While I could afford to buy the Hasselblad FlexBody or ArcBody with the lenses for medium format movements, I decided that if I am going to use movements I would do it using large format cameras. That removes the restrictions of those two cameras movements and provide a larger negative.
So do I, usually, but sometimes, after looking at a first print, I notice that the print could be improved by printing it square. The full-frame is not sacrosanct!I almost always compose for the specific format I am shooting.
In a nutshell, the Flexbody uses regular Hassy lenses but is limited in the movements, mostly due to the « relatively small » image circle of the lenses.Although I think I'll stick with my 4x5 for shift/tilt work, I've always been intrigued by these. But I don't understand the difference between the Flexbody and Arcbody. Can you give a brief description?
Thanks!
Andy
So do I, usually, but sometimes, after looking at a first print, I notice that the print could be improved by printing it square. The full-frame is not sacrosanct!
... and you can print any square negative rectangular.
Awesome picture!I shoot a lot of landscapes with my GX617 now, but before that (and still sometimes) I shot a lot with my RB67 with a modified 220 back and adapters for 35mm film. I usually get 16-17 shots out of a roll and the aspect ratio is roughly the same. 220 backs are cheap and so are the adapters, so its worth experimenting with. I also made a custom plastic mask to drop into the RB67 viewfinder to replicate the correct field of view. Here's an image with the RB67/35mm set-up, with the sprocket holes cropped out in post.
In my book, when someone claims he "knows" something, he's usually on the first slope of Dunning-Kruger...Heretic! Don't you know that titan of photography, FroKnowsPhoto, says never to crop?
In my book, when someone claims he "knows" something, he's usually on the first slope of Dunning-Kruger...
Trust me, I know
I used to watch Fro until that whole cropping obsession with him just annoyed me so much that I couldn't watch him anymore.
I shoot a lot of landscapes with my GX617 now, but before that (and still sometimes) I shot a lot with my RB67 with a modified 220 back and adapters for 35mm film. I usually get 16-17 shots out of a roll and the aspect ratio is roughly the same. 220 backs are cheap and so are the adapters, so its worth experimenting with. I also made a custom plastic mask to drop into the RB67 viewfinder to replicate the correct field of view. Here's an image with the RB67/35mm set-up, with the sprocket holes cropped out in post.
That's a Beautiful Image. Would the needed adapter work with the RZ67 220 backs? Not that I own either the back nor the adapter. However, I do own the camera.
This is the one I purchased:
https://www.ebay.com/itm/35mm-to-12...599350?hash=item3aef8562b6:g:chIAAOSwol5YzsJw
That's cool!...Here's an image with the RB67/35mm set-up, with the sprocket holes cropped out in post.
Thanks. I'm going to look into getting a 220 back and adaptor.
You can load it in daylight as you normally would, but at the end of shooting, you need to remove the film in the dark or in a dark bag. Once shot it can just live in the back until you are ready to remove it.I assume you have to remove the film from the cassette and load in the dark? I'm considering trying this with a Rollei 6000 220 back, otherwise pretty useless.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?