[sleeping]

Hello, zoom lens.

This guy may be overstating the case somewhat, but he does have a point:

http://www.prime-junta.net/pont/Pontification/n_Telephoto_Is_For_Wimps/a_Telephoto_Is_For_Cowards.html

[sleeping]

You can vote multiple times, just not for the same entry more than once.

[sleeping]

How about “Difficulty: Light source must be actively lighting the photo and must be included in the image (not a reflection, etc)”

[sleeping]

Photographs of unlit light sources work as well I take it?

Nope, it needs to be lighting the photo at the time.

Does it count if the light source is shown in a (clear) reflection?

No

Lightning? 😯

Yes

[sleeping]

This should have happened yesterday…

[sleeping]

With the Leica lens, the depth or perspective is the same as a 25mm lens on a film camera, but the width is the same as a 50mm.

You definitely can’t get the same exact behavior with regards to DOF and field of view when you change format, but it’s not quite that drastic – the DOF for a 25mm on 4/3rds will be somewhere between a 25mm and 50mm on full frame (probably be somewhere around the same as a 35mm).

The DOF increases substantially for smaller formats because of the shorter focal length, but you lose some of that compared to a lens of the same focal length on a larger format because of encreased enlargement (due to the sensor being smaller).

[sleeping]

I didn’t know wolves were available for rental. Hmm…. [goes off to ponder potential uses]

[sleeping]

I noticed on my current crappy Kodak, it says the lens is 34-102mm, so with an 18-55 will I be able to shoot out in the yard as well, or will I have to get into the action and/or buy another lens to capture that stuff better?

The equivalent focal length on your Kodak is for a full frame camera, not the smaller sensor on cheaper DSLRs. The smaller sensor means those 18-55 kit lenses are the approximate equivalent of a 28-85mm lens on full frame – it may be less different to your current camera than you’re thinking.

Oh, and if your dad’s camera is an Autofocus Minolta, some of the stuff he has might be compatible with the current Sony DSLRs as they basically adopted a lot of Minolta’s technology to start with (the older manual Minolta stuff is not easy to use digitally, though).

[sleeping]

Or you can pay extremely high prices to have someone else re-roll it for you:

http://www.centralcamera.com/Film/Film-for-Older-Cameras/

[sleeping]

The purple probably means the anti-halation layer wasn’t fully removed. I believe it’s the fixer that removes that (?) so maybe you’re not fixing long enough, or it’s used up?

[sleeping]

Yeah, I’m getting the “broken image” error for mine and I assume the same thing happened to everyone else?

[sleeping]

Some of the color ones are as-scanned, and some have been post processed from greyscale originals. I couldn’t tell you which are which though, not without checking the files….

My local CVS’s minilab gave decent, distinctly sepia scans from XP2, but BW400CN usually came out an ugly mix of purple and green if they didn’t correct them and make them BW.

[sleeping]

Are you scanning it as a color negative or Black and white? It’s got a narrower overall tonal range than real BW film, so if you’re scanning it as BW film it might come over quite flat (and the BW mode probably won’t account for the mask on the film base either) but it seems to have a pretty steep tone curve within that narrower range. It could be down to different equipment too, though.

[sleeping]

I second that, it’s definitely good stuff. I have a whole bunch in my freezer right now.

Ilford XP2 Super, the other C41 process Black and white film, is worth checking out as well. It’s got a clear base rather than the colored base of 400CN (it was intended for BW printing not color, but that doesn’t matter if you’re scanning), and while it’s not quite as contrasty, it’s got a ton of exposure latitude and a lot less grain.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/awrose/tags/bw400cn/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/awrose/tags/xp2super/

[sleeping]

Well, I was my own Santa, but I do have this now:

[Author]

Posts