Jump to content

StuartMoxham

Members
  • Posts

    3,409
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

10 Good
  1. I still have the old versions that I've had for years. I didn't know about the free upgrade still it doesn't matter that much mine work just fine.
  2. Here's mine with Silver FX Pro. I've had this for years and have a few presets I made myself for B&W images, its a great piece of software. I think at some point google gave it away free just after I had paid for it but thats years ago now. It's really easy to do B&W conversions in lightroom too but I just like Silver FX pro.
  3. StuartMoxham

    By the Sea.

    Dramatic B&W Photo. Processed in Silver FX pro
  4. <p>I wouldn't mind a cheaper 1.8 or f2 version in the future.<br> I have been considering the 105 f2 dc or 136 DC for use on my Sony A7. On the Sony with the EVF it's possible to get really accurate manual focus and as both have an aperture ring they would be pretty good for that body. I'm still on the fence though as I tend to grab my 80-200 f2.8 for portraits over any of my other lenses. It's pretty great on the sony A7 and very sharp too when it is focused correctly.</p>
  5. <p>When I started in photography I had the classic 28 f2.8, 50mm f1.8 and 135 f2.8 and a Praktica BC1 electronic. The spread of focal lengths was enough and it was easy to decide which lens to use, the 50mm and 135 I used for portraits.</p> <p><br /> Today for me an 80-200 f2.8 Nikkor covers mosts my portrait telephoto needs for my DSLRs. I do have an 85mm f1.8g but I rarely use it preferring the zoom instead.</p> <p><br /> I suspect that many people like me tend to use an 80-200 f2.8 or f4 zoom instead of a selection of 2.8 telephoto primes such as a 105 f2.5 a 135 f2.8 and a 180 f2.8 as it is some what easier to work with whilst still having good image quality.</p> <p><br /> I also suspect that those that find a 2.8 too slow tend to have a faster lens such as the 105 f2 AF, 135 F2 AF or a 200mm F2 AF.<br /> I've also noticed that many people tend to like an 85mm lens for portraits and the 85 f1.8 lenses tend to be reasonably price an 85 f1.4 is also available for those that want more.</p> <p><br /> My guess is that the 135 f2.8 just not in great demand today as there are other options which are maybe more versatile such as zooms or a faster prime is more desirable.</p>
  6. <p>Well you can have all the control you want over the final results it just takes work to learn how to do it.</p> <p>I guess you want to work digital post processing so you need decent scans that either means paying for the scans or buying a decent film scanner for medium format film and making decent scans yourself.</p> <p>You can work decent 16bit film scans in lightroom the same as you do RAW files. If the scan captures all the shadow and highlight details from the film then it will be rather like a RAW file that you can push and pull around in lightroom. The better quality the scan the better the results will be.</p> <p>Remember 645 isn't that big, 6x7 or 6x9 would be better for really large prints if you want more details or just go large format instead.</p> <p>With poor quality scans you could easily end up with soft mushy/grainy results that could be worse than you get now from your DSLR.</p> <p>Film is something I shoot for fun, it's different from digital, has a different look and sometimes I enjoy darkroom printing.<br /> I don't print big and all my film gear is 35mm now. Even when I did shoot medium format I never produce large prints for myself.<br /> For me I enjoyed the small jewel like prints I could make from medium format negs. A 7X7 inch darkroom print from a 6x6cm negative has a beautiful rich tonality thats hard to beat.</p>
  7. <p>Are you scanning or darkroom printing. If you are scanning you could try two scans one biased for the sky and another for the rest of the image then combine the two in photoshop.<br /> The other would way could be to use an ND grad when shooting.<br /> If you are darkroom printing then give the sky more exposure while printing.<br /> You could also try a bit less development time say 20% less, that would help stop blowing out the brighter areas and leave you with a negative that is easier to control in post processing.<br /> Sometimes it's difficult to get everything recorded on a single negative frame but if you shoot from tripod you could make two shots one exposed for the sky and the other for the rest of the image, then combine the negs either in post processing or the darkroom.</p>
  8. <p>I have you tried burning in the sky when you are enlarging. Thousands upon thousands of images have the sky burned in during enlarging. It was a really common thing to have to do. Try an orange filter next time when you go out and shoot. I used an orange filter quite alot. It's not as week as yellow and not as strong as red.</p>
  9. <p>Great one, now has anyone seen the pancake bunny lately.</p>
  10. <p>One at f2 if I recall correctly.</p> <p><a title="web3000pxDSC01890" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1614/25995824592_7ca8799859_z.jpg" alt="web3000pxDSC01890" width="640" height="427" /></a></p>
  11. <p>Here you go wide open. It's funky or has character depending how you look at it.</p> <p><a title="web3000pxDSC01893" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1473/25483588974_1fbefaf433_z.jpg" alt="web3000pxDSC01893" width="640" height="427" /></a></p>
  12. <p>I've always been very pleased with my 35mm 1.4 Ais. It's not great wide open but at 2.8 and beyond it's pretty good.</p> <p><a title="Turku Riverside" href=" data-flickr-embed="true"><img src="https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3900/14803151812_9b19b2bce0_z.jpg" alt="Turku Riverside" width="640" height="251" /></a></p>
  13. <p>The FM2 is a great manual body from Nikon. It's as simple as it get with no auto exposure.<br> I wouldn't go for the FM10 when a used FM2 can be had much cheaper.</p>
  14. <p>Panasonic GM1 with kit zoom and olympus 25mm f1.8 is my lightweight setup.</p>
×
×
  • Create New...