[sleeping]

You should have asked this 4 or 5 years ago, there’s not much high speed color film made any more…

Fuji Superia 1600 is decent, but I don’t think it’s really quite 1600 – I got better results overexposing a bit (1000 or so)

Kodak’s fastest is portra 800, which I’ve heard is very good, but I have not used it and it’s more expensive.

The highest quality option might be Provia 400x, which can be pushed to 1600 with decent results, but it’s even pricier.

[sleeping]

Contest link: http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=3863847

[sleeping]

I see that Minolta SR-T 101 is a MC mount camera, and that MD lenses would work on it in manual mode.

Basically, MC lenses will support aperture priority on cameras with it, but not shutter priority or program mode on later MD mount cameras like the XD series or X700. They are all manual focus, Minolta went with a completely different mount for their AF cameras.

I have a decent collection of old minolta gear, it was a very cheap way into 35mm photography (the common lenses can be had for 30 or 40$ and most of them are excellent)

[sleeping]

Hmm, I’ve never used it, but apparently it’s got low grain and is pretty non-toxic and environmentally friendly.

http://www.digitaltruth.com/products/clayton_tech/PBF76PLUSFILMDEVELOPER.pdf

[sleeping]

In windows (XP at any rate) you can actually read quite a lot of the exif data right from the OS: Right-click > Properties > Summary > Advanced. It’s not complete, but it’s got a lot of the basic info.

[sleeping]

Tri X is good stuff – it’s pretty hard to not get a usable image out of it normally, it’s got very wide exposure latitude. On the other hand it’s got a bit more grain than more modern films like Tmax or Ilford Delta. The exact look of the results are going to depend on your developer, though. I’ve used it with Diafine:

http://flickr.com/search/?q=trix&w=74356260%40N00&z=t&s=int

[sleeping]

If you were shooting slide film, you’ll need to have it push processed one stop to get usable results (these days, this generally would mean sending it to a pro lab).

With negative film you might be able to get away with having it processed normally, but it will probably come out quite flat and grainy. It’s possible to push negative film as well as slide, but again you’d need to find a pro lab to do it, automated minilabs don’t generally have that capability.

[sleeping]

I’ve had a couple books printed by Blurb (http://blurb.com) and they turned out pretty good:

http://flickr.com/search/?q=blurb&w=74356260%40N00

They also have a group book function that lets multiple people submit images, but I haven’t used that so far.

[sleeping]

There were third party makers producing lenses for some of the old mounts for quite a while after they were discontinued by the original companies – they were fairly available well into the 2000s, and B&H has a few for FD still listed:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=search&A=search&Q=&ci=0&sb=ps&sq=desc&sortDrop=Relevance&ac=&bsi=&bhs=t&shs=fd&ci=8429&basicSubmit=Submit+Query

[sleeping]

I suppose I’m weird, but I like stitched images where the rectangles don’t merge perfectly. In other words, if it’s perfect and could just be a crop from a bigger picture that’s not as interesting to me. But I have a high tolerance for chaos and like abstract art too. So your mileage may vary…

I’ve seen some done like that which work really well, but more often when I see these there doesn’t seem to be much thought put in to the overall layout and that doesn’t generally do much for me, personally.

sleeping, the other night I went through your entire farktography portfolio. Very very impressive work.

Wow, thanks!

[sleeping]

It’s like dying and going to video heaven!

Well, as long as you don’t mind manual focus and won’t shoot anything that lasts more than 5 minutes anyway…

[sleeping]

That means 500 people liked my photos.:

Either that or 7 or so people liked all 79 of them each week 😉

[sleeping]

I suppose to some extent, the meaning of the theme depends on how you correct the grammatical error:

“Backlit photos, photographs where the border, outer edges or overall shape of the subject(s) are the highlight”

vs

“Backlit photos, photographs where the border, outer edges or overall shape of the subject(s) are highlighted”

The former seems like it would exclude more stuff than the latter…

[sleeping]

For instance, if the picture was of an ant on the far side of a sheet of rice paper, with the light source behind that, would it be a shadow?

Um, you mean, like a shadow puppet? 😉

[sleeping]

And if you really want to learn about lighting, this is an excellent place to start:

http://strobist.blogspot.com/2006/03/lighting-101.html

[Author]

Posts