Canon FD Photo(s) of the Month-November

<p>Oh I forgot - equipment was a T90, 35-105 F3.5, Fuji Superia X-tra 400, converted in PS Elements.</p><div></div>

<p>I just got this roll developed...half was from May and half from Oct. - Ekatchrome 64T cross-processed. This was taken at night in Marquette, MI in late May with my Canon A-1 and 28mm 2.8 FD lens.<br>

<a title="St. Peter's Cathedral by mfophotos, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1329/5129641180_cdbb666a1a_z.jpg" alt="St. Peter's Cathedral " width="426" height="640" /></a></p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have an FD-to-EF glass adapter for my dSLR but the images tend to be cloudy. How did you get these to be so sharp</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This was something of an experiment for me. The glassless adapters are fine, you just can't focus out to infinity. Good to use with macro and super tele lenses for some things. I tried some other fast primes just to get the very limited DOF look.<br>

<br /> There are many types of adapters with glass and they vary in quality from reasonable to crummy. Generally, primes are best to use stopped down a few stops. I add an extra 25% Unsharp Mask to the final output and Fade to Luminosity so color noise doesn't get sharpened in Photoshop.</p>

<p>What really surprised me was how well the Bower adapter did with the nFD 35-105 f/3.5 zoom. Not as good as the lens alone but not too shabby. This image is shot at f/8. This is not my favorite lens but with results like this I going to have to play around with it some more. I think it really speaks well to inital optical quality of this zoom.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks, Louis. I might try to unscrew the glass in my adapter and try to mount my FD lenses without it.</p>

<p>just got these back yesterday. Canon A1, 50mm/80-200. Kodachrome 64.</p><div></div>

<p>View from Sulphur Mountain showing Banff townsite. Canon F1 and 15mm Fisheye. Velvia 100 film.</p><div></div>

<p> 2</p><div></div>

<p>3, and wow compressing these has done some damage...</p><div></div>

<p>Portrait shot while out Hiking - also taken with F1 but using the 85 F1.2 lens</p><div></div>

<p>Dan - I always find that scanning and compressing images does a lot of harm. My shot of Banff looks quite reasonable on my iMAC before I compress it but the Tiff is 110Mb - compressed it looks pretty awful as all the detail and colour subtlety has been lost. The portrait stands up to the same treatment much better. I find that digital images surf manipulation much better than scanned film. I know this is the FD forum but I have posted a shot from a similar location on page 4 of the EOS Thursday Photo thread and you can see how it survives better.</p>

<p>when i upload to the regular page it always loses some, but getting it down to 100kb really hit these ones i think. of course, going to 40kb by accident and being too lazy to re-compress at less drastically probably didnt help either...</p>

<p>I just got a few rolls processed for the first time in ages. I don't know which cameras or lenses I used, but they were definitely all taken with Canon FD bodies and lenses, so I'm going to upload a couple. The first was actually taken two years ago!</p><div></div>

<p>This shot is an autumn shot of the beach near where I live in Hastings on the South coast of England.</p><div></div>

<p>My first attempt at an uploaded image. Canon T-70, with FDn 100mm f 2.8. I used a remote flash in an umbrella, with the Cactus remote trigger. The photo is of my 10 year old son's football helmet.</p>

<p>My first attempt at an uploaded image. Canon T-70, with FDn 100mm f 2.8. I used a remote flash in an umbrella, with the Cactus remote trigger. The photo is of my 10 year old son's football helmet.</p><div></div>

<p>Jeffrey - nice photograph. Fyi, if you keep the long end at 700, it'll post inline next time.</p>

 

<p>Kayam,</p>

<p>Thanks for the tip. I'll try to remember next time. I had a tough time getting the image to upload for some reason, so I guess I was happy to get it posted as is.</p>

<p>Jeff</p>

<p>Here are a couple from the Canon EF and the Vivitar Series 1 28-90/2.8-3.5. I have heard a lot about this lens but after using it, I see why everyone raves about it. It's dangerously sharp! These are a couple of shots along the Wabash River here in Central Indiana.</p><div></div>

<p>And another...</p><div></div>

<p>Hi Guys<br />Here's a shot of my son Harry from our recent visit to the Bucks Steam Railway Centre at Quainton in England.<br>

Taken with a Canon F1n with 50mm F1.4 Chrome Nose lens on Kodak BW400N.</p><div></div>

<p>Here's another picture from our trip to the railway centre.<br>

F1n 50mm F1.4 Chrome Nose lens and Kodak BW400N film.</p><div></div>

<p>From a shoot this past week.<br>

F-1n, 85mm f1.2L, Ilford Pan F</p>

<p><img src="http://www.timcarrollphotography.com/B&W_Ashley.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

<p>Two photos I took in mid-October, 2010 while on a business trip to western Massachusetts (had my weekend free):</p><div></div>

<p>And #2:</p><div></div>

<p>After the rain, morning glory.<br>

Canon FD 200 f/4 Macro + genuine FD-EOS Macro adapter on 1D Mk IIn. </p><div></div>