Considering moving from a Mamiya to Hasselblad setup. Some thoughts and looking for feedback.

[138S]

If you like to photograph people you don't know, I do not think that Pentax 67 is an option. I found that strangers generally do not like big SLRs pointing at them.

If having scary subjects better to use an smartphone

I don't see why a pentax scares people more than a hassie... IMO anything that's not a an smartphone may disturb people, and it's the photographer himself that has to behave a bit like a clown to bring attention to him and to provocate smiles or the expression he wants.

For hand held usage (to portrait people) a P67II has an impressive advantage in agility over system cameras like the RZ or the Hassie, even a kid handles a P67II easily, here my (then 8 years old) daughter handling the Pentax, (spot metering before framing) https://www.flickr.com/photos/125592977@N05/46463362194/. For active/dynamic shooting can also do the job but they are way, way less agile than a P67 which plays in another league. Still for a Pros used the Mamiya, the Pentax or the Contax 645 a lot because being all less agile than the P67 they could mount new backs faster that loading film in the P67, still when 220 was available the P67 offered 20 shots in a row...

Also the P67 had very portraiture oriented glass, in particular the 105mm 2.4 has a highly dedicated bokeh, with sphereric aberration being insanely undercorrected in the background defocus, thus providin a bokeh made in heaven.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

How about a raspberry beret?

Song stuck in head. Thanks...

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

You're an inspiration, my friend. Most people shy away from large format due to bulk, but you're lugging another camera with a zoom lens just to frame & meter. That's a Chuck Norris move. On the other hand, this place is full of superhumans. Sirius is pulling 1/30s razor-sharp handheld Hasselblad shots. Donald defied the laws of physics by grabbing a roll expired before I was born and then proceeding to developing and fixing it. At the same time! Bacon builds his own digital paper and dirkfletcher builds his own cameras. The list goes on and on

Actually the E-PL1 is a micro 4/3 camera about the same size and weight as a Sekonic spot meter. The 14-42mm zoom lens only extends when you're using it. I'd use a smaller P&S camera like my Sony RX100iv. But I can set the E-PL1 to f22 while the smallest aperture on most P&S's is too small for practical use as a meter. My Sony RX100iv P&S does go to f11. I could use that; it;s smaller in physical size. Fits in my short pocket. I just remember to change the stop or offset the ISO. I'll have to give it a try.

 

[MattKing]

Song stuck in head. Thanks...

And to think that the song was actually written for "Purple Rain", but didn't make the cut.
I think a raspberry beret is much more appropriate for Hasselblad users than RB67 users anyways, so you are safe.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

And to think that the song was actually written for "Purple Rain", but didn't make the cut.
I think a raspberry beret is much more appropriate for Hasselblad users than RB67 users anyways, so you are safe.

Thank God for that! I'll stick with my toque!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Thank God for that! I'll stick with my toque!

So do you go one toque over the line??

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

So do you go one toque over the line??

HA HA good one!

 

[Alan Gales]

I'm using a digital camera to sight into my shot first. Only then do I set my tripod exactly where I composed with the digital. The digital zoom lens also helps me pick the 4x5 lens. Switching to BW allows me to see in BW too. It's very handy. Then when I pull out my 4x5, it's just a matter of adjusting the frame a little here and there. I don't compose through the 4x5 at all. Maybe I'll get better but I think this works for me.

I didn't like the waist level finder on my Rb67 medium format. The left-right backwards orientation drove me crazy after decades using 35mm. So I bought an eye-level finder and will only use the waist level finder for low shots.

It's just not natural for me to see upside down. Aesthetically pleasing pictures are viewed right side up once printed. Of course, relationships of objects might be better seen upside down. But I'm not convinced compositions are seen better generally But that's just my experience and everyone see differently.

That last line is key!

When using a tripod, I always pre visualize my shot first and even choose my lens before I ever set up the camera. I started doing this back in the 80's with my 35mm Contax. It works for me but not everyone. For large format, I've heard of some who hold up little frames to look through. Others use 35mm cameras or digital cameras like you do. What every works. A digital camera is great for a scout camera. Take some digital images and if something works then go back later with your 4x5. A lot of people use their cell phone for this since they always have it with them!

Oh, I had the RZ with both finders. I bought the camera used off eBay and it came with both. I loved the waist level finder and hated the eye level finder. I never used it. Just extra weight on an already heavy camera to me. To each their own. That's why Mamiya made both.

 

[eli griggs]

I like to use cards with windows in different formats, even when I'm using a square format camera, just to help isolate the potential image and, in the case of the Golden Section, to fit the scene within that format.

I use double thickness mat board scrap and include a bevel, as if the work is already framed, and, when needed, a Written 90 gel filter, to help with spotmetering.

I do no use these so often that they have become a part of my routine, but as I find my subjects requiring clarification of what I'm looking at.

I learned many years ago, from shooting so much existing light documentary photography, to see my images mentally, before and, at the snapping of the shutter.

Do use a tripod or monopod when you can and workout your progression of checks, prior to making a photograph.

Tools are there for a reason, that they work, so do no feel you're 'cheating' some how by using one or more tools to set up your shot.

I would wear a Hula Doll on my cameras or long lenses, if that gave me superior photographs whenever I set up and made an image.

Make your own set of cards to visualize your formats and maths, and, get a Wratten #90, and frame that square, with a solid holder to protect it and the card, if you can find one.

IMO.

PS: do no glue or tape the Wratten gel, but use double stick, or acrylic medium gel to the card sides stick, with untouched filter between the sticky and the window edges, so, about .25 inches all around the the window, free-floated.

Good luck

 

[narsuitus]

I use double thickness mat board scrap and include a bevel, as if the work is already framed, and, when needed, a Written 90 gel filter, to help with spotmetering.

As a tool to help me with composition, I also use cardboard cut-outs with the following aspect ratios:
1:1 (6x6cm film)
7:6 (6x7cm medium format film)
4:3 (micro 4/3 digital, 645 film, 6x8cm film)
3:2 (35mm film and 6x9cm medium format film)
5:4 (4x5 inch film, 8x10 inch film, 16x20 inch prints)
16:9 (for panoramas and video)

I have never used a Wratten 90 gel filter with my cut-outs and do not understand how the dark grayish amber gelatin filter helps with spot metering. Please explain.

 

[eli griggs]

It simply uses a monochromatic filter, to show you 'Values' of the range of lights and darks within your topic, in a way that other filters can no.

This is useful in particular because it quickly helps to show you where your highlights and deepest darks are.

This also allows you to more quickly meter the scene for the end values and adjust for the exposure you want, within your films range.

Imagine photographing at a wood-line that is in an overcast light, and, being able to firmly place the lights, darks, etc making the range of values, 'visable so you can see to make adjustments

Look for a 3 - 4 inch , (75 -100 mm) KODAK gel so you can have a comfortable view of the scene, any smaller and the ratio to board becomes too difficult to use, in many cases.

Cheers,
Eli

 

[narsuitus]

@eli griggs

Thanks for the information.

Kodak Wratten 90 gel filters are hard to find.

I did, however, find a 4x4 inch filter at B&H for $87.

I will pass because I have never even paid that much for a glass filter.

 

[cramej]

@eli griggs

Thanks for the information.

Kodak Wratten 90 gel filters are hard to find.

I did, however, find a 4x4 inch filter at B&H for $87.

I will pass because I have never even paid that much for a glass filter.

I might give this a try...
https://shop.stearmanpress.com/products/zoneview-viewing-filter

 

[narsuitus]

I might give this a try...
https://shop.stearmanpress.com/products/zoneview-viewing-filter

Thanks, I just ordered one.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Gee, I tried the cards and discovered that I can "see" the framing of the format which I am using without the cards. So I humbly suggest that you just get your eyes calibrated. It will save you money, time and effort. Enjoy.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That last line is key!

When using a tripod, I always pre visualize my shot first and even choose my lens before I ever set up the camera. I started doing this back in the 80's with my 35mm Contax. It works for me but not everyone. For large format, I've heard of some who hold up little frames to look through. Others use 35mm cameras or digital cameras like you do. What every works. A digital camera is great for a scout camera. Take some digital images and if something works then go back later with your 4x5. A lot of people use their cell phone for this since they always have it with them!

Oh, I had the RZ with both finders. I bought the camera used off eBay and it came with both. I loved the waist level finder and hated the eye level finder. I never used it. Just extra weight on an already heavy camera to me. To each their own. That's why Mamiya made both.

I still have this Zone VI 6x7 viewfinder that has a grayish filter to use with my RB67 BW photography. (note the one shown from the web is 4x5) Of course, you have to set it so far from your eye for each size lens you use to frame properly. I ought to sell it as the digital camera is better. But it's small and handy and hangs from your neck in your shirt pocket.

Here's the whole explanation for it.
https://www.jbhphoto.com/blog/2010/11/09/the-bw-viewing-filter/

 

[Alan Gales]

``

I still have this Zone VI 6x7 viewfinder that has a grayish filter to use with my RB67 BW photography. (note the one shown from the web is 4x5) Of course, you have to set it so far from your eye for each size lens you use to frame properly. I ought to sell it as the digital camera is better. But it's small and handy and hangs from your neck in your shirt pocket.

Here's the whole explanation for it.
https://www.jbhphoto.com/blog/2010/11/09/the-bw-viewing-filter/

I can see how that would be helpful. I can also understand how a digital camera is even better although it weighs more and takes up more space. Besides my Xt3 I also own an x100s which is great for judging what an image would look like in b&w. It's not as small as a cell phone of course but I no longer own a cell phone. I got rid of it after I quit helping managing my daughter's Select Softball team years ago. I don't miss it at all, although some can't imagine life without one. We are all different!

 

[eli griggs]

Sirius, I too can work without the cards, and am able to previsualize a scene however, many photographers can no access the Right Brain Function on demand and are limited to occasional 'break throughs'.

It is also, IMO, often a matter of experience and/or thoughtful pursuit of learning the methods of previsualize.

Using cards is always optional, IF you have them already made and in your kit.

IMO.

Gee, I tried the cards and discovered that I can "see" the framing of the format which I am using without the cards. So I humbly suggest that you just get your eyes calibrated. It will save you money, time and effort. Enjoy.

 

[Sirius Glass]

Sirius, I too can work without the cards, and am able to previsualize a scene however, many photographers can no access the Right Brain Function on demand and are limited to occasional 'break throughs'.

It is also, IMO, often a matter of experience and/or thoughtful pursuit of learning the methods of previsualize.

Using cards is always optional, IF you have them already made and in your kit.

IMO.

That just shows one of many advantages of being left handed in addition to being in our right mind.

 

[sterioma]

If you normally take a smartphone with you when out and about shooting, then there are free apps that can show the phone camera viewfinder in black and white and let you preview the point of view of different lenses with different film formats.

I use "Magic Universal ViewFinder Film Viewfinder" on my Android phone.

 

[narsuitus]

@sterioma

Thanks for the link to the Magic Universal ViewFinder application.

It looks like it is just what I need.

However, it is not free. There is a $5.20 charge for it.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If you normally take a smartphone with you when out and about shooting, then there are free apps that can show the phone camera viewfinder in black and white and let you preview the point of view of different lenses with different film formats.

I use "Magic Universal ViewFinder" on my Android phone.

Does it show histograms or other exposure settings? Is there one that does with the framing of this app?

 

[villagephotog]

@sterioma

Thanks for the link to the Magic Universal ViewFinder application.

The Magic Viewfinder apps for Android (there are a bunch of them for different cameras) have a lot of good features, and the interface is mostly really good. I really wanted Magic Film Viewfinder to work for me.

But when I looked closely at it, I discovered it could not properly use the full angle of view of my phone camera, so it was unable to correctly simulate a moderately wide angle lens. The widest it could correctly simulate was about 90mm (on 6x7); it began to crop the vertical dimension of the simulation long before the phone camera's lens ran out of vertical field of view. I checked the iOS version and it could correctly use the whole angle of view of the phone camera and could therefore correctly simulate a 70mm lens (on 6x7).

So I wrote the developer, and he said, yep, the Android version can't use the phone's full angle of view when simulating film formats because of a mathematical assumption he made when he first wrote the original version for Blackmagic cinema cameras (he didn't know he would later adapt the code to also work with lots of other types of cameras). When he later wrote the iOS versions, he corrected that mistake. He apologized, but said it wasn't worth his time to rewrite the Android code.

He was a totally nice guy (over email); I like what he's done with the apps in other ways a lot; and it's obviously completely his decision to budget his time in a way that works for his life. So I still consider myself a fan of his efforts. But the Android version's limitations made it marginally useful to me at best.

And it turned out, to my dismay, that there's nothing better on Android that I could find. Maybe the beta version of Artemis Pro (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.chemicalwedding.artemis.pro) will be a good choice. It's $30, but I'll pay it, if the app does everything I want a viewfinder app to do.

In the meantime, I'm carrying an iPhone just to do viewfinder simulations. I'm actually using an app called Viewfinder Preview (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/viewfinder-preview/id1216484605). It recently added the ability to simulate black-and-white contrast filters, which was the last feature I was waiting for. The Magic Viewfinder apps work properly on iOS, so they may be a good choice, too. And there's an app for iOS called Artists Viewfinder II (mentioned above, I believe) that many people recommend.

 

[sterioma]

@sterioma

Thanks for the link to the Magic Universal ViewFinder application.

It looks like it is just what I need.

However, it is not free. There is a $5.20 charge for it.

Sorry, the version that I have is actually called "Magic Film Viewfinder" and it's actually free, at least for Android in the UK app store.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The Magic Viewfinder apps for Android (there are a bunch of them for different cameras) have a lot of good features, and the interface is mostly really good. I really wanted Magic Film Viewfinder to work for me.

But when I looked closely at it, I discovered it could not properly use the full angle of view of my phone camera, so it was unable to correctly simulate a moderately wide angle lens. The widest it could correctly simulate was about 90mm (on 6x7); it began to crop the vertical dimension of the simulation long before the phone camera's lens ran out of vertical field of view. I checked the iOS version and it could correctly use the whole angle of view of the phone camera and could therefore correctly simulate a 70mm lens (on 6x7).

So I wrote the developer, and he said, yep, the Android version can't use the phone's full angle of view when simulating film formats because of a mathematical assumption he made when he first wrote the original version for Blackmagic cinema cameras (he didn't know he would later adapt the code to also work with lots of other types of cameras). When he later wrote the iOS versions, he corrected that mistake. He apologized, but said it wasn't worth his time to rewrite the Android code.

He was a totally nice guy (over email); I like what he's done with the apps in other ways a lot; and it's obviously completely his decision to budget his time in a way that works for his life. So I still consider myself a fan of his efforts. But the Android version's limitations made it marginally useful to me at best.

And it turned out, to my dismay, that there's nothing better on Android that I could find. Maybe the beta version of Artemis Pro (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.chemicalwedding.artemis.pro) will be a good choice. It's $30, but I'll pay it, if the app does everything I want a viewfinder app to do.

In the meantime, I'm carrying an iPhone just to do viewfinder simulations. I'm actually using an app called Viewfinder Preview (https://apps.apple.com/us/app/viewfinder-preview/id1216484605). It recently added the ability to simulate black-and-white contrast filters, which was the last feature I was waiting for. The Magic Viewfinder apps work properly on iOS, so they may be a good choice, too. And there's an app for iOS called Artists Viewfinder II (mentioned above, I believe) that many people recommend.

I just used this program to calculate equivalents between 4x5 and 35mm equivalent. If you use a little P&S with let's say a zoom of 24mm to 70mm (35mm equivalent), the equivalent horizontal angle covered would be around 85mm to 250mm in 4x5 lenses. That's horizontal angle only because the format for P&S is 4:3 not 4x5. So you can see where the P&S is to determine the lens you want to use for 4x5.
https://www.pointsinfocus.com/tools...av":"16","fl":250,"d":30480,"cm":"0"}],"m":0}