beepy

So, I have been wrestling with backgrounds for studio shots in studying lighting.

What has been interesting is instead of putting a backdrop in my studio, is taking the

lights on location. Or just outside the studio. I've been mixing it up a lot. I've also

been challenging myself to make do with materials on hand (a bolt of black fabric for

an impromptu backdrop warming up for some location shoots). It's been fun. So the

constructive part - any white walls nearby, shoot there.

"The premise of the site is that anyone can rate photos, provided the ratings are

honest." Brian Mottershead

<p>

Uhmmm... you should've stopped while you were ahead.

<p>

The premise of this site is that anyone can rate photos - period. Honest? Well,

honestly I've seen enough postings and reviewed the ratings associated with the

postings to come to the conclusion that the ratings are not "honest" in regards to the

photo but that something else is going on (punative, whatever).

<p>

Don't particularly care. But do try to be grounded in reality here.

<p>

At this point I try to leave comments and no ratings - as after rating several photos

on a sweep and then looking at mine, I felt increasingly possessed of feet of clay. I

don't know what the answer is here - in a fully moderated site one would think

"Wows" and "Sucks" comments would be eliminated. But that would be intractable in

terms of effort.

<p>

As something says somewhere on the Internet "You get what you pay for."

<p>

I still like photo.net - the forums and the pics are a bundle together, the articles have

really helped me as I dived in to things. Some portfolios are brilliant and inspirational

- and they're not impossible to find. I do wish the service was more reliable (was

reading the threads on that) - as a subscriber:-)

This erupted on another forum here somewhere - and <a href="http://

www.dantestella.com/technical/tyranny.html"> this web article I found interesting </

a> in response to the 2004 predictions.

For all the experience, comment and direction! This helps a lot.

<p>

I'm partially deriving from these responses that large format photographers tend to

be passionate about their work/art. Cool!

I saw one of the members at photo.net posting some camera phone pics and saying

they were having a blast. Ubiquitous on-line cameras will have interesting effect on

privacy (I've seen the banning cell phones from bathrooms and locker rooms in

several articles already). Interesting interesting interesting. This is going to go

beyond Gen-Xers (aren't they aging anyway - what gen are we on?)

Sorry was unclear - I am actually picking up an Arca Swiss "Field" model - need to

check the bellows max extension... I just rented to Toyo to play with, after using it

and spending some time at the photography store and reading I think a monorail is

more to my needs - small one to lug short distances...

Hi. I am getting started in large format in a small way - 4x5. Rented a Toyo field

camera, spent a

weekend with it and a 90mm (Schneider I think). I am getting a monorail after

looking at my options. I am coming from a "35mm"

background (well, Canon EOS 1Ds ful frame - call part of this the anti-digital

reaction). I have found

that I *rarely* shoot anything in 50mm normal range with Canon. I use a 100mm

macro for macro and portraits, and with my 28 - 105mm zoom I am usually at 28 or

100+mm.

<p>

I liked the 90mm for 4x5 so picked up a fast Nikon - that seemed pretty

straightforward to me - similar to the 28mm.

For portraiture, equivalent of 100mm is say something 300+mm for 4x5?

<p>

I would love some feedback on particular favorite lenses - focal length and max

aperture? What you use, why you like it? Drawbacks? It would probably help me in my

decision for

the second lens.

<p>

Thanks.

I looked through archives but did not find answer.

Any experience with the zoom lens?

(So, the temples and gardens are EASY - you will eventually exhaust yourself there - I

recently learned...) So, park yourself somewhere at the head of Hanamikoji Dori

(street) - read the link

below. Say 5PM - 6:30PM. Look for all the photographers:-) trying to snap pictures

of the geisha - it was highly amusing - paparazzi.

Much higher hit rate that Pontocho.

<p>

You might find <a href="http://www.kyotoguide.com/e-past-issue/03sea.html">

this link interesting</a>.

<p>

Lonely Planet guide for Japan is what I swear by - except I (almost) always have a

Japanese person with me in Kyoto.

<p>

I once stayed at the Three Sisters Inn - a Western friendly Ryokan (doors close at

10PM?

Eeek!) They speak English and may be helpful.

<p>

So, I actually <a href="http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/people/h-s-love/"> went with

this guy twice on a walking tour </a>. It was interesting - you might start one

morning with him - atypical of what you will easily do (LOTS OF TEMPLES). It was a

good orientation and I asked lots of questions that helped me later. I like the

Philospher's Walk in Kyoto. I think you may want to do some web searching for

temples just outside Kyoto - I went to one last week - hit Kyoto when it snowed

(infrequent - they told me through translation).

<p>

At the start towards the entrance street of Ginkaku-ji (Silver Temple) where you can

also start the Philosopher's walk is a very nice small tofu restaurant (they have a

clapboard sign in front with English). It was most excellent.

I guess I would comment (1) 16 bits for each color is more data than 8 - with file

being larger - as you process/edit image you get less loss to final output. Working in

8 bits (even RAW or TIFF) will lead to more loss over editing than 16 bits. (2) Adobe

Photoshop CS has direct support for RAW - I find tweaking white balance after the

fact to be considerably easier if it is off while converting from RAW (with Photoshop,

the camera raw software, or say Capture One software).

<p>

I'm assuming you already know why you would avoid JPG capture if you're asking

about 16 bit RAW.

<p>

So, you would convert on open a RAW image into 16 bit in PS 8 - prior to PS 8

Photoshop was 16 bit challenged (as I was reminded on another machine the other

day). So, you don't "work" in "raw" (as in you can't save it back out in raw format from

Photoshop CS to my knowledge).

<a href="http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/repor/

NSF_LC_Final_Report.pdf"> Another report </a> from our friends at the Library of

Congress. I know this is going a bit far from "Mac recommendations" - but it was the

task you described that intrigued me, not the tools.

The key words here to me are "digital archives". I think in the end it is not the

process to generate the images but how you preserve the digital output.

<p>

<a href="http://www.wilhelm-research.com/pdf/

Family_Tree_MagazineSept_03.pdf"> Read this article </a> - for a sidebar that will

help consider the issues of long term digital storage.

<p>

35 mm slides and negs you have are probably more dynamic range than digital cam,

and capable of 10 - 16 megapixels of output. Think 70+MB uncompressed 16 bit

TIFF images? I didn't see - how many slides are you talking about?

<p>

Anyway - long term archival storage of digital images is an interesting puzzle. Short

term reliable storage is a problem - think RAID or disk mirrors. Secondary back-up.

<p>

I work on designing reliable storage systems in real life - I find the durability issues in

storage interesting. A 91 year old aunt died recently. My cousin brought down some

family pictures - and there was my mom and aunt when kids in a family portrait in a

beautiful black and white print - exquisite. 80 year old print. As someone who has

worked on computers I can't even imagine you would be able to read any media you

wrote to 80 years from now - never mind 30 years from now - even if the media

actually remained intact. I would be worried about getting, say, a DVD-R reader say.

<p>

Don't discard the slides after scanning. Consider archival storage of the slides also.

Because Minolta blew it on digital SLRs as a general strategy on how to lose in a

market - Nikon and Canon keep ahead of the game and push - VR and IS lenses are

good. Am I bitter? Yes - I had a Minolta 35mm setup and ended up going to Canon

as I went to digital.

So, I shot with a used Hasselblad this weekend - after shooting various digital SLRs

for 3+ years, and 35mm film before that.

<p>

Not having shot 110 film since I was a kid, and the camera being unwieldy (even

compared to a Canon EOS 1Ds), and just shooting film again (with manual crank)

slowed me down A LOT. And it was all sort of relaxing. I did find myself thinking

more about the composition (with 12 shots per roll I was more stingy with shots,

investing more time in each - compared to the slack a 4GB CompactFlash card gives

me in my Canon).

<p>

I haven't got the slides back yet - but I have to say, once I settled down and got used

to the ground glass viewfinder I had an "Oooooh!" moment - the image in the ground

glass seemed 3D and much more alive than what I've been seeing through 35mm and

digital SLR viewfinders. Kind of inspiring. (I showed it to my wife - one shot I was

setting up - and she had a similar reaction).

<p>

Of course, all the photos may not have turned out (I have gotten very used to

checking occassionally important pics in the LCD to make sure I wasn't in some weird

space). Film is frightening:-)

<p>

My walkaway though is that I will likely be shooting both cameras. I just can't see the

Hasselblad replacing my Canon. Case in point, sitting in a coffee shop at the head of

Hanamikoji Street in Kyoto this weekend after not seeing a geisha on the street, my

wife said one was about to cross our way. I grabbed my Canon, with 28 - 135 IS lens,

went out door, cranked the ISO to 800 (I felt I was being rude already - a flash

would've heightened my imposition) relaxed against the wall and got off two shots

(geishas seem well trained to

avoid cameras - they move surprisingly fast in public). This in the time she crossed

the street as the light changed. I just can't see that I could've

done that with a Hasselblad. Not two shots unless I had a motor drive. I framed

with the zoom.

<p>

So whatever your choice of medium format - don't throw away the 35mm:-)

<p>

You might find <a href="http://www.dantestella.com/technical/tool.html"> this site

helpful on selecting the right format camera for the job </a> - has comments on

why you might choose one over another.

When I read the description of the space I went "Wow. The walls sound great!"

<p>

You'll break my heart if you pain or cover all the walls.

I am getting random thumbnail sizes generated and it is driving me

nuts. For the exact same picture uploaded multiple times, sometimes

the thumbnail is 85 x 130 - other time 133 x 199. Why?!?!?!

<p>

The smaller thumbnails are harder to see and really screw up a

portfolio in terms of visuals to have them mixed.

<p>

I posted a photo for critique and it had a small thumbnail - is there

some way to get the thumbnail fixed?