jphotog

Photographs taken in public may be printed and sold. You can also use the images for editorial purposes, for example in a book or selling them to a newspaper to be used in an article. You may not sell them or use them commercially. This usually means advertising.

Social media: There are FB groups with models. I am a member of Bangkok models. I prefer to make clothed shoots, but some models are open for fine art nude. You can also search on Twitter. Other options are modelling agencies or sites such as modelmayhem.com Take a class or a workshop

<p>I guess the advantage of the meter knob is that you do not have to bring a separate handheld meter. You probably want to slide it off the camera to take the reading anyways, right?<br> I often shoot filters. I think a metered prism would be my preference since it meters TTL.</p>

<p>I agree with ross b: "I think picking a single developer would be better then jumping around. All the films are pretty good and figure a 100 speed film is nice for low grain and great quality and a 400 speed for versatility. Just pick 2 films based on your experience."<br /> And I would like to add, calibrate your process for this film/developer combination.<br /> If you have your process under control most films and developers will give results that are surprisingly similar.<br /> Rodinal will still look different from Xtol and HP5+ will look different from T-Max 100. However, I do not think most people could tell the difference between 4 identical subjects printed from T-Max/Delta 100 developed in Xtol or HC-110.</p>

<p>HP5+ and Ilfosol 3 seems to be a bad combination.<img src=" alt="" /><br /> <img src=" alt="" /></p> <p>I have since then moved on to try D-76/ID11, Xtol, HC-110 and never experienced anything like it. Ilfosol 3 is also known to die a sudden death.</p><div></div>

<p>It is not difficult to mix a powder developer and you do not need particular skills. Just follow the instructions and you will be fine. If you have particles in the solution, I am pretty sure the water was too cold.</p> <ul> <li>D-76 is probably the best developer overall (=less pros and less cons). You can control your desired balance between graininess and acutance by changing the concentration. Stock=minimal grain, 1:3=maximum acutance. ID-11 is identical when it comes to the development, but it is easier to mix since it comes in a single bag (it has something to do with coating of the powder grains!?)</li> <li>Xtol gives slightly higher film speed (=more detail in the shadows) and slightly finer grain compared to D-76. Same principle to control grain/acutance as D-76. Xtol is also more environmental friendly and less harmful to the health. The drawback is that it only comes in 5 liter bags, it is known to die under certain conditions (not fun if you are developing your lifetime masterpiece) and it is recommended to use clean water (either boil water and filter when cooled down or use battery water)</li> <li>HC-110 is liquid and very convenient to mix. It gives slightly worse results than D-76 and Xtol (a difference so small that it can probably only be seen by very accurate side-by-side comparisons). Dilution B gives too short development times for some films so the unofficial Dilution H is recommended (=half conc. of B and double development time). You do not have the control over grain vs. acutance</li> <li>Ilfosol 3 has been a huge disappointment to me (which does not mean it is not good for you). The main problem is the short development times that make it difficult to reproduce the results. The grains are visibly coarser andquite ugly looking compared to Xtol with none of the advantages of for example Rodinal (Adonal) and that is not what you want when shooting ISO 400 film. It is also known to die a sudden death</li> <li>Rodinal (Adonal) is in my opinion just for special effect. It gives the graininess a very characteristic look that is suitable for some occasions. It also renders beautiful highlighs, so you can get nice results when you for example shoot into the sun</li> </ul> <p>I like the look of Tri-X, but I absolutely hate how it curls. I like the look of TMAX 400 even better and this is my go to film for ISO 400. HP5+ look, despite what everybody are saying, exactly the same as Tri-X (as does Delta 400 and TMAX 400), but it does not curl. Thus, if I were you I would get rid of the Tri-X.<br /> All above are just my opinions and do not believe it just because it is on internet! ;-)<br /> Cheers,<br /> Jonas</p>

<p>Hello,</p> <p>I was wondering if anyone has any recent experince of where to buy 120 film in Bangkok?</p> <p>There exist several threads on this subject, but they are all dated. Many of them suggest Fotofile but they do not carry film anymore.</p> <p>Cheers,</p> <p>Jonas</p>

<p>Wouter,</p> <p>You're obviously right that the newer lenses are performing better. However, this is still a pretty cool lens that would have a nice place in my AI/AI-s collection.</p> <p>Well, the guy got cold feet and the lens is not longer for sale, so problem solved.</p> <p>Thanks everybody for your input!</p>

<p>Hi,</p> <p>I have an opportunity to buy the Nikkor 15mm f/5.6 Ai ultra wide lens. There is not so much information to be found, but there is some on K. Rockwell as well as on mir.com and in various forums.</p> <p>What I found was the the 15mm f/5.6 was introduced in 1973 with a 15 elements in 12 groups design. In 1976 the lens design was changed to a 14 elements in 12 groups design. A year or so later, in 1977, it was upgraded with automatic indexing, Ai.</p> <p>In 1979 it was replaced by the 15mm f/3.5 Ai, which was later upgraded to Ai-s in 1982. The lens was discontinued in 2006.</p> <p>The lens I am considering appear to be the 15mm f/5.6 Ai. It is in very good optical condition, but there some scratches and paint that has been scraped off the barrel, especially the locking button for filter change.</p> <p>The lens has filters built in behind the front lens. By turning a ring, a yellow, orange or red filter can be chosen. Obviously the option of no filter is available too.</p> <p>There seem to be different and conflicting opinions, but it seems like it in general is less sharp than modern lenses like the 14-24/2.8, but that it is fairly sharp corner to corner at f/8 and f/11.</p> <p>The distortion is supposed to be virtually zero.</p> <p>All these older ultra wide angles are prone to ghosting. Some say that the 15mm f/3.5 is not even suitable to use outside. I have seen reports that the f/5.6 Ai is less prone to ghosting than the newer f/3.5 lenses.</p> <p>I have heard that split prisms are not preferred, because they make the viewfinder even darker.</p> <p>I have also heard that the built in filters tend to age.</p> <p>My question is: Is there anyone out there with first hand experience who can either support or oppose these claims?</p> <p>I appreciate any piece of information.</p> <p>Cheers,</p> <p>Jonas</p>