it for stills.
High ISO on the D700 means I only use a tripod for staged tabletop type
shots and telephoto work above 300mm.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
ray
> In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods, then
> with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>
> Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around, only
> for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>
> Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn
> reason?
I personally use a tripod most often for panoramas. Never did them with
film so, yes, I use it more often.
Bill Graham
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:qBBZl.20448$D32....@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>> In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods, then
>> with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>>
>> Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around, only
>> for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>>
>> Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn
>> reason?
>
> I never used a tripod much with film either, I'd just only shoot when
> there was enough light. I had a tripod for the super-8 movie camera and a
> bulb/cable release at one point but very rarely used it for stills. High
> ISO on the D700 means I only use a tripod for staged tabletop type shots
> and telephoto work above 300mm.
>
cover over it to keep the dust (and cats) off. So, most all of my in-house
and in-yard shots are tripod shots. I only put it in the car and take with,
if I think I am going to need it somewhere else.
John McWilliams
>
> In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods, then
> with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>
> Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around, only
> for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>
> Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn reason?
About the same- shooting panos= more tripod use; way better high ISO
performance+ IS lenses= less tripod.
--
john mcwilliams
Chris Malcolm
> In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods,
> then with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
> Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around, only
> for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
> Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn reason?
In dim light I use much higher ISOs than with film, because the
grain/noise at high ISOs has improved a lot with DSLRs over SLRs. I
also use a tripod or monopod a lot more than with film. With film I
only carried a tripod or monopod when I planned to use it for
specifically planned photographs. But with film I usually printed at
A5, and did a few of my best at A4. With digital I mostly print at A4,
a few of my best at A2, but routinely examine all my good shots at
pixel level detail.
As a result with digital I routinely work to much higher levels of
detail resolution than with film. Consequently I've had to tighten up
my rules of thumb about DoF and hand holdable shutter speeds a lot. So
I now use tripods and monopods a lot more than I used to with film,
and nearly always carry at least a very small tripod and a big
monopod.
While I often use IS and find it very useful, I prefer the extra
resolution I can get from supporting the camera stably enough not to
need it.
--
Chris Malcolm
Charles E Hardwidge
news:HI6dnfhat5rKLqvX...@giganews.com...
>
> In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods, then
> with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>
> Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around, only for
> it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>
> Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn reason?
I rarely used a camera back when film was dominant. Picking photography up
from scratch and being digital is something I'm still getting my head around
but I'm trying out way more stuff than I would've done before and the limits
of my P&S (Piece of Shit) bumps up the use of a tripod. Heck, I *never* had
a tripod before or a Macbeth colour chart.
My camera isn't great and I want to take the best shot I can, so using low
ISO is a must as it gets noisy fast. I've also experimented with
panoramas which really demand a tripod, and I'd like to do more of those.
I'd also like to try out HDR and low noise photography. I've got some ideas
for time lapse photography and long exposure stuff as well.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Scott W
wrote:
I hardly ever used a tripod when shooting film. Most of my film shots
were taken in places where a tripod was simply not practical.
I mostly use a tripod now when I am going to stitch photos.
But even ignoring the case of stitched photos I use a tripod much more
now then I did in the past. I am into pushing the conditions that I
photograph in much more then when I was shooting film, as an example
see below.
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/113865739/original
This was shot as f/2.8 iso 400 and shutter speed 1/6 second. Whereas
I have gotten a few good photos at the shutter speed hand held it
works so much better when I use a tripod.
BTW the photo is in B/W because the lighting was from low pressure
sodium street lights, which make everything look pretty yellow.
Scott
Bowser
>
> In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods, then
> with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>
> Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around, only
> for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>
> Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn reason?
Reduced, yes. Eliminated, no. It's still always there in the trunk.
Plus, I like the pano head and l-bracket. Killer combo.
Elliott Roper
<ov...@the.rainbow> wrote:
Ok, I'm new here, but...
Increased.
5Dii 1080p30 video is brilliant, but hand-held makes viewers seasick.
When pushing all those megapixels in low light, a tripod definitely
earns its place. I have been doing some late sunsets that would have
been impossible hand held.
--
To de-mung my e-mail address:- fsnospam$elliott$$
PGP Fingerprint: 1A96 3CF7 637F 896B C810 E199 7E5C A9E4 8E59 E248
Jeremy Nixon
> In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods,
> then with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>
> Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around, only
> for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>
> Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn reason?
The higher resolution and overall better image quality of digital has made
the need for a tripod even more clear. I didn't realize that a tripod would
make a difference even at 1/125sec and wide angle, but it does. I use it a
lot more with digital.
--
Jeremy Nixon | http://www.defocus.net
Email address in header is valid
http://www.flickr.com/photos/100mph/
Charlie Choc
>
>In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods,
>then with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>
>Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around, only
>for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>
>Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn reason?
I shoot mostly landscapes and long exposures aren't that uncommon, so I still
use a tripod. I like VR for wildlife and macro, but rarely use it for
landscapes.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
Alan Browne
>On 15-06-09 16:47, Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>> In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods,
>> then with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>>
>> Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around,
>> only for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>>
>> Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good
>> or stubborn reason?
>>
> cable release. Even with 35mm, rarely use it. Have one, but its not
> something I lug around all the time. Recall that the reason for the
> 35mm format was to get AWAY from using tripods and being more portable
> and quick to use. As opposed to a view camera. You know, the big
> things, usually made of wood.....
>
> Even medium format. Just use fast lenses and film or EI as needed.
Well I don't "recall", however that notion cannot be very valid, esp. in
the era
of slow films like Kodachrome 25 and the use of telephoto lenses.
While it may have provided greater portability, the 1/4" screw socket
was usually
incorporated as well. And for that matter, cameras like the Hasselblad
V series,
the Pentax 67's and others were just as portable as 35mm cameras.
[attribution and distro restored]
Bowser
"Elliott Roper" <nos...@yrl.co.uk> wrote in message
news:160620091857537137%nos...@yrl.co.uk...
> In article <GPQZl.1$5N...@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com>, Bowser
> <ov...@the.rainbow> wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>> >
>> > In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods,
>> > then
>> > with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>> >
>> > Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around, only
>> > for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>> >
>> > Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn
>> > reason?
>>
>> Reduced, yes. Eliminated, no. It's still always there in the trunk.
>> Plus, I like the pano head and l-bracket. Killer combo.
>
> Ok, I'm new here, but...
> Increased.
> 5Dii 1080p30 video is brilliant, but hand-held makes viewers seasick.
> When pushing all those megapixels in low light, a tripod definitely
> earns its place. I have been doing some late sunsets that would have
> been impossible hand held.
Excellent point about hand-held video. I haven't done a lot of video yet,
and need to acquire some skills in that aspect. I'm essentially a stills
guy. And, when possible, I usually shoot with a tripod or monopod. Makes a
big difference in image sharpness.
BTW, check out this 5D II video, it's pretty good:
Bowser
"Jeremy Nixon" <~$!~( )@( )u.defocus.net> wrote in message
news:79q5n0F...@mid.individual.net...
> Alan Browne <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods,
>> then with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>>
>> Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around, only
>> for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>>
>> Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn
>> reason?
>
> The higher resolution and overall better image quality of digital has made
> the need for a tripod even more clear. I didn't realize that a tripod
> would
> make a difference even at 1/125sec and wide angle, but it does. I use it
> a
> lot more with digital.
That's true, but the high ISO capabilities of digital allow me to shoot in
places where tripods are not allowed, like the library of congress (great
ceiling shots).
It's true, tripods will nearly almost always help sharpness.
Peter
news:HI6dnfhat5rKLqvX...@giganews.com...
>
> with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>
> Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around, only for
> it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>
> Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn reason?
>
It depends. I find a tripod slows me down and helps me to concentrate more
on composition. When I am doing macro work, the shallow depth of field
mandates use of a tripod.
Having said that, on my forth coming trip I will travel without the tripod.
--
Peter
Noons
>
> In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods, then
> with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>
> Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around, only
> for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>
> Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn reason?
>
What have you got against monopods?
Chris H
<wizo...@yahoo.com.au> writes
Nothing.... I think they should be left to stand or fall on their own
:-)
As a policeman once said to me carrying a camera is a good enough reason
to also carry a 6 foot extending baton in an urban area :-))))
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Peter
news:z$G65sF1p...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <h1aff5$o9h$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Noons
> <wizo...@yahoo.com.au> writes
>>Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 16/06/2009 6:47 AM:
>>> In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods,
>>>then with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>>> Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around,
>>>only for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>>> Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn
>>>reason?
>>>
>>
>>What have you got against monopods?
>
> Nothing.... I think they should be left to stand or fall on their own
> :-)
>
>
Monopods ere invented by a bipod manufacturer, who wanted to make more
money. :-)
--
Peter
Chris H
<pete...@nospamoptonline.net> writes
>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:z$G65sF1pMOKFA3x@p
This is turning into a Friday-Afternoon thread :-)
I found that it depends on situations where there are lots of people a
mono-pod is better as someone always knocks one of the tripod legs. At
one time all it would do is ruin the shot. Now they want to sue. :-(
I wonder if there are any tripods where you can drop off 2 legs and use
it as a mono-pod, or just drop off one leg and fit a base plate to it?
Bob Larter
> In message <h1aff5$o9h$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Noons
> <wizo...@yahoo.com.au> writes
>> Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 16/06/2009 6:47 AM:
>>> In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods,
>>> then with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>>> Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around,
>>> only for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>>> Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn
>>> reason?
>>>
>> What have you got against monopods?
>
> Nothing.... I think they should be left to stand or fall on their own
> :-)
>
> As a policeman once said to me carrying a camera is a good enough reason
> to also carry a 6 foot extending baton in an urban area :-))))
I agree completely. When I'm walking to/from a nightclub shoot, I always
keep my monopod close to hand.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Charles E Hardwidge
> I found that it depends on situations where there are lots of people a
> mono-pod is better as someone always knocks one of the tripod legs. At
> one time all it would do is ruin the shot. Now they want to sue. :-(
>
> I wonder if there are any tripods where you can drop off 2 legs and use
> it as a mono-pod, or just drop off one leg and fit a base plate to it?
I just tested this with a tripod in the corner of the room. I just closed
the legs and balanced it on my foot. It worked fine. The only issue is
length but, hey, it's not my fault if yours is too short. :-p
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Bob Larter
Before I bought a monopod, I would sometimes use my tripod with only one
leg extended, & a ball-head attached.
Peter
news:SK6_l.43679$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
Or you can extend all legs and keep them closed.
........fighting the urge ...
....still fighting the urge...
LOST the fight.
women can use this method for birth control
--
Peter
Charles E Hardwidge
news:4a3903ac$0$8661$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
Heh.
This is my tripod. There are many like it but this one is mine. My tripod is
my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.
Without me, my tripod is useless. Without my tripod I am useless. I must
stand my tripod true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy, who is trying
to shake me. I must take my lens cap off before he he takes his lens cap
off. I will. Before God I swear this creed: my tripod and myself are
defenders of low ISO, we are setters of white balance, we are the
chroniclers of life. So be it, until there is no lens distortion, but
perfect composition. Amen.
More seriously, I composed a post before anyone else replied and it's
interesting to see how many posts came in from people who've been aiming for
a similar point - they've been much more experimental and quality conscious,
and tripods seem to get more use than not. That's kinda interesting in some
ways and reflects some of the earlier times when people were trying out new
things with the half ton cameras of the early last century.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Walter Banks
Alan Browne wrote:
> In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods,
> then with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>
> Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around, only
> for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>
> Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn reason?
Digital camera's showed me the difference that a stable tripod can have
on image sharpness. I bought a surveyors tripod and mated it
to a good head, it isn't fun to carry around but it is stable.
How do you deal with long lenses and center of gravity?
I drilled and tapped a foot long aluminium bar every inch so I could
mount the camera back set by up to 11 inches. (The last hole
was just drilled to clear 1/4 bolt) I have tried counter weights
to pull the c/g to the hinge line on the head works but is
complicated.
Any other solutions? Bret?
w..
daveFaktor
This is not about how you manage to walk Bob!
Annika1980
> How do you deal with long lenses and center of gravity?
> era's showed me the difference that a stable tripod can have
> on image sharpness. I bought a surveyors tripod and mated it
> to a good head, it isn't fun to carry around but it is stable.
> I drilled and tapped a foot long aluminium bar every inch so I could
> mount the camera back set by up to 11 inches. (The last hole
> was just drilled to clear 1/4 bolt) I have tried counter weights
> to pull the c/g to the hinge line on the head works but is
> complicated.
>
> Any other solutions? Bret?
I've never owned a decent tripod or head.
So I do what I can with what I got.
frank
Probably never used a long lens on say an F4 or F5 or some other
heavier body. Take your pick. Usually 2.8 over say 200mm. Great
invention once you use them, but depends if you can use it, say
shooting sports, indoors or out where pretty much running around same
horizontal plane. Really like the little rubber thingie some of them
have to get some movement on the monopod.
any other knuckle draggers on this group? You know who you
are...snicker at all the 'this F5 is too big for my hands' or 'I can't
hold this D3 its too heavy' ok on three....argh Argh ARGH...
Anybody else think 2 bodies for a camera bag is a limiting factor?
Annika1980
wrote:
>
> This is my tripod. There are many like it but this one is mine. My tripod is
> my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.
> Without me, my tripod is useless. Without my tripod I am useless. I must
> stand my tripod true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy, who is trying
> to shake me. I must take my lens cap off before he he takes his lens cap
> off. I will. Before God I swear this creed: my tripod and myself are
> defenders of low ISO, we are setters of white balance, we are the
> chroniclers of life. So be it, until there is no lens distortion, but
> perfect composition. Amen.
Hey, I remember that scene from the famous photographic movie, "Full
Frame Sensor."
Bill Graham
> In message <4a38ea0a$0$8673$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com>, Peter
> <pete...@nospamoptonline.net> writes
>>"Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:z$G65sF1pMOKFA3x@p
>>haedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <h1aff5$o9h$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Noons
>>> <wizo...@yahoo.com.au> writes
>>>>Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 16/06/2009 6:47 AM:
>>>>> In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods,
>>>>>then with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>>>>> Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around,
>>>>>only for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>>>>> Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn
>>>>>reason?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What have you got against monopods?
>>>
>>> Nothing.... I think they should be left to stand or fall on their own
>>> :-)
>>
>>Monopods ere invented by a bipod manufacturer, who wanted to make more
>>money. :-)
>
> This is turning into a Friday-Afternoon thread :-)
>
> I found that it depends on situations where there are lots of people a
> mono-pod is better as someone always knocks one of the tripod legs. At
> one time all it would do is ruin the shot. Now they want to sue. :-(
>
> I wonder if there are any tripods where you can drop off 2 legs and use
> it as a mono-pod, or just drop off one leg and fit a base plate to it?
>
hacksaw......
Walter Banks
Annika1980 wrote:
> > I drilled and tapped a foot long aluminium bar every inch so I could
> > mount the camera back set by up to 11 inches. (The last hole
> > was just drilled to clear 1/4 bolt) I have tried counter weights
> > to pull the c/g to the hinge line on the head works but is
> > complicated.
> >
> > Any other solutions? Bret?
>
> I've never owned a decent tripod or head.
> So I do what I can with what I got.
>
> http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/79354185
A four legged tripod. :)
w..
Alan Browne
Wimberley head. I sold mine this past winter, alas, after selling the
300 f/2.8. Best used with lenses that have collar mounts, though your
bar described above would also work to get the whole effortlessly balanced.
Charles E Hardwidge
"Annika1980" <annik...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:48f8be4d-b9dd-4c1b...@x5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
Good catch.
I found this picture of a girls tripod with camera and reflector stand.
http://www.worldwideshoppingmall.co.uk/toys/images/products/CAS614.gif
Nice colour!
--
Charles E Hardwidge
Alan Browne
> I wonder if there are any tripods where you can drop off 2 legs and use
> it as a mono-pod, or just drop off one leg and fit a base plate to it?
I've often just kept the three legs together to form a monopod.
Alan Browne
> ........fighting the urge ...
> ....still fighting the urge...
>
> LOST the fight.
> women can use this method for birth control
Condoms work well too.
Nature's urge trumps bible thumping abstention.
Avoid abortion and STD's kids: USE CONDOMS!
frank
> > <peter...@nospamoptonline.net> writes
> >> "Chris H" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:z$G65sF1pMOKFA3x@p
> >> haedsys.demon.co.uk...
> >>> <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> writes
Trying to imitate the 'one legged photographer' genre were you? As
opposed to the one legged videographer who made viewers seasick with
the camera motion....
Ok, Ok, the 'Little Johnny' jokes are NOT PC.
Alan Browne
Doh! Knew I had heard it recently (somehow ended up with a 'bonus' FMJ
in BluRay).
Alan Browne
Any large body/lens combo is legitimately supported on a monopod. I've
shot sports (soccer, volleyball and horse jumping) using a mono and a
long lens.
>
> Anybody else think 2 bodies for a camera bag is a limiting factor?
Depends. My camera bag has hosted 3 bodies at the expense of lenses or
no bodies at all and a pile of lenses (packed the body elsewhere).
I bought a backpack last year for my CA trip. It could hold everything
(35mm+5 lenses, digital body, MF+3 lenses) other than the 300 f/2.8 that
I wasn't bringing along. Then left the backpack at home. Sold it last
winter for close to what I paid.
Alan Browne
Peter
>
> Nature's urge trumps bible thumping abstention.
>
Absinth makes the heart grow fonder
--
Peter
Bob Larter
*groan*
I suppose I set myself up for that one.
Alan Browne
E pluribus unum.
Bob Larter
I'm failing to see what the advantage is of doing it that way. The
weight on the camera is going to be the same however you mount it, & I'd
be nervous about the aluminium threads stripping, & dumping your camera
on the ground.
daveFaktor
> Walter Banks wrote:
>>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods,
>>> then with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>>>
>>> Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around, only
>>> for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>>>
>>> Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn
>>> reason?
>>
>> Digital camera's showed me the difference that a stable tripod can have
>> on image sharpness. I bought a surveyors tripod and mated it
>> to a good head, it isn't fun to carry around but it is stable.
>>
>> How do you deal with long lenses and center of gravity?
>>
>> I drilled and tapped a foot long aluminium bar every inch so I could
>> mount the camera back set by up to 11 inches. (The last hole
>> was just drilled to clear 1/4 bolt) I have tried counter weights
>> to pull the c/g to the hinge line on the head works but is
>> complicated.
>
> I'm failing to see what the advantage is of doing it that way. The
> weight on the camera is going to be the same however you mount it, & I'd
> be nervous about the aluminium threads stripping, & dumping your camera
> on the ground.
>
That's probably because you have never experienced the toughness of
aluminium. Not all aluminium is as soft and likely to tear a thread as a
crushed coke can.
Made from the right grade, a course metric threaded aluminium bolt is
less likely to shred it's thread than a fine metric steel bolt, all
things being equal.
Walter Banks
Bob Larter wrote:
> > How do you deal with long lenses and center of gravity?
> >
> > I drilled and tapped a foot long aluminium bar every inch so I could
> > mount the camera back set by up to 11 inches. (The last hole
> > was just drilled to clear 1/4 bolt) I have tried counter weights
> > to pull the c/g to the hinge line on the head works but is
> > complicated.
>
> I'm failing to see what the advantage is of doing it that way. The
> weight on the camera is going to be the same however you mount it, & I'd
> be nervous about the aluminium threads stripping, & dumping your camera
> on the ground.
The aluminium bar I used was 1/2 by 1 by 12 inches. It is a hard a hard
aluminium. The bar had one of the end holes 1/4 drilled and the rest of the
holes drilled and tapped for 1/4-20 so it could be fastened to the tripod
head. The Camera was bolted to the bar through the 1/4 hole.
It is secure. It will balance the camera and lens reasonably well over a
limited range. The camera is backset so the c/g is above the head hinge.
Not perfect but a big help.
The tripod has quick release and a spare quick release shoe was attached
to the bar to make mounting on the head easier.
Walter..
Walter Banks
Alan Browne wrote:
> > How do you deal with long lenses and center of gravity?
> >
> > I drilled and tapped a foot long aluminium bar every inch so I could
> > mount the camera back set by up to 11 inches. (The last hole
> > was just drilled to clear 1/4 bolt) I have tried counter weights
> > to pull the c/g to the hinge line on the head works but is
> > complicated.
> >
> > Any other solutions?
>
> Wimberley head. I sold mine this past winter, alas, after selling the
> 300 f/2.8. Best used with lenses that have collar mounts, though your
> bar described above would also work to get the whole effortlessly balanced.
Thanks I think the banks camera budget is going to take a Wimberley hit.
w..
Noons
>
> Before I bought a monopod, I would sometimes use my tripod with only one
> leg extended, & a ball-head attached.
>
Ouch!
Noons
>>>
>> What have you got against monopods?
>
> Nothing.... I think they should be left to stand or fall on their own
> :-)
*groan*I just KNEW this was going to happen*groan*...
¦)
> As a policeman once said to me carrying a camera is a good enough reason
> to also carry a 6 foot extending baton in an urban area :-))))
I must admit my monopod was specially selected with partly that excuse in mind:
some of the areas around where I work require the odd stick-on-side attitude...
Charlie Choc
>Thanks I think the banks camera budget is going to take a Wimberley hit.
>
If you have a good ballhead the Wimberly Sidekick may be an option, depending on
what telephoto lenses you have.
--
Charlie...
http://www.chocphoto.com
Robert Peirce
Alan Browne <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods,
> then with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>
> Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around, only
> for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>
> Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn reason?
99% of my stuff is shot hand-held. I do have a small, light tripod I
take along if I know I will need it, but I only need it to blur moving
objects, like water. I also could see the possible need in low-light
situations, although maybe a faster lens would be better.
My wide angle and normal lenses can be shot hand-held at almost all
speeds of interest and my long lens is VR.
My old rule-of-thumb from film was the fastest hand-held speed was
1/lens-length, so a 100mm lens could be hand-held to 1/100. With a
typical digital lens being around 1/1.5 of a full-frame film camera, a
100mm lens becomes the equivalent of a 150mm, which makes it easier.
I may be more tolerant of this than others because I got pretty good at
shooting my old film cameras without tripods and my digital camera is
much easier to hand-hold. I tend to use techniques similar to shooting a
target pistol.
--
Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]
Alan Browne
> In article<HI6dnfhat5rKLqvX...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> In the film days, IS/VR already provided more freedom from tripods,
>> then with digital, higher ISO allowed even greater latitude.
>>
>> Has this reduced _your_ tripod use? Do you still cart it around, only
>> for it to stay in the trunk or hang on the pack?
>>
>> Or do you stay at low ISO and use your tripod for good or stubborn reason?
>
> 99% of my stuff is shot hand-held. I do have a small, light tripod I
> take along if I know I will need it, but I only need it to blur moving
> objects, like water. I also could see the possible need in low-light
> situations, although maybe a faster lens would be better.
>
> My wide angle and normal lenses can be shot hand-held at almost all
> speeds of interest and my long lens is VR.
>
> My old rule-of-thumb from film was the fastest hand-held speed was
> 1/lens-length, so a 100mm lens could be hand-held to 1/100. With a
> typical digital lens being around 1/1.5 of a full-frame film camera, a
> 100mm lens becomes the equivalent of a 150mm, which makes it easier.
The above ROT is acceptable for small prints (up to 5x7" or so).
Robert Peirce
Alan Browne <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> > My old rule-of-thumb from film was the fastest hand-held speed was
> > 1/lens-length, so a 100mm lens could be hand-held to 1/100. With a
> > typical digital lens being around 1/1.5 of a full-frame film camera, a
> > 100mm lens becomes the equivalent of a 150mm, which makes it easier.
>
> The above ROT is acceptable for small prints (up to 5x7" or so).
Depends on how steady your stance is. I regularly make 12x18 prints
myself and I could go larger if I wanted to send them out.
Alan Browne
> In article<TPKdnfWxhLx0f6bX...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>> My old rule-of-thumb from film was the fastest hand-held speed was
>>> 1/lens-length, so a 100mm lens could be hand-held to 1/100. With a
>>> typical digital lens being around 1/1.5 of a full-frame film camera, a
>>> 100mm lens becomes the equivalent of a 150mm, which makes it easier.
>> The above ROT is acceptable for small prints (up to 5x7" or so).
>
> Depends on how steady your stance is. I regularly make 12x18 prints
> myself and I could go larger if I wanted to send them out.
Never holds up to examination at a close look, say 1.5x the diagonal.
Robert Spanjaard
>> My old rule-of-thumb from film was the fastest hand-held speed was
> 1/lens-length, so a 100mm lens could be hand-held to 1/100. With a
> typical digital lens being around 1/1.5 of a full-frame film camera, a
> 100mm lens becomes the equivalent of a 150mm, which makes it easier.
How does a 'digital lens'(whatever that may be) make it easier?
--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
Robert Peirce
Alan Browne <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 20-06-09 16:05, Robert Peirce wrote:
> > In article<TPKdnfWxhLx0f6bX...@giganews.com>,
> > Alan Browne<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>> My old rule-of-thumb from film was the fastest hand-held speed was
> >>> 1/lens-length, so a 100mm lens could be hand-held to 1/100. With a
> >>> typical digital lens being around 1/1.5 of a full-frame film camera, a
> >>> 100mm lens becomes the equivalent of a 150mm, which makes it easier.
> >> The above ROT is acceptable for small prints (up to 5x7" or so).
> >
> > Depends on how steady your stance is. I regularly make 12x18 prints
> > myself and I could go larger if I wanted to send them out.
>
> Never holds up to examination at a close look, say 1.5x the diagonal.
My criteria is how it looks when printed, hung on the wall and viewed
from a normal distance. You are no doubt correct that a detailed
examination would show problems of one sort or another, but if nobody
can see them, they aren't really a problem.
Actually, compared to, say, 4x5 film, no digital image looks really
sharp when viewed in extreme detail. I wouldn't try to hand-hold a view
camera, but the typical digital SLR works just fine.
Alan Browne
> In article<T4udnY3Vqoo936DX...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 20-06-09 16:05, Robert Peirce wrote:
>>> In article<TPKdnfWxhLx0f6bX...@giganews.com>,
>>> Alan Browne<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> My old rule-of-thumb from film was the fastest hand-held speed was
>>>>> 1/lens-length, so a 100mm lens could be hand-held to 1/100. With a
>>>>> typical digital lens being around 1/1.5 of a full-frame film camera, a
>>>>> 100mm lens becomes the equivalent of a 150mm, which makes it easier.
>>>> The above ROT is acceptable for small prints (up to 5x7" or so).
>>> Depends on how steady your stance is. I regularly make 12x18 prints
>>> myself and I could go larger if I wanted to send them out.
>> Never holds up to examination at a close look, say 1.5x the diagonal.
>
> My criteria is how it looks when printed, hung on the wall and viewed
> from a normal distance. You are no doubt correct that a detailed
> examination would show problems of one sort or another, but if nobody
> can see them, they aren't really a problem.
To me the normal distance to view something framed on the wall is less
than 2x its diagonal. At that distance, it needs to be quite sharp.
> Actually, compared to, say, 4x5 film, no digital image looks really
> sharp when viewed in extreme detail. I wouldn't try to hand-hold a view
> camera, but the typical digital SLR works just fine.
I print quite large and you can be sure that fine detail at 12x8 can be
achieved with a Mpix camera. I haven't found the limit of the 24 mpix
camera yet, but I assume it's beyond 24x16 inches (with tripod and best
lenses). This was not achievable with 35mm film.
Alan Browne
I swear I typed "6 Mpix".
Savageduck
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> said:
It's all good, many of us are using a "phingr Philtr." :-)
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Robert Peirce
Alan Browne <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> > I print quite large and you can be sure that fine detail at 12x8 can be
> > achieved with a Mpix camera. I haven't found the limit of the 24 mpix
>
> I swear I typed "6 Mpix".
I think you meant 12x18 as well. At least that is what I have been
printing from 6Mp.
I forgot to quote your other comment about 24Mp probably exceeding 35mm.
You may be right. Frankly, I have been happier with my digital prints
than my 35mm film prints, but 4x5 (or larger) is still the holy grail.
Alan Browne
> In article<27idnQ0rmcclZ6LX...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>> I print quite large and you can be sure that fine detail at 12x8 can be
>>> achieved with a Mpix camera. I haven't found the limit of the 24 mpix
>> I swear I typed "6 Mpix".
>
> I think you meant 12x18 as well. At least that is what I have been
> printing from 6Mp.
No. 12x8 (sometimes 15x10) are about the limit of acceptable detail from
a 6 Mpix. At 15x10 and larger interpolation artifacts (softness or
excess sharpening) grow.
> I forgot to quote your other comment about 24Mp probably exceeding 35mm.
> You may be right. Frankly, I have been happier with my digital prints
> than my 35mm film prints, but 4x5 (or larger) is still the holy grail.
No such thing. Some cameras, like the one linked below, print sharper
than any portable view camera...
http://elsa.photo.net/studio/elsa-w-picture-and-camera.jpg
Peter
>
> I print quite large and you can be sure that fine detail at 12x8 can be
> achieved with a Mpix camera. I haven't found the limit of the 24 mpix
> camera yet, but I assume it's beyond 24x16 inches (with tripod and best
> lenses). This was not achievable with 35mm film.
Doesn't that exceed the resolution of most 35mm lenses.
--
Peter
Alan Browne
I don't have most 35mm lenses ;-)
6048 pixels on 36mm is 84 lp/mm which most good primes (and many fast
zooms) should handle well.
6048 pixels over 24" printed is 252 dpi at print, so that's no
particular limit. Prints down to 200 dpi (even 150) should look
acceptable for viewing from 40 - 60 inches away.
I posted a Mpix challenge here back before Christmas and nobody
participated except one film user. I posted my results and his and both
showed remarkable detail in fine print across the room. (The test was
too shoot at n inches from the target where n = the focal length in mm).
Mr. Strat
<b...@peirce-family.com.invalid> wrote:
> I think you meant 12x18 as well. At least that is what I have been
> printing from 6Mp.
I have 16x20s from a Canon 10D. With care, 20x24 is possible.
Robert Peirce
Alan Browne <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> > I forgot to quote your other comment about 24Mp probably exceeding 35mm.
> > You may be right. Frankly, I have been happier with my digital prints
> > than my 35mm film prints, but 4x5 (or larger) is still the holy grail.
>
> No such thing. Some cameras, like the one linked below, print sharper
> than any portable view camera...
>
> http://elsa.photo.net/studio/elsa-w-picture-and-camera.jpg
That appears to be larger than 4x5, which proves my point.
However, I am not sure if by portable you mean something you can carry
around and mount on a tripod or something hand-held. I have never seen
a hand-held 4x5, but I kind of doubt it would be all that sharp. OTOH,
4x5 cameras on sturdy tripods make fantastic images, maybe not as good
as 8x10 or 11x14 or larger, but still very good.
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
> However, I am not sure if by portable you mean something you can carry
> around and mount on a tripod or something hand-held. I have never seen
> a hand-held 4x5, but I kind of doubt it would be all that sharp.
In broad daylight I can hand-hold my rangefinder Crown Graphic (the
one the elephant shat [sic] on) with the stock 135 mm lens. I have
a stunning hand-held shot made with it of a close-up of a very, very mad rhino about 6 feet
away from me (who was sitting on a well-trained elephant.) Remember that
at the same focal length you need the same shutter speed to hand-hold
a 4x5 as a 35mm film camera.
Doug McDonald
Savageduck
ME"@scs.uiuc.edu said:
Doug,
Will we find Walter Mitty somewhere in your family tree?
--
Regards,
Savageduck
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
>> In broad daylight I can hand-hold my rangefinder Crown Graphic (the
>> one the elephant shat [sic] on) with the stock 135 mm lens. I have
>> a stunning hand-held shot made with it of a close-up of a very, very
>> mad rhino about 6 feet
>> away from me (who was sitting on a well-trained elephant.) Remember that
>> at the same focal length you need the same shutter speed to hand-hold
>> a 4x5 as a 35mm film camera.
>>
>> Doug McDonald
>
> Doug,
> Will we find Walter Mitty somewhere in your family tree?
>
Indeed!!! I truly identify with dear Walter.
However, I have managed to actually do some of the things I dream
about. My camera tags along. On Friday I and my 30D are off to the Lost World aka
Mt. Roraima, in Venezuela/Brazil/Guyana.
Doug
J. Clarke
What is often forgotten is that the Speed Graphic was in its day a
photojournalist's camera.
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
So was the Crown. The Speed was an SLR, the Crown, a viewfinder
camera with a synchronized rangefinder. You could have cams
made for the rangefinder for any lens ... I had them for
the stock 135 mm lens, and my 90 mm Angulon and the 210mm Fujinon,
none for the 450mm Nikkor. They worked beautifully with that
long baseline. Also, the camera would rangefinder focus
in the dark using a projected image of a light bulb. That too
worked perfectly. (The Crown, of course, could also be
used as full view camera albeit with limited tilt, and I used
it mostly that way.)
Doug McDonald
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>> What is often forgotten is that the Speed Graphic was in its day a
>> photojournalist's camera.
>>
>
> So was the Crown. The Speed was an SLR, the Crown, a viewfinder
> camera with a synchronized rangefinder.
Mea culpa ... the Speed was not an SLR ... that was the Graphlex.
The Speed did have a focal plane shutter lacking in the Crown.
Doug
Savageduck
ME"@scs.uiuc.edu said:
Oh well! Enjoy.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Robert Peirce
I stand corrected. The only 4x5s I am familiar with for outdoor use are
the so-called field cameras. I suppose they could be shot hand-held. I
don't think I cold do it.
Alan Browne
> In article<9eWdnffAXf8CiN3X...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>> I forgot to quote your other comment about 24Mp probably exceeding 35mm.
>>> You may be right. Frankly, I have been happier with my digital prints
>>> than my 35mm film prints, but 4x5 (or larger) is still the holy grail.
>> No such thing. Some cameras, like the one linked below, print sharper
>> than any portable view camera...
>>
>> http://elsa.photo.net/studio/elsa-w-picture-and-camera.jpg
>
> That appears to be larger than 4x5, which proves my point.
No, it proves that there is no "holy grail" size as that would be
infinitely large (or at least as large as the universe which is much
more manageable).
>
> However, I am not sure if by portable you mean something you can carry
> around and mount on a tripod or something hand-held. I have never seen
> a hand-held 4x5, but I kind of doubt it would be all that sharp. OTOH,
> 4x5 cameras on sturdy tripods make fantastic images, maybe not as good
> as 8x10 or 11x14 or larger, but still very good.
Tripods and view cameras are portable but not necessarily conveniently so.
Alan Browne
A billboard can be done with a P&S image if it's viewed from quite far off.
Alan Browne
It was also often shot with flash by PJ's to freeze camera and subject
motion with smaller apertures that reduced DOF errors.
Paul Furman
> In article <h1qo7g$roe$1...@news.acm.uiuc.edu>,
> "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu wrote:
>
>> Robert Peirce wrote:
>>
>>> However, I am not sure if by portable you mean something you can carry
>>> around and mount on a tripod or something hand-held. I have never seen
>>> a hand-held 4x5, but I kind of doubt it would be all that sharp.
>>
>> In broad daylight I can hand-hold my rangefinder Crown Graphic (the
>> one the elephant shat [sic] on) with the stock 135 mm lens. I have
>> a stunning hand-held shot made with it of a close-up of a very, very mad
>> rhino about 6 feet
>> away from me (who was sitting on a well-trained elephant.) Remember that
>> at the same focal length you need the same shutter speed to hand-hold
>> a 4x5 as a 35mm film camera.
>
> I stand corrected. The only 4x5s I am familiar with for outdoor use are
> the so-called field cameras. I suppose they could be shot hand-held. I
> don't think I cold do it.
Polaroids... though the advantage isn't large prints.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Peter
news:bob-03D0C7.09465723062009@[199.45.49.11]...
>
> However, I am not sure if by portable you mean something you can carry
> around and mount on a tripod or something hand-held. I have never seen
> a hand-held 4x5, but I kind of doubt it would be all that sharp. OTOH,
> 4x5 cameras on sturdy tripods make fantastic images, maybe not as good
> as 8x10 or 11x14 or larger, but still very good.
>
Good photographers make good images. Fantastic photographers make fantastic
images.
I don't think one could make very many decent event photos with anything
larger than 4x5. :-)
The camera is just a tool, nothing more.
--
Peter
Peter
news:h1r1er$29c$1...@news.acm.uiuc.edu...
The Pacemaker Crown was identical to the Speed, except that it had no focal
plane shutter. The removal of the focal plane shutter made it lighter and
permitted access to wider angle lenses.
--
Peter
Peter
> In article <h1qo7g$roe$1...@news.acm.uiuc.edu>,
> "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu wrote:
>
>> Robert Peirce wrote:
>>
>> > However, I am not sure if by portable you mean something you can carry
>> > around and mount on a tripod or something hand-held. I have never seen
>> > a hand-held 4x5, but I kind of doubt it would be all that sharp.
>>
>>
>> In broad daylight I can hand-hold my rangefinder Crown Graphic (the
>> one the elephant shat [sic] on) with the stock 135 mm lens. I have
>> a stunning hand-held shot made with it of a close-up of a very, very mad
>> rhino about 6 feet
>> away from me (who was sitting on a well-trained elephant.) Remember that
>> at the same focal length you need the same shutter speed to hand-hold
>> a 4x5 as a 35mm film camera.
>
> I stand corrected. The only 4x5s I am familiar with for outdoor use are
> the so-called field cameras. I suppose they could be shot hand-held. I
> don't think I cold do it.
>
The Grafics could be used with smaller backs, IIRC 2 1/4 x 3 1/4.
--
Peter
David J. Littleboy
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>
>> I stand corrected. The only 4x5s I am familiar with for outdoor use are
>> the so-called field cameras. I suppose they could be shot hand-held. I
>> don't think I cold do it.
There are lots of 4x5s that are designed to be (and were) shot hand held
(press cameras, such as the one Weegee used). Including the Graphlex 4x5
SLRs.
> Polaroids... though the advantage isn't large prints.
Polaroid made a 4x5 negative film (it produced both a positive and a
negative) that was extremely fine grain/high resolution. (I used it back in
my metallurgy days for technical work.) About as good as 4x5 gets.
And then there's the Polaroid camera Ansel Adams used for his portraits of
Carter and Mondale: 20x24. Is that large enough for you?
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Paul Furman
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>> I stand corrected. The only 4x5s I am familiar with for outdoor use are
>>> the so-called field cameras. I suppose they could be shot hand-held. I
>>> don't think I cold do it.
>
> There are lots of 4x5s that are designed to be (and were) shot hand held
> (press cameras, such as the one Weegee used). Including the Graphlex 4x5
> SLRs.
>
>> Polaroids... though the advantage isn't large prints.
>
> Polaroid made a 4x5 negative film (it produced both a positive and a
> negative) that was extremely fine grain/high resolution. (I used it back in
> my metallurgy days for technical work.) About as good as 4x5 gets.
Wow, you get a contact print and a negative, nice.
> And then there's the Polaroid camera Ansel Adams used for his portraits of
> Carter and Mondale: 20x24. Is that large enough for you?
I was just thinking of their conventional folding consumer snapshooters.
Those are all medium format and not for tripods.
Robert Peirce
"David J. Littleboy" <dav...@gol.com> wrote:
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> I stand corrected. The only 4x5s I am familiar with for outdoor use are
> >> the so-called field cameras. I suppose they could be shot hand-held. I
> >> don't think I cold do it.
>
> There are lots of 4x5s that are designed to be (and were) shot hand held
> (press cameras, such as the one Weegee used). Including the Graphlex 4x5
> SLRs.
So I have been told and so I realized when I thought about it a bit.
However, I still would not be comfortable hand-holding a field camera of
4x5 or larger.
> Polaroid made a 4x5 negative film (it produced both a positive and a
> negative) that was extremely fine grain/high resolution. (I used it back in
> my metallurgy days for technical work.) About as good as 4x5 gets.
I have a Polaroid back for my field camera. The film isn't the issue.
The issue was whether you could effectively use a field camera without a
tripod.
> And then there's the Polaroid camera Ansel Adams used for his portraits of
> Carter and Mondale: 20x24. Is that large enough for you?
Large size is not the issue either. I originally said 4x5 or larger.
However, as I understand it, the Polaroid camera was only available for
studio work. The largest field camera I am aware of was 11x14, although
it would not surprise me to learn that somebody was using something
bigger. I think 8x10 and 4x5 were probably the most common sizes.
Robert Peirce
Alan Browne <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> On 23-06-09 09:47, Robert Peirce wrote:
> > In article<9eWdnffAXf8CiN3X...@giganews.com>,
> > Alan Browne<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>> I forgot to quote your other comment about 24Mp probably exceeding 35mm.
> >>> You may be right. Frankly, I have been happier with my digital prints
> >>> than my 35mm film prints, but 4x5 (or larger) is still the holy grail.
> >> No such thing. Some cameras, like the one linked below, print sharper
> >> than any portable view camera...
> >>
> >> http://elsa.photo.net/studio/elsa-w-picture-and-camera.jpg
> >
> > That appears to be larger than 4x5, which proves my point.
>
> No, it proves that there is no "holy grail" size as that would be
> infinitely large (or at least as large as the universe which is much
> more manageable).
Correct. By holy grail I meant the minimum that would be found
acceptable by just about anyone. I imagine there are those who would
insist on 8x10 or even larger, which is why I specified "or larger", but
most people would be very happy with 4x5.
frank
Yup, but it was a bit different from the field 4x5s in that it was to
be hand held. also usually used flashbulbs no matter what, so you had
a distance that was lit and in focus and had a steady camera.
daylight, you could shoot wide open.
Want to see great shots, look up Weegee.
Interestingly, Speed Graphic was made in Rochester NY, factory closed
decade and a half or so ago. Amazing what you can find in a good local
newspaper Rochester Democrat and Chronicle.
Rochester doesnt have much going for it as it had in its heyday.
Shame.
If you never saw 4x5 or developed it, you missed a lot.
What is amazing is some guys used to develop their film in the trunk
of their car. Now that's a real photographer.
frank
I recommend Matthew Brady's photographs. Note he didn't make a lot of
those that are attributed to him. Like a lot he farmed it out,
couldn't be everywhere. Considering the conditions he worked under,
there are good photographers and then there are just masters of the
craft.
I doubt anybody on this list had to make his own emulsion for the
glass plate.
frank
wrote:
> In article <maSdnWlPRrUOqtzXnZ2dnUVZ_qidn...@giganews.com>,
> Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 23-06-09 09:47, Robert Peirce wrote:
> > > Alan Browne<alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>
> > >>> I forgot to quote your other comment about 24Mp probably exceeding 35mm.
> > >>> You may be right. Frankly, I have been happier with my digital prints
> > >>> than my 35mm film prints, but 4x5 (or larger) is still the holy grail.
> > >> No such thing. Some cameras, like the one linked below, print sharper
> > >> than any portable view camera...
>
> > >>http://elsa.photo.net/studio/elsa-w-picture-and-camera.jpg
>
> > > That appears to be larger than 4x5, which proves my point.
>
> > No, it proves that there is no "holy grail" size as that would be
> > infinitely large (or at least as large as the universe which is much
> > more manageable).
>
> Correct. By holy grail I meant the minimum that would be found
> acceptable by just about anyone. I imagine there are those who would
> insist on 8x10 or even larger, which is why I specified "or larger", but
> most people would be very happy with 4x5.
>
> --
> Robert B. Peirce, Venetia, PA 724-941-6883
> bob AT peirce-family.com [Mac]
> rbp AT cooksonpeirce.com [Office]
OK this is a bit much....
but I seem to recall an ungodly large camera used to photograph I
believe the laying of the Golden Spike in Utah, was on the order of
feet for the plate. I've seen photographs, multiple tripods for the
lens, barrel back. Can't find a ref on line, if you've seen the photo
of it, you remember it. As far as amount of kit, work and all that go
get a shot, 19c. photogs win, hands down.
Charles E Hardwidge
news:er2dnQr2xY4QGdzX...@giganews.com...
>
> And then there's the Polaroid camera Ansel Adams used for his portraits of
> Carter and Mondale: 20x24. Is that large enough for you?
You could try getting yourself a camera obscura:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arekev/2309789035/
The camera opening is at the tip of the "chimney" on the tower, and projects
onto a table in the room underneath.
If anyone is burning for a particular shot of the observatory I could add it
to my to-do list.
--
Charles E Hardwidge
mikey4
"frank" <dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:93e70762-b478-4f3b...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
<On Jun 24, 8:08 am, Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family.com.invalid>
<but I seem to recall an ungodly large camera used to photograph I
<believe the laying of the Golden Spike in Utah, was on the order of
<feet for the plate. I've seen photographs, multiple tripods for the
<lens, barrel back. Can't find a ref on line, if you've seen the photo
<of it, you remember it. As far as amount of kit, work and all that go
<get a shot, 19c. photogs win, hands down.
Here is a link to the photographer and the equipment he used.
http://www.museumca.org/global/history/collections_russell.html
Peter
You are bringing back that old question.
Is photography an art or a craft.
Or, today with digital techniques, why isn't it more art. After all many of
the greats delegated the craft portion.
--
Peter
Bill Graham
"Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:VVt0m.47022$OO7....@text.news.virginmedia.com...
They have a modern version of one of these at the solar observatory near
Stanford University in Palo Alto, California.....It projects the sun on a
table with an image that is about two feet in diameter, with filters that
reduce the brightness to a manageable level......Produces a most amazing
real time picture........
K W Hart
"Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
news:220620091823293014%r...@nospam.techline.com...
> In article <bob-3F1D84.1...@nntp.aioe.org>, Robert Peirce
> <b...@peirce-family.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I think you meant 12x18 as well. At least that is what I have been
>> printing from 6Mp.
>
> I have 16x20s from a Canon 10D. With care, 20x24 is possible.
I can say exactly the same thing about a forty-year old Canon FX loaded with
Kodacolor 200. Except for the "with care" part- I can easily get 20x24
enlargements hand-held and using the "Sunny 16" exposure.
Let me know how your Canon 10D is working in forty years.
Scott W
> "Mr. Strat" <r...@nospam.techline.com> wrote in message
>
> news:220620091823293014%r...@nospam.techline.com...
>
> > <b...@peirce-family.com.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> I think you meant 12x18 as well. At least that is what I have been
> >> printing from 6Mp.
>
> > I have 16x20s from a Canon 10D. With care, 20x24 is possible.
>
> I can say exactly the same thing about a forty-year old Canon FX loaded with
> Kodacolor 200. Except for the "with care" part- I can easily get 20x24
> enlargements hand-held and using the "Sunny 16" exposure.
> Let me know how your Canon 10D is working in forty years.
Let me know where you are getting your film processed in 40 years.
Charles E Hardwidge
news:nqKdnfyFqeCZP9_X...@giganews.com...
I have a vague idea I _might_ have seen something about it on TV once.
I looked for something on that the search engine kicked up nothing but
feminism and academic waffle. Apart from the "Hockney thesis" and comment on
early technological development I turned up a photo of George R. Lawrence's
900 lb. camera. The plate size was 8 x 4.5 ft.
http://www.neatorama.com/2006/08/29/the-wonderful-world-of-early-photography/
--
Charles E Hardwidge
frank
Most chemicals for black and white are easy to mix and easy to obtain.
try doing something similar with digital. I've never heard of a home
made digital system. You can even make your own plates and emulsion.
not doable for digital.
frank
> "frank" <dhssresearc...@netscape.net> wrote in message
>
> news:93e70762-b478-4f3b...@j12g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> <On Jun 24, 8:08 am, Robert Peirce <b...@peirce-family.com.invalid>
> <wrote: OK this is a bit much....
>
>
> <but I seem to recall an ungodly large camera used to photograph I
> <believe the laying of the Golden Spike in Utah, was on the order of
> <feet for the plate. I've seen photographs, multiple tripods for the
> <lens, barrel back. Can't find a ref on line, if you've seen the photo
> <of it, you remember it. As far as amount of kit, work and all that go
> <get a shot, 19c. photogs win, hands down.
>
> Here is a link to the photographer and the equipment he used.
>
> http://www.museumca.org/global/history/collections_russell.html
thanks, didn't have a photo of the camera though.
a few years ago, in Missouri, was lucky to go see an exhibit of
multiple western photographers that covered the opening of the West.
just awesome. considering things moved by covered wagon or pack mule,
no idea of an exposure meter, that documentary photography even worked
was just great to look at. don't recall who put it together, but they
managed to get samples from various museums for the exhibit.
Bill Graham
"Charles E Hardwidge" <bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
It was a number of years ago that I saw this projection in Palo Alto, so
they may have moved/gone away by now. But I found this on the web:
http://www.eyes-on-the-skies.org/