Returning Hobbyist says "hi"

<p>So here I am, I tried to kill my photo addiction with a point and shoot, but after 6 years away from "real photography" and the pain of printing on multifunction printers, or those print stations in stores, I'm back. </p>

<p>I recently bought a Canon Pixma Pro-100 Printer for photos and am working on finding the best settings for it. I'm considering buying a full Canon system (any full-frame Canon camera), except maybe the lenses, but it seems way more expensive than I can afford atm. My instincts tell me to go for optics and large CMOS but if I'm going wrong there, let me know.</p>

<p>About 10 years ago, I bought a professional's film gear (A 4x5 and some lenses, also various accessories) when he moved on to digital. There are definite advantages in my mind to using film. I love the randomness and the physical interaction of it, it feels more like art. I could stick with that gear until I can afford something digital, but I don't think I'll ever stop using it. Even with film, my workflow often included scanning the print and making further prints with my printer. </p>

<p>The trick I use for scanning/reprinting is to print the original as large as will fit on the scanner glass, then choose the largest file size I can get. Doing it this way, I can reprint from film without going back to the darkroom. I actually don't like to scan negatives unless I'm archiving. Another trick is to resist the temptation to use "enhancements" though I might use Levels and Unsharp Mask carefully.</p>

<p>Many years ago (over 20), I was a photographer's assistant (weddings, portraits) and I became aware that this hobby could easily turn into a business. I made some inroads with that about 10 years ago, but I sometimes had no answer when people demanded higher megapixels than I had, in order to let me photograph their product or museum items or whatever. I'm certainly not going to abandon my camera every few years because "customers demand it" that's silly. Their reasons for demanding something have to be better than "more megapixels" for me to take action.</p>

<p>I'll probably lurk most of the time, since I need to remember all the details that time forgot, so to speak. I haven't even decided to buy a new camera, I'll probably get back into film for a while until I can find something affordable in a full-frame. I'm not sure if I will stay with Canon or if Nikon will work just as well with my Pixma. I'm superstitious that using the same printer as camera will work better somehow, but I haven't made a study of it yet. Also, I'm not even sure what the options are for 4x5 film anymore. Maybe I'll find some answers to help me make these decisions here. </p>

<p>Thanks for reading all that! :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I uploaded a couple of photos from the past year. The rest are in "deep freeze" either on backups, or film. I'm not sure why it doesn't show up in the thread, maybe there's a setting I need to set?</p>

<p>For my family, I specialize in making people with rosacea look like they have perfect skin, and coming up with setups that make people look younger, thinner, etc. than they might look if I didn't take extra time, but without using software distortions to the shapes, rather, finding the right angles and light.</p>

<p>Anyway, here's one of the uploads:<br /> <a href="/photo/17853843">http://www.photo.net/photo/17853843</a><br>

How come adding the image as an image doesn't work?</p>

<p>Hey, Angie, welcome to the site and back to the hobby.</p>

<p>Regarding posting/attaching photos, it varies throughout the site. Here are some tips:</p>

 

<ul>

<li>For discussion forums, the maximum width is 700 pixels, if directly uploaded. Larger width photos will appear as attachments, which can be viewed by clicking on the attachment URL.</li>

<li>Photos must be in JPEG format to appear inline. PNGs, TIFFs, etc., will appear as attachments.</li>

<li>One photo per post may be attached by directly uploading photos.</li>

<li>Directly uploaded photos will be automatically centered.</li>

<li>Directly uploaded photos are permanently attached to the forum and cannot be deleted by the user.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>Photos hosted off-site or in our photo.net portfolios can be dragged-and-dropped into discussion forum text boxes. Or the embedded tag can be attached. Either way works. It's better to limit embedded photos 700 pixels maximum width.</li>

<li>When using the embedded or drag-and-drop method, we can attach multiple photos per post.</li>

<li>Both the direct upload and embed/drag-and-drop methods can be used in a single post or multiple posts.</li>

<li>Embedded photos in the discussion forums may be larger than 700 pixels wide, but will be down-scaled to 700 pixels wide. There's no point in embedding larger photos, however. The file size makes loading slower and viewers can't see the larger version unless they open the image in a separate browser tab/window.</li>

<li>Embedded/drag-and-drop photos may be deleted by the user by breaking the link. This is generally discouraged as it can make a mess of the discussions and render them less useful for future reference.</li>

<li>Embedded photos will be left justified. If you want them centered you'll need to add the center tag.</li>

</ul>

<ul>

<li>For our photo.net portfolios, the maximum width is *usually* 1500 pixels. Anything larger will either be rejected or automatically resized.</li>

<li>There may be exceptions for larger photos to accommodate photo.net's canvas printing partner, but I'm not familiar with the details. And the Photodrop email-to-photo.net process may accommodate larger JPEGs.</li>

<li>A second smaller JPEG, 680 pixels wide, will be created when we upload larger JPEGs to our portfolio spaces.</li>

<li>If we upload a JPEG pre-sized to 680 pixels wide it will be accepted as-is, without additional compression or resizing.</li>

</ul>

<p>Thank you, I didn't know a lot of that. I had resized things to 600 pixels thinking I didn't want to push any other size requirement (as in, how many kb) to a limit. I suppose I should re-load those to 1500 pixels and try a direct upload. </p>

<p>Though... I'm not clear on how to upload directly.. If I click "insert image" in the "contribute a response" editor, it just gives me a space for a URL. Maybe direct upload is only on certain forums or only for subscribers? I'm not sure.</p>

<p>When I inserted the url for the photo.net web page that has my picture, it gave a graphic with an X, indicating a broken link. I was trying to do "the obvious" but it didn't work as I thought it would. :)</p>

<p>Welcome back to the hobby, Angie. I'm a film fanatic and learned how to use the darkroom from my dad when I was about 10. I still maintain a darkroom to this day with facilities for 35mm, 120, and 4x5. Out of necessity I use some digital (to please family and paying clients), but for my own use it's film most of the time. Looking forward to seeing your photos.</p>

<p>Hello, Mike! Thanks for the welcome! Sorry to be confusing, but I finally unearthed my equipment (carefully preserved, but untouched for years now) and my camera turns out to be a Mamiya 645. I guess the 45 was the only part that stuck in my mind and became 4x5, but it's actually 4.5x6 (120/220 film). </p>

<p>From 1991 through 1996 I only ever used my Vivitar 35mm with no automatic anything. It forced me to think creatively, but I didn't do any self-processing until around 1999. Thank heavens for college darkrooms, because I'm not sure how I would set up a home darkroom, and certainly with less awesome equipment. Oddly, I never took even one photography class anywhere ever. I mostly figured it out from books and experimentation, and later, the internet.</p>

<p>Do you have any advice for what kind of film I should use for Mamiya 645? I used to use Portra, but I don't see it as VC anymore. Should I stick to color -> Portra, and b&w -> Ilford? Or is there something you like better? Thanks!</p>

 

<p>Angie, the Portra VC and NC films were replaced by a single version of Portra. The saturation is a bit lower than the VC, but higher than the NC. I've shot a few rolls of it in 35mm and it looks great and is fine-grained. I still have a few rolls of 120 VC in my refrigerator. If you're interested in black & white for 120 I would recommend Tri-X as long as you have access to the college darkroom. The Mamiya 645's btw, are awesome cameras with lots of accessories and lenses. I have the inexpensive 645E and an older 645 J. My favorite for shooting 120, though, is my Fujica GS 645 S, which is a rangefinder with match diode metering. </p>

<p>Thanks for your advice! I assume the Tri-X can be pushed and that's why you're recommending it? I had some Ilford Delta 100 in there (expired 2007, to give you some idea!) so I'll check camera function by shooting the rest of it and see what develops, if anything. I can't remember if there was a clicking feeling at the end of the winding process or not. I get, wind, click, click, then (the manual advance crank) locks for the next shot. It's probably the mirror resetting, but I wonder if it's too loud and there's definitely a harshness to it. Should maybe have it looked at.<br>

It's the Pro but not TL. Had some fun re-identifying it last night. </p>

 

<p>Lex, I'd have to create a new image for the modified one, which is more work than I'm willing to do at the moment, so I just up-sampled from 600 to 680 pixels (width), but I still don't see it showing up at the bottom of the thread. </p>

<p>It isn't necessary to create a larger version if your existing JPEGs are less than 700 pixels wide. Simply upload the version you already have.</p>

<p>Attaching photos directly to discussion forums is a multi-step process:</p>

<ol>

<li>Write, submit and confirm the written post.</li>

<li>Don't close the browser window or tab.</li>

<li>Look for the followup prompts to attach a photo, which involves browsing your hard drive and a second round of selection, confirmation, etc.</li>

<li>The photo should appear inline with the thread when you reopen the thread or refresh the page.</li>

</ol>

<p>The alternative is to drag and drop photos that you have already uploaded to your photo.net portfolio space into the text window. The WYSIWYG option must be enabled (via our "My Workspace") pages, for drag and drop to work. Otherwise you'll need to copy and paste the appropriate HTML. Drag and drop is easier. You may need to disable copy-protection schemes on photo.net, Flickr, etc., for drag and drop to work.</p>

<p>There is a 15-20 minute edit window for posts, so if it takes longer than that to locate the image file it will be necessary to start a second post to the same thread to follow up with the image.</p>

<p>Thank you, Lex, I'll try that now.</p><div></div>

<p>Sorry if this is spam, but I should try the other way too...<br>

<img title="Guess her age? (Hint: over 30)" src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17854299-sm.jpg" alt="Guess her age? (Hint: over 30)" width="200" height="150" border="0" /></p>

 

<p>Success! Thanks :) Now I feel empowered, lol. Hmm, would that be a good theme, I wonder? People who look young on film? Or guess the age of the subject or something?</p>

<p>While Tri-X as well as many other black & white films can be pushed, it's usually best not to as if done to the extreme grain and contrast will increase. Tri-X and Ilford HP5+ will handle a one stop push (to E.I. 800) without much fuss unless the lighting is harsh. For flat lighting a one stop push can sometimes be beneficial. For Plus-x, which is normally an ISO 125 film, I sometimes rate it at E.I. 200 on cloudy days and add a little to my developing time.</p>

<p>Thank you again, Mike. A lot to think about there! </p>

<p>One suggestion: if you find shooting 120 too expensive to experiment freely, consider picking up a used 35mm SLR. A used Nikkormat, Olympus, Canon, Minolta, or Pentax with two or three lenses can be inexpensive. And 35mm film is less expensive to shoot, especially if you buy bulk rolls. If the college (or other) darkroom you have access to has a bulk loader you might could divide the price of a bulk roll with other enthusiast and really shot photos on a shoestring.</p>

<p>Thanks, Mike :) Way ahead of you, though. I've just been considering upgrading the lens on my old Vivitar 3000s (Pentax lenses), and with the good old Thyristor 285 HV flash, it's quite a team. Everyone online seems to like the lens I'm considering buying, the SMC Pentax-M 1-2.8~4, 40-80. I should really get a riser for the flash, though.</p>

<p>On the bulk film aspect, I hadn't heard of that idea before, thanks. I looked it up, is this what you mean?<br /> <a href="

/> I like the idea quite a bit.</p>

Yes. That's it.