arnabdas Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 .<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hayward Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 Hide & Seek<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris haake Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 GREAT pics, guys! Arnab: your photo was shot at f11? What shutter speed? John: what about apeture and shutter for yours? Every little bit of info helps me (us) learn. Thanks! Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_somerset1 Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 Brrrrr...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ni-conartist Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 arnab.....simply supurb. a prime example of excellent technique. not to mention shot on film! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted November 29, 2003 Author Share Posted November 29, 2003 Thank you Chris and Desmond for your kind remarks. Chris, I did not note the exact shutter speed. I was using aperture priority auto with -1/3 stop compensation. It should be somewhere in the vicinity of 1/2 sec. since it was very early in the morning and light levels were low (notice the dew on this graceful creature's lower body parts). "FM2, 55 mm macro, PK-13, 2x converter" Andrew that's an intrugung combination (particularly the 2x converter part) and the result is brilliant. I'm curious to hear more about it -- esp. in terms of min. working distance and max magnification possible. I suppose you put the tube between the lens and teleconverter? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew_somerset1 Posted November 29, 2003 Share Posted November 29, 2003 Arnab, thanks. That's the full frame at twice life size. Yup, the tube goes between the lens and the converter. With the tube you get 1:1 and putting the converter on there gets you 2:1. Working distance isn't the best -- 2 or 3 inches? It meant getting down on my knees and following these little guys around. I used a flash and a small reflector on brackets. I'd like to replace the 55 with a 105 for better working distance but I don't do enough macro, so higher priorities are tempting my bank balance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_tolcher Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 Arnab et al, great pics ! From previous debates I went ahead and bought a D100, first example of a still life as its too wet and cold for bugs here in UK. Nikon 200mm F4 AI (chipped), D100.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted November 30, 2003 Author Share Posted November 30, 2003 David, excellent lighting and nice subtle, delicate tones! BTW D100 looks good here (albeit the photo is well taken). Hmmm, you got me thinking again about the D100. Aside, my mind's decision making part is not working too well: one day I think I have finally decided on a third FM3A body, the next day I think ok -- let me strech a bit more, bite the bullet and get a D100. The following day I wonder if I should hold off either for a few months and see what happens to DSLRs prices ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_tolcher Posted November 30, 2003 Share Posted November 30, 2003 Arnab, thanks for your kind words. I have had my D100 a couple of weeks now and can see how much cleaner the results are from close up work. I have been using either and F5 or an F3HP with micro nikkors/tamron 90mm for some years now for insects/flowers (LF for landscapes). My 'failure rate' for film probably accounts for 30-33 out of a roll whether that be because all the duplicates are as sharp as the first of a sequence or all are duds... Failure rate for the D100 is the same but I am not paying for the other 33 frames. It certainly isnt an F5 (no surprise there) and landscapes dont seem to be its forte. AF is so slow with the 20-35 nikkor compared to the F5 and hunts badly. Exposure is more hit and miss than the F5 - requires more thought.. The best part is that you can review your work instantly, for e.g. I had the tulips out in print within 3 mins of taking them while it was still set-up so I could adjust and retake. The only reason for not getting one for bug work IMO would be lack of cash, the lack of metering with non AF lenses is a real pain as there are some lovely lenses that would be great with the D100 (35mm F1.4, 50mm F1.2).<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_Lai Posted December 1, 2003 Share Posted December 1, 2003 Arnab and company:<p>Great macro pictures! I'm quite impressed.<p>Arnab, what do you think of the Kodak E100Gx? I rather like the "warm" tone. I still am waiting for the E100G roll to come back from development for comparison, but I'm rather inclined to just standardize on the GX as my usual film. How do you find it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted December 1, 2003 Author Share Posted December 1, 2003 Hi Robert, Thankyou for your kind comments! Here's my quick take on the E100 GX -- Sharpness: Slightly less sharp (contrasty) than Velvia 50, slightly (my gut-feel) sharper than RVP 100F. Sharper than most other films, including Provia 100F (which has never earned as much a name for sharpness as for the fine grain). Grain: V E R Y impressive! At par with Provia 100F, with added contrast/sharpness. It scans oh so well and I feel getting large prints from 35mm could be a reality with this film. Color: Very accurate, great (but not overdone) saturation -- somewhat similar to E100VS with relatively less yellow/red saturation which is a good thing. BTW It appears that with this film Kodak has finally figured out what the color "green" looks like and can record many shades of it already (somewhat evident from my example). Great news. Overall I am very excited about this film and expect to use it for the foreseeable future ! The E100G is nearly identical will less saturation but pleasant warm tones (BTW I do not use my A2 filter with any of these films). Caveat: I shot only one sample roll of this film -- by courtesy of the legendary photographic processors Bourne and Shepherd (estd. 1840!) in my town go gave me one to try for free. 35mm E100 GX seem to be in short supply (though 120 rolls are available and selling like hot cake), For now I get to buy only E100G. Anxiously awaiting the first shipment of E100 GX. Aside: I may end up to be one of the last photographers in photo.net to foresake film for digital as long as the RVP 50, RVP 100F and E100G/GX are available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert_Lai Posted December 2, 2003 Share Posted December 2, 2003 Arnab,<p>I will be there with you, hanging on to my F3 (or FG) with Kodachrome 64, Astia, and E100GX! We'll be the last of the film holdouts.<p>I'm still looking for a new turntable to go with my 78 rpm records. How about you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted December 2, 2003 Author Share Posted December 2, 2003 Robert, I sold my turntable :-( but still have a a few Deep Purple, Uriah Heep, King Crimson LPs lying with me (those I did not want to lose), so my case kind of complements yours! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now