[sleeping]

I’ve found that the Kodak minilab CDs seem to be generally the worst – low resolution and very compressed – you can pretty much only use them for low resolution web images. They do work for Farktography size images, though (sometimes with some level tweaking). Noritsu and Fuji CDs seem to be a bit better, but you’re pretty much always going to have to scan them yourself (or pay out the nose for pro scans) if you need high resolution….

[sleeping]

It seems to me that, given the increasing capabilities cameras are getting for post-taking image manipulation that disallowing “post exposure” manipulation probably makes more sense than allowing in camera things, but not photoshop. Just MO….

[sleeping]

I have an old 1GB IBM one I keep in my bag as a backup for my D70. I haven’t had any problems with it, but it’s noticeably slower than my normal CF cards. Also, it won’t fit into some CF readers.

[sleeping]

A preliminary test of this method shows that it is indeed helpful in the blowout situations. It was overcast here at sunset and I couldn’t fully test it but in the next few days I hope to get in some test shots to play with. Thank You Sleeping, You are wide awake with your photography knowledge.

I can’t claim credit for that, I believe I got it from “Understanding Exposure” by Bryan Peterson. It’s basic, but I found it was pretty helpful, apart from his tendency for stupid cute names for his rules of thumb….

[sleeping]

Try taking your meter reading from the sky, not including any ground, trees, etc or the sun itself. This is easy if you have an exposure lock button, or you may be able to do it on manual.

[sleeping]

1) do you not use a tank and just develop the negatives as one would a print? in trays?
2) if you use a tank do you not have a light tight room to load it in?

I have a tank(yankee agitank), but it’s a huge pain to load. I’ve wound up with all kinds of scratches on film etc. and development wasn’t very even. I got better results developing them emulsion side in in a cylindrical roll film tank and fixing in trays, but you can only do one at a time that way.

I tried tray development in my bathroom, but I don’t have enough flat surface for it to be workable.

3) do your scans of 6 x 6 (or what we old timers call 2 1/14) produce prints bigger than 8 x 10 that are decent? my 2400 dpi scans of 35mm produced really disappointing results. and my scanner won’t do 4800 dpi on that size source. although it’s supposed to do 4800 dpi.

I haven’t made any really huge prints, but I’ve made a couple really good 11x14s. I made one from a 35mm scan that size too, and it was perfectly usable, but you could really see the difference with the MF.

4) since a 4 x 5 scan to a 8 x 10 print is only a four fold increase do those print well?

I haven’t actually printed any, but I think you’d have to use a microscope or go bigger than 8×10 to see a big improvement vs medium format.

and here Quality-wise, there’s not that much difference between my D70 and 35mm film. i’m thinking you mean printing from the source not a print from a scan of the neg.

I believe it depends on your scanner – my old microtek wouldn’t do the job, now I have an epson v700. Scanning mounted slides (which hold the film really flat) I can get comparable results. Film strips are a little more hit or miss, because any curl in the film causes flatness issues. Tri-X has been giving me fits in this regard…

[sleeping]

I know slide film is more finicky about exposure–expose for highlights to avoid blowing them out like with digital, right?

Only if what’s in the highlights is important, IMO – you can’t pull extra detail out of the shadows nearly as easily as you can with digital, so you really want to make sure the *subject* is exposed correctly, even if that means blocked up shadows or blown highlights.

[sleeping]

That is quite a switch that you started off digital and have switched to film.Could you expound on your preception of the experience of changing from digital to film?

Well, a fair bit of why I use film a lot has to do with the gear I have, rather than any particular advantage of film per se.

For one thing, I like analog controls. I can look at most of my film cameras and immediately see what all the settings are without going into menus, and fussing around with little buttons.

I do a fair bit of close-up and macro work, and for that I’d rather use a manual focus SLR – I think I started using my 35mm film gear a lot mostly because of my Minolta MD 100mm f/3/5. AF doesn’t work nearly as well at close range, and manual SLRs are better set up for manual focusing – you generally have focusing aids (microprisms, split-image) and a focusing screen which is designed for accurate focusing. AF screens tend to be optimized for an overall brighter view instead of accurate focusing. Also, the gearing in a lot of AF lenses is crap for manual focusing.

Or, for another example, wide angles are easier on my film cameras. My 17mm Tokina is super wide on film, but has the FOV of a 26mm on my d70.

The one place I find film does have a real advantage (with negative film, not so much with slides) is better handling of high contrast situations – it’s a bit more resistant to getting completely blown out, and when it does get to that point, it’s not quite as harsh as it is with digital (highligts bleed just a little into the surrounding area, making a smoother transition).

Quality-wise, there’s not that much difference between my D70 and 35mm film. On the other hand, if I want to get serious results, I have some medium format gear. I usually scan a 6x6cm negative at 2400 dpi, and get about the equivalent of 24 megapixels. I could actually scan them at 4800, but unless I wanted a huge print, it’s not worth the hassle of dealing with files that big. Then, I also have 4×5″ and 5×7″ large format cameras… Developing sheet film by hand without a proper darkroom is kind of a pain though, I haven’t used them as much as I should…

[sleeping]

I think that Sleeping’s top entry was actually a Trojan Orange or mayhap twas Elsinore’s spy revealed and therefore under the Articles of the Geneva Convention that Lord Ezekiel mentioned may be executed.

Already happened – that’s the same apple that was cut in half in my other entry….

[sleeping]

I started out digital – I had a couple of Olympus compacts, and then I bought a D70. After that, though, I discovered that all kinds of amazing film gear can be got very cheaply on ebay. I hardly use the D70 for anything serious these days unless I’m using flash.

Instead, I’m usually carrying any one of a fairly large number of older film cameras: Nikon and Minolta MD 35mm gear, Bronica SQ-Ai medium format SLR, a couple TLRs, etc… and I’m joining the Canon camp now, I just bought one of these: http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/1955-1969/data/1959_p.html
(no pictures yet, I’m hoping it arrives tomorrow)

[sleeping]

My “Curves” photo this week was done by reversing an old 2×3″ Press/View camera lens onto an old 200mm manual telephoto on my D70.

Mounting a lens backwards on the front of a lens mounted normally on a camera can give high magnifications without the same degree of light loss you get using extension tubes/bellows. The reversed lens acts like a powerful close up diopter, except it’s much better optically than the standard single element ones that screw in like filters.

I have a coupler (ring with filter threads on both sides) that allows me to screw them together, but you can also do it with tape, rubber bands, etc. You generally want a telephoto with a small front element on the camera (you’ll get all kinds of vignetting if you use a wide angle), and a fairly fast normal/short tele lens as the reversed one. Naturally, the reversed lens doesn’t have to be compatible with your body (and you can get old manual focus 50mm f/1.8ish lenses on ebay for practically nothing)

This can also be a fairly easy ways of doing true macro photography with a compact digicam, if you can find a lens that fits (the “macro” mode on most of them isn’t even close to real macro territory, although there are some exceptions).

[sleeping]

oh, and your HTML will probably work there. This forum doesn’t seem to like it.

[sleeping]

I hope this is how to enter the contest. I would like to enter these two pictures. If I did this wrong then I would appreciate any help.
Thanks Quick Silver

Nope, you need to post in the Fark thread, not here. Zeke linked to it further up in the thread.

[sleeping]

New tech question…how to get a Canon lens onto a Nikon body…hmmm

The Nikon F mount has a longer distance between the lens mount and the film/sensor plane, so it’s not really feasible, at least if you want to focus to infinity. The reverse (Nikon F lens to EOS) does exist though (I suppose it would be possible to create one for the old Nikon rangefinder bodies, but I don’t think it would be especially useful…)

[sleeping]

Any electronics wizards who could help me figure out how to make it fire on the 30D (preferably without running high voltage through my camera!) would be appreciated.

These would work, I think, but they’re not exactly cheap: http://www.omegasatter.com/v2/products/displaycategory.cfm?CatID=482

[Author]

Posts