nang

I want to add a response here, since the above instructions didnt work for me. Try this if you have no success:

 

1. Wind the film inside the cartridge until you hear the click.

2. Insert the lip of the film picker into the cartridge slot.

3. Slide ONLY the first tab forward into the cartridge.

3. Wind the film inside again until you hear the same click.

4. Slide the second tab into the cartridge.

5. Hold onto the tabs so that they stay at the end of the instrument, and pull the cartridge away.

 

If this doesn't work, burn the damn thing...

I've lived in Boston for a while and I enjoy photographing the city,

but one shot that I've always wanted has been of Boston's eastern

skyline -- the large buildings of the financial district and Boston

Harbor. However, I don't know where to go to get a good shot of this.

I've seen images of the morning sun lighting up the eastern sides of

these buildings and it is truly striking, I would love to see it with

my own eyes and take some photos.

 

Does anyone know where I can go to get a good photo of this that isn't

a dodgy area? The docks in East Boston have some nice views but I

wouldn't be comfortable being alone there at 5 or 6am. I think the

same goes for Charlestown. I've heard that there is a ferry dock at

Logan Airport that has good views of the skyline, but I don't know if

photography is allowed there. Can anyone help?

Let me preface this by saying that I have no experience working in a

studio, and have no studio lighting equipment.

 

I'd like to play around with some flower photography. Not anything

closeup. Just to experiment.

 

My problem is that I don't know of a way to get softer lighting with

the stuff I have available in my home, and I'm looking to see if

anyone can suggest something. I don't own any flashes.

 

I have plenty of desk lamps, and I have a lightboard that I use to

view my slides. I was thinking of perhaps shining some bright lights

through a white sheet, maybe?

 

Thanks in advance for any help you can give :)

My Bogen/Manfrotto 401N is one of the best purchases I ever made. You should look into it--very beginner friendly, I see a lot of the photography students around here (Boston) using the same model.

Original autocord lenscaps are rare and generally not cheap. Any Bay 1 accessory should fit your autocord. Look around for rollei caps.

For slide film, I agree with everyone else that Velvia would be choice. I prefer the 100 over the 50. For print film, I would go with Portra VC all the way.

Also note that, despite all the bitching people do about Velvia's color looking gaudy and unattractive, it seems to be the film of choice for the award winners here.

 

These were wonderful photos. Thanks for sharing!

Hasselblad is certainly nice but if you're looking to go in portraits (or other non high-speed photography work) you might want to look into getting a TLR (I recommend the minoltas -- just as good as a rollei but much cheaper) if you've never tried out the 6x6 format.

My lab at home does the same thing (they don't cut at all). I cut them myself in strips of 3 and after a few days they flatten themselves out without any help. I'm betting using the book/weights method will speed up the process.

To get around this, go to google.com and run your queries, restricting your results to photo.net only. For example:

 

site:photo.net autocord

 

On google that query will return you the same results as the searcher on this site, but you will get that cached option.

"Bokeh" is a borrowed word from the Japanese, so the pronounciation is close to "boe-kay."

I can't offer you much in the way of comparison but I'll just say I love my F4s. It's the first AF camera I've ever used so as far as noisiness and speed goes I can't really tell you much. It is loud and slow, but how much louder and how much slower than an F100 or F5... I don't know.

 

It's an absolute dream to use. I only had to flip through the manual for five minutes to know what I was doing with it. A very intuitive camera, and not a single LCD screen, which I enjoy. I enjoy the features it has (like spot metering and mirror lockup) but I don't bemoan the features it doesn't have.

 

The viewfinder is really big and bright, I love that.

 

It is quite bulky, and I understand the F100 is much more compact. I actually like the bulkiness. The weight is perfect for me and provides excellent stabilization.

 

All other things aside, I think the psychological effect of having an F4 is a plus too. I just feel like a better photographer when I have it in my hands. Whether or not this feeling has an actual effect on my photographer I do not know -- but it is a nice feeling. :)

Another vote for the 50/1.8. Incredibly sharp lens, and cheap as all hell. $100 or less brand new.

 

I very rarely need an aperture larger than f/4, f/1.2 (or lower) just seems ridiculous to me.

When someone says "Nikon" and "prime" I immediately jump to the 50mm f/1.8D. I assume you've already looked into this or already own it. It is quite possibly one of the sharpest lenses ever made.

 

In the 24-28 range, I would also consider the 24mm f/2.8D. I find that the 28mm focal length is not wide enough for me, and the 24mm provides just enough more to make me happy. It's also an excellent lens aside from its focal length.

 

As for the 85-135 range I am not that knowledgable, as 50mm is about as long as I ever shoot. If you are ever looking for macro capability I understand the Nikon 105mm (f/2.8?) lens is quite good.

I noticed leaves turning where I'm from (Upstate NY) very early this year. I was in the Ithaca area around early to mid august and noticed the leaves were already starting to change color at this time. However, here in Boston (where I go to school) I have noticed very little change in the leaf color.

Good luck on the thesis, Ilkka!

</i> Oops :)

I guess I'll close the tag </i>

 

There we go.

 

Anyway, I completely agree with what Ilkka said. DX will be making money for Nikon now, and in the end, I think that's what it's all about for them. A few years down the line when I'm ready to invest into a serious digital, I want to use my own Nikon lenses on a full frame sensor, not buy into a new set of lenses on a reduced size sensor. Maybe for the D70 and D100 (or equivalent prosumer DSLRs) this is acceptable, but I think for Nikon's pro models, they need to go for the full quality of the image, and I hope they get there in a few years.

Are you interested in a macro lens or a telephoto lens? Your wording is a bit odd. First you use "close up" for flowers/coins which would fall in macro territory, but then you talk about "close ups" to subjects far away and what I think you're referrring to is using a telephoto lens there.

If you can afford the Nikon, (always?) go with the Nikon. The 20/2.8 isn't that expensive. Ideally you would rent one to see if it's worth the buy (my local rental place is Calumet Photo)

 

As for test shots, I usually go to http://www.photosig.com and browse the photos, organized by lens. I know for a fact that there are plenty on there that use the Nikon 20/2.8

I also vote for the 1.8. It was my first Nikon lens and I think it's great. I can't think of many situations where I would need a 1.4 over the 1.8, and the fact that it's significantly less expensive is a plus.

Karl's low price should not concern you. I think repairing cameras is just a hobby for him and as such does not need to be his primary source of income, so his prices are typically low. He does fantastic work. I recommend him over Hama and Ebel because I hear they are notoriously difficult to communicate with, and Karl was very responsive through e-mail. He is very accomodating and won't do work on your camera that is not needed.

This is just the way I look at it.

 

I generally use color because, as you said, color is an important, beautiful, and amazing part of nature. But sometimes you don't want to just focus on color in a photo, and it can actually be a distraction. When you want to bring attention to something that has a particularly interesting graphic shape, deep ridges or veins that make great shadows, or if you generally want people viewing your photos to be attentive to lines and textures, I would say go with B&W.

 

Some people just don't understand B&W. My cousin pointed this out to me once--she thinks every B&W photo would be better if it were color, and some people will tell you that most color photos would be better in B&W (I am personally more inclined toward the former).

 

I think for wide, scenic vistas, you are best not to go with B&W film. Ansel Adams could pull it off, I don't think I can. If you are shooting details and looking for patterns, I would recommend B&W in that case.

Thomas, those are lovely -- do you remember what film you used?

I also recommend the Gossen Luna Pro. I got mine for a steal on ebay ($40!), but they're not all that cheap. Still, they're quite affordable, and always perform.