|
Forum: Post Your Photos!
07-16-2019, 03:40 PM
|
| |
I work a lot in film and especially in large format. My 35mm cameras are all Pentax, my favorite being the MX. This one was taken on the venerable K1000 though; with the incredible Pentax-M 35-70mm f2.8, at about 40mm.
https://[img]pbase.com/moltogordo/image/169504588[img].jpg
seems to me I'm doing something wrong . . . . help please? you can access the picture but it's not showing.
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
09-10-2016, 06:24 PM
|
| |
I agree with the above . . . it just works!!! (y) (y)
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
09-10-2016, 06:23 PM
|
| |
Simple and elegant . . . it just works!
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
09-10-2016, 06:22 PM
|
| |
Great capture! A shot that can't help but elicit a smile!
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
09-10-2016, 06:20 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Winners' Showcase
09-10-2016, 06:17 PM
|
| |
What a great capture! Love it!
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
06-26-2016, 02:58 PM
|
| |
The K10 is one camera I've kept. I currently have a K10, a K-S1 and a K3. Pretty happy with this selection. I also have a K100D kicking around somewhere, but my place is organized chaos and I haven't seen it for months! :D I use a lot of old lenses - my mainstay on my K10 is the venerable Sigma 24-60mm f2.8 zoom. It's rarely off the camera. Other favorites are my 35mm Pentax Limited macro f2.8, the Pentax Limited 77mm f1.8, the Pentax-A 50mm f2.8 macro, the Pentax-M 50mm f1.4, and the Pentax-M 200mm f4. Toss in my 17mm Tamron Adaptall, and I can do about anything.
I have one concession to the "other guys". I have a 17mp Rebel because only Canon makes that insanely incredible MP-E lens that operates only at 1x-5x power, turning your camera into a low powered microscope. Wish Pentax would come up with something like that, but I guess there's not a great market. Not even Nikon does, either.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-S1 & K-S2
06-20-2016, 01:20 AM
|
| |
The K-S1 is well on it's way to becoming a legitimate cult camera. I bought one for travel last month, and I'm going to buy another. It's quirks don't bother me much - I'm after simply picture quality, and it's red hot there. As I disable matrix focussing and focus only with central spot, shoot on manual and use a light meter, it's "disadvantages" are irrelevant. If I have to shoot in rain, an umbrella over the tripod works fine. This quirky machine is a big winner IMHO
|
|
Forum: Ask B&H Photo!
02-12-2015, 09:25 PM
|
| |
Chuck:
Thanks for your reply. The back arrived and it fits, and I'm good to go as you said. Thanks a lot.
If I might, I'd like to pester you with one more question. My Linhof Color Kardan is a very nice field camera. Operating on your advice that the international back is universal, I picked up a spare Color Kardan body with perfect bellows and almost perfect cosmetics for $150. I doubt I could replace the bellows for that.
However, it does not have a rotating back. Although a Technika back would be ideal, should any international back fit or be easily modified to fit? I'm pretty sure that would be a lot easier to find and a lot cheaper than getting a Technika back. If so, what would be the best one, and what do have at the store?
Thanks
Gord
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
02-07-2015, 10:40 PM
|
| |
I use ONLY HC110 for HP5, in all formats. I mix it straight from the syrup, 1:63 for 11 minutes. It produces a beautiful negative that prints very well. At this dillution, the grain structure is tighter than D76, the acutance is higher, and the tonal graduation very similar. The 11 minute development time is nice and long allowing for a little lattitude, and I invert 6 times upon filling, and 2 times at the minute for the remainder of the development.
If you let your developer stand for 24 hours before use, you might have exhausted solution. Use it immediately upon mixing.
Here is a picture I did around 1976 with HP5 and the 1:63 dilution. 35mm HP5, Nikon F3, 85mm Nikkor f1.4 at 1/125th and f8. This is a scanned 5x7 print on Luminos silk, so the sharpness is not there, but you can see the tonal graduation.
Here is a shot with the same developer dilution on HP5, on a Toyo 45A 4x5 field camera.
HC110 keeps forever, and is very flexible. It's one of three developers I use. The other two are Rodinal and Xtol. Hope this helps.
|
|
Forum: Ask B&H Photo!
02-02-2015, 03:01 AM
|
| |
I have just been given a Horseman 6x9 back (451) by a friend. It's on the way from Ontario. Will this fit my Linhof Kardan, or can it be modified to do so? If not, I'm actually thinking of picking up a used 4x5 just to use it.
Thanks.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-27-2015, 04:02 AM
|
| |
They seem to be up there for me . . . . . I do hope they appear. I used the [IMG] url .jpg[/IMG] format from the link at PBase and this is the first time I've had a 'no show' :(
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-27-2015, 12:39 AM
|
| |
:( Guess I'd have to put it on my Rebel T3ii. That wouldn't be the end of the world. I do have the 77mm f1.8, the Pentax-M 35-70 f2.8, and the Pentax-M 50mm f1.4, so I'm not hurtin' that bad.
But that new 24-70 would sure make a dynamite outdoor people lens.
---------- Post added 01-26-15 at 11:41 PM ----------
Definitely agree . . . I think any zoom like the one being considered is a handheld, outdoor tool. Indoors, the 77mm f1.8 don't come off my camera! :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-27-2015, 12:13 AM
|
| |
Hmmmm . . . . . . back in my day, I'd never even HEARD of the word bokeh. I mean, I had subscriptions to Modern Photography, PopPhoto, Outdoor Photographer, Shutterbug . . . . heck, didn't know what it was until about three or four years ago! We simply blurred the background to enhance the subject.
However, whatever the case may be, now we have bokeh. My own opinion (I'm rather an opinionated guy) is that if you look at the bokeh, then the picture's no good. You're supposed to look at the subject. That being the case, every once in a while, something interesting happens.
Here's one of those times: I bought a Yashica 44 for my collection about 9 years ago, and ran a film through it. I conduct a large amateur orchestra in Prince George, the "Northern Orchestra of BC." I invited my attractive flute section over for a sectional rehearsal, and thought I'd take a picture of them to see how the camera worked. Loaded up a roll of Efke 127, and shot the following picture, setting the aperture at f5.6 to blur the background as much as I could in the light I had. Notice the "Swirly" bokeh.
Well, quite frankly, it was caused by a loose front lens element, which I subsequently tightened. And then I found out that swirly bokeh is all the rage, and that people will pay a fortune for a crappy lens that has an abberation. But try as I could, I couldn't get my 60mm Yashinon to re-swirly!!!! It's now a nice, fairly sharp lens that blurs the background normally. But at least I have this picture!!!! :D
My next bokeh adventure concerns the Sears 135mm f2.8 Macro-Zone lens. A cult classic, if you put it at f4 or wider, and in macro mode, it produces an Orton effect. This abberation makes this lens more valuable than it was when it sold for about a hundred bucks back in the 1970's, when the reviews by Herbie and the boys just said that it was a very good telephoto but sucked at macro. Of course, I had to have one, and it does indeed do parlour tricks. I paid $175 for it, and no you may not have it.
Okay, so am I a bokeh convert? Am I going to spend extra money for a lens with a great "bokeh" so I can blur the background? Well, I already have. But I still want my photos (especially portraits) to have eyes drawn to the face, not swirlybugs or fuzzball Orton effects. But for what ever reason, YES, some lenses just take pictures that look better. What is it? More blades? Coating magic? Odd element placement?? I've heard it all and don't know. For the record, the lenses I own that produce the nicest photos of faces are the Pentax-M 50mm f1.4 on the Cmos sensor:
Kian, Pentax K10D, 1/125 at f5.6, on XP2, which I love for 35mm B&W portraits at ASA 200 because it is virtually grainless (scanned 4x6 machine print)
The Pentax 77mm f1.8 Limited, which, in addition to being exceptional for portraits, is also fantastic for isolating large subjects and keeping the background in check (Pentax K10D, 1/250th at f2.0, ISO 400)
And the two best macro lenses I've ever owned, the Pentax-A 50mm f2.8 (1/125th at f8)
And the Kilfitt 40mm f3.5 macro (Exa 1, 1/60th at f4, XP2 film, scanned 5x7 print on Arista Edu Grade 3
Do these lenses possess a great bokeh which makes them exceptional, or are they just great lenses? Maybe a bit of both.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
01-26-2015, 05:17 PM
|
| |
I have the 24-60mm f2.8 Sigma - great lens. A 24-70mm f2.0 would be better, perhaps about the perfect lens for modelling photo shoots. Yes, it'll be big, but on a camera like the K3, it should balance well. The f2.0 aperture would be incredible for heads.
I'm in line to buy one!
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
01-22-2015, 10:52 PM
|
| |
Arista Premium is good developer and acts and looks just like D76. It'll work for you. Ilford Perceptol is very similar to Microdol X and is readily available. IMHO Kodak Xtol is better than the lot of them for most purposes, and is cheaper in use, to boot. It's like D7 on steroids. Try it next time. Take the 5 litre it mixes, and put them in 5 - one litre bottles. It can be used over again (1 litre stock solution will do about 8 films safely), and in 1:1 to 1:3 dilutions it acts as an acutance developer and is just great, especially with TMax films.
I'd get yourself some negative sleeves, and a used Paterson contact print frame if you wanted to view the negatives. and especially if you plan eventually to do some printing. The Paterson frame is also mighty fine for making 4x5 or 5x7 contact prints off of large format negatives.
Because I have 2 enlargers and love printing, I opted to avoid film scanners when I got back into film. I like darkroom work too much. However, if you go the negative scanning route, there are lots of guys here who can give you solid advice.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
01-22-2015, 10:34 PM
|
| |
Either will suit your purpose. Many folks (myself included) use HC110 as a one shot, mixing various dilutions from the syrup itself. I use it exclusively for HP5+, at 1:63 for 12-14 minutes. A marriage made in Heaven. The syrup itself lasts for years. For Pictorial use, this combination is hard to beat. Here's an example, taken in 1984 with a Nikon F3 and a Nikkor 85mm f2 lens. HC110 would be my choice for pictorial use, even over D76. At this dilution it has very smooth graduation and high acutance. This is a scanned 5x7 print on Luminos paper, Y surface. Real vintage stuff!
I use a lot of Rodinal, too, mostly at either 1:25 (FP4, TMax 100) for pictorial and portrait use in low contrast situations: (Exakta RTL, Auto Aragon 100mm f2.8 lens, 1/20th at f4, FP4 in Rodinal 1:25), scanned 8x10 print on Ilford Galerie
or 1:50 (Fomapan 400, Tri-X). I use these ASA 400 films with Rodinal when I want maximum impact: (Konica Autoreflex, 50mm f3.5 Hexanon macro, 1/125th at f5.6, Tri-X in Rodinal at 1:50, scanned 5x7 print on Arista 5x7 Grade 3. This is a lumber kiln in Prince George, BC
Remember that different developers have different effects on different films. Then impact of Rodinal and Tri-X is exceptional. In Rodinal, HP5 is not nearly as pronounced.
In addition to these two develpers, I also use Xtol, especially with T grain films, and D76, which I like with FP4 for landscapes in medium format.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
01-22-2015, 01:30 PM
|
| |
I've done all of that stuff recommended since the beginning - camera on M, everything disabled, never use the pop-up flash, central AF point only . . . . did that on my K100D, my Kx, my K10D, my Nikon D50, and my Canon Rebel T3i . . . . and will do it with my K3 when I get it.
Just seems so silly to have to buy all that crappola when a bare bones will do. I will, however, have to look into that Leica! Never had one!
I have lots of film cameras from sub-miniature to 4x5, and use them still regularly for B&W. As a matter of fact, here's a shot I took last month with a Konica Autoreflex, 50mm f3.5 Hexanon macro, 1/125th at f5.6, Tri-X in Rodinal at 1:25: "Lumber Kiln, River Road, Prince George."
I don't do digital conversions - B&W is on film, period. And I print these, and then scan the prints. The above is a 5x7 print on Arista Edu Grade 3, ferrotyped. And it looks great in real life. I use my DSLRs for color only. Yeah, I've got those converter programs, blah blah blah.
I just love the smell of Dektol in the morning!!!
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
01-22-2015, 01:14 PM
|
| |
I'll experiment with those, but it looks like UFRaw will do what I want - I don't need to import a folder, my preference is to work on each image individually.
It's interesting to see that Linux users are really an independent and creative bunch that always comes up with a solution that works for them! :D
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
01-22-2015, 02:14 AM
|
| |
Tuco: Yes, I actually am, but I'm not there very often. I'm just getting back into film so I'll probably pop up there soon.
I think by the time you get to 4x5 and printing with those big negatives you have pretty much found what works for you. It's simply not beginners' territory. But digital threw us all for a loop. I went for 4 or 5 years just learning the medium so I could wade around in it. My final decision has been to use digital for color and film for B&W, and I feel very comfortable with this decision. As my real love is in the B&W darkroom, I've never really been a total equipment freak, because I knew the final results came in that little room, and a guy with skills there could make a neg from a Konica come out better than a guy with no skills and his Leica. But we all know that. I suppose this darkroom thing made me a half-frame freak . . . I was always so fond of showing off prints made with my Pen F using Kodachrome 25 or Panatomic X developed in FG7 and printed on Cibachrome or Galerie, to medium format and high end camera guys who had their C41s developed and printed in 1 hour photo and went into paroxisms of rage over whose privy member was bigger!:lol:
I'm fond of scanning prints because that means I've made them! :) I'm certain better images can be made with scanning negs and inkjet printers, but my English side says "I've always done it this way, and will continue to do so!" I also have a 4x5 Chromega XL enlarger, and I really would like to get more use out of it with my 4x5 Linhof and the 6x7 back as well.
I'm also fond of tweaking a RAW file in the photo program to get the best image I can - turns my crank more than the actual photo process itself! Guess it's the way I'm built.
Never tried pyro. Most of my darkroom time was spent with half-frame, and I lived in a time of plenty, so never got into muzzle loading or longbows! ;-) However, now that I'm older and wiser, I might take a crack at it!!!
I also have an overwhelming desire to get into 5x7 for making contact prints! Yes, I know that I should do 8x10 for this, but the 5x7 print size somehow does it for me - again, probably from my half-frame fixation. I settled upon this as my "standard" enlargement. I mean, let's face it. How many 16x20 or 20x24 sized prints can we fit on our walls?? :D
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
01-20-2015, 01:05 AM
|
| |
A gravel pit near Spences Bridge, BC.
 |
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
01-19-2015, 11:47 PM
|
| |
What I want in a Pentax (or any other) flagship camera. A fully manual, match-needle DSLR of minimum 30MP, no modes, no flash, no frills - just a shutter, aperture, top-notch sensor, minimalist menu, on/off switch autofocus with only a central focussing dot, absolutely solid, a DSLR version of a Topcon RE Super or an Alpa. Don't care if it's a Cmos or full sensor. Just the most basic, beautiful, and toughest camera ever made. Weather sealing would be the icing on the cake.
Dream on, Gord, dream on.
Does ANYONE else out there even sympathize, or am I alone?? :(
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
01-19-2015, 02:51 PM
|
| |
Photography has been my hobby for over 55 years, and I recently did a little on-line exhibition for some students, making this little thown-off still life into a graphics display poster (can't find the good copy :( but you get the idea) of my 3 favorite using film cameras and the films I use. As I collect cameras, I have no shortage of machines to choose from. These are the ones you'd have to pry from my cold, dead fingers. The MX has been extolled by others, so I shall not dwell on it. I shoot a lot of half-frame. The Oly Pen FT is the obvious choice. It's also rock solid and a sexy little beast. I have an Exakta to Pen adapter, so I have dozens of lenses available to me I can use on my Pen. And the Mamiya C330 is a workhorse, with vastly underrated optics. One stop down, my 135mm f4.5 betters the 'blad lenses I had. My first camera was a TLR, so I have no problem working with them - as a matter of fact, they turn my crank!
Sorry for the quality of this little mock-up. I can't find the final copy!!
While the LX was Pentax's moment in the sun 35mm wise, I preferred the MX, and when digital came around I went Pentax for obvious reasons. I also had a 645, which I sold to by a car which I needed more. Regret it still, and will be getting a 645 soon, which to my mind was the perfect camera.
I also use a Linhof Kardan 4x5, but that's another world.
Back to the MX - I have 4 of them, two K1000s, two Spotmatics, an LX, an Sl 500, and some other electric gizmo (PX or something like that) which is buried in the basement and shall stay there. It's okay, but I never had a feeling for those electronic "transitional" cameras. I have about 19 Pentax lenses, including the 77mm f1.8 Limited, the 50mm M f1.4, the 35mm f2.8 and the 200mm f4, which are amongst my favorites, as well as bucketloads of off brands and Tamrons, so I'm not lens poor. Letting you know one of my other quirks, I dislike zooms intensely. I have only two that I use on a regular basis, one the 24-60mm f2.8 Sigma EF, which sits on my K10. Why I like it, I can't specify, but I actually love it. Maybe it's the range of focal lengths, maybe its the wide aperture, maybe it's because it's tack sharp and has practically no distortion. Why don't I like zooms? I take poor pictures with them, racking in and out framing, rather than walking around to get the best angle and the best picture. Maybe my Sigma with it's tiny range, makes me treat it like a prime. Zooms simply make for lazy photographers.
I'm never without an MX body loaded with B&W film in my gadget bag. What lenses I take depends on what I'm shooting. The next two photos are my favorite MX user, and a photo taken with it (Fomapan 400, Pentax-M 50mm f4 macro, film developed in Xtol stock, exposure 1/125th at f5.6) Scanned 5x7 print on Arista Edu Grade 3
 |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
01-19-2015, 02:11 PM
|
| |
I'd agree with pretty much everything you said - I've always been a printer, and confess I haven't yet explored ink printing except on the most cursory level. I do like the challenge of matching film/developer/paper to get the result I want, and a silver print does have an exquisite quality that nothing can duplicate. The freezing swamp shot, for instance - I printed an 8x12 enlargement on 11x14 glossy paper, ferrotyped it, then trimmed and framed it. It really is something else.
As I have the print, I scan them. Not really interested in negative scanning - it's too homogeneous and doesn't have the personality of the film/developer/print result.
And I've yet to see anything that can match an 11x14 or 16x20 from a 4x5 negative or transparency. I'm sure it's out there, but I haven't seen it yet.
I'm pretty sure that they'll eventually be separate "arts", like lithograph and line drawing . . .
But we have to keep learning - so next year's Christmas present to myself is going to be one of those new Canon Pixma pro jobs. :lol:
|
