"erie patsellis" <erie@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:%rCAj.67160$yE1.16331@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> David Nebenzahl wrote:
>> On 3/8/2008 11:03 AM erie patsellis spake thus:
>>
>>> While we all know that this is an expensive hobby, I'd
>>> add that unless you spend $$$ on your LF equipment,
>>> you'll feel out of place.
>>>
>>> Heaven forbid you advocate using a Componon lens as a
>>> taking lens, you're likely to be run out on rails.
>>> Building a camera? some will say it looks nice, but the
>>> general response will be "yeah, but my Canham (or Wista,
>>> Sinar, Chaminox, etc) is more precise, blah, blah, blah.
>>> Of course those of us who just can't afford Richard
>>> Ritter's new 20x24 camera, but want to shoot ULF are
>>> heretics, how can it possibly be precise, etc. I could
>>> go on for hours, but I'll bite my tongue and leave it at
>>> the majority of the people there are photo elitists, and
>>> camera fondlers. (I do own a few Sinars, bought for far
>>> less then market value (even today's very depressed
>>> prices) but
>>> enjoy my homebuilt cameras much more.)
>>
>> Just so you know, some of ur here don't necessarily
>> indulge in the elitist crap that you've accurately
>> described here. For instance, I love my humble Crown
>> Graphic, my old Velbon tripod bought at the flea market,
>> my Elwood 5x7 enlarger (with old Kodak Anastigmat
>> lenses); heck, I even shoot pinhole from time to time
>> (with homemade cameras, natch).
>
>
> Quite well aware, have been a (mostly lurking) participant
> since probably late 80's or so (84 if you include DECnet
> and the mailing list version of the LF group), back when
> usenet was worth a crap.
>
> While my Sinars are nice when I have the time, or strength
> and patience to schlep around monstrous pelican 1650's, my
> homemade 8x10 field with a handful of older lenses suits
> me just fine most of the time, and tends to stay in the
> van with me, along with my ancient tiltall that supports
> it just fine.
>
> I love my Elwood 5x7, in fact right now it's the only
> enlarger I have set up, my 10x10 is in storage and both
> Omegas are too.
>
> I grew up dirt poor, and enjoyed the things that I created
> with my own hands, then out of necessity, now because of
> either features lacking, or too many, or just because I
> can.
>
>
>
> erie
For what its worth I have old cameras mostly bought at
bargain prices when they were available. I probably shoot
more pictures on 35mm than any other format simply because
the camera is light and portable but I also shoot quite a
bit of 4x5, again because the cameras are tractible. I have
two 8x10 view cameras, a Calumet C-1 and an Agfa/Ansco
Universal View. For some reason I like the Agfa camera
better for field use although neither is a lightweight.
Modern view cameras probably have advantages for
professional work especially studio work, where logging
dials on swings and tilts are useful if a set up must be
duplicated. The best of them (whichever those are) may be
somewhat more rigid than the old timers but the ones I've
looked at were really not that much better than my antiques.
My enlarger is an Omega D2v. I would like to have one
for larger format but don't have room. I've been working out
a method of using the Agfa 8x10 for enlarging without the
need to modify it. This is a long term project which is on
the back burner, not forgotten, but of low priority.
LF can be expensive but can also be done on a budget
(except for the film). Despite the raves about modern lenses
many of the older ones, even ancient ones, are very good and
new ones that cost a fortune are not necessary.
--
---
Richard Knoppow
Los Angeles, CA, USA
dickburk@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
|
