[sleeping]

… an electronics packrat … deciding which piece of archaic “junk” to photograph …

TUBES.

For added points, you could arrange them in a series…

[sleeping]

I haven’t done it in a while, but I’ve used Diafine with some success – it’s by far the easiest developer out there, you don’t need to worry a whole lot about accurate time and temperature because it’s a two-bath process.

[sleeping]

Contest: http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=5719281

[sleeping]

Kestrana and orionid:

I just realized that your wedding might end up looking like this:

(not my picture)

I love the one person in there that looks like they’re holding a camera phone in the midst of a sea of 300 and 400mms….

[sleeping]

[I don’t consider “arranging your setup” to be wrong so I didn’t think that’s what you were going for.

Oh, I do some minor rearrangement fairly often too, but I generally try to keep it within the realm of the physically possible, and this one really wasn’t.

[sleeping]

Whoever took the picture sprayed the leaves with water?

No, that was the rain 🙂

The droplets should be running, but they’re not. Some seem to be heading in different directions (the droplets should be dripping off the
leaf tips). Gravity is taking a day off.

That’s part of it, yes. The other thing is that that’s actually the bottom side of the leaf, which would’t get rained on at all normally. The rougher underside of the leaves holds water droplets a lot better than the shiny top sides, so I picked an upside down one from the ground and held it up like it might be hanging on a tree, but it totally wasn’t.

[sleeping]

The water drops are really clear but nothing I can’t chalk up to unsharp mask.

60mm AF-D micro-nikkor – seriously sharp, at least stopped down a bit.

Although now that I look at it, some of the drops are so big I’m surprised they are still distinct bubbles and not dripping.

This is the right track.

[sleeping]

Wrong is probably an overstatement. Perhaps “unnatural” would have been better…

[sleeping]

Hmm. I put about 10,000 on my D70 and 8,000 on the D90 (plus probably 3000 or so frames of 35mm) over about 5 1/2 years, but I’m up to 6137 on the D700 in about 4 months, so I seem to be speeding up 🙂

[sleeping]

Ugh, sorry to hear that.

I hope this doesn’t turn into an epidemic, though. I had left my 17-35/2.8 AF-S on my desk yesterday, and knocked it onto the floor when I spun my chair around. Now the aperture mechanism isn’t opening and closing right.

!#)#$))%)%)@$%^^% !!!!!!

I’m hoping it’s nothing worse than a disconnected return spring….

[sleeping]

I don’t think I will be upgrading to FX anytime soon. I am miles away from mastering the D-5000.

But you will eventually 🙂 and if you do want to go in the FX direction at that point it will be a lot easier if you don’t have to replace all of your glass at the same time.

Barring disasters, your lenses could last you easily 5-10 years, if not longer.

[sleeping]

Tamron 90/2.8 definitely = good. It’s not a whole lot cheaper than the 85/3.5 Nikkor though. I think the choice between them probably depends on how much you see yourself using it. My take on them

– As a portrait lens, the Tamron 90 beats the 85mm Nikon, I think – better bokeh and faster max aperture.
– As a general purpose tele, the Nikon is probably better (VR and faster focus)
– As a macro lens, they’re probably pretty close (VR and AF don’t help much in Macro land, and you generally want to stop down so a faster max aperture only means a little more potential focusing accuracy)
– If your plans include upgrading to FX, the nikon is a bad choice.

[sleeping]

Where do I cash in?

Points can be redeemed for cash in the ration of 10000/$ at any of our convenient locations in Tashkhent, Valetta or McMurdo Station! (please be sure to bring a Papal decree and three forms of photo ID confirming your identity.)

[sleeping]

I’ve done a little bit of Large Format, but not with a DSLR. It’s a lot of fun in some ways, but a giant PITA in others (unless you’re a big fan of slow and heavy…)

Mouting a DSLR in a view camera is something people are doing though, you can actually buy dedicated systems to do it e.g. from Sinar (but not cheaply – you’re talking significant $$). They’re probably mostly used for studio product work I imagine.

LF lenses don’t dramatically outperform 35mm ones in pure resolution terms inch for inch, the advantage you get using LF is mostly coming from the huge film area. I wouldn’t expect to see any significant improvement (and quite possibly the opposite) using vintage LF glass on a DSLR.

You probably want a lens in the 80-100mm range for tilt-shift work w/ a SLR (wider might even be better, but you’d need to know the minimum workable bellows draw of your camera), so you might actually be better off looking for something like an enlarging lens or one from a medium format system to attach to the front rather than a wide angle 4×5 lens (those tend to be expensive). You don’t need a shutter on the lens if you’re using an SLR, the camera’s one will do a better job anyways.

[sleeping]

Yup, my D700 has one as well. Completely forgot about it at first though… The cheaper Nikons come with a separate plastic cover instead.

[Author]

Posts