PatrickMP

April 11, 2011

Thanks for the input John. I wasn't aware of the battery information -- definitely something to check. If camera batteries are anything like my laptop battery, they have a very finite lifespan.

For the shutter count: Embedded in a JPG file in the EXIF data is a shutter count, albeit stored as a two word hex number. This is independent of the file number. Software exists which can pull this number out (or you can pull out a calculator to do it yourself in base-16 math). Some useful information can be found here: http://www.clubsnap.com/forums/threads/351961-How-to-check-shutter-count-in-1D-mk-II. Take a look at post #5.

Cheers.

-Patrick

April 11, 2011

I'm finally making the jump to serious digital with a 1D MkII. I've done research, and it fits what I need with regards to printed output, and seems the next step up from my 10D. I'm currently making a list of what to look for in buying a used body, and would appreciate some comments on what to look for when I meet the seller. So far I have:

<ul>

<li>Try both SD and CF cards</li>

<li>Try shooting with the flash</li>

<li>Try shooting with my lenses in AF</li>

<li>Try shooting with my lenses in MF</li>

<li>Check the shutter count (will require a laptop to download data from the CF/SD card)</li>

<li>Check for wear on the lens mount (may indicate a dropped body where the lens was forced off)</li>

<li>Check for excessive wear and tear on the body</li>

<li>Ensure the battery fits security in its slot</li>

<li>Check that the charger(s) work</li>

<li>Check for dust and scratches on the sensor</li>

<li>Check for dust in the viewfinder</li>

<li>Check for scratches on the rear LCD</li>

<li>Ensure all buttons work</li>

<li>Check firmware version (not sure how to do this, or if it is required)</li>

</ul>

Any comments? Anything I've missed?

Thanks,

-Patrick

April 6, 2011

If this were my scanner, I would probably try to fix it myself. It's an old scanner, and it's possible that Nikon may not service it anymore.

</blockquote>

If Nikon is still servicing the scanner, it would probably be safer (and wiser?) to send it to them for repair. While it may cost more, at least you know that if there are any problems the Nikon technicians can handle it. However, if the scanner isn't listed as serviceable, a local repair shop might be able to do it. Otherwise, it's time to open it up for some DIY work.

April 4, 2011

Prateek, if you are going to Scotland and other places in Europe, I'd lean towards a wider lens, selling the Tamron 17-50 and picking up something comparable in length (24-70?). You might spend a bit more, but since you were willing to go £200 in exchange for a new body, that seems like a non-issue.

Going to beautiful countries like that, I would hope you'd gain more from taking in the wide landscapes. A telephone isn't going to do that for you.

Cheers.

April 3, 2011

To be safe, when it comes out of the fixer.

When working with paper I have no qualms in turning on the lights once the print is in the fixer. However, technically speaking after you've left the stop bath you've only stopped the development process, but not stopped the film from being sensitive to light.

I run a two-fix system: my fresh fixer is labeled Fixer-A. When this becomes weak, I move it to a bottle labeled Fixer-B. My film is fixed for 8 minutes total: 4 in Fixer-A and 4 in Fixer-B. I have found it safe to visually inspect the film after the first four minute fix in Fixer-A.

April 3, 2011

Jeremy, I think you have to look at the purchase holistically and not just on your first camera purchase. While you are still getting into photography, you likely have some inclination as to which direction you'd like to go. That said, you should base your decision on what camera system has the greatest growth potential for you later down the road, based on what you feel you may be shooting. Ignoring this now can be costly in the future if you have to swap systems.

April 3, 2011

David, can you post an image of the back of the flash unit?

Presumably your camera settings are leaving the image underexposed. You want to dial in the manual flash such that the settings on the flash will properly expose the subject for your aperture/ISO combination and distance. The shutter speed doesn't really come into play with a flash, except to dictate whether or not you'll actually capture the image. (If your shutter speed is higher than the flash sync speed, your image won't be captured properly).

So assuming you are using f/5.6, and your distance is 10': the dials on the back of the flash should indicate what distances at f/5.6 and the given power rating will expose properly. I.e., at full power the flash may expose properly between 20' and 30' at f/5.6. At 1/2 power it may expose properly between 15' and 20', and at 1/4 power between 10' and 15'. In this example, you would set the flash to 1/4 power.

Take a look at this table:

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/hs018.snc6/166850_10150119821647853_690722852_7836327_6854876_n.jpg

If you look at the column for ISO 100, there are a number of f-stops. At ISO 100, under f/5.6, the image is correctly exposed at 8.6' (2.6m). This is shy of your 10' distance, so you can either bring your subject closer or open up a 1/2 stop to 5.6-4.0 (since at f/4.0 the subject is exposed correctly at 12' (3.7m)).

Hope that helps.

April 3, 2011

Zvia, there is no real difference between DVI and HDMI for your needs. My understanding is that, at a high level, HDMI carries an audio signal and the necessary links for DRM (digital rights management). As far as you are concerned, a DVI connection to the NEC should be fine.

As for monitors. I run two LaCie monitors myself and think they are great. You may also want to look at the used market. I picked up a LaCie 324 screen for less than half of the NEC you quoted, and it is a dream to work with.

Calibrating will also save you a lot of headaches, but be sure that the system supports independent calibration of both screens. I've read that in some systems, you cannot have two different profiles running at the same time (I believe this is a limitation of the graphics card - you may want to confirm with Apple that the minidisplay port will do what you need).

Good luck.

April 3, 2011

Are you referring to the MiniTT1, FlexTT5 or Plus II?

Looking at the manual for the Plus II (available on the Pocket Wizard site), you can use "Option II" to connect the Plus II to your cameras PC terminal. Then you would only need the receivers on each flash.

April 3, 2011

Kevin, for what platform? Windows? Mac? And what language? Also do you need "traditional" or "extended"?

I was looking for a Mac CS3 upgrade for my version of CS2, but only found Windows ones. I found a lot of Spanish versions around for some reason. Try eBay or Amazon.

For what it's worth, I spoke with Adobe Sales and explained my situation. I even asked them if I could just buy a license from them (no media) and not the physical media, any copy the media from a friend (realistically, since you can download the CS5 media directly from Adobe this seemed like a good idea). They couldn't help - their system doesn't even allow them to take orders for older versions anymore, so you'll be stuck going to a reseller.

April 3, 2011

I've been dreaming about such a device (and even sketched out some designs myself) for years. I love my older cameras (often smaller, lighter and more durable than my current ones), but end up shooting film and then digitizing it via a Coolscan.

I'd definitely be in line for this item. Of course, it is April 3rd today, so I wonder if it was an April fools joke?

March 29, 2011

Coincidentally yesterday I started my adventures in scanning 126 film with the 9000's glass carrier, and I built a custom mask of two 6x7 frames using heavy black paper to hold each 2-frame strip of 126 film. I was having issues of the edges of the frames being cut off, and one thing I found was that there is a setting titled Strip Film Offset to adjust the frame offset of each individual frame. This option is in the tools menu in the last set of commands (Scanner Extras). You might want to try playing with that to get the film registration perfect.

For the record I've never used the masking material. I've had good luck with 6x6 frames, but I've noticed challenges with 6x7. One reason that there is no "universal mask" is that, unlike 35mm, 6x7 frames may have uneven spacing depending on the quality of your camera/camera back; for example my C220 TLR had incredible spacing issues. A universal mask would likely not work 100% of the time.

March 29, 2011

Some great comments above. I'm on side with Jack Fisher and Nick Clarke. That being, that the best camera is the one that is used for the job.

For actual preference though. I use a Canon EOS-3 for all of my AF film work, and would imagine that the EOS-1V is better than the 3, so I'll throw my hat in the ring for either of those camera. True work horses, and I've put my EOS-3 through its paces. However, the sucker is heavy, so it has a specific niche (auto-focus or complete weather sealing, or places where I can carry the load).

For manual focus, I would lean towards a Pentax setup. I took a pair of Super Programs to Australia and the Philippines, with very harsh conditions in Australia, and they performed great. I've since upgraded to a pair of LXs, and except for the lack of a full-program or shutter-priority setting, the LXs are awesome.

Keep in mind that the best film camera is only as good as the best lenses that you have. Pentax has an incredible line of MF lenses which are small, well built, and light. Similarly Canon has some superb AF zooms. If you can't find the lenses or accessories for your system, and what you shoot, the best body in the world won't help you. (For example, I see serious flaws with Pentax's flash system, but I don't shoot flash with my MF film gear, so it isn't really an issue).

March 24, 2011

Beautiful pictures Markus. Whereabouts are you shooting? We don't have weather that nice here, yet. :)

March 23, 2011

For best results, use Liquid Light: http://www.rockaloid.com/products.html. A classmate used it on metal sheets, and I've used it on tiles and water colour paper. Glass should be no problem.

March 20, 2011

Ton Mastrom, thank you! That's exactly the image I was thinking of.

Larry H Shone, Weston is also one of my favorites and I had him down as someone who may have done it, but seeing the image that Tom linked to cinched it.

Cheers.

March 20, 2011

G'day.

I've been going though some of my old books trying to find the name of a certain photographer. From what I recall, he shot primarily in black and white, was likely American, and for the work I am interested in shot mostly on 4x5.

From what I recall of the lectures on the photographer (over 15 years ago, which is why I've forgotten!) at one point he did a series of still-life/form studies, making oversized enlargements of otherwise small and mundane objects. One image that is stuck in my mind is of a cigarette butt, but I believe he also did some studies of bell peppers and other vegetables, etc. I also recall one of my lecturers saying that he did many portraits, often just pulling random people off of the street for one of his portfolios; in doing so he captured a very good cross-section of people of that era.

Does anyone know who I am talking about? When I started thinking of the portraits Avedon came to mind, but I couldn't find any of his work that focused on still life.

Thanks for any help.

-Patrick

March 19, 2011

G'day group.

I have never found a comparison such as this yet, so I though I would post some preliminary test results. I recently purchased the FH869G glass carrier for my Coolscan 9000, which enables me to scan my 120 film. I was curious how the glass carrier differed from a glassless carrier, so I did a blow-up of the edge of a frame on both. I knew that there would be a difference, but I wasn't sure how much of a difference until now.

Below you'll find a 2000x2000 crop from the edge of the frame, from a 6x6 imaged scanned at 4000 DPI. I've scaled the 2000x2000 crops down to 400x400 to display nicely on the forum, but even scaled down, the difference in the two carriers is quite noticible. The frame on the left is from the glassless carrier, and the one on the right is from a glass carrier.

Has anyone else experienced similar results?

November 10, 2010

Hi folks.

Thanks for the responses thus far. I happened upon the Toyo website earlier today and saw the minimum focal length that the camera would mount, along with the disclaimer that movements depended on the lenses. From what I've read in this thread so far it looks like what I want to do is technically possible, but might not be realistic.

That said, I am not against looking at other options. I'd primarily like a folding camera, and I would only ever shoot up to 6x7 (maybe 6x9? I'm not sure if my MF enlarger will take a negative that big; my scanner can do 6x9 however). Are there any other recommendations that are attainable on a limited budget? I've seen "Horseman" and "Linhof" thrown around, but the prices that I've seen thus far are more than my budget (I'm budgeting for $1200 including a lens and whatever adapters I need to mount my RB backs).

Thanks again for any input.

-Patrick

November 10, 2010

Hi there.

I've been looking into a large format or "baby large format" camera so that I can shoot wide angle landscapes with movements. Currently I shoot with a Mamiya RB or Bronica SQ depending on the situation, but both leave me with "falling buildings" when shooting.

That said, I've been looking at a Toyo View 45AX field camera. My questions are:

<ul>

<li>How short of a lens can I use with this camera, while retaining full movements? Can I mount a 50mm lens (24mm equivalent in 35mm format?)</li>

<li>What adaptor would I require to mount my Mamiya RB 6x7 backs?</li>

</ul>

Thanks for any input!

Cheers,

-Patrick

July 7, 2010

Prior to dropping another load of cash on more film for my next trip, I put some serious thinking into why I like to shoot film so much. Part of it is the tactile quality of film, and part of equipment size & user interface.

I do the majority of my shooting with a pair of Pentax LX bodies and two lenses. I'm not a big fan of zooms, mainly because zooms of adequate quality and speed (i.e., 24-70/2.8L from Canon) are huge and bulky. That said, the dSLR arena has gone through a number of changes since I last looked..

Can anyone recommend a dSLR system (preferably Pentax or Canon since I have both already) that has the size and simplicity of a Pentax LX? Looking at some of the specs for Pentax bodies they are near LX size (although a little deeper, likely due to the built in grips), but having no friends that use Pentax gear I have no idea if they are any good. I know that Canon bodies are getting smaller as well ("Rebels"?), but how are the Canon primes in terms of size and usability?

And what about zone focusing (or hyperfocal focusing, whatever people wish to call it). I'm a big fan of fixing my lens focal point at a certain point, setting to a certain aperture and letting physics do the "speed focusing" for me. None of my Canon lenses have adequate (in my opinion) markings for zone focusing. In extremely quick (or low-light) situations I still believe that zone focusing is superior since you aren't waiting on the AF to catch up, and you don't get the annoying infra-red checkerboard pattern from modern AF systems (or has that changed too?) projecting onto your subject.

Any comments welcome!

March 7, 2010

G'day group.

Thanks for all of the responses. To be clear, I was explaining my current process (f/8 to utilize zone focus), not proposed future process. With regards to the flash and technique. Using straight TTL the camera was metering as expected, trying to balance out the entire scene. As a result, the subject was properly exposed but the dramatic lighting was lost. Examples of the same subject, from the same relative position can be found with flash ( http://www.d26.net/offsite/pics/da_singer_flash.jpg ) and without flash ( http://www.d26.net/offsite/pics/da_singer_noflash.jpg ). For my next set of tests I'll likely be wide open at f/2.0.

Cheers,

-Patrick

March 6, 2010

I've been trying to do some shooting at local concerts lately using flash, and haven't had any good results. Flash usually drowns out the great ambient lighting that you get at a concert, and I'm sure that I'm irritating more than one person with the flash going off at almost full intensity (I've been shooting with a manual focus camera set at f/8 so that I can use zone-focus, that way I don't have to focus on the fly as long as my subject is at least 1.5m away).

That said, I'd like to try out some natural light with B&W. My usual stock of film is FP4+ or HP5+ developed in Xtol. I also have some (unopened) bottles of Rodinol. I'd like to shoot the film at either 3200 or 6400 (I'll either be using f/2.0 or f/2.8 lens, depending on which setup I bring that day). So, my main questions:

<ul>

<li>HP5+ pushed to 3200/6400, or Ilford Delta 3200 at 3200/pushed to 6400?</li>

<li>Xtol or Rodinol? I've experimented with Rodinol in HP5+ and wasn't too happy with the results, but that was without calibrating my setup, and rating the film at 320.</li>

</ul>

I'd prefer not to start using a new developer as I'm trying to simplify my darkroom process (don't use it much as is, so the less stuff I have in there the better).

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

-Patrick

March 4, 2010

G'day group.

Some time ago I bought a Yashica Electro 35GSN to experiment in the world of rangefinder cameras. To be honest, I wasn't impressed. The "ghost image" in the viewfinder was extremely tiny and very hard to focus in low light. After running a roll of film through the camera I shelved it and didn't look at it again. But then, the other night a gentleman saw me at a coffeeshop when I was changing film in my SLR. We got to talking and he happened to have a Leica rangefinder with him, and we were discussing personal preferences for camera types. Never having held a Leica, he was kind enough to let me hold his for a few minutes and try focusing with it.

That said, my views have changed, somewhat , but I'd like to get some more info from folks if I could.

First off, my Yashica. As I said, the "ghost image" is tiny , which is what I don't like about it. Is this "normal"? The Leica seemed to have bright lines for focusing, and the entire frame seemed to shift left/right as I changed the focus ring. Is this typical of Leica cameras? I'd hate to have turned my back on rangefinders because of one "style" of camera.

Second, can someone explain the difference between a rangefinder and a viewfinder ? My understanding is that the view finder is used for composing, while the range finder manipulates the ghost images and does the actual focusing of the image. If this is the case, when dealing with cameras that have a built in viewfinder, what happens when you swap lenses?

If anyone knows of any websites with samples of viewfinders taken through the viewfinder (so I could see the ghost images), I'd be great. Unfortunately all of my friends are P&S or SLR types, so I don't have anyone I could borrow a camera from to play with.

Thanks for any info!

-Patrick

December 30, 2009

I'm currently interseted in trying to use a 23A filter with my B&W work, and I currently have a Lee filter system. I know that Lee makes a 100mm x 150mm 23a Graduated Resin Filter, but for the life of me I can't find anyone that actually sells it!

Does anyone know where I can get it? I've tried the usual suspects (B&H, Adorama) with no luck. :(

Thanks,

-Patrick

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by PatrickMP