My Post-Wedding Update

[ted_smith]

Further to my post here (https://www.photrio.com/forum/threads/shooting-a-wedding-with-olympus-om10-and-om20.158884/page-2) where I asked about using Olympus OM cameras for a wedding), I wanted to report on my pictures.

In the end, I used by Hasselblad 501CM with the 80mm and 150mm using Kodak Portra 400 and Rollei RPX100! I decided to just be brave, and I was happy with the results. I've written an article about my experience that is soon to be published on Emulsive.org in a few days I think, and I have uploaded to Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/ted_smith_photography/). But as not everyone will want that, I have uploaded just a few of my favourites.

Thanks to all who guided me earlier this year

 

[sterioma]

Nice one!
Focusing seems spot on from these samples. Are you using a waist level or a prism finder?

 

[ted_smith]

Thanks Sterioma...I was begining to think nobody thought anything of them!

I am actually using a prism. I had to many failed situations with the WLF. I got one from FFordes a couple of years ago. Much better, though I do like the feel of using the WLF - better for photographing kids and shy people etc. But I just couldn't focus it well enough

 

[Sirius Glass]

I cannot focus as well with the WLF and I do not like the right-left reversal, so I use the prism all the time.

 

[MattKing]

I like the results Ted, but I was a bit concerned when I saw the thread title .....
I thought we were going to read about your wedding night!

 

[Arklatexian]

I cannot focus as well with the WLF and I do not like the right-left reversal, so I use the prism all the time.

You probably are correct but I don't think I could get my 500CM, Distigon 50mm WA, and prism up as high as my eye without sitting down for a rest. I am going to keep it all on a tripod and shoot only slow moving people if I am ever crazy enough to shoot another wedding......Regards!

 

[John51]

I didn't take to waist level finders back in the 70s. I recently got a TLR and surprise, now that I need reading glasses, it's a pretty good way of focusing for me. The left/right thing is still a drag though.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I didn't take to waist level finders back in the 70s. I recently got a TLR and surprise, now that I need reading glasses, it's a pretty good way of focusing for me. The left/right thing is still a drag though.

I recommend that if one is available that you get a prism for your TLR. It gets rid of the left right reversal, is easier to see because it eliminates stray light and has a larger image size that a screen at waist level.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Hasselblad prisms are fairly lightweight. If you buy an older nonmetered one, it is even lighter and less expensive.

The diopter correction, magnification, and correct left-right view make these prisms well worth the cost.

For TLRs, I've seen only the old Rollei prisms. They are heavy and disrupt the balance of the camera. They look like something snatched off the conning tower of a U-boat. I hope there are better choices of prisms available for TLRs.

 

[MattKing]

I hope there are better choices of prisms available for TLRs.

The prisms for Mamiya TLRs are very nice, although somewhat heavy.
Be sure to differentiate between the prisms and the light but awkward porrofinders.
Here is a Mamiya TLR prism finder "in action" - and yes this is a self-portrait:

 

[fotografnunta]

the forst image idea is nice. Buut no focus there. The exposure also could be lower.

 

[Donald Qualls]

I recommend that if one is available that you get a prism for your TLR. It gets rid of the left right reversal, is easier to see because it eliminates stray light and has a larger image size that a screen at waist level.

I'd think a prism for a TLR would have the same disadvantages that make a waist level finder preferred.

I wear different glasses for computer/reading/close work vs. distance/driving -- and I find I need the distance pair for focusing an SLR or prism finder, but the computer/readers for camera settings and waist level. The one way I can get away with the distance glasses on a waist level (like on my Reflex II or RB67) is to use the focusing magnifier. With my glasses right up to the magnifier lens, I can see the entire ground glass clearly and in focus. Then, if I hold the camera at extreme arm's length, I can see settings, and I can still focus and frame without changing glasses.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I'd think a prism for a TLR would have the same disadvantages that make a waist level finder preferred.

I wear different glasses for computer/reading/close work vs. distance/driving -- and I find I need the distance pair for focusing an SLR or prism finder, but the computer/readers for camera settings and waist level. The one way I can get away with the distance glasses on a waist level (like on my Reflex II or RB67) is to use the focusing magnifier. With my glasses right up to the magnifier lens, I can see the entire ground glass clearly and in focus. Then, if I hold the camera at extreme arm's length, I can see settings, and I can still focus and frame without changing glasses.

Your concerns are unfounded. Try a prism and you will see that not only will the prism work for you, but also it provides a larger virtual image to view.

 

[Donald Qualls]

Your concerns are unfounded. Try a prism and you will see that not only will the prism work for you, but also it provides a larger virtual image to view.

But only if I have my distance glasses on, no? Unless of course I have one with a suitable mounted (or adjustable?) diopter in the eyepiece. I've reached the age where I need my reading prescription to see the settings on the camera, but my distance glasses to see the ground glass in my 35mm SLRs. I'd expect the same to apply to medium format...