jim_jones3

<p>When shooting at right angles to the sun, a polarizing filter helps darken the sky in both a b&w and a color photograph. This works better with a fairly long focal length lens than a wide angle.</p>

<p>To be consistent with the other pinhole diameters in your information, the diameter for a 135mm focal length in the 35mm chart should be about .5mm, not your .39mm.<br>

There may be little need to include the image circle data. Some pinhole photographers are content with greater image circles than listed.</p>

<p>The formula for optimum pinhole imaging has been debated for well over a hundred years. I use PinholeDesigner <a href="http://www.pinhole.cz/en/pinholedesigner/">http://www.pinhole.cz/en/pinholedesigner/</a> with a user constant of 1.4 instead of the Lord Rayleigh constant of 1.9, based on my experience and preference in pinhole images. Others may have different experiences and preferences. For wide angle pinholes, that user constant is sometimes increased to improve image corner sharpness at the cost of some center sharpness. Lord Rayleigh apparently based his formula more on scientific theory than on pinhole photography. Pinhole image sharpness near the optimum pinhole diameter is limited both by geometric optics and wave mechanics, resulting in ambiguity between the two theories. One way to experiment with varying pinhole diameters is to use a 35mm camera with pinholes at several times the normal lens distance and a target that simulates the subjects one prefers. This permits multiple testing on one convenient strip of film with an image in which the pinhole blur is relatively large.<br>

Some of the charm in pinhole photography is its contradiction of hard science. Do your own thing, and let the magic begin!</p>

<p>Cameras come and go, but the right tripod is a lifetime investment. I've owned perhaps a dozen tripods over the past 65 years, but for 42 years have mostly used original Tiltall tripods for cameras up to 5x7. They cost under $100 online. The permanently attached 3-axis head saves the expense and potential loss of stability of aftermarket heads. With the legs fully extended, the platform is only 57 inches from the ground. However, the center column gives another 12 inches, and is rigidly clamped with a collet instead of the less solid side screw. Tiltall uses a standard 1/4 inch tripod screw. A quick detach system can be mounted if one wants to sacrifice the advantages of the original camera mounting system. I have no experience with the currently imported Tiltall products.</p>

<p>Your first camera may well not be what experience will demand as you become more proficient. Therefore, don't spend too much money now. That beginning camera can become a backup camera if you upgrade. It's good to have one that you can also use where you don't want to risk your best camera. I chose the cheapest Nikon DSLR because lenses and other accessories from my Nikon film cameras fit it. Years later it still does all I need. Even a second-hand point-and-shoot camera and a capable photographer are capable of prize winning photos. If possible, do speak to the instructor so you won't be handicapped by an inappropriate camera.</p>

<p>To further complicate the problem, the required DoF varies with different subjects. Edward Weston sacrificed sharpness in favor of greater DoF in some of his macro-photographs by using tiny diffraction limited apertures. Because of the subjects, form and luminosity were more important than apparently perfect sharpness. Soft focus lenses also complicate DoF calculations. DoF considerations are more art than science.</p>

<p>One of the several books on large format or view camera photography might be more valuable than mere videos. Book publishers are more selective and professional than Youtube. The information is usually more comprehensive and better organized. However, a few operations may be better presented in a video. John Shriver's suggestions in the first reply are accurate. For large format, knowledge is cheaper than equipment and film. Spending time learning about the subject is more practical than spending money without knowledge. When you understand all of the options available in large format photography, a few hundred dollars might get you started in 8x10 images that at best would be only slightly better than those printed from smaller cameras. You could also spend a few thousand, and have gained no more.</p>

<p>Probably many of us have downloaded the USAF 1951 chart and printed it at various sizes. One source of information on the chart is http://www.takinami.com/yoshihiko/photo/lens_test/pdml-procedure.html. In this link, the width of the large black square should be 35.5mm for the resolution figures to be correct.</p>

<p>My few purchases from Japanese sellers have been flawless. Do check feedback.</p>

<p>For an Epson, I prefer to resize in an editor to the desired print size at 360 dpi and do any final editing and sharpening. Saving this file simplifies any future printing.</p>

<p>I like some drama, and rarely use anything for B&W except red and a polarizer.</p>

<p>Many of your photos are much like others would take of the same subjects. They might sell in a market where there is little competition, but not in sophisticated venues. Salesmanship sometimes generates more income than good photography. If you are persuasive without being pushy and have a great personality, they may sell where you have face-to-face contact with buyers.</p>

<p>I've used Leicas for 60 years, and this doesn't come close to resembling any Leica I ever saw or heard of.</p>

<p>A degree might impress some employers who are looking for someone to work for them. A strong portfolio should be more valuable. If you are happy working for someone else, these help. A job on the periphery of photography such as a camera shop or frame shop might help develop useful skills and some good contacts. If you do opt for college, strive to be the best in your class not as much for the education as for developing the determination and work ethic that success in business often demands.<br>

There are many venues for selling photographs. I sell at an annual art fair and a few other occasions. Without really working at it, these generate a small fraction of my total income. Galleries are a traditional outlet. Some restaurants and other businesses also welcome artwork to hang and perhaps sell. These require an outlay that may justified only after careful research. Always look for local contests and other ways of displaying your work and developing a reputation. Edward Weston went door to door soliciting business early in his career.<br>

To most individuals buying photographs, it's the photo they are buying more than the cachet of a degree. While you are building a portfolio that sells well, work on the other necessary skills such as finances and presenting photographs. If you hire someone else to mount, mat, and frame photos, you are giving away much of your profit until you become successful. If you find a market for letter-size or smaller photos, some desktop printers become practical.<br>

A sunny personality in the salesperson is important. Phony salesmanship turns people off. If you must have a second job, one where you have to deal with people can be good training for selling photos. Almost every women I've really liked has at some time been waitresses. To excel at that, they had to be likable. </p>

<p>I've used fairly new Leica F2 and F4 cameras down to -60 degrees Fahrenheit with no problems. As Frederick says, winding and rewinding must be done slowly. I usually let the cameras acclimate to warm interiors slowly in camera bags.</p>

<p>Thank you, Alan, for a fascinating behind-the scene look at automated film processing.</p>

<p>My first Leica, a IIIf, cost a month's income in 1953. I've owned one M4 since 1970. The film run through these cameras cost more than the cameras themselves. I've also used a Nikon system since 1967 for those tasks the SLR does better. In side by side operation, the Leica has been smoother and more reliable than the Nikons or a couple of Canons. Also, the optics have been flawless, although some of the slower Nikon lenses were certainly as good.</p>

<p>For best value consider not the latest, but a model about to be discontinued. The D3100 is still available at bargain prices. Mine has given flawless service for 30 months, and has made more exposures than my Leica and Nikon film cameras over the past few decades. Newer cameras offer additional features which may not be needed. Some models offer a higher pixel count, which most of us don't really use. These advantages come at a cost.</p>

<p>I've had trouble with some slides jamming if they were warped.</p>

<p>My 50mm f/3.5 Elmar bought new in 1953 never seemed as sharp as a slightly faster Minolta 50mm and much faster Nikkors.</p>

<p>My Leica M4 is 43 years old, and still going strong. I've retired many Japanese cameras with more conveniences in that time. It is more practical for some of us to adapt to a fine camera than to buy a lesser camera that has a few improved features. Speed Graphic evolved into an affordable and versatile system. Mine are older than my Leica, and they still work well. So does my elegant Graphic View. Even today "old" Kodak lenses for large format cameras are prized by working photographers. Perhaps a few master photographers can justify the purchase of much newer and slightly better equipment, but not me.</p>

<p>Getting the most out of the D3100 may be more effective than upgrading to a better body. The D3100 is capable of sharper images than some in your gallery. Careful focusing, appropriate aperture, using a tripod where needed, and good image editing is important. Most lenses perform best at intermediate apertures. Inadequate or excessive sharpening can degrade the image. <br>

My 18-55mm kit lens is decent, but I also use a 35mm f/1.8 for low light, shallow depth of field, and optimum sharpness. The 55-300mm lens seems less sharp, especially at the longest focal length. The ultimate use of your images should be considered before spending money on equipment. Posting online demands less from a camera and lens than making large prints.</p>

<p>I replaced an Epson 2450 with an Epson V700, but scan only 4x5 negatives. With a limit of 16x20 digital prints, there was no conspicuous improvement in quality. </p>

<p>Another book that takes less time and money than a course is <em>Way Beyond Monochrome</em> by Ralph Lambrecht and Chris Woodhouse. The Ansel Adams books are good, but have been published in several editions over many years. Earlier editions don't cover newer equipment and film.</p>

<p>The photographer Edward Weston might have said that the only way to give a negative meaning is to contact print it in a simple darkroom. His friend Ansel Adams would have embraced certain aspects of digital photography. He claimed that the halftone printing of his day came very close to his own interpretation of the negative in a sophisticated darkroom.</p>