alec

Hey All,<p>

I've been shooting mostly with color slide an on occasion I've shot

some B&W. Usually I find myself wanting to take a B&W shot about

midway through a roll of color slide film, and short of burning up

the rest of the roll and switching films I'm usually out of luck.<p>

Now yes, getting a Hasselblad camera with multiple film backs would

indeed be the optimal $5000 solution, but I can't outlay that kind of

cash.<p>

What I'm wondering is, what is the disadvantage (if any) to shooting

with color slide and then having it printed in B&W? One can always

turn color to B&W, but never B&W to color (yeah, ok, coloring pens).

It just seems to be the most flexible solution next to owning two

bodies.<p>

But there must be a legitamate reason for shooting with B&W film. I

know it holds up longer (i.e. archivally) but what other pros are

there?<p>

My apologies to those who shoot solely with B&W film, I'm sure my

idea of using slide and printing in B&W is utter heresy to you.<p>

Sincerely,<br>

Alec Simonson

Man o man, Velvia does NOT do skin tones well. I shot a photo of my nephew some time ago. The composition was incredible; he was crying and being held in a great way by his grandfather. But he had a small bruise on his head and his face was red around the eyes.<p>

Got the print back and it looked like he had been beaten and abused. So much for the nice shot.<p>

So if you're even considering having people in your photos, rule Velvia out. I love Velvia for certain things, but I think you'd be better off with a more all-around film like Kodak's Elite Chrome 100.<p>

Cheers!<br>

--A

Thank you all so much for so much great advice. Your responses were candid, and extremely helpful. Here is what I have considered my "take-aways" from this:

<ul>

<li>"L" Lenses aren't really all that much better optically then standard, fixed length lenses. If I'm ever buying zoom, though, "L" may be the way to go.

<li>The new Canon 17-40mm f/4L may be worth a look, since $700 isn't such a bank-breaker. A good thing to try by renting.

<li>As some have pointed out, maybe I'm wrong about thinking I need something wider than 20mm, and the 24mm Tilt/Shift Lens may be an strong option, especially since I do love architecture photography. Another good one to try renting.

<li>If 20mm isn't wide enough, the technology added to the fixed wide angle "L" lenses such as the ground-glass aspheric element on the 14mm f2.8L could indeed be worth the extra $$$. After your posts, I think now that I would consider that over the standard 20mm f2.8 lens.

<li>So I've got some renting to do, now. My last take-away is that I should earn more money so this isn't a problem in the future... =)

</ul>

Thanks again all, for your invaluable help!

Hey Brent, you have a good point. Here's a better definition of what I need (ok...want) this wide angle lense to do:

--The subjects I would be using this for would be mostly landscapes and architecture, interiors, and maybe some funky portraits.

--Generally speaking, I was interested in getting an ultrawide lense because it would be good for night photography. (Again, architecture, landscapes) But it would be used in daytime too.

--Using a Canon Elan II... I only shoot film, never digital.

--Shooting for fun, but am willing to pay $$$ for noticeable quality differences.

I want something truly ULTRAwide. I was looking at the 14mm, and the 16-35mm. I would mostly prefer to have something that is (or can go) wider than 20mm.

Wow you guys are fast. Thanks for all the quick feedback!

Well, "mid-priced" is relative, so let me give you a broader explanation.

I'm thrilled with my 100mm f2.8 USM Macro lense, and I use it for a heck of a lot more than just macro shots. Thus said, if you're interested in doing macro work, be prepared to spend a LOT more. First, you need a decent tripod. No, that aluminum or plastic one that's worked for everything else isn't going to cut it. You need something heavy that's not going to budge and can make fine tuned adjustments.

Then, you're going to need some sort of macro flash if you want to freeze your subject and stop the aperature to f16 or f22. I have the MT-24EX and it's great; I highly recommend it. Never tried the others, so I'm not sure how they compare.

But you're still not really done. If you want to get a true 1:1 ratio, you'll either need to carefully drag the tripod around (aka not practical) or get a focusing rail. More $$$.

So the lense might not be all that bad, but you have to consider the other tools needed to accomplish what you want to do.

I'm not writing this to try to disuade you from getting into macro photography, which is really REALLY exciting. Speaking for myself, had I known the about all startup costs from getgo I may have picked a different venue.

Hope this helps...

--Alec Simonson

Hey All! I'm sure there's multiple threads about this very subject,

but it'll take me a year and a day to find them. And besides,

perhaps this'll be a good time to churn up all your feelings on this

anyway.

I've been working with all standard Canon lenses for some time now:

the 50mm f1.4, 100mm f2.8 Macro, 135mm f2.8 soft focus. I've been

happy with all of them so far, and now I'm looking for a super-wide

angle lens (zoom or other) to round out what I have.

At first, I was looking at the Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 until I

learned that Sigma's elements were held together by tape. (Found

that on another thread). So that's out.

So I'm going with Canon. Question is, is there REALLY a significant

difference between the "L" lenses and the standard ones? Be SERIOUS,

now -- have you fallen in love with the fancy case and the

aestheticly pleasing red line, or is it really worth so SO much

more? For the kinda money they charge, I'd expect never to take a

bad photo again.

Since the cost is truly that much more significant, I'd really

appreciate some candid opinions.

Thanks!

--Alec Simonson

Hey Leif,

What I meant by a "boom arm" is my poor terminology for a center column that tilts.

Thanks all for the immediate responses. I'll check back for other comments too. My flash is excellent, but I expect to still need + 1/20 exposures to achieve the greatest depth-of-field.

Again, thanks to all.

--A

Hey there,

I'm trying to find a good tripod for macro photography, and I thought

I was going for the Benbo 1 or 2. But a post on this site about

Benbo Tripods has me questioning their stability.

Problem is, my equipment is heavy. I've got the Canon Elan 2 with

the BP-50 battery back, 100mm f2.8 Macro lense, the MT-24EX macro

flash, and I'll probably be wanting to add a focusing rail and maybe

an extension tube. With all this weight, I'm not sure if the Benbo

tripod will handle it well.

I need something stable, and I need a boom arm to get close to the

subject for some good macro shots. And the closer to the subject I

get, the more stability I'll need.

Any suggestions? The Benbo is the only tripod I've seen that will

clear it's own legs to get close to the subject.

Thanks!

--Alec

Hi there,

I just got a Yashica A, and some film, and the manual is on it's

way. But I'd like to give it a try this weekend, and I need some

help.

The camera is very basic and seems easy to use. But I noticed that

when I loaded the film, the camera does not prevent me from winding

the film all the way through to the end.

The question: How many turns on the film winding knob are required

between exposures? Prompt response will make a happy newbie

photographer this weekend!

Thanks all!

--Alec