eye-of-searle

Wife just called and I was "pimped out" to shoot the kids of her Boss for

Christmas Pictures. Tomorrow! I normally would spend a few days researching my

question but I am going out of town Monday and have to shoot tomorrow. No

time! I recently aquired a D80 and feel comfortable using it except for Flash.

I have an SB28 now and was planning on getting the SB600/800 but had no idea

until today I would need to use a flash tomorrow.

Anyway. Can I make do with the SB28 on the D80? I don't think TTL will work

but I could be wrong. Any ideas on how to make this work? I am at work right

now so just trying to get some ideas to expirement with tonight.

 

I will admit, I am not very adept at flash photography so any help is mucho

appreciated. The wife's boss had photos done by a "pro" and she hates them.

She has always loved my shots of her kids so of course the wife pimped me out.

Nice of her huh? She just wants to see if I can do better.

 

Thanks for any help.

 

Jim

 

 

BTW, sorry for the double post. In hurry messed up.

Wife just called and I was "pimped out" to shoot the kids of her Boss for

Christmas Pictures. Tomorrow! I normally would spend a few days researching my

question but I am going out of town Monday and have to shoot tomorrow. No

time! I recently aquired a D80 and feel comfortable using it except for

Flash. I have an SB28 now and was planning on getting the SB600/800 but had

no idea until today I would need to use a flash tomorrow.

 

Anyway. Can I make do with the SB28 on the D80? I don't think TTL will work

but I could be wrong. Any ideas on how to make this work? I am at work right

now so just trying to get some ideas to expirement with tonight.

 

I will admit, I am not very adept at flash photography so any help is mucho

appreciated. The wife's boss had photos done by a "pro" and she hates them.

She has always loved my shots of her kids so of course the wife pimped me

out. Nice of her huh? She just wants to see if I can do better.

 

Thanks for any help.

 

Jim

Another vote for the Slik 700DX. I've had one for years now and never had a single problem, other than it's a bit heavy. Very well made and very sturdy. Bogen makes great tripods but so does Slik. The 700DX is a very good tripod.

 

Jim

PNET has been crashing my IE at work for days now. Random, but often.

 

I barely check in at work anymore since this started.

 

A real bummer.

 

Jim

If it is a shutter problem, just scrap it. You can buy a mint used one for a song today. Hell, you can buy just about any film SLR for pennies on the dollar these days. I LOVE IT!

 

Jim

You might think about the Slik 700DX. I've had one for years now and never had a problem. Tall, strudy, well built and less than $150 w/ a decent pan tilt head. The head is actually pretty good and would hold you over until you can budget for a serious ballhead. It's a tall tripod and is not super light but it's solid as a rock and built to last.

 

Jim

<div></div>

David, I thought about Kodachrome but it's not the easiest film to scan with my Coolscan V. I guess I should have mentioned my post processing digital workflow.

 

Thanks,

Jim

Assuming it's mechanically sound, the F5 will be just fine. The F5 is not going to tear up any lenses. The F5 is probably the greatest 35mm SLR ever created (OK the F6 would be better I guess)and many many many pros have made their livings with them for for many years doing landscape, sports, portraits, studio, travel, snapshot photography, etc. Granted most of these people now shoot digital, but you get the point. I own an F100 and I would own an F5 if not for the added weight.

 

It's an amazing camera. Just enjoy it. Oh, and get the Magic Lantern Guide. My guide for my F100 was well worth the small expense.

Thanks GungaJim,

 

I can't wait to get there. I decided to go ahead and spend some pretty good money for a private guide to show us around Volcano National Park. It ain't cheap but I think it will be well worth it. I did not want to be rushed or constrained by a group tour. The guide is also a photographer and has told me he can hopefully get us to some great photo sites. Lava permitting of course.

"Whether there wasn't enough contrast on the focus point or whether my setting of FPS priority allowed the camera to take the picture without focus lock is unclear"

 

These two things could clearly be the problem. I'm guessing you were fairly zoomed out toward the 75mm range (so about 113mm). This means any slight unintentional movement is exaggerated and could have cause the focus to shift. When shooting large apertures, I almost always use focus lock. Especially with portraits. The limited DOF just leaves to much to chance with AF. This couple with a fairly long focal length means you sometimes need precise focus technique.

 

Again, this really does not seem to be a back focus issue. A lot of people tend to latch onto back focus issues when in reality it's purely a technique issue. No one is perfect at it and it can take some time and practice to get consistent results. Lord knows I'm still trying. :)

Just looks like missed focus to me. Like the above posters mentioned, the left foot and grass around the foot are in focus. I don't think this is a back focus issue. You might try selecting the focus point and then locking it before hitting the shutter. AF can be a tricky thing sometimes. The lens can sometimes tend to hunt in the smallest of increments.

 

Why not try manually focussing some shots and see if the problem persists?

Thanks Bob and John for the tips. I think I will try the Provia and bracket.

 

Bob, what increments would you suggest for bracketing in regard to dusk and night shooting the lava. I have read to bracket 1 stop?

 

I feel we will be in good hands. We have a pro guide recommended by a friend. It will just be my wife, me and the guide and we will be hiking into the lava flows just before dusk. Bought a cheap travel tripod with the intention of it getting trashed, melted, bent, destroyed if needed. Can't wait!

 

I did check our G. Brad Lewis' work and was amazed.

 

Thanks, Jim

OK, I know this is one of the those threads that everyone hates to see but, I

am trying to decide on a couple of films for a trip to Hawaii in December. I

am planning on taking my digital P&S and my Nikon F100 with various lenses

loaded with my favorite print film Fuji Reala but I am also toying with the

idea of some nice saturated slide film like Fuji Provia 100F or maybe Velvia

50/100. My main main shooting interest with the slide film is the lava flows.

I have hired a private guide for my wife and I and we will be in Volcanos

National Park for about 12 hours with him. So, plenty of time for photography

without the hassle of a group tour. We can take as long as we like whenever

and wherever we want.

 

I plan on shooting Reala most of the time but thought the bright orange lava

flowing at night would really be special on slide film. I have a little

experience shooting slide film but never in darker conditions with hot bright

orange subject matter.

 

So any suggestions on a specific slide film? I know Velvia or Provia would

probably be fine but was hoping someone might have some ideas or personal

experiences with shooting lava and the use of slide films, Kodak or Fuji. I

plan on bracketing every shot and I will have a small travel tripod that is

actually quite sturdy so fairly long exposures should not be a problem.

 

Of course I could just go with what I know and stick with Reala. But where's

the adventure in that?

 

Again sorry for the lame "which film should I take" post. I am cringing as I

write it. Just looking for evening and nighttime specific slide film

suggestions for lava flows.

 

Jim

What kind of batteries are you using? I have found the the SB28 is very finicky about having very fresh batteries. Also, some rechargables are not up to the task and have caused mine to misfire at random time.

That's not what you have been saying. You first said the film has an orange mask. IT DOES NOT!

 

Later, you stated red/brown/orange tint. Two different things.

 

Yes, Ilford's website mentions the pinkish/red tint right after processing but in my experience (about 5 to 7 years with XP2), that tint is normally non existent and certainly gone within a few days/weeks of processing. This tint, when and if it exist at all on processed XP2 is not an orange mask. I am looking at several sheets of XP2 nagatives right now of various ages and I can detect no red/pick tint at all.

 

Since you seem to have experience with these films, pull out a neagtive of Kodak C41 B&W film and pull out a negative of XP2. You will see an orange mask on the Kodak film. You will not see the same orange mask on the XP2. If you do, you are not looking at XP2.

 

Getting neutral prints from XP2 without a red/orange/pink/brown,whatever tint is not hard. I did it all the time. Today, I scan it with the same great results.

Barry,

 

I think you are a bit confused about XP2 vs. Kodak C41 B&W films.

 

"If not a mask how come it looks brownish orange?"

 

XP2 film DOES NOT look brownish orange. If anything, it's a bit purple-ish. No orange mask at all. No orange tint at all. Period. You are mistaken.

 

"He said all the C41 films have a mask as they are actually color film but have been stripped of the color."

 

He is right and wrong. Not all C41 have a orange mask to them. See XP2 above. He is right in that C41 B&W is actually color film stripped of the color layer.

 

"The XP2 does look very brown/red/orange when developed."

 

Again you are a bit confused. XP2 itself does not look brown/red/orange but rather the resulting prints do IF they are processed incorrectly. When process correctly, XP2 is neutral. If you are getting brown/red/orange prints the lab/person printing the images does not know what he or she is doing.

 

An orange mask is the color on the outer layer on the film itself, not the tint of the prints. Two different things.

 

To summarize:

 

XP2 = No orange mask.

 

XP2 processed "incorrectly" = brown/red/ornage and even sometimes greenish prints.

Barry,

 

XP2 DOES NOT have an orange mask. I am looking at it right now and I can assure you it does not. When I used to print in the darkroom, I never had a problem getting a true black.

 

You might be thinking of some of the Kodak C41 B&W films. They do have a orange mask. Ilford XP2 does not.

XP2 does not have an orange mask and is quite easy to print in the darkroom.

Also, it should be noted that D & G have nothing to do with the quality of a Nikon lens. Their are both "duds" and "stars" with and without D & G technology.

Sorry, just reread your post. If you want to scan actual photos, you will be limited to a flatbed scanner. However, for slides and negatives, film scanners are by far the best option.

Nikon Coolscan V. Flatbeds can't compete with dedicated film scanners for 35mm slides and negs.

 

Also, I think your asking if a scanner "processes" a negative? If that's what you mean then yes, a scanner scans a negative and the resulting scan is a "processed image" in color or B&W depending on what your scanning. Hopefully that answers your question.

Joe,

 

"But the 2nd of your Reala examples is so blatantly converted, not even Ray Charles would believe it originated as b&w. "

 

I understand you can tell it's not traditional B&W but can you expand on why? Just trying to learn.

 

This was a night time shot and I intended it to look as is. Cleary not like Tri-X.

 

What if this was Tri-X and I intended it to look as is? I guess you can make any film look any way you want now days.

Mitchell, since a film like XP2 is scanned as a color negative, you can use the red, green and blue channels to mimic filters.

Terence,

 

"If you use chromogenic B&W film you can't use channel filters to simulate color filters on the camera with conventional B&W film. You can only do that with color film (negs or positives). "

 

Chromogenics are scanned as a color negative and you can therefore use Channel Mixer just like color film.