My new friend! Will I shoot film now, hopefully! I missed owning Zeiss, and, well, old Zeiss is better than no ZEISS! I dipped into the B&W developing funds, but, I'm working on that still! I am trading "gears" for it still! I have sold off one thing to partially fund this, and the rest may well be enough for film, and the darkroom equipment! I am still narrowing the parts needed the most list! The actual photography should be happening very soon!
Those are both very nice Bridge images. I like the black and white version better, but I can't help wonder how it might be with either a green or and orange filter instead of the yellow. I'm sure a red would have made the bridge itself too light. The other thing is why f/64? All lenses get pretty mushy at that aperture and large format lenses are no different. Most of them peak at roughly the same aperture as lenses for 35mm and medium format. If you're using f/64 for the long shutter speed, then I'd add an ND to the mix.
The filter was a medium yellow, to suppress the blue.
Not as familiar with using green or orange.
As far as the f-stop, I was trying to get DOF without too much tilt.
In this case, I probably could have got by with lower number.
I need to do some test shots w/tilt & f-stop to have a better feel for it.
I would add that a few 4x5 guys have said, "oh yea, you should use f64 for that".
Being new at this & impressionable I went with that.
Still learning.
Dan - It all depends on how big you plan on printing. Obviously, the bigger you go, the more you're going to see in terms of degradation. To be honest, until fairly recently, I was not aware that diffraction affected large format lenses in the same way that is does smaller format lenses, and at virtually the same apertures. There is always a tradeoff between depth of field and detail when it comes to aperture. The old school f/64 guys are most likely throwbacks to the old "f/64" school of landscape photography that included Ansel Adams among others, who espoused using f/64 to keep everything in focus as a counter to the soft focus pictorialism of the 1920's. But I'm relatively certain that the reason they could use f/64 and pretty much get away with it was that the lens in general were not nearly as good as we have today and the film they were using - things like Super XX (Super Double eX) was still several grades or more below where Tri-X was, say, in the 1970's, and just couldn't show the lens degradation. And then, most of them were shooting 8x10 or larger and often making contact prints, which really mitigates the damage, so to speak.
I remember doing a product shot for a client on 4x5 where we needed the absolute most depth of field. I was also vaguely aware that diffraction occurred when you stopped the lens down a lot, but I was not prepared for just how soft that image was when I shot it with the aperture control slid all the way over - past f/64 and well on its way to f/90. I thought it was so cool to be able to shoot at f/90 and then I was so disappointed to see how soft is all got. Now we have tools and techniques we never had before, including focus stacking, which works just as well with scanned 4x5's as it does with digital captures.
As for the filters, I think that every black and white photographer should have a few basics. Yellow. Orange. Green. 25a Red. 29 Red. Blue. ND and Polarizer. Just remember that the color filters lighten everything in the scene that is of similar color to the filter and darkens everything of contrasting color to the filter. With the GG Brigde and its orange-red color, it presents a conundrum when choosing filters for black and white, as the same filters you use to darken the sky also lighten the bridge, which is something you may or may not want to do. That's why I mentioned the possibility of a green filter, which would darken the sky but also darken the bridge. Sometimes you have to shoot it both ways and choose. You can also tell a lot by examining your color shot and looking at the individual channels to see how a filter choice in black and white might have an effect.
To be honest, my standard filter for black and white is the 25a Red, next is no filter and a very distant third is using a green filter. But that's just me. I also use the red filter in conjunction with Tri-X with Holga and Diana cameras to compensate for the lack of camera adjustability.
Peter, thanks for the tutorial, seriously.
Every thing you said made sense. I have a red & green filter, just don't use them much.
I think these beach foregrounds could have taken a larger opening & been enough in focus but that's how you learn.
The nice thing is that the beach/GG is just an hour away
dswiger wrote:
Peter, thanks for the tutorial, seriously.
Every you said made sense. I have a red & green filter, just don't use them much.
I think these beach foregrounds could have taken a larger opening & been enough in focus but that's how you learn.
The nice thing is that the beach/GG is just an hour away
Dan
I was wondering about the use of filter for B&W as well, for my soon to arrive Pentacon 6, I also was wondering how to find the "right" fit for the 80mm 2.8 lens, as I assumed it differs on medium format vs. 35mm?!
plus the difference or need of Gelatin Filter Holder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wratten_number
For durability and longevity, I would recommend getting glass filters if possible. Gelatin and polyester filters can't be cleaned other than blowing them off and are highly prone to scratches, and you can't let gels get wet at all or they will disappear on you. BUT, in certain circumstances, gels and polyester, being much thinner than glass, can have advantages - like with ultra wide angle lenses where looking obliquely through the thickness of glass can degrade the image, or being able to tape a gel to the back of a lens. It's usually best to buy the size of glass filters large enough for your biggest filtered lens and then use step-down rings for your smaller lenses. It looks like your 80mm uses 62mm filters.
When I bought my RZ67 Pro II kit, I got the old style AE prism finder.
It has the dial on the side.
I just read some site that said this does not work correctly on the RZ67 Pro II body.
Is this true?
I will be bummed out, as I already put a roll through it, and half way on two more rolls.
I kick myself for at least not comparing the readings against my Canon 5DMkII meter.
Yes, I need to buy a handheld meter also...
But, do I *NEED* to buy the AE Prism Finder II for the RZ67 Pro II body?
Or, will the old style AE prism finder work correctly with the RZ67 Pro II body?
I am now seeing conflicting info on another site, though, this one is more trustworthy, APUG
I'll have to post there...
buggz2k wrote:
Question for Mamiya RZ67 Pro II owners:
When I bought my RZ67 Pro II kit, I got the old style AE prism finder.
It has the dial on the side.
I just read some site that said this does not work correctly on the RZ67 Pro II body.
Is this true?
I will be bummed out, as I already put a roll through it, and half way on two more rolls.
I kick myself for at least not comparing the readings against my Canon 5DMkII meter.
Yes, I need to buy a handheld meter also...
But, do I *NEED* to buy the AE Prism Finder II for the RZ67 Pro II body?
Or, will the old style AE prism finder work correctly with the RZ67 Pro II body?
I am now seeing conflicting info on another site, though, this one is more trustworthy, APUG
I'll have to post there......Show more →
It's true - Mamiya's products (mostly) are backwards compatible, not the other way around. I guess you ought to ask yourself if you *NEED* a prism at all. They add a lot of weight to an already heavy camera, and there are many other effective ways to meter a scene.
I have both an AE Prism and an older RB prism, both of which fit the RZ, but I never ever used the meter in the metered prism. It just doesn't work worth a crap. You're better off with a handheld meter. My favorite is a Minolta Flashmeter 6 - a simply beautiful device if you can find one.
