Paul,
I hope you saw my reply to Godfrey as to where they are located now.
I was a little sad to not have as many cases to peer into and study...
César
Panama City, Florida
Paul Stenquist wrote:
I haven't been there in twenty years. The store I'm talking about was
on 34th and Broadway,
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
Chimping really interrupts the flow of working with someone. Stopping to
examine the screen after every shot, or every few shots, can have a
deleterious effect on a photo session. But, I guess for some, that's the
new, modern way ...
Well, I don't
I haven't been there in twenty years. The store I'm talking about was
on 34th and Broadway, right at the south end of Herald Square.
Paul
On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:35 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
It's been many years since the Olden Camera I knew existed. It was a
wonderful place to go and chew the
Oh well, another fine theory ...
Especially since I started with a rangefinder before going to an SLR,
and although I still prefer a rangefinder on occasion, I don't actually
consider it more natural. Just, as you say, different.
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I started with an SLR before trying
On Mar 2, 2006, at 1:15 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote:
How many tomes have to taken a picture of someone only to find out
they've
blinked or had a funny look on their face, or something has
unexpectedly
found its way into the frame (see above).
And how does a rangefinder change the outcome?
Wimp.
Dave
On 3/2/06, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
They are great for certain purposes like close in with people, they are easy
to
use and generally quiet and unobtrusive, but I wouldn't go out shooting close-
ups of polar bears in nature with one. :-)
Rob Studdert
A couple of years ago I was watching a fellow shoot a portrait for cover
for a local magazine. He was using a 'blad, and shot three rolls of what
was essentially the same pose, changed the setup, and shot another three
rolls of that scene. I talked with him a bit and asked why he shot so many
On 3/2/06, Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The rangefinder doesn't change the outcome but it does allow the
photographer to be aware of what he's caught on film, and that knowledge
can make the difference between a keeper or a tosser ;-))
Shel
I'm too tired to think of it but, there
please don't insist it's
better for its ultimate usage.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
[Original Message]
From: Kenneth Waller
you can see outside the taking frame
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff
Subject: Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
A couple of years ago I was watching a fellow shoot a portrait for cover
for a local magazine. He was using a 'blad, and shot three rolls of what
was essentially the same pose
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
A couple of years ago I was watching a fellow shoot a portrait for cover
for a local magazine. He was using a 'blad, and shot three rolls of what
was essentially the same pose, changed the setup, and shot another three
rolls of that scene. I talked with him a bit and
On 3/2/06, William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I learned to not look through the viewfinder by shooting portraits on sheet
film.
By not having the camera between the photographer and subject, it is
possible to catch some wonderful expressions. Peole seem more relaxed when
they are talking
This is true. I tried that technique with the LX and the ME-Super, using a
long cord to activate the camera. I think the cord I have is six or nine
feet long, and using it allowed me to walk around a bit, talk with the lady
I was photographing, and get her to be a little more animated and
A bigger negative was needed. Hi might have been able to use a
medium-format rangefinder, like the Mamiya 7II, but the 'blad had a greater
number of lens options available for it. Plus he had some kind of lighting
setup that worked off of the camera somehow - maybe radio controlled - I
don't
I bought my first SLR there in January of 2002. Still exists, though
it's actually at 32nd and Broadway.
As of 2002, they distributed flyers with at least some of their used
inventory listed on it, which is how I found them.
-Mat
On 3/2/06, Paul Stenquist [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I haven't been
technology, just please don't insist it's
better for its ultimate usage.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
[Original Message]
From: Kenneth Waller
you can see outside the taking
Belinkoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Transparency is, admittedly, a vague term. To me it means that
there's an
unconstrained way of seeing. The Leica lends itself better to shooting
with both eyes open than an SLR (right eye in the finder
On Mar 2, 2006, at 10:59 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote:
For me the biggest disadvantage of a range finder is you don't see
what you ultimately get until you get the processed film back.
How is that different from an SLR, where you don't see the what you get
through the viewfinder AND you don't
On Thu, 2 Mar 2006, Adam Maas wrote:
Kenneth Waller wrote:
I guess we'll agree to disagree.
For me the biggest disadvantage of a range finder is you don't see what
you ultimately get until you get the processed film back.
The Epson RD-1 is your friend then.
Cropping wide with room for
of the exposure.
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Aaron Reynolds [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
On Mar 2, 2006, at 10:59 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote:
For me the biggest
On 3/1/06, Cesar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Frank,
Is that all you have to say?
A bit disappointed :-)
Oh, I have much more to say (like congrats on your purchase, for one!
g) later. I've been so busy at work that I haven't been able to pay
much attention to the list lately, plus, my eyes
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 06:23:41AM -0800, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
A couple of years ago I was watching a fellow shoot a portrait for cover
for a local magazine. He was using a 'blad, and shot three rolls of what
was essentially the same pose, changed the setup, and shot another three
rolls of
That's the place.
Godfrey
On Mar 2, 2006, at 3:07 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
I haven't been there in twenty years. The store I'm talking about
was on 34th and Broadway, right at the south end of Herald Square.
Paul
On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:35 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
It's been many years
On Mar 2, 2006, at 6:23 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
...He was using a 'blad... he also mentioned that with the mirror
blackout
he never really knows what he's got, so he shoots a lot of frames for
insurance. ...
This is very much the case with Hasselblad 500 series SLRs because
they do
For me, that's the biggest disadvantage of all film cameras excepting
polaroids.
Godfrey
On Mar 2, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Kenneth Waller wrote:
For me the biggest disadvantage of a range finder is you don't
see what you ultimately get until you get the processed film back.
A definate advantage of a tripod and remote release. It can make
a difference.
William Robb wrote:
I learned to not look through the viewfinder by shooting portraits on
sheet film.
By not having the camera between the photographer and subject, it is
possible to catch some wonderful
On 2 Mar 2006 at 6:38, Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I never insisted that a rangefinder is better for it's ultimate usage,
but I will state, categorically, that for me, and for many other
photographers, there is a strong preference for using a rangefinder for
certain types of photography. Just
Chimping really interrupts the flow of working with someone. Stopping to
examine the screen after every shot, or every few shots, can have a
deleterious effect on a photo session. But, I guess for some, that's the
new, modern way ...
Shel
[Original Message]
From: John Francis
The
Personally I'd just download the images to a computer or the like
during a break in the session - it's a lot easier to review what
you have on a decent-sized screen. But that's still much better
than having to re-shoot the next day because of an unfortunate
blink (or fly, or ...). And that's
If I'm shooting an extended session with a model, we usually stop after
six to ten shots and chimp together. I find this very helpful in
working out the best poses and shot angles. And a break every now and
then keeps both of us fresh and gives me a chance to redirect.
Paul
On Mar 2, 2006, at
Likewise, working with a pregnant mother who wanted some nudes to
remember her pregnancy, it was very useful to review exposures as we
went along after a few shots at a time were made. It made her feel
more comfortable with the session, and also helped me identify to her
which postures,
Congratulations!!
It's about a year that I've been persuaded to get into rangefinders
myself... Leice is above budget anyhow, so I started off with a Canonet
QL17 GIII and very recently added a Zorki 4 to the collection. Now I'm
waiting for an Industar 22 (3.5/50 collapsible) and a Jupiter-3
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Vic Mortelmans wrote:
for the viewfinder, and the left for the scene. Where as for SLR's, the
viewfinder is right in the middle of the camera, which forces me to hide
completely behind the camera.
I shoot SLRs with two eyes open; right eye on the VF.
I think
By the way, I guess you already know the rangefinderforum, to avoid the
'OT'?
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/
Groeten,
Vic
Cesar wrote:
There are not many who would understand, but photographically I wanted
to let someone know how I have tried to extend myself photographically.
I asked
OK, so maybe it's my nose that's causing trouble. On the rangefinder, I
can put it *next* to the camera, so the subject can still admire it:)
Groeten,
Vic
Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote:
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Vic Mortelmans wrote:
for the viewfinder, and the left for the scene. Where as for
Excellent choice! Quite a few Leica fans consider the IIIf to be the
most beautiful camera ever made. I am counted among them.
On Feb 28, 2006, at 11:56 PM, Cesar wrote:
There are not many who would understand, but photographically I wanted
to let someone know how I have tried to extend
On 2/28/06, Cesar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/misc.msnw?action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42
for a look at what I ended up with.
This is a 1950 Leica IIIf with a 1950 Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar f=5cm
1:2.
I eagerly await the pictures of a snakeskinned Leica IIIf.
From: Cesar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
I asked some list members for inputs since I was thinking about
rangefinders. Though, to be frank, I was interested in a Leica. I had
heard so much about them.
You can't be Frank. Frank has a hard time being Frank and
On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:38 AM, Tom C wrote:
You can't be Frank. Frank has a hard time being Frank and extra
competition and pressure will not help him at all.
It's not easy being Frank
spending every day the colour of the... uh...
-Aaron
Cesar wrote:
http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/misc.msnw?
action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42
This is a 1950 Leica IIIf with a 1950 Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar
f=5cm 1:2.
1950 ... a black dial IIIf. Very sweet old camera. Enjoy it!
I bought a pair of these cameras, a IIf and IIc with Elmar
hmmm. So where =is= Frank? Anyone seen him?
Cesar, they must have seen you coming. I bet the write speed of that
relic is laughable. FPS is probably for shit too. You don't seriously
belive you can take pictures with thing, do you?
what a noob.
Tom C wrote:
From: Cesar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tom C wrote:
From: Cesar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
I asked some list members for inputs since I was thinking about
rangefinders. Though, to be frank, I was interested in a Leica. I
had heard so much about them.
You can't be Frank. Frank has a hard time
Vic, unleashed this and more...
I think rangefinders are more 'natural' photography equipment.
Interesting comment.
In what way are they more 'natural' photography equipment.
Kenneth Waller
--- Original Message -
From: Vic Mortelmans [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: Photographic
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Cesar wrote:
http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/misc.msnw?
action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42
This is a 1950 Leica IIIf with a 1950 Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar
f=5cm 1:2.
1950 ... a black dial IIIf. Very sweet old camera. Enjoy it!
I bought a pair of these cameras, a
Hard to pin down. It's more like a feeling. Rangefinders are more
elementary. In principle, a camera is a body with a shutter holding film
and a lens mounted on it. Of course that's not sufficient for practical
photography (this is basically the definition of a Bessa L). You need
some
On 1 Mar 2006 at 15:28, Kenneth Waller wrote:
Interesting comment.
In what way are they more 'natural' photography equipment.
They definitely have a different feel to an SLR, given that: often you can see
outside the taking frame, there is no blanking of the finder as the shot is
made and
On 3/1/06, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can't be Frank. Frank has a hard time being Frank and extra competition
and pressure will not help him at all.
Huh?
Wha?
-frank, going back to sleep...
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
in that
they are closer to the original/first camera
YMMV
Kenneth Waller
- Original Message -
From: Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
On 1 Mar 2006 at 15:28, Kenneth Waller wrote:
Interesting comment.
In what way are they more
On 1 Mar 2006 at 20:57, Kenneth Waller wrote:
Not to be argumentative -
They definitely have a different feel to an SLR,
Agreed
you can see outside the taking frame,
but it's what in the frame that I'm interested in
For street shooters or anyone working close in knowing what's
On Mar 1, 2006, at 10:14 PM, Rob Studdert wrote:
there is no blanking of the finder as the shot is
made
I don't see how this is a concern, once you've pushed the release,
you've
decided that's what you want
At least you know what happened just after you released the shutter,
expressions
Kenneth Waller wrote:
Not to be argumentative -
They definitely have a different feel to an SLR,
Agreed
you can see outside the taking frame,
but it's what in the frame that I'm interested in
there is no blanking of the finder as the shot is
made
I don't see how this is a concern,
On Mar 1, 2006, at 7:07 PM, E.R.N. Reed wrote:
I wonder whether the people who consider the rangefinder more
natural started on rangefinders before moving to SLRs?
Interesting thought. I started with a Rolleiflex TLR ... perhaps
that's why the Sony DSC-R1's top-mounted LCD feels so
Paul,
I must admit that I stayed away from the M-mount Leicas because of
cost. But then again I truly enjoy shooting my screwmount cameras.
This is not to say that I may not end up with an M-mount Leica in the
future...
To back the comment about beautiful cameras, I have had a couple of
[Original Message]
From: Kenneth Waller
you can see outside the taking frame,
but it's what in the frame that I'm interested in
Then you really don't understand the benefit of a rangefinder when it comes
to composing and choosing the decisive moment for snapping the shutter.
there is no
Vic,
I was not aware of that forum, thanks.
How can I fit time in for that forum when I don't have enough time for
this list?
César
Panama City, Florida
Vic Mortelmans wrote:
By the way, I guess you already know the rangefinderforum, to avoid
the 'OT'?
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/
I started with an SLR before trying the Leica. I hated the Leica at first.
Put it in the drawer and didn't use it for six or eight months. Finally,
something someone said about allowing some time with the camera caught my
attention, and I started using the camera again. After understanding it,
Mat Maessen wrote:
On 2/28/06, Cesar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/misc.msnw?action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42
for a look at what I ended up with.
This is a 1950 Leica IIIf with a 1950 Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar f=5cm
1:2.
I eagerly await the pictures of a
Tom C wrote:
From: Cesar [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
I asked some list members for inputs since I was thinking about
rangefinders. Though, to be frank, I was interested in a Leica. I
had heard so much about them.
You can't be Frank. Frank has a hard time
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Cesar wrote:
http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/misc.msnw?
action=ShowPhotoPhotoID=42
This is a 1950 Leica IIIf with a 1950 Ernst Leitz Wetzlar Summitar
f=5cm 1:2.
1950 ... a black dial IIIf. Very sweet old camera. Enjoy it!
I bought a pair of these cameras, a
Doug,
Wait a minute - I did not think to ask about the write speed. FPS? Not
even a consideration - but I should have asked anyway..
I will not know about picture taking possibility until I get the prints
- how archaic!
What's it to ya? Tu madre.
The line above is a GFMtn exclusive,
frank theriault wrote:
On 3/1/06, Tom C [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You can't be Frank. Frank has a hard time being Frank and extra competition
and pressure will not help him at all.
Huh?
Wha?
-frank, going back to sleep...
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri
Vic,
I am going to keep this post. I will try to address this again after
shooting the IIIf for a while.
I still have a b/w roll in an LX I have to finish,
César
Panama City, Florida
Vic Mortelmans wrote:
Hard to pin down. It's more like a feeling. Rangefinders are more
elementary. In
I used to love looking through the used equipment at Olden. I bought a
Mamiya TLR 250mm lens there and a Polaroid back for my Speed Graphic.
Great store.
Paul
On Mar 1, 2006, at 11:10 PM, Cesar wrote:
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
Cesar wrote:
http://groups.msn.com/MyRugbyPictures/misc.msnw?
It's been many years since the Olden Camera I knew existed. It was a
wonderful place to go and chew the fat with the old crackers who knew
and loved photography.
Hmm. I was 15-16 years old then. Now I'm old enough to be the old
cracker. ;-)
Godfrey
On Mar 1, 2006, at 8:24 PM, Paul
The interesting thing for me was the lack of Pentax lenses at most of
the places I stopped in while in NYC.
Olden had a couple of M42 lenses and I think one k-mount.
I am interested in seeing if what they have in their cases is all they
have...
I will check out Olden in better detail the
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
Kenneth Waller wrote:
Not to be argumentative -
They definitely have a different feel to an SLR,
Agreed
you can see outside the taking frame,
but it's what in the frame that I'm interested in
there is no blanking
: OT: Photographic enablement but not Pentax.
[Original Message]
From: Kenneth Waller
you can see outside the taking frame,
but it's what in the frame that I'm interested in
Then you really don't understand the benefit of a rangefinder when it
comes
to composing and choosing the decisive
There are not many who would understand, but photographically I wanted
to let someone know how I have tried to extend myself photographically.
I asked some list members for inputs since I was thinking about
rangefinders. Though, to be frank, I was interested in a Leica. I had
heard so much
68 matches
Mail list logo
