Horseman Field Camera recommendations
JCurcio
you in this NG, I rented one and was disappointed. In comparison to what I've
seen of the Horseman line, the Toyo is larger, heavier, more awkward, and
doesn't seem to have the quality of the Horseman.
So now I'm looking at the Horseman 45 HD vs the Horseman 45 FA. As best as I
can tell from the B&H Photo Pro Sourcebook, the HD has a composite body;
whereas, the 45 FA has an aluminum body. Also, whereas the 45 HD has one
geared rail, the 45 FA has geared rails on both sides. The only other major
difference I think I see from the B&H Pro Sourcebook is that the 45 HD seems to
have only front tilts and swings; whereas, the 45 FA is listed as having tilts
and swings for front and BACK too. Can anyone confirm these differences?
I'd appreciate any opinions regarding whether to buy the 45 HD vs the 45 FA.
The price difference is about $675. Is anyone familiar enough with the cameras
to advise which I should be favoring? Is the price difference worth it? Does
anyone agree or disagree with my sense of the Horseman as being better
constructed and designed than the Toyo 45 AX and AII? (BTW, my apologies in
advance to any Toyo owners. I'm not trying to be offensive. I'm just trying
to figure out what is the best thing to do for me.)
Thanks in advance for any help.
Carey Bird
Technika was a better bet for the sort of photos I take, but YMMV. Is a
Technika out of the question (even second hand?).
Based on my enquiries, I'd go for the FA over the HD. From memory it has
back movements whereas the cheaper HD doesn't.
Be aware of the smaller lensboard size of the Horseman fleet. You may not
be able to get some modern WAs into the camera's throat. This may not be an
issue for you, but is worth mentioning.
Trust your search ends well.
Cheers
Carey Bird
http://homepages.tig.com.au/~cbird
My impression is that they are well made cameras, and subject to their being
exactly what you want should give years of reliable service.
"JCurcio" <jcu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001218205446...@ng-ck1.aol.com...
Largformat
Camera Magazine.
steve simmons
John Emmons
John Emmons
"Largformat" <largf...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001220110544...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
Lee Carmichael
As usual,
Lee Carmichael
mailto:cl...@flash.net
John Emmons <JOH...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:8Tb06.153$Gh1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
JCurcio
from Steve Simmons was relevant, on topic, helpful and appreciated. Your post,
in contrast, added nothing at all of value. No, let me say it more plainly:
yours was entirely worthless. May I suggest that you stop your tantrums. From
everything I've seen, Steve Simmons' posts contribute value to the newsgroup --
which is more than can be said about yours. Before long, sonny, you're going
to be on everyone's kill file.
John Emmons
John Emmons
"JCurcio" <jcu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001220234302...@ng-cm1.aol.com...
John Emmons
usual.
John Emmons
"Lee Carmichael" <cl...@flash.net@flash.net> wrote in message
news:qZe06.15313$bw.12...@news.flash.net...
Paul and Paula Butzi
<cl...@flash.net@flash.net> wrote:
>Petty Petty Petty Loser.
>As usual,
>Lee Carmichael
>mailto:cl...@flash.net
>
>John Emmons <JOH...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
<snip>
I'd urge those who view John's posts as somehow missing the mark
to fire up their web browser, point it at Deja.com's 'power search',
restrict the search to newsgroup 'rec.photo.equipment.large-format',
author "largf...@aol.com | camar...@aol.com". Set the organize
results choice to 'date', and pick 100 results per page.
The following link *may* work if your/my newsreader doesn't mess it up
by line wrapping it:
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/qs.xp?ST=PS&svcclass=dnyr&firstsearch=yes&preserve=1&QRY=&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&OP=dnquery.xp&LNG=english&subjects=&groups=rec.photo.equipment.large-format&authors=largf...@aol.com+%7C+cam...@aol.com&fromdate=&todate=&showsort=score&maxhits=100
That's one way to see Steve's aggregate posts over slightly more than
the past year.
I see a lot of posts plugging his workshops, a bunch of posts about
his magazines announcing upcoming articles, or pointing people to
back issues which he sells, or directing people to his web site
(typically, as he says, to get a copy of the 'getting started'
pamphlet.). In browsing through them, I didn't find more than
one or two which weren't plugging for either the magazine,
soliciting feedback on the magazine, plugging for workshops,
or some other thing with evident commercial interest.
The commercial enterprises which post here without generating
a lot of irritation (like Jobo, and Steve Grimes) seem to have a
high proportion of their posts offering information based on their
experience, and a small proportion promoting their commercial
interests. That's a pretty good way to get your business some
visibility without being accused of spamming, advertising, etc.
All the arguing about rules aside, it seems evident that the consensus
is that Jobo and Steve Grimes are strong contributors who are
welcomed. No similar consensus exists for the sort of commerical
interest only pattern that Steve Simmons displays.
Perhaps if Steve Simmons adopted a similar posting pattern,
we'd see a lot less acrimony surrounding his posts. He's quite
literally the man who wrote the book on large format, after all.
As a result of his magazine, he's got better access to info
sources in industry, he probably hears all the rumors before
we do, etc., and he's got a better overview of products that
are out there in the marketplace.
I'm sure he has a wealth of experience to share, and I hope that
he'll go ahead and start sharing it. The sort of information rich
posts Steve Simmons *could* make would go a long way toward
persuading everyone (John included) that he was not just viewing
the newsgroup as a way to promote his businesses but was
participating and reaping the business benefit as a side effect.
Rather than bashing on Steve to stop his 'ads', or bashing on
John to stop harrassing Steve, could we please just encourage
Steve to start interacting with the newsgroup in a way that
would benefit all of us?
-Paul
--
Newly updated and moved web site at:
http://www.butzi.net
Lee Carmichael
is telling the truth. I have responded to Johns bashing more than most. I
apologize. What I have reacted to was the constant complaining that John
has done. This seems to have started "way back". What I saw was Steve's
response to a question about his book. He answered his question and was
soundly attacked for posting in the news group. This in my opinion is
totally uncalled for. There was no "look at my web site or buy my book or
even buy my magazine". He answered a question. Several of the other
commercial ventures have made comments in the NGs like "I have what you want
or look on my web site". No attack there. This seems like selective
prosecution.
Perhaps Steve could modify his posts in some way so that he would not offend
a relative minor amount of the posters here. There has been a very large
amount of band width wasted on this subject. Again this is just my opinion.
As usual,
Lee Carmichael
mailto:cl...@flash.net
Paul and Paula Butzi <bu...@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:t5v24tkcmim54n4e4...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 21 Dec 2000 03:41:10 GMT, "Lee Carmichael"
> <cl...@flash.net@flash.net> wrote:
>
> >Petty Petty Petty Loser.
> >As usual,
> >Lee Carmichael
> >mailto:cl...@flash.net
> >
> >John Emmons <JOH...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
> <snip>
>
> I'd urge those who view John's posts as somehow missing the mark
> to fire up their web browser, point it at Deja.com's 'power search',
> restrict the search to newsgroup 'rec.photo.equipment.large-format',
> author "largf...@aol.com | camar...@aol.com". Set the organize
> results choice to 'date', and pick 100 results per page.
>
> The following link *may* work if your/my newsreader doesn't mess it up
> by line wrapping it:
>
http://www.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/qs.xp?ST=PS&svcclass=dnyr&firstsearch=yes&pre
serve=1&QRY=&defaultOp=AND&DBS=1&OP=dnquery.xp&LNG=english&subjects=&groups=
rec.photo.equipment.large-format&authors=largf...@aol.com+%7C+camartsmag@a
Hamish Reid
>>01 View Camera Magazine.
>>
>> steve simmons
>Yet another reference to a commercial entity...And so it continues...
>John Emmons
1. Thanks Steve for the pointer -- much appreciated.
2. John -- could you learn to add value to postings? You don't seem
to contribute much except rather bitter-sounding noise from the
sidelines.
Hamish
CamArtsMag
more than just deciding between these two models. For me the most important
considerations in selecting a camera are the following
- the bellows extension - it should be at least 25% longer then the longest
lens I will want to use. 50% is even better
- is there a bad/wide angle bellows. In my mind an absolute necessity if I want
to use a lens shorter then 90mm (the Canham 45DLC is an exception here because
of its very flexible bellows.
- movements - what do I want to photograph. If it is architectural as a
business then I know I will need extreme movement capability. If I am going to
do studio portraits than extreme movements are really not necessary. Landscape
falls in the middle.
Once I answer these questions I can then begin looking at different camera
bodies and make an informed decision.
steve simmons
Steve Simmons
John Emmons
"value adding"?
I obviously need some sort of reference to work from.
John Emmons
"Hamish Reid" <ham...@triton.dnai.com> wrote in message
news:91tuhh$drc$1...@triton.dnai.com...
Hamish Reid
John Emmons <JOH...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>I will certainly try Hamish, would you consider your last post to be
>"value adding"?
>I obviously need some sort of reference to work from.
Well, assuming you're not just making a cheap shot here (nah...),
you could look at some of Steve Simmons's postings in related and
unrelated threads. They usually contain added value and useful
information (some, however, claiming to speak for everyone,
deride this notion). Or you could look at one of my other postings in
a related thread -- the one you haven't so far followed up to
(unlike alomost every other posting in the thread).
Hamish
Harry
JCurcio,
I made a similar decision a few years back and ended up with a
Horseman HD. Here's what I considered.
Objectives: I wanted a camera mainly for landscape that I could
backpack. I wanted a metal camera for stability vs weight.
Considerations: Toyo 45AII/X (6.2lbs, 5.8lbs), Canham DLC (4lbs
11oz), Horseman HD (3.7lbs) , Horseman FA (4.4 lbs)
Priorities (in order): weight, weight, weight, ease of use (when it's
cold or windy), capabilities (tilts, shifts, etc)
Discussion: I find it interesting that in Charles Cambell's "The
Backpacker's Photography Handbook", he list the weights of everything,
even a 18% gray card. In my own backpacking experience, I now
understand the importance of this consideration. I think there are
some really nice spots that can be accessed only after a hike or an
overnight stay.
Because of weight, I eliminate the Toyo from consideration. Also, the
DLC and FA are similar in weight - but the DLC far exceeds the FA in
all movements (e.g. 520mm vs 249mm bellows extension). So my choices
were narrowed down to the DLC vs the HD. I rented a DLC for a weekend
before I made my decision
I found the DLC to be a very nice camera. Mr Canham has done a great
job designing this camera. The weight vs capabilities ratio is
excellent. Here is a comparison on some issues that were important in
my use:
Weight - The DLC weighs nearly 1 lb more than the HD.
Deployment - The HD is very quick to deploy and with the right 135mm
lens, can be stored with the lens mounted. The DLC has a moderately
complicated unfolding sequence
Bellows draw - The DLC is heads and shoulders above the HD in bellows
draw - the DLC has more than twice the bellows draw of the HD and is
better at shorter focal lens lenses also. However, the HD can be
mounted with a 210mm lens with a normal lens board and with a special
(very expensive) lensboard, take a 300mm f/9 nikon lens.
Rise/Tilt/Falls/Swings - Agains, the DLC is head and shoulders above
the HD in all aspects here. But in landscape, I find I don't uses the
movements that much.
Lens - Again the DLC, with it's bellows draw and with it's larger
lensboard can take more lenses. For me, however, I don't believe I
would use many of the larger aperature lenses in the field.
Intangible - I would have prefered some of the knobs in the DLC to be
round. When it's cold, the "stick" knob seems to be more difficult to
tighten. Both cameras were built very well with regards to fit and
finish. When folded the HD itself is well enclosed while the DLC
provides a fitted case.
Overall - For general use, where the extra weight is a minor issue,
the DLC would be my first choice - it is a great overall camera and
suitable for field use but with enough movement for some architecture.
However, when weight is a strong consideration and if landscapes (and
perhaps portraits) are the primary use, then the HD, for me, was the
better choice. After using this camera for two years and as a primary
camera on two vacation (non-backpacking), I found the this has been a
very suitable camera for my purposes.
Good luck!
Harry
JCurcio
comparison between two Horseman cameras and made reference to how they compared
to Toyo. Steve Simmons simply told me that there was going to be a comparison
of many field cameras in the Jan/Feb issue of View Camera. This is the EXACT
kind of information I was seeking and would be helpful to me. Simmons gave me
valuable information to work with; Emmons gave me his hot air. Frankly, I'm
sick of reading the inane rantings of a fool.
>Subject: Re: Horseman Field Camera recommendations
>From: "John Emmons" JOH...@worldnet.att.net
>Date: 12/20/00 7:09 PM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <8Tb06.153$Gh1....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
Daniel Bereskin
respect one another, even while strongly holding opposite views. By your recent
remarks you have shown contempt for the group and what it stands for. I think
you owe Mr. Emmons and the group an apology.
JCurcio wrote:
JCurcio
and attempting to bully those who agree with him. Emmons attacks with
groundless accusations on subjects which do not involve Emmons at all --
without offering anything worthwhile himself.
I'm the one who started the thread with a simple request for information
on the difference between two Horseman cameras. Since I'm about to make that
purchase, this is an important subject for me. Simmons simply responded that
View Camera Magazine was about to have an article on the very kind of
information I'm seeking in its next issue. That is extremely helpful to me and
exactly the kind of assistance I was seeking. For his trouble, Simmons gets
slammed again by Emmons because he simply referred to his magazine. That's
unwarranted and absurd.
I am sick and tired of Emmons' rants and attacks. Simmons's posts are not spam
and Emmons is neither his nor my warden. If anyone owes anone else an apology,
it is Emmons to Simmons. You're right about one thing though: I have contempt
for Emmons' arrogance.
Mark Westling
Mark
"JCurcio" <jcu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001226001229...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
ArtKramr
>From: jcu...@aol.com (JCurcio)
>Date: 12/25/00 9:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20001226001229...@ng-fa1.aol.com>
> Since I'm about to make that
>purchase, this is an important subject for me. Simmons simply responded that
>View Camera Magazine was about to have an article on the very kind of
>information I'm seeking in its next issue. That is extremely helpful to me
>and
>exactly the kind of assistance I was
>eeking. For his trouble, Simmons gets
I think that almost everyone who works in large format appreciates Steve
Simmons work in the field. And those who don't can always read Popular
Photography..
Arthur Kramer
Las Vegas NV
Daniel Schmitt
some of the threads very funny, like the thread dealing with Fred Picker
and few months ago. This one ranks up there with the Fred Picker one. I
own a digital imaging company in denver co., and while I'm not an owner
or publisher of a magazine I do answer [on other news groups] a large
number of question dealing with topics in my field and very often I can
plug my company. More often than not I simply point to info on my Web
page. I have good info there and I know I've helped a large number of
people. I've never heard anyone complain about my postings. Steve may
or may not be plugging his Magazine [which over the years I have bought
from time too time]. Where are the people in this group who answers the
question of the beginners. I know I don't that the time to point them
in the right direction. And if the price I have to pay is to delete a
few postings of Steve's because he answered questions that I didn't want
the take the time to answer well then so be it. I have read a few ideas
in this thread that sound good in, "wonderland world". One was if Steve
would post "out of print" info from is magazine on his Web page or make
it available on CD, all of which cost money. I do think his Web page is
a little thin. Stephen you are right the I too do care as to Steve's
problems of as you put it, "how hard it is to run a publishing business,
what hardships you've had to endure for your magazines, etc." But as a
businessman I know the problem one has as to pick which road to take. In
that "wonderland world" I was speaking of all the answers would not cost
money. And some of you have said it just takes all little time to put
them on his web page. As you who own businesses know "time" is the most
costly of products we have to sell. Do we set up web pages or layout the
next months text and images? Or do we spend time with our families? Or
maybe practice our craft and go that a picture or two. Stephen, I'm not
defending Steve's actions. Well maybe I'm just a little. But, please
remember that if you don't like what you read simply mark it read and
move on.
If I've pissed off anyone oh well.
Yours in photography,
Dan@luna
Stephen Ratzlaff wrote:
> I agree. If you want to see what happens if some feel they can post
> whatever they want, go to the 35mm equipment newsgroup and read the
> crap going on in there.
>
> Also, I certainly don't appreciate ANYONE telling Steve to continue
> posting whatever he wants. I'm not here to see ads, referrals, etc. to
> commercial sites. I'm here to get information, maybe even learn
> something and don't want to be referred to some upcoming magazine
> article unless it is freely available on the web to everyone. I don't
> subscribe or buy Steve's magazines because they don't appeal to me. I
> certainly don't want to see constant referrals to his magazines,
> because these referrals do NOT contribute to the knowledge base of
> this newsgroup.
>
> Up to this point I've always seen this newsgroup as a free exchange of
> information. Now, that appears some want to change the format. Imagine
> every response referring to some yet to be published or past published
> information you have to pay for. This BS has gone on long enough.
>
> Steve, if you can't let it go and change the content of you future
> postings to contain actual information rather than refer to your web
> site every other post, then don't post here anymore. I don't see
> anything wrong with the response to your book's availability, but the
> other posts DO plug your web site. This is what is pissing me off. You
> act like the victim here, maybe John's response was a bit snide, but
> he only typed what I was thinking every time I saw one of your web
> site plugs.
>
> Frankly, I don't care how hard it is to run a publishing business,
> what hardships you've had to endure for your magazines, etc. We all
> have our own horror stories and don't play the victim on this public
> forum.
>
> Just admit you've done wrong as well by plugging your web site in at
> least 50% of your posts and work to change this. There have been some
> good suggestions by several people to solve this problem so you don't
> violate the charter.
>
>
>
> Stephen Ratzlaff
Pam Niedermayer
abeit most likely rhetorically, what he could do to make his
postings/web site more useful. It's not "wonderland" at all. Of course
there's no disagreement about the time issue; but this is the sort of
thing that would take minimal time. As to the CD, it could be a real
money maker, it's common magazine practice these days (has been for
some years, actually).
Pam
Daniel Schmitt wrote:
> ...I have read a few ideas
> in this thread that sound good in, "wonderland world". One was if Steve
> would post "out of print" info from is magazine on his Web page or make
> it available on CD, all of which cost money. I do think his Web page is
> a little thin. Stephen you are right the I too do care as to Steve's
> problems of as you put it, "how hard it is to run a publishing business,
> what hardships you've had to endure for your magazines, etc." But as a
> businessman I know the problem one has as to pick which road to take. In
> that "wonderland world" I was speaking of all the answers would not cost
> money. And some of you have said it just takes all little time to put
> them on his web page. As you who own businesses know "time" is the most
> costly of products we have to sell. Do we set up web pages or layout the
> next months text and images? Or do we spend time with our families? Or
> maybe practice our craft and go that a picture or two. Stephen, I'm not
> defending Steve's actions. Well maybe I'm just a little. But, please
> remember that if you don't like what you read simply mark it read and
> move on.
>....
--
Pamela G. Niedermayer
Pinehill Softworks Inc.
600 W. 28th St., Suite 103
Austin, TX 78705
512-236-1677
http://www.pinehill.com
Daniel Bereskin
dealing here with perception, not objective fact. Many people who have
joined this thread are not troubled by Steve's posts, indeed they welcome
them. Others, myself included, perceive them, or at least many of them, to
be more commercial than helpful. Whether we are right or wrong is really not
debatable, because that's how his posts strike us. It's really up to Steve
to decide whether to continue to piss off a goodly number of people, even if
he disagrees with their perception. I honestly hope that he will reconsider,
and instead of arguing that he's right, consider changing his outlook a
little. Those of us who are rubbed the wrong way will cheer when his
valuable experience and insights have become a more important component of
his communications here.
Lee Carmichael
number in the tens if not the ones. I have not gone back and counted but it
seems to me to be about 4 that seem to be pissed off. I remain not
convinced that Steve has done anything so terribly wrong.
Daniel Bereskin <bere...@home.com> wrote in message
news:3A4890EF...@home.com...
Pam Niedermayer
think it useful to know that if I were looking for a new camera of
some sort that View Camera would have a review of that camera in the
near future. I would probably put off a decision until after reading
the review. I wouldn't expect Steve to reveal all prior to
publication, that would be somewhat self-defeating.
I don't understand what appears to be the hostility directed toward
him (and please don't try to enlighten me on this, I've read the
thread <grin>), or toward Bob Saloman for that matter. Granted that
their posts most often direct us to their products; but they're almost
always in response to questions and aren't, generally speaking,
unsolicited advertisements. I'd like to see more manufacturers
represented here, particularly to address tech support type issues
like Ken from Jobo and Steve Grimes do. It is important that their
signatures at least reveal their commercial connection(s).
It wouldn't hurt were they to contribute more information and/or
advice that's unrelated to their direct businesses, which would
probably help with the perception issue. For example, my company
develops software and does software consulting work. I contribute to
several forums in which I'll freely offer design advice, withholding
only a few special tricks that I don't feel like giving away for free.
Under no circumstance do I provide code or specific coding instruction
for free. I almost never provide design help for accounting related
questions, since we sell accounting products and services. OTOH, I
never suggest in a message that if someone wants more they should
engage our services; nor do I tout our products as being the solution
they should try instead of coding their own. Usually people can figure
out these things for themselves, can look at our website for more
information and demonstration versions, and can email directly for
more information. At times it's a fine line, and there are those who
badger me in private email for more free help, all of which has helped
me develop some very nice ways of saying "no way". It's all just part
of doing business.
Pam
--
ArtKramr
>Date: 12/25/00 11:20 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A4846B8...@lunavi.com>
What both Sreve and Bob Salamon are learning is that no good deed ever goes
unpunished.
Hamish Reid
Daniel Bereskin <bere...@home.com> wrote:
>I agree. There's another point which I think has been missed. We are
>dealing here with perception, not objective fact.
Indeed -- and it pays to remember that. Some people -- John Emmons, for
example -- seem to believe their perceptions are objective fact. And
that they speak for everyone.
>Many people who have
>joined this thread are not troubled by Steve's posts, indeed they welcome
>them. Others, myself included, perceive them, or at least many of them, to
>be more commercial than helpful. Whether we are right or wrong is really not
>debatable, because that's how his posts strike us.
But what *is* debatable is your public reaction to his postings....
>It's really up to Steve
>to decide whether to continue to piss off a goodly number of people, even if
>he disagrees with their perception.
If ever the pot were calling the kettle black, this is one of those
times.... You're pissing off a goodly number of people by going on and
on about something which was never considered particularly bad in the
first place (see below), and which has consistently been perceived as
a useful service by many participants in this group. By mu count, the
"goodly number of people" you're talking about are quite the minority
here.
>I honestly hope that he will reconsider,
>and instead of arguing that he's right, consider changing his outlook a
>little. Those of us who are rubbed the wrong way will cheer when his
>valuable experience and insights have become a more important component of
>his communications here.
What sort of interests me, as a (very) old-timer here is that the sort
of short unobtrusive (and, IMO, very helpful) semi-commercial pointers
that Steve posts were typically considered fine when we started these
groups or their predecessors.
But then I've been reading Usenet for nearly 20 years, and my
participation in the photo group(s) long predates this group,
so what would I know?
Once again, although I have only a vague idea (based solely on his
postings to this group) of who John Emmons is, I know damn well who
Steve Simmons is, and I suspect I know which of those two has contributed
more to the world of large format and art photography -- and to r.p.l-f.
Hamish (grumpy old-timer)
Largformat
I'll be in Vegas for PMA. Any chance of my buying you lunch. You advice last
year was perfect.
thanks,
steve
Paul and Paula Butzi
wrote:
>What sort of interests me, as a (very) old-timer here is that the sort
>of short unobtrusive (and, IMO, very helpful) semi-commercial pointers
>that Steve posts were typically considered fine when we started these
>groups or their predecessors.
>
>But then I've been reading Usenet for nearly 20 years, and my
>participation in the photo group(s) long predates this group,
>so what would I know?
>
>Once again, although I have only a vague idea (based solely on his
>postings to this group) of who John Emmons is, I know damn well who
>Steve Simmons is, and I suspect I know which of those two has contributed
>more to the world of large format and art photography -- and to r.p.l-f.
Now that Hamish has weighed in with his opinion, I can see that I was
wrong.
The problem is not Steve Simmons. The problem is that we don't have
MORE people like Steve, posting their semi-commerical announcments.
If we could just get as many people as possible posting workshop
schedules, contents of upcoming and past issues of magazines,
announcements of equipment for sale and in production, print sales,
etc. we'd have a much better newsgroup.
Accordingly, I have put together the following list. We should decide
if the names on this list, too, deserve to have the rules bent/changed
to allow them to participate by posting only commercial announcements
like those posted by Steve Simmons. It shouldn't be too hard to
decide - you may not know John Emmons, but each and every
entry on this list is more famous than he is.
This list, of course, only scratches the surface. I just spent a few
minutes at this and came up with about 150 entries. If people will
mail their additions, I'd be happy to keep the list up to date. If
everyone contributes, I figure we can find, oh, 1500 new entries.
Heck, just typing "Photo Workshop" into google.com, I get
thousands of hits. You wouldn't believe how many people
are teaching classes and workshops!
If each of them posts one announcement a week, which seems to
be about what Steve Simmons manages, why, in no time at all
we'll be getting 200 odd more posts to this newsgroup per day.
Won't that be great?
And there are thousands and thousands of photographers on the web,
looking to get print sales. Why don't we bend the 'no binaries' rule,
and allow them to post, say, 10 100K images to the newsgroup per week?
After all, it's all about photography, right? And we could learn
a lot by looking at all those images, right?
So check my list, and send me any updates. We can probably
avoid discussing if these people qualify - let's just encourage
everyone to contribute. They may not be famous, like Art Kramer
and Steve Simmons, but they deserve a break, too. Maybe more!
And if it's ok for Steve Simmons, who the hell are we to tell them
they can't do the same thing?
Magazines
View Camera
Camera Arts
Photovision
Photo Techniques USA
Photo Techniques (UK)
Shutterbug
Outdoor Photography
Nature Photography
Lenswork Quarterly
Aperture
Contact Sheet
B&W
Vendors:
Midwest Photo
Badger Graphics
Glazer's Camera
Calumet
B&H Photo/video
Adorama
Keeble and Suchat
Samy's
Lens and Repro
The View Camera Store/Darkroom Innovations
Robt. White
Quality Camera Co.
Photo Habitat
Fields and Views
Bostick and Sullivan
Photographic System
Versalab
Photomark
Photographers Formulary
Freestyle Sales
Rainier Photo Supply
Bromwell Marketing
Camera Essentials
Steve Grimes
Jim Galvin
Porter's
Manufacturers
Ron Wisner
Keith Canham
Linhof
Wista
Toyo
Schneider
Rodenstock
Fuji Optical
Calumet/Zone VI
R H Phillips
Ebony
Horseman
Tachihara
Arca-Swiss
Jobo
Toho
Gandolfi
Ries
Lee
Gitzo
Walker
Bogen
Sinar
Betterlight
Phase One
Megavision
Nikon
Scitex
Leaf
Lotus
Bergger
Kodak
Fujifilm
Ilford
Efke
Oriental
Agfa
Forte
Omega/Satter
Beseler
Saunders
Durst
Tenba
Lowepro
Tamrac
Pelican
Sekonic
Pentax
Gossen
Lightware
Zero Halliburton
Peak
Kenko
Beattie
Polaroid
Photoflex
Silvestri
V-pan
Summitek
photographers/Authors/workshops
Dan Burkholder
Dick Arentz
Gordon Hutchings
Leslie Stroebel
John Sexton
Ray MacSavaney
Bruce Barnbaum
Charlie Cramer
George DeWolfe
Chuck Farmer
Santa Fe Photo Workshops
Maine Photo Workshops
Rocky Mountain Photo Workshops
James Egbert
John Fielder
George Lepp
Helen Longest-Saccone
John Shaw
Lee Watson
Rocky Mount Reflections Workshops
Coupeville Arts Center
Don Marr
Eddie Soloway
Wendy Walsh
Tony O'Brien
David Julian
Douglas Merriam
Joyce Tenneson
Chris Rainier
Greg Vander Houven
Michael O'Brien
David Michael Kennedy
Jerry Courvoisier
Steve Hellerstein
Lisl Dennis
Bami Cantrell
Norman Mauskopf
George Schaub
David Alan Harvey
Sarah Martone
Michael Long
Len Jenshel
Brenda Tharp
Huntington Witherill
Brooks Jensen
John Paul Caponigro
George Tice
Christopher James
Carol Fonde
Bill Jorden
Chip Forelli
Bob Krist
Jim Richardson
Dennis Welsh
Kerry Thalmann
Connie Imboden
Michael Smith
Paula Chamlee
Jon Cone
Arkady Lvov
Don't wait! Let's get started today!
ArtKramr
>Date: 12/26/00 10:19 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <20001226131953...@ng-mm1.aol.com>
Steve,
Sure, just send me a pass for PMA and we'll meet and have lunch.
Arthur
Michael K. Stenstrom
I might be able to add something.
I have owned a 45FA for about 1.5 years. Before that
I owned a Tachihara. I also have a Horseman monorail. I found
a mint 45FA at a camera show.
With respect to some of the technical issues:
The Horseman is a fine camera with very good workmanship.
If you are a craftsman or admire fine work, then you'll
admire the Horseman 45FA. It's light and rugged.
Some of the technical issues:
Bellows extension. Could be more but I have survived. I have
no trouble using a 75 mm lens, and in fact I can use my 45 mm
Grandagon, if I focus on the "storage" rails. I can get a good
focus, albeit it is a little tedious. Of course the lens is so
wide that you can see the bottom of the camera,
but I am using a 6 x 12 back with this lens, so it doesn't matter.
On the long end, I can use my 300 mm Nikkor M, by using Horseman's
extension lens board and using the back movements featured on the
45FA. The back movement can be used to add about an inch extension.
I can focus down to about 10 or 15 feet. Not the best, but workable
for most applications.
Someone spoke about the small lens boards. This is true. The boards
are 8 cm square and are not simply flat boards. They are not
easy to manufacture (like the 4 x 4 boards for the Tachihara).
Also you don't find too many used boards at camera shows, etc.
I finally found some. They cost about $80 new. They are the same
boards as used with their 2 x 3 cameras.
The front standard has circular hole for the lens that is almost
exactly equal to the size of a Copal 3 shutter opening (~64 mm)
(You cannot mount a Copal 3 shutter, not that you would ever want to).
This means that some lenses, like my 90 mm F4.5 Nikkor W and 210 F5.6
Schneider APO, cannot be mounted. (if you must, you can unscrew the back
element, mount the front element/shutter/lens board, then reattach the
back element through the back of the camera).
So, that's my feed back on the 45FA. I have been happy with it,
and I would purchase it again, if I had to make the choice again.
I cannot say anything about the Toyo, other than I have some friends
who are happy with theirs.
JCurcio wrote:
> I thought I'd made up my mind on a Toyo 45AII. At the suggestion of a few of
> you in this NG, I rented one and was disappointed. In comparison to what I've
> seen of the Horseman line, the Toyo is larger, heavier, more awkward, and
> doesn't seem to have the quality of the Horseman.
>
> So now I'm looking at the Horseman 45 HD vs the Horseman 45 FA. As best as I
> can tell from the B&H Photo Pro Sourcebook, the HD has a composite body;
> whereas, the 45 FA has an aluminum body. Also, whereas the 45 HD has one
> geared rail, the 45 FA has geared rails on both sides. The only other major
> difference I think I see from the B&H Pro Sourcebook is that the 45 HD seems to
> have only front tilts and swings; whereas, the 45 FA is listed as having tilts
> and swings for front and BACK too. Can anyone confirm these differences?
>
> I'd appreciate any opinions regarding whether to buy the 45 HD vs the 45 FA.
> The price difference is about $675. Is anyone familiar enough with the cameras
> to advise which I should be favoring? Is the price difference worth it? Does
> anyone agree or disagree with my sense of the Horseman as being better
> constructed and designed than the Toyo 45 AX and AII? (BTW, my apologies in
> advance to any Toyo owners. I'm not trying to be offensive. I'm just trying
> to figure out what is the best thing to do for me.)
>
> Thanks in advance for any help.
--
Michael K. Stenstrom, Ph.D., P.E.
Professor
Civil and Environmental Engineering Department
UCLA
4173 Engr. I.
Los Angeles, CA 90095-1593
sten...@seas.ucla.edu
www.seas.ucla.edu/stenstro
310-825-1408 (voice)
310-206-5476 (fax)
Hamish Reid
Paul and Paula Butzi <bu...@nwlink.com> wrote:
<On 26 Dec 2000 10:01:07 -0800, ham...@triton.dnai.com (Hamish Reid)
>wrote:
<
>
<>What sort of interests me, as a (very) old-timer here is that the sort
>>of short unobtrusive (and, IMO, very helpful) semi-commercial pointers
<>that Steve posts were typically considered fine when we started these
>>groups or their predecessors.
<>
>>But then I've been reading Usenet for nearly 20 years, and my
<>participation in the photo group(s) long predates this group,
>>so what would I know?
<>
>>Once again, although I have only a vague idea (based solely on his
<>postings to this group) of who John Emmons is, I know damn well who
>>Steve Simmons is, and I suspect I know which of those two has contributed
<>more to the world of large format and art photography -- and to r.p.l-f.
>
>Now that Hamish has weighed in with his opinion, I can see that I was
>wrong.
>
>The problem is not Steve Simmons. The problem is that we don't have
>MORE people like Steve, posting their semi-commerical announcments.
>If we could just get as many people as possible posting workshop
>schedules, contents of upcoming and past issues of magazines,
>announcements of equipment for sale and in production, print sales,
>etc. we'd have a much better newsgroup.
[Snip long, ludicrous, and rather tedious strawman argument...]
In response to a posting asking for opinions on a particular
large format camera, Steve posted a short response indicating that
the camera in question would be reviewed (along with others) in
the upcoming issue of View Camera. He posted nothing else in that
posting (not even a web address). This was -- as the original poster
and many others have indicated -- a useful posting, with added value
in the way that we don't actually see from, say, John Emmons. Gosh, it
provided pointers to, oh, *opinions about the camera in question*.
And so John Emmons, and, later, others, jumped on Steve for posting
this short pointer. John has even claimed to speak for all of us here in
saying that no one should have to read Steve's postings. And,
while a small minority are wailing about "The Rules", a few seem to have
little idea of what the rules were and are, and what their original
intent was. And it turned out that John had actually done just what
he was criticising in Steve, anyway.
Again, I know who Steve Simmons is, and I now have some idea who
John Emmons is. I know whose postings I value more.
Hamish
Paul and Paula Butzi
wrote:
> [Snip long, ludicrous, and rather tedious strawman argument...]
I was not being facetious. I fully intend to tell all those people
that since Steve Simmons is free to post ads here, they should
feel free, too.
Fair is fair.
Either you accept that ads are a good idea, or you don't. Which is
it, Hamish?
Mark Westling
YOUR last note? This is getting awfully boring...
Mark
"Paul and Paula Butzi" <bu...@nwlink.com> wrote in message
news:n6sh4tohu1ph92c5g...@4ax.com...
Luc Novovitch
Butzi <bu...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> everyone to contribute. They may not be famous, like Art Kramer
> and Steve Simmons, but they deserve a break, too. Maybe more!
OK Paul, now I'm all confused. Just when I was getting used to see the
name Simmons in every other post on this newsgroup, you come up with a new
famous guy?
/ln
---
mailto:l...@overland.net
http://www.sotolgallery.com
bergger...@my-deja.com
mm1.aol.com>,
Hey Steve,
PMA is in Orlando this year. Would you buy me
lunch also??
Best,
John Horowy
Bergger Products, Inc.
www.bergger.com
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
John Emmons
Simmons is quite capable of responding to any criticism I have made of
his posting, you owe me and this newsgroup an apology.
John Emmons
"JCurcio" <jcu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001226001229...@ng-fa1.aol.com...
John Emmons
need to be insulting than at least be accurate. As to whether or not
you've heard of me, I've never heard of you either but if you ever
contribute anything of value, I'll read it.
I might even believe it.
John Emmons
"Hamish Reid" <ham...@triton.dnai.com> wrote in message
news:92amd3$ems$1...@triton.dnai.com...
JCurcio
that I should wait the month and read the article before I commit a significant
amount of my money to a purchase. I would not have expected Simmons or anyone
else to post his magazine's article here just for my convenience or because
some might be annoyed that he would be referring to his magazine. The point
pure and simple is that his post was not SPAM by any definition that I'm aware
of, and was responsive, relevant and helpful. What is not helpful are the
opinions of those who think someone like me who needs the information shouldn't
receive it merely because their sensibilities are so finely tuned that they
might sniff something "semicommercial" about the post. Absolute nonsense.
>From: Pam Niedermayer pam_...@cape.com
>Date: 12/26/00 8:35 AM Eastern Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A48A085...@cape.com>
Daniel Bereskin
within the limits of decency and the law. Mr. Reid, it seems to offend your
sense of propriety that I and several others have seen fit to express views
opposite to yours. My prior two posts were both carefully written so as to
explain my point of view, without any animus. It is your right to disagree with
me, but you have no right to belittle me or any of the others whose views happen
to be contrary to yours. If you had read Steve's last post, you will see that
he has indicated what he plans to do going forward, and it sounds fine to me.
Therefore it looks like Steve has listened to the very people you are attempting
to marginalize by your nasty comments.
JCurcio
am certain that "Simmons is quite capable of responding to any (of your)
criticism". Not that you could understand it but the truth is that Mr.
Simmons' own ability to respond to you is entirely beside the point.
The problem, of course, is that you choose to doggedly post your contrived
"criticism" of Mr. Simmons publicly here in this NG. The reality is, however,
that if you are going to go public in criticizing someone, members of the
public other than you have a right to state their opinions even when they are
contrary to your own. What a concept! If you want to keep things private,
then use e-mail directly with Mr. Simmons and say anything you please to him --
privately. Do not, however, repeatedly take the liberty of using a public forum
to criticize Simmons at every opportunity and then object when others disagree
with your own views.
The bottom line, Mr. Emmons, is that you can't have it both ways. You can't
make public criticism and then imply that only Mr. Simmons has the right to
respond to your rants. You can take as extreme exception as you wish, Mr.
Emmons, but you are a bully and I don't owe you a thing.
John Emmons
newsgroup an apology.
John Emmons
"JCurcio" <jcu...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20001226213412...@ng-bd1.aol.com...
Hamish Reid
>wrote:
<
>
<> [Snip long, ludicrous, and rather tedious strawman argument...]
>
<
>I was not being facetious. I fully intend to tell all those people
<that since Steve Simmons is free to post ads here, they should
>feel free, too.
<
>Fair is fair.
<
>Either you accept that ads are a good idea, or you don't. Which is
<it, Hamish?
Either you accept a false dichomtomy or you don't. I don't. If you need
any help with things beyond black and white, get in touch.
Hamish
Hamish Reid
Daniel Bereskin <bere...@home.com> wrote:
>The great thing about the Internet is that anyone is free to express any view,
>within the limits of decency and the law. Mr. Reid, it seems to offend your
>sense of propriety that I and several others have seen fit to express views
>opposite to yours. My prior two posts were both carefully written so as to
>explain my point of view, without any animus. It is your right to disagree with
>me, but you have no right to belittle me or any of the others whose views happen
>to be contrary to yours. If you had read Steve's last post, you will see that
>he has indicated what he plans to do going forward, and it sounds fine to me.
>Therefore it looks like Steve has listened to the very people you are attempting
>to marginalize by your nasty comments.
It's funny how when i deliberately used your own language
("pissing people off", etc.) it rubbed you the wrong way so suddenly,
no? I had no intention of causing any animus at all -- just pointing
out that what you said also applied to Steve, and that many of those
who kept invoking the supposedly long-inviolate and sacred "rules"
here either barely knew those rules (or broke them, as did John
Emmons), or seemed unable to understand the rules' original motivation
and application.
And how you get from my defense of your right to post (and my
right to ignore it) to believing that I am offended by it is ...
well, bizarre. Here I am *defending* people's --
yours and John Emmons, as well as Steve Simmons's -- rights to post,
and you twist that around.
Takes all types, I guess.
Hamish
Hamish Reid
You wrote:
>His latest answer to a query about Horseman cameras is a prime
>example, I for one would love to hear some opinions about them, what
>no one needs is to be told that next month's issue of View Camera will
>have an article and just wait and buy a copy.... [...]
If the phrase "what no one needs is to be told..." is not an attempt
to speak for everyone, I don't know what is. I, for example, was
interested to hear the news. *You* might not find that useful,
but both the original poster and I did.
>If you feel this
>need to be insulting than at least be accurate.
Can you point out the innacuracy please? And the insult?
>As to whether or not
>you've heard of me, I've never heard of you either but if you ever
>contribute anything of value, I'll read it.
I'd be *astonished* if you'd heard of me. But then I don't
really hold myself up as the arbiter of what you -- or Steve Simmons --
should post. For example, I feel that your earlier posting soliciting
comments, etc., for your project was on-topic and exactly the sort of
thing that's appropriate here (you *didn't*, apparently, but you seem to
have changed your mind on that just now). But I don't really believe that
my opinion on that is particularly relevant -- I only believe that really
egregious rules-breaking is worthy of comment. I don't believe Steve
has done this, based on nearly 20 years of Usenet experience (and
running a few mailing lists and photo-related digests).
>I might even believe it.
That's nice -- and if you feel the need to be insulting...
Hamish
Daniel Bereskin
the more important issue of the right of people to honestly express their views
without fear of personal attack. You claim no animus. Your words speak
otherwise. What you said was "If ever the pot were calling the kettle black, this
is one of those times.... You're pissing off a goodly number of people by going on
and on about something which was never considered particularly bad in the first
place (see below), and which has consistently been perceived as a useful service by
talking about are quite the minority here." How do you know whether my two earlier
posts, expressing a straight-forward point of view, have pissed off anyone besides
you? What if they did? You rely on venerability as implying some superior
ability to understand the charter and what is good for this group, suggesting that
people who don't share your view either haven't read the charter, or lack your
ability to understand its application to this group. I could care less whether you
are twenty or eighty. You may well know more about photography than me, but I
have practiced law for almost forty years, and I know how to read plain english,
from the charter to personal invective. Your right to express a point of view does
not, to my mind, extend to disparaging people who happen not to share your opinion.
Hamish Reid
Daniel Bereskin <bere...@home.com> wrote:
>What has begun to trouble me more than the issue of the violation of the rules is
>the more important issue of the right of people to honestly express their views
>without fear of personal attack. You claim no animus. Your words speak
>otherwise.
An old Usenet saying (updated): animus is in the mind of the beholder.
Once again, it's funny how you don't like your own words or style when
applied to you, and once again, it's funny (in a sad sort of way) that
you get so upset when I try to honestly express my views. Your personal
attacks are part and parcel of this, no?
In any case, this will be my last posting in response to you -- I have
better things to do, and I'll be happy to let you have the last word.
>What you said was "If ever the pot were calling the kettle black, this
>is one of those times.... You're pissing off a goodly number of people by going on
>and on about something which was never considered particularly bad in the first
>place (see below), and which has consistently been perceived as a useful service by
>many participants in this group. By my count, the "goodly number of people" you're
>talking about are quite the minority here." How do you know whether my two earlier
>posts, expressing a straight-forward point of view, have pissed off anyone besides
>you?
You do realise, of course, that exactly the same question applies to you,
right? You accused us of pissing off an ungodly number of people (your
own words) -- you must have *some* basis in fact for that assertion,
right? Probably the same as I have -- reading followup postings and
personal email.
>What if they did? You rely on venerability as implying some superior
>ability to understand the charter and what is good for this group, suggesting that
>people who don't share your view either haven't read the charter, or lack your
>ability to understand its application to this group.
"Venerability"? Ha! Sorry, but you keep missing the point -- those of
you who keep appealing to supposed ancient rules, etc., might do the
legwork of finding out what those rules actually are, and how they were
applied and promulgated in the first place. It's *you* (and I don't
necessarily mean you personally) that keeps getting up on your high
horses and saying that the rest of us are ignoring the rules. My main
point was that the short, focused semi-commercial pointers of the sort
that Steve sometimes posts were generally considered fine by the earlier
denizens of this newsgroup, where there was generally a lot less
huffing and puffing about breaking the Sacred Rules. Steve's postings
generally contribute useful on-topic knowledge to this group.
>I could care less whether you
>are twenty or eighty.
I'm neither, of course. But it's nice to know you care.
>You may well know more about photography than me, but I
>have practiced law for almost forty years, and I know how to read plain english,
>from the charter to personal invective. Your right to express a point of view does
>not, to my mind, extend to disparaging people who happen not to share your opinion.
Luckily, what goes on in your mind is not the sole determinant in what's
appropriate or not in this or any other newsgroup, nor in the real world
out here. In fact, your interpretation of the freedom of expression and
associated rights and responsibilities would be considered way too
restrictive by those of us who helped formulate many of the Sacred
Rules in the first place. In fact, your idea that my right to express
an opinion on Usenet does not extend to disparagement is ludicrous --
use some of that lawyerly skill to brush up on (say) the first amendment or
associated struggles for the right to criticise, or on the history of
Usenet itself (a sometimes fearsomely anarchic place where freedom of
expression is often taken seriously...).
But then if your view were the rule, your posting above wouldn't be
allowed, would it?
Hamish
Daniel Bereskin
using intemperate remarks.
Dan Smith, Photographer
>
> >You may well know more about photography than me, but I
> >have practiced law for almost forty years, and I know how to read plain
english,
> >from the charter to personal invective.
If you really have practiced LAW for 40 years I doubt very much you
understand anything at all about 'plain English'.
Let Simmons post all he wants. He has experience & knowledge & from what I
read, he shares freely. That and the fact that many come to the list as new
LF shooters who could benefit from knowing he runs View Camera and gives
seminars & workshops makes it just fine with me if he puts these facts in
his answers.
dan smith
ArtKramr
>Date: 12/27/00 12:21 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <t4s26.3171$O7.1...@news-east.usenetserver.com>
Simmons is the only champion large format has in the publishing world. Be
thankful we have him because no other publisher gives a damb.
Arthur Kramer
Las Vegas NV
Peter De Smidt
thread? Both sides have expressed their position quite thoroughly. It is
very unlikely that anyone's mind is going to be changed. I suggest that we
get back to talking about large format photographic equipment.
Does anyone use an Ebony RW 45? If so, how do you like it?
Happy Holidays,
Peter
Kerry L. Thalmann
they are)
ArtKramr wrote:
> Simmons is the only champion large format has in the publishing world. Be
> thankful we have him because no other publisher gives a damb.
Hi Art,
I respectfully disagree (to an extent). While Steve certainly is the
publisher of the only magazine that is 100% dedicated to large format
photography (and deserves our support for his efforts - both the
magazine and his book), he is not the only publisher who "gives a damn"
about large format photography. There are several book publishers with
large format titles in print. Most of my books are currently in
storage, so I can't name them all, but there is the Ansel Adams series
(I think it's published by Little Brown), Leslie Stroebel's books (he
has more than one - Focal Press), Jim Stone's book (Addison-Wesley),
Kingslake (Academic Press), the Kodak LF book (Kodak), Harvey Shaman's
book (Amphoto - who is also the publisher of Steve's book) etc. And
these are just some of the title dedicated to large format photographic
equipment and technique.
There are also TON of coffee table type books featuring the work of
large format photographers. David Muench alone, with his many titles
published by Graphic Arts Center is practically in industry all by
himself. There is Westcliffe, that in addition to both coffee table and
how-to books by owner John Fielder, also publishs the work of several
other large format photographers. Others publishing works by LF
photographers include Bulfinch Press (William Neil), Sierra Club books
(started with Eliot Porter and still going strong - although not
exclusively LF), Ventana Editions (John Sexton), Harry N. Abrams (Jack
Dykinga), etc. And these are mostly just books that feature color
landscape photography (other than Sexton). There are a lot more titles,
publishers and photographers in this genre, plus all the other
sub-genres of LF photography.
And then there's all the calendar publishers that use iamges created by
LF photographers (either entirely as in single photographer titles, or
paritially as in multi-photographer titles - Audubon, Sierra Club,
etc.) Again, I focused on publishers of nature photography, since that
is what I am most familiar with.
If you were only referring to magazines, again, View Camera is the ONLY
magazine dedicated entirely to LF photography, but there are other fine
publications that give LF some pretty decent coverage (considering the
small market share we occupy). Photo Techniques (USA) regulary runs
some very lengthly, well written reviews of LF equipment as well as
how-to articles on LF techniques. Photovision is a wonderful new
(bi-monthly, first issue July/Aug 2000) magazine featuring traditional
photographic methods. That doesn't make it exclusively LF, but from the
issues I've seen it's pretty close.
Given the general tone of things around here lately, I'm not trying to
step on anyone's toes or start yet another round of flame wars. I'm
also not trying to take anything aways from Steve Simmons as a publisher
(both his magazines and book). I do agree, that based on the products
he puts out, he certainly is the leading publisher of LF related
materials. I just wanted to point out that he is not the ONLY one.
Given the rather small niche market large format makes up in the overall
total market for consumer photo products and services, and the many
sub-niches within the large format arena, we are lucky to have as many
resources at our disposal that we do. In the past, I've recommended
both Steve's book and his magazine, but I also recommend others as
well. Not as competition, or as an alternatives to Steve's products,
but to compliment Steve's efforts. Given the many different
sub-specialities within the LF, it makes sense to expose yourself to
more than one point of view, and learn what you can from each.
Kerry
--
Kerry's Large Format Homepage
http://largeformat.homepage.com
Your online source for totally biased and opinionated
large format equipment reviews and recommendations
Kerry L. Thalmann
Peter De Smidt wrote:
> Does anyone use an Ebony RW 45? If so, how do you like it?
Hi Peter,
Just so happens I have one right here that was sent to me for review
purposes. I will eventually post a full review on my web site, and may
try to get it published in a magazine as well (if anyone is
interested). Note: this does not constitute a commercial advertisement
- I didn't say which, if any magazine, etc.
My initial impression is that the camera is well made, a bit on the
spendy side, and a bit of a 'tweener in terms of size, weight and
features. What I mean by that is that it falls between the short, fixed
bellows double extension wood fields (Tachihara, Wista, etc.) and the
heavier, more full featured interchangeable bellows triple extension
models (Wisner, Zone VI, Lotus, Canham, etc.) in terms of bellows draw,
size and weight. According to my scale, the sample I have weighs 4 lb.
4 1/4 oz. (Ebony claims 1.7 kg = 3 lb. 12 oz.). At $1795, your starting
to get close to the same price range as the large triple extension
models from Wisner, etc. Stil, the camera is beautifully made and seems
quite durable for a wooden camera (the titanium hardware should be
stronger, more durable, and more corrosion resistant than lacquered
brass). Two nice features I like are the optional universal bellows
(see the picture of the 45SWU at www.ebony.com for a picture of this
type of hybrid bellows), and a very well made grafloc back (fit and
finish superior to even most metal cameras in this area). It also comes
with a nice fresnel (but I'm not a big fan of fresnels myself) and a
ground glass protector.
The one feature totally lacking on this model is direct lateral shifts
(either front or rear). Indirect shifts can be accomplished by
combining front and rear swings. This is a bit tedious, but can work in
a pinch. I assume this was done to keep cost and weight down without
sacrificing stability. According to the Ebony web site, this camera is
targeted at landscape shooters (who are traditionally less demanding in
terms of camera movements than say, architectural or studio
photographers)
All in all, it appears to be aimed at a specific market niche between
the two extremes in field camera designs currently available from other
manufacturers. If you desire a camera that is a little more robust, and
can take a slightly wider range of lenses (up to 500mm telephoto), than
the little double extension wood fields, but is more compact and lighter
than the triple extension models, it just may fit your needs (in spite
of the high price).
I'll let you know when the full review is online.
ArtKramr
>From: "Kerry L. Thalmann" large...@thalmann.com
>Date: 12/27/00 2:31 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A4A6DBE...@thalmann.com>
Your point is well taken, Thanks for the correction.
Msherck
>dealing here with perception, not objective fact.
For what it's worth, I took the liberty of forwarding about 50 newsgroup
postings to a colleague at work; Mr. Simmon's dozen prior posts (including the
ones at issue here,) as well as about 35-40 of the messages in these threads.
I didn't try to do any editing; I just fired up an old newsreader and grabbed
as much text as I thought would fit into a reasonably sized e-mail. My friend
isn't a photographer but is very active in other newsgroups and has been for a
long time. She seemed to be the most objective person I could think of for a
very unscientific experiment.
She didn't think Mr. Simmon's postings were 'advertising', in the sense of the
kinds fo things which tend to set Usenet folks off on long, flaming rants.
Like I said, unscientific and for what it's worth.
Mike
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
C program run. C program crash. C programmer quit.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Will
Will
"Msherck" <msh...@aol.comimagine> wrote in message
news:20001227194154...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
John Emmons
You're simply not worth the time, I spoke my mind, I gave my opinion
about the value of a commercial posting. The fact that you have
trouble with it is really your problem.
I have emailed Mr. Simmons regarding this matter, so far as I'm
concerned I'm done, I made my point.
John Emmons
"Hamish Reid" <ham...@triton.dnai.com> wrote in message
news:92bsja$i0d$1...@triton.dnai.com...
Pam Niedermayer
uncalled for, whether you agree with him or not. If anyone is angry
over this, s/he has more problems than we can address. It's just a
discussion about what's appropriate in the newsgroup, nothing more.
Take some tranqs or something.
Pam
Will wrote:
>
> Mr. Emmons:
>
> The only "point" you've made clear to this group is that you're an unhappy
> asshole with nothing better to do than monitor, judge and try to direct
> other's behavior here. You've angered many, many members of the newsgroup,
> been a royal pain in the ass, and haven't provided any value to the group at
> all. Your vendetta here has nothing to do with newsgroup rules as you
> suggest; you simply appear to be one very unhappy person with no life and
> nothing better to do than bitch about an issue that doesn't seem to bother
> anyone else but you and two or three others.
>
> I'll take 1000 of Steve Simmon's posts to one of your whiny, arrogant bitch
> sessions any day.
>
> Will
...
--
Pamela G. Niedermayer
Pinehill Softworks Inc.
600 W. 28th St., Suite 103
Austin, TX 78705
512-236-1677
http://www.pinehill.com
Hamish Reid
John Emmons <JOH...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Hamish,
>You're simply not worth the time, I spoke my mind, I gave my opinion
>about the value of a commercial posting. The fact that you have
>trouble with it is really your problem.
I don't have trouble with it -- I only had trouble with your very
explicit pretensions to speak for eveyone. Unlike you, I believe
both your contributions *and* Steve Simmons's contributions are
generally worthwhile and aappriate for this newsgroup. You seem
to willfully misunderstand this.
Hamish
Hamish Reid
Daniel Bereskin <bere...@home.com> wrote:
>Hamish, why don't we just agree to disagree. I apologize for losing my temper, and
>using intemperate remarks.
Argh! You're no fun -- aren't we supposed to keep going around in an
ever-increasing spiral of name-calling and bitterness?! :-).
Anyway, thanks -- you're very gracious. Yes, we disagree, but
it shouldn't be something to get too rude about. I apologize!
HAmish
Will
"Hamish Reid" <ham...@triton.dnai.com> wrote in message
news:92fude$r21$1...@triton.dnai.com...
Daniel Bereskin
responses to my zingers!
Brian Ellis
and obnoxious message to John Emmons, I checked Will's e mail address in
deja.com to see what the extent of his participation in this group had been
since his name didn't seem familiar. I found that except for his crude
postings relating to this current controversy, he's never participated in
this group before. All of his messages shown in deja.com related to a
classical music group (so much for the notion that music soothes the soul -
it obviously has had no effect on him). So Will, maybe you've never seen
anything worthwhile posted by Mr. Emmons, we've never seen anything at all
from you before, worthwhile or otherwise. Personally I'd appreciate it very
much if you'd go back to your classical music group and leave this one
alone.
"Will" <wag...@home.com> wrote in message
news:dkL26.35682$RC1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Will
been a reader of the newsgroup for about a year. I don't think there's any
requirement to post, is there? I simply got fed up with Emmon's pompous,
arrogant and "police mentality" when it came to his day after day harping on
the Steve Simmons posts. I still feel the same way about Emmons and his
ilk. We'd all be better off if he left, not me.
Will
"Brian Ellis" <bell...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:8mS26.38319$RC1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
John Emmons
John Emmons
"Will" <wag...@home.com> wrote in message
news:dkL26.35682$RC1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Hamish Reid
That's a little unfair... John has posted worthwhile things to this
newsgroup -- as has Steve Simmons. It's just that John doesn't want
Steve to continue doing that, and has claimed to be speaking for all
of us when posting on the subject.
Hamish
Msherck
She thought the chances high that he was a troll. :)
rlf
It is interesting to note that in reviewing your list of photographers, there are almost none who spend time discussing / responding in this group. So what might this tell you about those who seem to spend a great deal of time and energy in goofy debates in this group?
rlf
ArtKramr
>Date: 12/31/00 11:31 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <3A4F89AC...@halcyon.com>
>
>
>--------------78A375414A72EAAB7ACD5532
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
>x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>In response to the Paul Butzi list of lists:
>It is interesting to note that in reviewing your list of photographers,there
>might this tell you about those who seem to spend agreat deal of time and
>energy in goofy debates in this group?
>rlf
>
I heard an interview with Harry Callahan. When the interviewer complained that
he coudn't get Harry to talk about photography, Harry replied, " Photography is
so easy there is really nothing to talk about".
Largformat
you rather that people not know about this?