I did not participate in Bill's thread, not because it is not interesting- it's always good to see what other successful photographers are doing even if it is differet, off-beat, or opposite from waht you do or what YOU like. It's LEARNING- it's ideas, it waht to do or what not to do depending on your perception, taste, and style. You look at it you can emulate it, use a litt of it, agree within, disagree, or forget about it- it's all at your option! All good!

The reason I no longer comment on these kinds of posts is they usually bring on a lot of disdain for professional photograhers, with unnecessarily harsh criticisms, and inferences that many professionals are not to truly professional standards and a litany of folks trying to define professionals as hacks who are just fortunate enough to get paid for their work.

Photography is not licensed by professionals like doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants, etc. We don't deal in life, death, safety, or our client's finances or well-being. We provide a service and a product in many diverse areas. Even in the licensed professions, there are the good, the bad, and the ugly- there are hacks and quacks but hopefully, they are in the minority and are disqualified when they are found out.

I have been in the photography business all my work life and yes, there are some bad apples, hacks, and flashes in the pan that gain some novel notoriety and then crash. There are a lot of pros who "made a big time" and deservedly so, remain at the top for a long time. There are many hard-working (working stiffs) who do incredibly excellent work in small communities or behind the scenes in the advertising business but they exceed improve, sustain, and carry on becse their work is consistent, of the highest quality, and they are honest and reliable. The hacks and charlatans, eventually go by the wayside- they do not last very long in the business.

This silliness of professionals doing major assignments or highly paid work with low-grade gear is all hypothetical and hyperbolic. In all my years I have never seen a serious pro work with inferior or inappropriate equipment. I have seen them work with extremely stripped-down and simple but reliable equipment and come up with great stuff without all the gadgetry.

In many circles, the client is paying for waht it is in the photographer's heart, head, and mind, not mainly for what is in his or her camera bag. Hopefully, they will go by your reputation, good word of mouth, and your portfolio, not your inventory list that you supply to your insurance company.

Too much technobabble! If that new Android is worth considering the OP should just POST a few images at various zoom settings. The proof of the pudding is in the tasting!

security folks at concert venues and ote places where "professional" photography is prohibited are not necessarily or usually photographers or photo enthusiasts. If they see you with an impressive camera and lens- they consider you a pro.

The images of famous entertainers are a commodity and the performers and the agencies and companies own their images and want to control them, get paid for them, or place them where THEY want them to be placed or published. Thereis all kinds of legal mumbo-jumbo but they have the right to restrict access to photographers.

Venue and talent managers are also concerned about photographers getting into the line of sight of audience members or causing a disturbance.

I have a revolutionary idea. If you are extremely interested in shooting a particular concert- GET PERMISSION! Go to your local newspaper and volunteer to cover the event for them- you may get a one-time press credential. If it is a municipal arena, go to the city hall or mayor's office and offer a shoot for them. I have done these things and gained access, In one case I got to shoot a full rehearsal.

Network with the lighting supplier, write a letter tothe management, well in advance, and indicate that you are a big fan and will not commercialize the images.

If all else fails, just go and enjoy the music- shoot with your cell phone- I doubt if anyone will bother you.

Years ago, I shot in some Montreal Jazz Clubs- big names. The performers needed new pictures and I scored an album cover and hundreds of lobby (glossy) prints. Grover Wasington Jr., Art Blakey, and Charles Mingus, to name a few.

Last sho a 2 AM- everybody is into it- you could run across the stage half naked witg a caomera around your neck and nobody would notice you- well maybe the bouncer!

It's a FIELD CAMERA. It's a bit like a view camer but does not have all the typical view camera movements for perspective control and increasing Depth of field via the Scheimpflug Principle. The mod in the OP image may have a few of those adjustments.

Back in the day, 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 was a standard sheet film size. Even Graflex made several "miniature" press camers and large format SLRs in that format.

There were a few companies manufacturing those wooden bodies, perhaps B&J, Deardorf field cameras (high-end), and Wista, however, the one in the image is not one of those as per its construction. There were kits sold whereby one con assemble the own field camera and some were entirely homemade. This one may have been constructed from a kit or a striped-down model where the brand or logo fell off overthe the years.

The shutters are a pneumaticly timed model that was invented in the late 1890s and this type was manufactured into the 1940s. I think Wollensac was the inventor and the original producer. The Aldis lens was made in the UK. The 3/4 form was popular because if the les was desig to cover 4x5 there wouldd be plenty of coverage left over the rising front without the problem of vignetting.

Wild guess- it may be from the 1920s.

Thankfully, sys my lovely wife, I am not a camer collector. She already thinks I am a hoarder. I have run across these camers here and there but I am no expert in design and value.

You can get some 4x5 film and trim it down. You may be surprised at the quality of some of that old glass. Some of them have a soft ethereal look!

There are no hard and fast rules. If you are good at composition YOu will know where to place the subject in the frame, how much negative space to include if any, and many other components for effective and dynamic composition. You may want to "fill the frame or not!

Also- common sense dictates that if you are shootg wildlife, unless you have every possible lens from Maco to super telephoto, there are going to be times when you need to resort to cropping. If you are shooting a rapidly moving animal or a bird in flight, you may opt for a loose treatment and leave some space for fine-tuning composition.

Also- if you don't have a super telephoto lens do you want to get close up and personal with an unhappy lion, a charging elephant, or a gorilla? Do you want to climb a tree to get a closeup of a bird?

Do your best to capture the shot with what you have at your disposal. With today's gear and careful shooting, it's surprising waht you can get for a "section" of a file. Not every show will be featured in National Geographic but you'll get something!

Ever since I "came back to the world" from Vietnam, I shied away from firearms. Well, For many reasons over the years- kids in the house, etc. My wife is not into weapons and I do not want to shoot anyone in civilian life- gets messy!

I now live in Canada where conseled or open-carry of handguns by unauthorized personnel is strictly prohibited. Simpe law- carry heat- go directly to jail! If you do target shooting, the guns have to be kept in a lockbox, inaccessible to the driver, on the way to the range or club!

The problem is, even up here in the NORTH country, criminal activity is on the increase- street violence, murders, muggings, armed robberies, carjackings, hate crimes, and worse are all happening.

There are times when I miss my.45 ACP that would fit snuggly in my camer bag- ALAS! . I did, however, manage to hang on to my M-724 Switchblade and some othere rather large interesting cutlery. I did manage to scare off a few bad guys under the threat of some unauthorized surgery"!

If things get worse, I'll have to get a 3-D Printer and make myself a Glock!

Please do tell my wife about the blade in my camera bag. She knows that a Swiss Army Knife does not have a blood groove! The big knife fits in the bag, just neexy to the Billy Club (old NYPD Issue)

Little known fact: The really old Press 40 and Press-50 Flashlamps were designed for flash guns with a maximum of about 5 volts of battery power or 22.5 Volts with a BC battery insert. When the photograhers started to screw them into light sockets with 110 Volts, after a few electrical fires and damage, the manufacturers put a fuse in the lamp base to cut the circuit within the lamp so there would be no short circuit in the line.

In the 1970s I would light a large factory floor for photography by substituting all the 150 and 200-watt light bulbs with Press 50 Blue flashlamps, opening the shutter (B) flipping on the light switch and the lighing looked perfectly natural. Exposus was f/22 or f/32 on ISO 100 film.

Leftover bulbs would be used to pull pranks around the house. 50,000 Lumins in the bathroom and 7 AM would cause a bit of havoc!

I think that some of the folks who post onthis thread are superimposing too much technology on a simple production required that has more to do with pricing and transmitting images as opposed to the ethics of journalism.

I believe there are two types of "news" publications, straightforward and honest publications and "rags" ! The first kid practices journalism and the latter "yellow journalism which is not factual but fakery, ridiculous sensationalism, gossip, and smut.

Mostof the authenticity or falsehoods take place in the writing and dishonesty altered images accompany the bad copy. Accurate documentary reporting is usually accompanied by authentic photography.

No doubt, many time-honored newspapers,s and publications do have ideological linings that show up in the editorial content but that is no secret. Folks who read them know what they are getting. The rags are not NEWS, they are weird entertainment!

As for photojournalists and news shooters- put the technicalities of RAW vs. Jpeg aside. Forget about how the image is "processed" in the camera or therafter. Think more about how the image is "processed" or approached in the photographer's brain. Even a slight change in viewpoint, focal length, or what is included or omitted from the "frame" can all tell very differet stories. The picture editor can crop something out of an image but can not honestly reinsert waht may have been left out.

In the olden days, the news services and papers were kida standardized on 8x10 or so glossy prints- not matte, not textured no too small or too large. The wire serves placed the prits on a drum- scanner-like device and the images were received on a similar device at the newspapers printed on Newsprint with a 55-line screen.

The large study boo from the Ne York Institute of Photogahy. That school did residential and correspondence courses in practical professional photography. They hey frequently advertised in most of photography magazines.

The teachers were excellent, the courses were practical and to the point. The proof of their effectiveness is he turns out many successful photograher of the day. There were three such schools in New Yor City- NYI, Germain, and the Schoo of Moden Photogahy. My recollections of these schools go back to the 1050s and '60s.

There were no hyperbolic claims in the ads. If you did the work you got the knowledge. If you had the tal you could succeed. I don't know if these are any equivalent nowadays.

The smaller books were common at most public libraries under the Dewey Decmil code of 770. Pretty basic stuff in easy-to-understand language.

The Flas Paper Sheet was an improvement over flash powder. Like today's laundry dryer sheets are more convenient than liquid fabric softeners. You didn't need to measure out of the fash powder for the T-Gun. An excessive amount could cause a firey accident. It was those days' versions of TTL

When I was a kid, I helped clean outhe basement of a defunct camera store. I found a shoe-box-sized package of those envelopes. I took them to school and distributed the envelope to a few friends and we lit them lit them in class. Bad idea- but it was funny athe time, that's until we were all sent to othe "office" and the principal said were we all a bunch of pyromaniacs and "next time" he would turn the matter over to the police.

The Hawkeye was my first KODAK Bakelite twin-lens "medium format" camera. 620 film, drugstore Jumbo prits, not bad for a one-element fixed lens.

The 35mm camera? Can't tell- in the 1950s there were dozens of 35s, scale focus, and viewfinder. Many domestic modes and some from Germany.

It's simple. If you submit images to Reuters or any othere news agency or publication you have to conform to their requirements. It is not a RAW vs. Jpeg argument. They want files that are compatible with their printing and transmission methods and those of their subscribers. They do not want to post-process or convert your submissions. It is not a "movement" or anti-RAW cult or an attempt to influence photograher who are shooting for their purposes, art, or enjoyment of any particular method.

Lesson learned- Don't hang all kinds of unnecessary stuff on your camera! Keep the lens cap in your pocket or buy a spare. It's cheaper than a repair bill or a totally destroyed camera. Stings get into things! No stringss attacehd!

Sounds like a job for the repair tech.

Messing with it will likely cause further damage.

If you do not inted to process film, you will not be able to employ the Zone Syste in its traditional form as written in Adam's literature.

I understand that some folks considered the Zone System a way of life, perhaps a religion, cult, or something similarly extreme That is not my philosophy!

When I signed up for the workshop, studied the books, and applied the methodology, my goal was not to dedicate my life to the process. I wanted to gain more control over my medium and apply certain aspects of the system to my commercial work.

As for Hasselbalds- the vario C- models are no precious jewels to be kept in a padded showcase- they are workhorse cameras. The Zeiss lenses, both vintage and modern are excellent. I have used the system from 1970 right up to the time I transitiond to digital.

"Out of tune and bad action" You are describing my old upright piano. I have been playing keyboard instruments since I was 8 years old. Lessons were not my idea but it turned out to be my favorite hobby. Well,I do have that old crate tuned every now and again and it sounds halfway decent.

So...I occasionally stop in at the local Steinway dealer and sit down at the Model D concert grand that is on the showroom floor. The action is phenomenal and the tone is magnificent- it's inspiring! My performance? Not so much!

If I ever win the Lottery, I'll buy a Steinway and go between $70,000 and #150,000- a bit less than a Hasselblad!

Many years ago I had the great experience of attending an Ansel Adams workshop. I studied all his books and over the years, applied much of the Zone Syste to my commercial photography.

Congratulations on your Hasselblad purchase- I used the entire system for decades- it is a fine precision instrument.

If you have no basic knowledge of film photography you will be operating at a disadvantage as you are attempting to tackle the Zone System. Before venturing into that system, you should have a basic foundation in film process and printing techniques. If you start with an easily and currently obtainable black-and-white roll film such as (for example) Kodak Tri-X, there's a recommended, IOS rating (400), and a prescribed processing procedure as to chemistry, time, temperature, etc. The Zons system entails various changes in the standardized exposure/processig relationship dependg on the effect you are attempting to achieve in any given situation. Greyscale and gradations are another important component,

The system was originally designed to be used with SHEET film or CUT film where each sheet of film could be individually exposed and processed whereas with 120-roll film, all 12 exposures would need to be exposed and processed in the same manner.

Certin aspects of the so-called exposure triangle still apply but it is not mentioned in the original literature because the system calls for testing and establishing your own film sensitivity standards (ISO) for your gear and shootg style. The film process requires particular techniques such as pre-soaking, and extremely careful temperature control. Very basically, the is a lot of overexposure and underdevelopment to decrease contrast and underexposure and overdevelopment to increase contrast.

Makig prints on an analog enlarger is in itself an art form. There are papers of various contrast and total charistics, various developers, stop baths, fixers, hypo eliminators, and careful washing and drying procedures.

Certain Zone System principles can be applied to digital photography but the original system is film/analog, chemistry-based.

An analogy- You purchased a Hasselblad- it is like a beginning piano student purchasing a Steinway Grand Piano. The problem is, that the student can not sit down and play Rachmaninoff's Piano Concerti N0. 3 without first learning the scales, techniques, and lots of practice.

Alright! It ain't rocket science or nuclear physics- but it takes some doing!