Speaking for myself, I see my gear only as the tool kit to create my art, plain and simple. I could probably make do for most of my photography with only a tech cam or only a DSLR. But there are definitely times I like having the speed and portability of the DSLR, and there are other times the only way I can get what I want into the image is by using shifts and/or tilts. One reason I chose the back I chose was precisely because it would allow me to move it between both types of shooting platforms; I knew I would ultimately want movements -- specifically rise and tilt -- and then it took a while for a tech camera to hit the market that had the right layout and feature set to meet my needs.the issue as I see it is the art is getting left behind in favor of the gear on how important that is in the field and in these forums.
So right now, I am finally feeling like I have a reasonably complete photographic tool kit, aside from needing a few more tech focals, that allows me to accomplish almost everything I want to accomplish photographically speaking.
But that's me, and I certainly respect others opinions may vary.
Funny Bob. Enjoy the popcorn, you need some butter. ROTFLMAO
That is the most important, to open the eyes, I agree absolutely with Guy and you here.
However, when it comes to actually take the shot, once one has seen it with the eyes, one better knows the technic and how to use the camera perfectly, being it a (D)SLR or a tech camera, and not start to struggle and to be slowed down by the lack of knowledge.
Totally agree Thierry . Know the technics extremely well so you don't have to think about them when your down to shooting , they just come to you. Tech cams are not the easiest thing to learn either. But don't over overburdened yourself and I see that a lot. I see many people in the field talking to themselves which is fine as they learn the way to conquering these beasts. Give yourself the time to learn them well. Tech cams if you never shot 4x5 or 8x10 view cams in the past are a completely different way of working from the DSLR style.
Tech cameras are pretty easy actually.
just consider an image forming lens and a sensor plane, the rest is derivation.
quod erat demonstrandum
it is much harder when you can't wiggle around the important bits.
I tested the 6x9 hood on the 40HR-W over lunch today and posted the results here -- it seems to work remarkably well: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showth...988#post343988
Sounds good . I have ordered my HR DIGARON-W 4/40 today and with some luck , I might even get that lens till this weekend .
I think , I have an advantage by using the CFV-50 back with the 36x49 sensor size . This makes shifting and shading a little bit more comfortable .
That is at least , what I think and hope .
After I moved to my new location , I could not reinstall my milling machine as well as my lathe yet . So a "hood rework" must be delayed .
Regards . Jürgen .
I have a Tilley hat (and a GH2 and an H4D for snapshots) and a budget lens shade for my Sinar...
I have the standard four - roller blind lens shade for the P2, and I use it on a P2 to P3 conversion bellows to adapt to the P3. You can use the shade on some special bars and a clip, but this is a bit wimpy, so I will use a spare P2 standard to mount the front of the shade ( II could use a spare P3 standard for the rear of the bellows) so I get a full set of movements on the shade (as well as on both standards) in addition to the four adjustable roller blinds. I can use live view to make sure the shade is not too close, and fire the shutter through Phocus mobiles and an iTouch while playing pocket billiards with both hands.
And you have a shiny badge on the bonnet of your Bentley too?
Alpa makes a nice shade that as far as I can tell clamps onto the the outside of the lens barrel. It could be improved if it were a 3x4 aspect ratio rectangle that could be squashed flat for travel. Perhaps a smaller version for the longs?
Regards . Jürgen .
Rodenstock doesn't have a lens shade for the 32 HR lens. The PLS shade from Alpa doesn't work, respectively up to an outer diameter of 75mm.
The 86mm standard ring from Lee, which does not exist for WA, should work, in combination with the WA bellows. We haven't however tested it yet.
It seems that the Sinar solution from the Artec is the best solution for this lens, but I didn't test it either. Peter ("PeterA") can for sure jump in to share his experience.
Art of seeing vs. equiupment talk: I think most people serious about photography understand the importance of the art of seeing, but there are some quite understandable reasons there is so much equipment and technical talk on this forum. First there is a world of books and DVDs which seek to stress composition and the art of seeing. Second, thoughtful time spent on the internet provides access to the study and appreciation of the works of many fine photographers (unfortunately with little discussion by the artist). Third, it is often the technical issues of fumbling with equipment that gets in the way of a focus on the art of seeing. This forum more than any I know fills the void many of us need to explore with the help of those who have experience with equipment issues and the challenges of technical processing issues. It is the sum total of all these things that is needed and on balance this forum fulfills those needs due to the contributions of its members. However, I will say that it might be good to have a thread on the topic of the art of seeing and composition issues with more posting of images and more discussion of those images. The art of seeing is a very subjective topic, and too often when an image is posted, there is not enough discussion of how the composition affects us as viewers and what the althernatives might have been. There is often the typical comments like "great image joe", but not enough discussion of what is so great about the image or our personal preferences relating to the image. A standing thread (which I may have missed) dealing with compositional and art of seeing issues with more input relating to the images posted might be worthy of consideration. Such a thread could be equipment neutral. I stand corrected if I have overlooked such a thread. I know it is scattered everywhere in this forum, but I think many would go to a specific thread dealing with that subject who don't always have the time to wade through all the threads. I am thrilled to be a part of this forum. Charles
Well said Charles. I agree totally and would love to see more of it here as this is what I do on the workshops is teach exactly that. End of the day it's the image that counts how many times have we heard that phrase. But the real question I believe is how the artist created it in there mind.
We already have it folks, that was precisely why we set up the "Images to Share" forum! The idea was to have a place to share images, either to let them stand without comment, or to allow the artist to share their thought process on creating a particular image, all regardless of the gear used to create it. Maybe we need to re-write the sub-title description?
Guy & Jack, since it appears I had not overlooked a specific thread or category on this forum relating to "Composition & Art of Seeing" would it be desireable to have that permanent category? I don't know the mechanics of how it would be done, but it seems to me such a thread or category would be a call to all those who wish to have their specific image discussed or assessed available for comment and alternative opinions. It would also be a place where one could see lots of images and continuing discussions relating to to topics of composition and art of seeing. I really don't need to know what equipment was used to make the image unless it is specifically relevant to composition and art of seeing. It would not make any difference whether the image was macro, black & white, landscape, architectural, portrait, runway, industrial....or whatever. If such a category were listed on this forum it would likely be the first place I would check for new posts and comments. For me it is too time consuming to wade through all the wonderful posts on this forum hoping to find images and comments on the images as they relate to composition and art of seeing. Such a category might also include comments on post processing...but the scope of such a category might need to be closely supervised until it's scope is clearly resolved. The scope of such a category could quickly become too general and thereby defeat its purpose. Charles
Charles is right, it is always welcome to see images, to discuss the make-of like composition, light, contrast, etc ... as well as the "art of seeing", to have different opinions as well as positive discussions on how it could be improved.
On the other hand, I don't think that the tool used is of no relevance at all and that it should be left out of the discussion completely. I do think in the contrary, that the camera is the very first step to get a real motivation to create images. The fun of using a particular camera can contribute a lot, whatever the reason of this fun is: the design, the simplicity of the construction and the mechanics, the features available, the beauty of the camera itself, the touch and feeling of the material, the lens used (for its specificity), etc ..., all can and do contribute to the image-making process and if it is fun or less fun. Bringing fun to this process can only influence the image in a positive way.
That is my opinion, since I know that I am functioning this way, when taking images but also in many other instances. But I know that many others do feel the same for having spoken with a lot of photographers over the world. Not little of them did express their need to like their camera as if it was their little "baby" (when it comes to care of and give it attention).
It may be of no importance to some, even seem to be "stupid" to think so, it is nevertheless the case for many photographers.
I don't say that this camera can produce better images over another, from another brand. What I say is that a particular camera can put us in a different mindset and give us a different motivation to produce and be creative.
And I do not speak specifically about Alpa. I have my preference, sure, but others have their own, for may be the same reasons or then not. And they are all respectable and valuable when it helps and motivates us to get images.
I always post what I used when posting images. For me it is the sharing of data that someone else can learn from or compare to there tool they are using. Since it is a photo forum built around the concept of learning and sharing which I think (bias) GetDPI is known for. It makes sense and many times I may delve into settings and such to give further insight. My theory is people are here to learn and be among people they enjoy talking with. I personally am always open to HOW I created a image. I think we just be more in the mindset of just flat out asking people, if they are posting images than it is too share anyway. I think many folks actually enjoy the questions how and will answer. I guess don't be afraid to ask.
I also prefer knowing "the entire story" behind an image, including the technical details. But I also know that many tend to resist discussing gear and techniques for a variety of reasons when it comes to their art... So I am fine with each sharing as much or little as they choose, to whatever level is comfortable for them.
I did not mean to imply that no reference to the equipment being used should be made, but only to stress the fact that equipment should not become the true subject of the the post; I am just saying the point of the forum topic should be to encourage posting images for discussion on topics of composition and the art of seeing even when the equipment might not be much of the story. In other words even images with point and shoot cameras should find a good home in such a category. So, I agree with those who like to know the whole story as long as the "executive summary" is about the image and thinking of it's maker. Charles