I started out with a Slik tripod with a pan head. Rapidly discovered since the camera had a rotating Graflok back, the head could be left in the car reducing the weight of the tripod by half. As soon as the budget allowed I replaced the Slik with a light weight headless Gitza. Best money I ever spent. With that combo, Linhof and tripod weighed very little more than a complete 35mm outfit and less than a Hassy.
Thank you for the compliments!
Please don’t do this. Don’t compare others’ highlight reel to your behind the scenes. We are all on a journey and we are at different points on our respective journeys and most of us feel this.
I had a very good 6-sheet 4x5 carrier, that fitted my 4 inch dip and dunk tanks. It works with both b&W or Colour, allows for good agitation and a couple of simple taps prevent air bells. Bellows calculations are incredibly easy, and the wonderful thing about press cameras is that the bellows fold into the camera body and are protected without the need for a carrying case. That said some lens movements are much more limited than with a studio camera, but at the end of the day it is the glass that makes the difference. I only have two good lenses and both are Schneider. The Schneider Xenar (OK but not much room for lens shift) which came with the camera can also be used in a pinch. With that one I can focus without using the ground glass.
One thing which should really be the point of the whole 365 or 52 Week projects is that it is meant to be fun. Sometimes it can trigger perfectionism and other personal traits which actually can interfere with having fun as the perfectionist strives to produce a masterpiece each and every day (or several masterpieces each week). It's also not meant to be like a photography class or workshop and while it is nice to have thoughtful comments and critiques from one's peers sometimes they overstep and that causes other issues.
Aha, nikoncafe! Seems to be offline ATM. But I’ll find something else. One could also simply challenge oneself, but I think committing to a forum would be best.
I leave you guys alone for a day and this explodes :-D
I'm tempted to do the challenge too. I might start with a January first and see how it works with my time.
Sorry; who is making assumptions? It's not me...
Really?? If someone called me pretentious, I'd just laugh. I've endured far, far worse than that! 🤣 Perhaps I'm just thicker skinned. But if someone pointed out that something I'd said was pretentious, then I'd have a think about why they'd said that, and consider their viewpoint. But just to reiterate; I'm not calling anyone here pretentious. So, we can draw a line under it, yes.
Some photographers like to use particular old lenses to create a particular 'feel' in a photograph. I get that; that old Praktica had some very basic East German lens on it, which wasn't particularly sharp, wasn't particularly optically great, but yes, I suppose it had 'character'. Personally I prefer the 'sterile' accuracy and sharpness of modern optics every time. But I understand the aesthetic appeal; people feel that using such old junk I mean great equipment, adds an esoteric quality that we learned to associate with photos from the past. But we don't know if Roman Vishniak or Robert Capa would have preferred modern lenses, perhaps they would. Who knows, we never will. So I understand if someone wants to use a cheap old lens for artistic purposes. It has been grossly overdone now though, and become a sort of genre all by itself; Hipsters (who ruin EVERYTHING) have conjured up such utterly pretentious terms as 'Lomography' as though it's a special new thing. Please. Taking crap photos with crap cameras is really nothing special. It's just a long winded way of recreating crappy Instagram filters... But yes; 'character' is one I'll grudgingly let slide.
There were times when I simply couldn't afford to do this, as each roll was costing me money I didn't have. Fortunately, our college photography technician managed to source some OOD bulk film stock, mostly Ilford HP5, so we could have very cheap film to use. It was crap; being OOD, the speed had dropped somewhat, so it needed pushing in development quite a bit, and it wasn't a patch technically on 'proper' still camera stock, but it worked. Many hard up students cut their teeth on that stuff. I worked on some chemistry that suited it better than the bulk free to use Ilford Ilfotec HC highly diluted stuff the college had. To such success, that a visiting Ilford rep asked me about my 'secret formula'. Can't remember the exact details, but it was a lower dilution, longer immersion and less agitation formula that better suited the degraded stock, and much more so, proper fresh HP5. I was getting the 'Leica Look' with cheap ingredients.
You have an interespting perspective and opinions, for sure. You're right, speaking for me, I don't care what brushes someone like Van Gogh used or what camera Capa or Marshall used. Or their film. Or how they developed it. Or what raw processor any current photographer uses. Or what camera. I like what they have created and it's entirely subjective. Because I'm curious, it's interesting to me as a human what they used. I think (hope?) most people aren't naive enough to think that if they use the same tool as one of their artistic heros they'll create the same impactful art.
. Is that true or do I have it wrong? It wouldn't be the first time I've misread someone on the internet.
I just feel that art needs to be made as accessible and democratic as possible, and this means removing whatever barriers there might be. I'm not on any 'crusade'; it's just that of all the different brands, Leica is the very worst at mythologising their products. At college, many students were from poorer backgrounds, and couldn't afford their own cams, so the college provided loaner cams for them to use. The legendary Pentax K1000. Heavy, basic, clunky and indestructible. But that didn't matter; what shone through was the talent of the individual (looking back, I think we should all have been forced to use those K1000s, level the playing field somewhat). There were other more priviledged students, one had a Rolleiflex TLR. Nice cam, but his work was really, really boring. He was into some form of esoterism none of us peasants 'got'. Hey ho. We were too busy having fun to care about ego. Expensive cams can be a barrier to realising talent, and whilst they may be great tools for those who can afford them, I think we should be concerned more with enabling potential than caring about brand identity and status symbols.Like all brands, Leica very much has a myth behind it. Maybe (definitely?) more than others. It's very polarizing quite obviously given all of your comments. You give the appearance to me of being on a crusade to "myth bust" Leica and bring "truth" to the world and make the blind see
Makes sense. I agree that art should be accessible - it might be the most important thing humans do as a species (but that's just me). And for sure, there's no tie-in between money and talent. In particular between money spent on tools and talent. It simply doesn't exist.
