@rl Thanks! Well, I think it was taken with the Bronica ETRS I had at the time, 250mm (180mm - 35mm equivalent), probably K64 slide film and 1/250 @ f/8, since it was sunny and bright that day. Post-processed with NX-Studio, Topaz Photo AI & PS- CS5.
@rl It was just okay. I had it for about 8 years. ETRS had some annoying operational quirks, and the split image finder did not focus accurately when using the 250mm - it was off compared to the surrounding ground glass field. Many of my tele images came out soft until I figured it out. By then, I was done and traded it for an F3. Now that was a camera!
@rl It was to me at the time, but I was shooting a lot of B&W and printing it myself for (hopeful) publication in rail-oriented magazines (1982-1990). The 645-size negatives were better for enlargement than 35mm. I had also hoped that the magazines would be thrilled to have medium format slides to work with, but the opposite was true - they weren't set up to deal with them, so I never had a single medium format color slide published. With today's optics, I would have no need for medium format, since I don't print anything for publication or wall art. Unless one is printing large, medium format equipment is not really necessary, IMO. It's also more expensive, generally heavier, and slower in operation than 35mm.
Thanks! Well, I think it was taken with the Bronica ETRS I had at the time, 250mm (180mm - 35mm equivalent), probably K64 slide film and 1/250 @ f/8, since it was sunny and bright that day. Post-processed with NX-Studio, Topaz Photo AI & PS- CS5.
It was just okay. I had it for about 8 years. ETRS had some annoying operational quirks, and the split image finder did not focus accurately when using the 250mm - it was off compared to the surrounding ground glass field. Many of my tele images came out soft until I figured it out. By then, I was done and traded it for an F3. Now that was a camera!
It was to me at the time, but I was shooting a lot of B&W and printing it myself for (hopeful) publication in rail-oriented magazines (1982-1990). The 645-size negatives were better for enlargement than 35mm. I had also hoped that the magazines would be thrilled to have medium format slides to work with, but the opposite was true - they weren't set up to deal with them, so I never had a single medium format color slide published. With today's optics, I would have no need for medium format, since I don't print anything for publication or wall art. Unless one is printing large, medium format equipment is not really necessary, IMO. It's also more expensive, generally heavier, and slower in operation than 35mm.