Fotoman 4x5?

I shot this with my Crown Graphic, handheld.

Fuji Provia 100F, 135mm Xenar, zone focus, sunny 16 (yes, it really works at the equator)



The original image is hosted here.

Right,
There are many options available in RF focused press/technical cameras... and all of them would probably be a better choice for snapping candids with lenses in the 127 - 203 mm range than a fotoman (or a cambo wide, or a silvestri for that matter). A graphic with an older lens will also certainly have a lower buy-in than even the cheapest of the "handy" type cameras. However, none of them would be an optimal choice for for use with wide angle lenses. Among the many thousands of frames I exposed last year (35 + LF, no 120) only a small handfull were taken with a lens where the FL of the taking lens was > the short dimension of the film format. My initial thoughts about any piece of camera equipment (well, after cost) are how does it work with wide lenses, and how wide a lens can I mount on it. Even the most flexible of these cameras (probably an MT2000) would be a bad choice if you what you really lust after is a platform on which to mount a 47mm SA XL. That does not make any of these cameras "bad". A technica is certainly much nicer in materials, fit and finish than the wood field camera I use. However beyond cost, the flexibility of my camera (e.g., available bag bellows, easy conversion to other formats, etc) makes it more suited to my purpose. I'm just suggesting that perhaps there are applications for which a "handy" is more suited than a press camera.
Celac.

I'm pasteing this comment from Paul Droluk over in the LF Forum, concerning the 4x5 Fotoman, and just in case people here are interested and have not keeped up with the discussion there.

Oren... the weight of the 45PS camera body is .56 kg (1.23 lb), William... our HFM can only accept #0 and #1 shutter sizes.

BradS said:

I shot this with my Crown Graphic, handheld.

Fuji Provia 100F, 135mm Xenar, zone focus, sunny 16 (yes, it really works at the equator)

Click to expand...

Did the original come out neutral? I've got a strong tint to it on my monitor and I've never had problems before. Just wondering if you filtered for the low NRP (neutral rendering point) of the film?

waynecrider said:

Did the original come out neutral? I've got a strong tint to it on my monitor and I've never had problems before. Just wondering if you filtered for the low NRP (neutral rendering point) of the film?

Click to expand...

Huh? Sorry, I'm not familiar with that technique / terminology.

I had a polarizer and a hand full of the usual B&W contrast filters with me. I may have used the polarizer on this shot but, I don't remember using it here. I kinda doubt that I did. Unfortunately, I did not take any field notes. I usually do when shooting LF but, was shooting on the run this time.

The location is Quito, Ecuador. Quito is more-or-less on the equator and at an elevation of 10,000 feet. The light is very different there. Perhaps that accounts for what you see?

The scan is completely unmanipulated and I am woefully unskilled at scanning / post processing. I just let the scanner do it's thing and save the file. Despite all this, the colors in the scan are pretty close to the actual colors on the film. I've never been so lucky with Kodachrome for example.

When light has a kelvin temperature above the neutral point of the film being used, it will cause the picture to go blue, especially in the shadows as in your picture. This was a big complaint about Provia; It's neutral point is down around 5350 deg K from what I remember. Your whites aren't white. What you would do is use a strong warming filter. I was just wondering if my monitor screwed up and hadn't noticed it which is why I ask you if the transparency had neutral coloring and is not blueish as I see.