Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: dbrugger25
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 37 next>>
May 2, 2024 09:47:58   #
robertneger wrote:
I want to use my old 500 CM. The best photos I have taken were with this camera. I just inherited a Bronica GS1 with a 6 x 7 back, so I have two medium format film cameras.
1. What would you do?
2. Should I have the film professionally developed and scanned, if so, auto-versus- custom scans?
3. Should I have the film developed only and photograph it on my copy stand with a macro-lens on a high MP 35mm camera?
4. Should I develop film myself (only black and white)-I still have a darkroom?
5. Is it better to photograph film on a copy stand with a 35mm or use a flat bed scanner? if so which scanner?
6. Should I spend a fortune and buy a digital back (my wife doesn't read UH)?
In a quandary and need some help
Thank you,
Bob
I want to use my old 500 CM. The best photos I hav... (show quote)


I would process the film myself and buy a high res scanner like the Epson V850. I know they are expensive but they are capable of scanning any size film and ship with a large selection of film holders.
Go to
May 2, 2024 09:29:25   #
If you accept the offer of the trucking company it may be considered a settlement in-full. Compensation for any physical or equipment damage discovered later might be denied. That is not to imply that the trucking company has any ill will towards you but their insurance company has lawyers who might adopt the view that you accepted the new lens as consideration, and settlement of any claims. The one job of insurance company lawyers is to minimize losses.

It was wise to file a police report. Make sure you have documented all short-term and possible long-term consequences of your body injuries and hire a lawyer to protect your interests.

It is sad that we live in a world of litigation, but we do and you need to protect your interests. You said that your wrist was already compromised prior to the incident. If being hit somehow made the injury worse, or permanent, you have a very significant legal issue to resolve.

I sincerely wish you well.
Go to
Apr 30, 2024 09:31:12   #
wdross wrote:
If I am right, it is a "potato masher" similar to what Weegee used. A 4X5 camera with a rather large flash attached. I do not believe it had an internal metering system. And I am not sure how easy it was to attach a filter to it. If I am correct, one would only need a linear polarizer but a circular polarizer could also be used. And I do not know if one could be modified for internal metering and what such would be and look like. Therefore the answer to the question has to cover "all bases".
If I am right, it is a "potato masher" s... (show quote)


Press photographers most frequently used powerful bulb flashes for indoor and night shots. In studios, hot incandescent lighting was used. In the late 1950s, Graphex Corp. introduced a flash head that would mount on their bulb flash handles. It was powered by a heavy lead-acid battery pack that was carried on the photographer's shoulder. Then Honeywell developed the Strobinar flash that mounted like the bulb flashes and had internal batteries. It produces good light but the cycle time between flashes was long.

Taking photos was slow because the film was housed it carriers that contained two sheets of film in a plastic or wood frame with a lightproof feature. You had to insert the film carrier under a spring-loaded back that held it tightly against the back of the camera. Then you had to pull the cover out to make the film available for exposure. After taking the photo, you slid the cover back in place, removed the carrier, flipped it over and repeated the process to expose the other sheet of film on the opposite side.

As you can imagine, the photographer had to lug a number of those two sided carriers around along with the big camera, flash bulbs and "D" size batteries. Being a photographer was a lot of work.

Even though they don't look that way, the Graphic cameras were rugged. A lot of war correspondents used them. When not in use, they could be collapsed and closed-up to make them easier to carry.

If you google "Speed Grapgic Cameras" or "Crown Graphic Cameras" you will find pictures, descriptions and You Tube presentations about them. They were part of a great era of photography history.

They now sell on the used market for far more than they cost new in their era.
Go to
Apr 29, 2024 21:05:29   #
If you watch movies made during the 1950's and earlier, the Crown Graphic and Speed Graphic are the big bulky "press Cameras" that you see. Most reporters of that era used them in the 4" X 5" format. The majority had a f:4.7 or f:4.5 lenses. They took very high quality photos but the photographer had to get in close for news, sports and human interest photos because there were no zoom lenses for the Graphic cameras. They are fantastic for landscape photos.
Go to
Apr 29, 2024 13:51:16   #
DirtFarmer wrote:
The problem with linear polarizers on cameras is not whether they are film or digital cameras. The problem arises from the fact that light reflected from a dielectric surface can be partially polarized (without using a polarizing filter). In fact early polarizers were just stacks of glass at angles that polarized the light.

Since light can be polarized on reflection, and since autofocus systems on cameras depended on light that was bounced around from mirrors and through various prisms to the autofocus sensor, the use of polarized light meant that the light that reached the autofocus system could be polarized in a different direction from unpolarized light that entered the camera. That could potentially cause errors in the autofocus system.

Using circularly polarized light mitigates this problem because circularly polarized light does not change polarization direction on reflection. That means that it acts like unpolarized light when it comes to the autofocus system. But since the outer half of a circular polarizer is a linear polarizer, it affects the light entering the camera just as a linear polarizer would. The second half of the circular polarizer is a quarter wave plate, which produces a quarter wave delay in one of the polarization components coming through the filter. This means the electric vector of the light wave is not constrained to one direction (as a linearly polarized wave would be) but has two components with a 90 degree phase difference, so the electric vector travels in a circular fashion. Hence the term 'circular polarization'. https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/user-page?upnum=3002

Autofocus systems were developed for film cameras late in the film era and digital cameras took them as a standard feature.

I suspect the effect on autofocus systems is small so that a linear polarizer will work on a modern camera. There is the possibility of focus errors, which I have not evaluated. I took a quick look a couple decades ago and didn't see any effect but it was not a real definitive study.

Note that a circularly polarizing filter will act as a linearly polarizing filter if it is reversed. The quarter wave plate will do nothing important to the light, leaving the linear polarizing component of the filter to do all the work.

Your Crown Graphic will work with either a circular or a linear polarizer (my old Speed Graphic did not have autofocus). Linear polarizers may be cheaper, but since circular polarizers are THE thing to use these days, linear polarizers may be in shorter supply (and therefore higher prices) than the circular polarizers.

PS: 'Disturbing patterns' probably refers to Moiré patterns, which arise from patterns in an image interfering with the square rectangular grid of sensors in a digital camera. They have nothing at all to do with polarizers. It is purely a geometric effect. It is not a problem with film because the film grain is arranged in a random pattern.
The problem with linear polarizers on cameras is n... (show quote)


I really appreciate your intelligent response. It is the first good one I have read. Unlike some others, you just imparted knowledge without stooping to insult in or demeaning the question. Thank you
Go to
Apr 28, 2024 19:19:43   #
I posted the original question and appreciate the responses.
Go to
Apr 28, 2024 11:27:39   #
Longshadow wrote:
I thought one needed a circular polarizer because a linear polarizer buggers the auto-focus system, not because of "patterns".


I might be wrong but I thought that, since the sensor has a certain pixel pitch and the polarizer has a different linear pitch, a morae pattern will be generated. It will probably be noticed in the final photo and the pattern will also confuse the autofocus system.
Go to
Apr 28, 2024 09:52:15   #
I know that for digital photography circular polarizers are necessary to prevent disturbing patterns.

Do circular polarizers work properly with film? Is there any known downside?

I have an old Crown Graphic 4 X 5 with an f:4.7 Schnider lens and would like to use a polarizing filter on it.
Go to
Apr 25, 2024 14:10:21   #
dmeyer wrote:
With so many people posting the question of whether it's worth it to buy into a new camera system, I thought I'd add my two cents worth on how I arrived at my own decision. I have gone kicking and screaming into all new technology, and DSLR to mirrorless is no exception. I have loved my D750's and been very happy with the handling and image output. BUT, my photography is limited to trips once or twice a year by plane into areas where blowing sand seems to be the norm...so, no changing lenses in the field for me! As a result, I have traveled with two camera/lens combos for years. Age has caught up with me and I just can't handle the weight (or bulk) of carrying a lot of gear through the airports anymore. Remembering how much fun travel with the D5300 (APS-C) and the popular 18-200mm lens was years ago, Nikon's Z24-200mm lens got stuck on my radar as a possible solution to a lighter travel option. Having gotten spoiled to full-frame, I decided the Z5 (well suited for landscape photography) with that lens was worth the headache of learning the new menu and operation, and I bit the bullet. For me, staying with a familiar Brand and researching performance reviews of the equipment until I found what satisfies my shooting style, has produced a package that weighs less than half what I had been carrying and takes up a third of the space in my carry-on at the airport, and, with IBIS plus VR, requires less need of the tripod. Plus, I won't set off on foot, only to realize I have the wrong focal length lens with me and have to return to the car to change out my combo. (I did also purchase the FTZii lens adapter, though, in order to still have access to my primes for special events like shooting the Milky Way, etc.) But the icing on the cake, is that I discovered I could get surprisingly good (printable) images from my Galaxy S24+, so now I am all set to travel light for my next photography trip and be ready to grab whatever pops into view. Now, if the weather just cooperates, lol!
With so many people posting the question of whethe... (show quote)


Buy a hard case with an extension handle and wheels. Pelican makes a great one and it fits into an airplane overhead compartment. I have taken mine on many trips.
Go to
Apr 24, 2024 11:36:55   #
jerryc41 wrote:
Park? Park? Shirley, you jest. đŸ¤£

I have seldom gotten on-street parking in Manhattan. Instead, I pay too much at a parking garage.


Stop calling him Shirley! His name is Jerry.
Go to
Apr 24, 2024 10:54:49   #
Longshadow wrote:
Welcome to the forum.

If you can get to a camera shop and hold some and see how they feel, the control access, and how they function, that may be helpful in deciding.
Keep in mind that most people are biased to what they use, for various reasons.


I have found that camera store salespeople are usually biased in favor of particular brands.

I recommend that you visit a store, handle various cameras, take photos of them with your smart phone and take notes. Then, go home and read many reviews of the brands and models that interest you. You can then make the decision.

You can go back to the store or buy from Amazon, or B and H or Adorama. You can also consider a used camera or refurbished camera from one of the previously mentioned sources or MPB, KEH or Roberts.
Go to
Apr 22, 2024 15:30:26   #
CHG_CANON wrote:
The only people shooting film in 2024 are fossils, the idle rich and hipsters from Brooklyn.


I am not a hipster but perhaps, at age 79 a fossil. I am very much into digital, having a Canon 5DMK4, an R5 and an R7 and many Canon lenses.

That being said, I have fond memories of shooting B & W film and doing my own processing. I had a Crown Graphic 4 X 5 and a Rolleiflex 2.8 D. I never relinquished the Rollei and am currently having it expertly restored. I recently bought and restored a Crown Graphic 4 X 5 "Special", and it looks and works like new.

I plan on doing my own processing of film and printing my photos in a darkroom. I will enjoy the process and will also keep doing digital. Film just gives another dimension to the art of photography. It is all good.
Go to
Apr 18, 2024 14:05:25   #
Sidwalkastronomy wrote:
Your still out the return postage.
For camera purchase I would stick with a reputable camera store like b and h


I wanted a Crown Graphic 4 X 5. Good ones are hard to find. I finally bought two at good prices and combined the best parts. I ended-up with one almost like new, working camera. I had a job repairing those cameras when I was in high school, so I know a lot about them.
Go to
Apr 18, 2024 09:06:09   #
TRAVLR38 wrote:
I am interested in purchasing a used camera using E-Bay. I have never used the site before, and have several questions.
1. How do you know the item is actually as described?
2. If necessary, is there a way to send the item back and get a refund?
3. Are there any possible problems in dealing with E-Bay?
4. If so, how avoid them?
If any of you who have dealt with E-Bay have any advice, I would be pleased to hear it.
Thanks in advance.


I purchased a camera on eBay that was described as pristine and complete and fully working. When I got it the camera was cosmetically beautiful but there were mechanical and optical problems and some missing components which were hidden in the photos.

The seller posted that she wouldn't accept returns, but eBay forced her to accept it and fully refund my money. I did ship it back at my expense.
Go to
Apr 18, 2024 08:49:42   #
All these estimates of the number of stars in a galaxy and the estimates of the numbers of galaxies brings me to one conclusion. No matter what the astrophysicists and cosmologists say, it is obvious that the "Big Bang Theory" is an impossible pile of crap.
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 37 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.