Jump to content

Wouter Willemse

PhotoNet Pro
  • Posts

    10,288
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Wouter Willemse last won the day on January 18 2017

Wouter Willemse had the most liked content!

Reputation

851 Excellent

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. No idea for Ilfosol, but if I am not mistaken, not a developer particularly suited to stand development. Since I used to have a pile of expired C41 film, I used to use Rodinal 1:100 with stand development for 1 hour for test shots. It rendered grainier results than the OP has posted, but for testing purposes good enough to understand if a camera is working correctly. Rodinal is cheap enough and has pretty much infinite shelf-life, so useful to keep around for purposes like this one. Personally, if I had quality films (Ektacolor for sure), I wouldn't go down this road, but rather just get them properly developed.
  2. It doesn't mean anything. The 100k quoted by Nikon is not a limit, but a statistical average on when failure is most likely to occur (the MTBF). It only concerns the shutter, which as a mechanical part is more likely to get worse with more use. But that doesn't mean other parts cannot fail either. And for none of them you can predict when a single camera will fail.
  3. When I'm fine with large, heavy and battery dependent, I'll take my DSLR :-) I do tend to small, light and mechanical film cameras. Rather than the Leicaflex SL/SL2, it's the R6 for me. It's probably not as good (and in fact not as good as the FM2n in my view, then again, not much SLRs are), but the R lenses make up for it. Though they also make up for any weightsaving - they're not exactly lightweight lenses. For larger, and yet light: I'm liking the Yashica D more and more.
  4. Stores I typically use for online shopping are www.retrocamera.be (good prices, and wide selection of the usual materials) and Fotohuis RoVo shop (good prices, and a good source for less regular stuff).
  5. In my experience, the only thing that helped somewhat reducing grain with Rodinal was slow and little agitation, and running lower temperatures. I've used Rodinal with the current Agfa APX100, and it is *not* a low grain combination, plus the contrast pretty easily became excessive. If I want really low grain, I go with Perceptol. Gives great tonality, but sacrifices some sharpness in the process. With good slow(er) films, that is not much of an issue, since they're inherently sharp enough. HC110 is also an excellent choice, and since it stays good for a very long time, getting one bottle to last you several years makes a lot of sense if you develop irregular quantities.
  6. "Image quality" -which means something else for each of us- versus budget is always a worryingly slippery slope. Ultimately, we all have to make our own choices, and each of us have a different amounts of cash to waste. To each his own. I'm very happy with my 58mm, but as said above, it's not the logical choice for all. As much as I dislike the rendering of the Sigma 50mm Art, I don't find anyone is wrong for choosing that lens. I get the qualities of that lens, but it emphasises qualities I am not particularly looking for. Likewise, if somebody wants to spend good money on a Lensbaby, I get that. I see zero need to dismiss any of these tools, because the only thing that matters is whether they work for you, get you the results you're after, and whether using them makes you feel satisfied or not. How others spend their money isn't my problem much.
  7. The lenstip test is not very consistent with what many users have found in actual real use on their camera. There are plenty user tests that show the lens is capable enough (photographylife.com for example). Yes, the lens doesn't have that highest resolution of them all. Well, surprise, resolution isn't the end all and be all to all users. As said, choice is good, and just because something doesn't float your boat, doesn't mean it's a hoax of sorts.
  8. Mine feels solid, despite being lightweight. No reason to assume it's any less than other lenses that are doing their job without issue for years. Heavier doesn't necessarily mean that something is more durable or resistant to bumps and such. It's costly because it's a speciality lens that appeals to a niche. Some people feel the rendering qualities of this lens are worth it, and are willing to pay the price. Many feel it's not, and are happier with a Sigma Art, or the other 50mm lenses that Nikon has (which are even lighter). I rather have the choice than not. Do you have any reason to assume it's not reliable, apart from the false belief that lower weight means lower quality?
  9. .... the first one I bought was digital :-) A Fuji A201, compact very simple camera with fixed lens and 2 whole megapixels. I was trying to learn image editing at the time, and wanted a way to get materials to play with in Photohop. It was the cheapest camera I could find (and afford), and it made me realise I liked taking photos better than I like editing them. First film camera I bought myself was a heavily used Nikon F3. Lovely camera, but it's eating batteries (probably some leaking condensator somewhere), so it sees no more use these days.
  10. Light, cheap, sturdy - pick 2. Carbon fiber is pretty much the lightest material you'll find that is yet sturdy enough to be really stable. So frankly, I severly doubt you can do better than the one you already have, at best a smaller carbon fiber (and Gitzo is a great brand), but the weight savings won't be massive.
  11. Colour spaces like sRGB or AdobeRGB have nothing to do with how much data is available in the image, only with how the data in the image will be "mapped" to colours on the output device. So whether you have sRGB or AdobeRGB files coming out of your scanner doesn't matter: it still has captured the exact same amount of data.
  12. I share between digital and film, and with film, I do shoot slightly different. I mostly shoot B&W film, so there are colour filters to be considered, plus grain/contrast based on the film and ISO used. While with digital I usually know up front that an image will end up in B&W, the actual choices for conversion (colour filters, grain) take place during post processing. Also with film I tend to shoot somewhat more conservative when it comes to wide apertures, or maybe better to say that with digital I experiment a lot more and use more extreme large apertures and shallow DoF. In a way, a lot of my digital images work as studies for things I later re-do in film; but whether I ultimately end up with more keepers in film than with digital, not too sure.
×
×
  • Create New...