 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Film Photography / Medium format / August 2005Bought a RB67 Pro-s..good choice?
I bought a RB67 Pro-S with a 65mm and 90mm lens to do copy work of original oil paintings. I will scan the positives (Fujichrome Velveia 50) and print on an Epson 7600. Size nomally 24x30". Was this a good choice for what I want to do? Jim Waggener > I bought a RB67 Pro-S with a 65mm and 90mm lens to do copy work of original > oil paintings. I will scan the positives (Fujichrome Velveia 50) and print > on an Epson 7600. Size nomally 24x30". Was this a good choice for what I > want to do? Yes. The RB/RZ if in good condition is the best system out there if weight and bulk are not factors and it is not treated roughly. The Hasselblad is also good-if you mostly photograph square oil paintings (notches in frame optional). > Hasselblad is also good-if you mostly photograph square oil paintings > (notches in frame optional). How many paintings are 6x7 in proportion?  Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. Most are closer than 6x6. > Most are closer than 6x6. For that matter most are closer to 6 x 4.5. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> Hasselblad is also good-if you mostly photograph square oil paintings >> (notches in frame optional). > > How many paintings are 6x7 in proportion? Who cares about wasting 1cm of film? One piece of advice...I work with RB67 all the time and my first 2 lenses were those that you got....90 mm lens suffers from barrel distortion (it's just on the border of wide/normal focal length lens) which you will have to fix later in photoshop...127 mm lens would be the best choice... > One piece of advice...I work with RB67 all the time and my first 2 lenses > were those that you got....90 mm lens suffers from barrel distortion (it's > just on the border of wide/normal focal length lens) which you will have > to fix later in photoshop...127 mm lens would be the best choice... I never noticed any distortion with my 90mm; care to elaborate? >>One piece of advice...I work with RB67 all the time and my first 2 lenses >>were those that you got....90 mm lens suffers from barrel distortion (it's >>just on the border of wide/normal focal length lens) which you will have >>to fix later in photoshop...127 mm lens would be the best choice... > > I never noticed any distortion with my 90mm; care to elaborate? just point your camera to a straight vertical or horizontal line (a wall or something) and you will see the lines in the viewfinder drifting to the center of your shot. something like reverse fish-eye effect but much less, of course... and you will see the lines in the viewfinder drifting to > the center of your shot. that goes for the lines that are closer to the edge of your shot... >127 mm lens would be the best choice... Or ther 140 macro dependant upon the size of the objects being photographed. I use the 140 and it's the sweetest lens I've ever put on a MF camera. JD - www.puresilver.org > I bought a RB67 Pro-S with a 65mm and 90mm lens to do copy work of > original [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > what I > want to do? Yes but I would dump the 65mm and replace it with a longer one...127mm or 180mm. Although the RB is fine, the best camera for that sort of work is a view camera...easier to keep film parallel to subject which is essential. -- dadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico > > I bought a RB67 Pro-S with a 65mm and 90mm lens to do copy work of > > original [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. > Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico The 65mm, while not ideal for what he wants to do, is still a great lens. Very sharp, very well corrected, and focuses down to 3.5 inches. It's my favorite lens for the RB. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com >>> I bought a RB67 Pro-S with a 65mm and 90mm lens to do copy work of >>> original [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> view camera...easier to keep film parallel to subject which is >> essential. > The 65mm, while not ideal for what he wants to do, That was the point. -- dadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico >> The 65mm, while not ideal for what he wants to do, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > dadiOH > ____________________________ I figured I needed a wide angle because these are not small oil paintings. They are typically 3x4' to 4x5'. I definately need to get back from them. Jim > > The 65mm, while not ideal for what he wants to do, > > That was the point. > > -- Yes, that's why I mentioned that, but it's not _my_ point. My point is it's a great lens in any case, and he may not want to get rid of it. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com > Although the RB is fine, the best camera for that sort of work is a view > camera...easier to keep film parallel to subject which is essential. But less easy to keep both (!) film plane and lens plane "parallel to subject which is essential". >But less easy to keep both (!) film plane and lens plane "parallel to >subject which is essential". Nothing hard at all about keeping the two standards of a LF monorail camera absolutely parallel, and no problem with making both parallel to the subject, particularly if the standards have angle scales on all the tilt/swivel adjustments. You merely set the same angle measurement into both standards! And if the photo is not perfectly centered in the frame, you merely use rise and fall, and shifts to center it perfectly very quickly, unlike the tripod moving gyrations you have to do with a MF camera. (I bet you I can do it all faster on the LF than you on the MF.) > >But less easy to keep both (!) film plane and lens plane "parallel to > >subject which is essential". [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the subject, particularly if the standards have angle scales on all the > tilt/swivel adjustments. [...] Sure. Still not as easy as when using a camera that has fixed parallel lens and film planes.. If you can hang the painting on a wall or support holding it upright, plumb, and get the camera at the center point of the painting, you have parallel planes and don't need tilts or swings. If the paintings are in museums or galleries and you don't have the ability to do that, then a view camera is better. If a modern press/technical camera system existed-the Linhofs are not only overpriced but heavy and balky-you'd be good to go. The Linhof does, however, have the Cine-Rollex back.... > If you can hang the painting on a wall or support holding it upright, > plumb, and get the camera at the center point of the painting, you have > parallel planes and don't need tilts or swings. If the paintings are in > museums or galleries and you don't have the ability to do that, then a > view camera is better. How? You still need to get the lens and film planes parallel to the art work. You can do that by tilting the entire RB, or by tilting both the front and rear standard of the viewcamera individually (and use sh.t to line them up again, or tilt the entire view camera, just like the RB. Using the RB would be the easiest way. Next comes tilting the entire view camera (and as long as you're sure the front and rear are set pararell, that's it. But since on a view camera there is a possibility they are not, you will have to check. The RB wins). A poor third will be using tilt of both front and rear standards, plus the front rise (when 'looking up') then necessary as well. > [ ...] and use sh.t to line them up A Freudian slip? Or just my age old and incurable problem of not knowing how to spell/write/use a keyboard? >> [ ...] and use sh.t to line them up > > A Freudian slip? > Or just my age old and incurable problem of not knowing how to > spell/write/use a keyboard? I do have a 4x5 view camera that I can do this with. My objections to the 4x5 are film processing cost vs medium format. The time it takes to do a Medium vs Large format is huge. A 6x7cm will serve me well. Time is money. >or by tilting both the front and >rear standard of the viewcamera individually (and use sh.t to line them up >again, or tilt the entire view camera, just like the RB... >A poor third will be using tilt of both front and rear standards, plus the >front rise (when 'looking up') then necessary as well. Look at modern monorails...they have standards with angle scales for tilt. Not hard to match the same degree setting on front and rear, you merely have to know how to read or count lines! > Look at modern monorails...they have standards with angle scales for > tilt. Not hard to match the same degree setting on front and rear, you > merely have to know how to read or count lines! Yes, yes, yes. The point however is still being missed, i think. It is, firstly, about the difference between "not hard to match [...] read or count lines" and not having to do that at all. Secondly, about there not being a need at all for view cameras and view camera motions. The OP is asking about whether or not his RB is suited for the task. Which it is. Then someone suggests a view camera would be better, because a view camera would be easier to keep parallel. And because that just isn't so. There is no point in even mentioning view cameras. See? > [...] And because that just isn't so. There is > no point in even mentioning view cameras. Should be one sentence: And because that just isn't so, there is no point in even mentioning view cameras. > Then someone suggests a view camera would be better, because a view camera > would be easier to keep parallel. And because that just isn't so. Yes. > There is no point in even mentioning view cameras. Well, there is in that he's talking about making 11x enlargements from his 6x7, and if people are going to look at the print to see the brushstrokes in the oil painting, then he might be happier with 6x from 4x5 than 11x from 6x7. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan > Well, there is in that he's talking about making 11x enlargements from his > 6x7, and if people are going to look at the print to see the brushstrokes in > the oil painting, then he might be happier with 6x from 4x5 than 11x from > 6x7. Yes, though 6x7 will do fine, the bigger the better. >> Look at modern monorails...they have standards with angle scales for >> tilt. Not hard to match the same degree setting on front and rear, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > camera would be easier to keep parallel. And because that just isn't > so. That's your opinion, not a fact. My opinion - based on having used both types of cameras over many years in this express way for 1000s of images - is that it *is* easier. For example, suppose the camera is parallel but a tad off center. With a view camera, one can simply shift as necessary, maintaining the previously established paralleism; with an RB (or other), the entire camera must be moved and, in the process, the paralleism is likely to be lost. I'm not (and didn't) suggest that an RB is unsatisfactory, merely that a view camera has advantages. It does. -- dadiOH ____________________________ dadiOH's dandies v3.06... ...a help file of info about MP3s, recording from LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico "Q.G. de Bakker" <qnu@tiscali.nl> spake thusly to the assembled multitudes, agog with barely concealed anticipation: >The OP is asking about whether or not his RB is suited for the task. Which >it is. >Then someone suggests a view camera would be better, because a view camera >would be easier to keep parallel. And because that just isn't so. There is >no point in even mentioning view cameras. I can't beleive that no-one has queried the OPs choice of film! Velvia wouldn't be my first choice for what amounts to repro work. What's needed, I would have thought, is something that doesn't stamp its own personality all over the subject matter. I would have thought Astia for its low contrast and neutral colours would be a much better choice than Vevia.... Signature| Julian Barkway, |"In the US, irony is a mark left on your clothes by | | Zurich, | a bad laundry service." - David Kennedy | | Switzerland +------------------+---------------------------------+ | jbarkway@LONDONpop.PARISagri.ch | (Hint: Capitals are out...) | > I can't beleive that no-one has queried the OPs choice of film! Velvia > wouldn't be my first choice for what amounts to repro work. What's needed, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I would have thought Astia for its low contrast and neutral colours would > be a much better choice than Vevia.... I did start a reply along that vein, suggesting provia or astia ... then said, ah screw it. If the OP likes to make poppy looking photos or emphasize colors for presentation, there's nothing 'wrong' with it. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> I can't beleive that no-one has queried the OPs choice of film! Velvia >> wouldn't be my first choice for what amounts to repro work. What's [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > said, ah screw it. If the OP likes to make poppy looking photos or > emphasize colors for presentation, there's nothing 'wrong' with it. Exactly why I chose Velvia "poppy looking photos" or in my case prints on Arches Infinity textured fine art paper. Jim Waggener > > If you can hang the painting on a wall or support holding it upright, > > plumb, and get the camera at the center point of the painting, you have [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > A poor third will be using tilt of both front and rear standards, plus the > front rise (when 'looking up') then necessary as well. Absolutely. Put the camera on a tripod or other support so that its lens C/L is concentric with the center of the painting. If the painting is mounted plumb but high and you can't lower it get a taller tripod-or some other extension. If it's in an institution and you have management sanction, use their maintenance manlift. The top of a forklift works fine too in some instances. If you hang a mirror where the center of the painting will be and arrange the camera so it's in the center of the mirror the camera and wall are parallel. Signaturedarkroommike ---------- > > I bought a RB67 Pro-S with a 65mm and 90mm lens to do copy work of > > original [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > LP/cassette and tips & tricks on this and that. > Get it at http://mysite.verizon.net/xico > If you hang a mirror where the center of the painting will be and arrange > the camera so it's in the center of the mirror the camera and wall are > parallel. Mike, Good suggestion. Parralex promlems are simple in Photoshop. Simply drag dowm rulers on each verticle and horizonal edge. Select "all" then go to Edit>transform>skew and drag the picture to line up with your square.. Jim > I bought a RB67 Pro-S with a 65mm and 90mm lens to do copy work of original > oil paintings. I will scan the positives (Fujichrome Velveia 50) and print > on an Epson 7600. Size nomally 24x30". Was this a good choice for what I > want to do? I almost bought an RB67 and 180 f/4.5. Price was very hard to resist. Would have been great for flat copy work. But, as I like to do other things outdoor, the 67 was just too damned big. Bought a 500CM and 150 f/4 (and 80mm f/2.8). Cheers, Alan. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. >> I bought a RB67 Pro-S with a 65mm and 90mm lens to do copy work of >> original oil paintings. I will scan the positives (Fujichrome Velveia 50) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Cheers, > Alan. Alan, Size is not a consideraration. It will be used only in a studio setting. I do want the "punch" of Velvia 50. Just to let everyone know, these are original paintings made by my wife. www.dorothyfagan.com regards, Jim waggener |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.