wbowman

The two previous posts (done while I typed) are spot on. I didn't read your question very carefully. If you really want B&W there really is no substitute fore well exposed, well processed and well printed silver-based B&W. Sadly, getting that generally requires doing it yourself.

There are a couple of reasons that come to mind. First, you can develop and print traditional B&W film at home. That allows you to have complete control of your image from start to finish. You can also use slide film as what you see in the slide is what was taken with the camera. Essentially you are removing the interpretations of the photo processor from your image and it is all on you. RAW digital imaging affords the same level of control (but it has to be RAW so there is no in-camera selecting of white balance, sharpening, etc.).

 

Another reason is that B&W forces you to visualize shapes and composition without the distraction of color in you image. Often images are more powerful in B&W because there is not a bright color to draw your eye away from your subject. You can use "chromogenic" C-41 film which is essentially B&W standard film that any 1-hour lab can process and print for you. These films, Ilford XP2 is one, are convenient and alow you to concentrate on composition, but they do not let you control contrast, grain, and other factors that true B&W film souped in a variety of developers let you have.

 

I don't know if any of these are good reasons to shoot B&W. If you're just beginning then I think a DSLR is the way to go as it allows you to adjust everything yourself (provided you have a computer, photoshop, etc.) and the incremental cost of additional bad shots is zero.

 

If you're you're going the film route, I would suggest learning with E-6 processed file (slides) so you can see exactly what you're shooting without the 1-hour photo guy changing your exposure settings and color balance on prints. B&W is great, but I don't see the point either if you're having a lab process them for you.

I am spending the weekend in Chale, Isle of Wight and I am hoping to

have some guidance on interesting photography sites there. I see lots

of other posts of beautiful shots from there. Are there any "can't

miss" suggested places?

Sorry, this isn't a Leica (or even film!) but it is my favorite part of alpine skiing - beer for

lunch! This is my wife (she's drinking water).<div></div>

There is a small bookshop on Charring Cross Road near The Photographer's Gallery that

has only photography books. It is a tiny shop on a corner north of the street where the

Photographer's Gallery is. Sorry, I can't remember the name or the street.

 

You should also consider checking out the The Schweppes Photographic Portrait Prize

2005 ata the National Portrait Gallery. I saw it last year and it was very cool. I haven't been

this year - yet.

 

Is you Lebanese place called Al Dar on Kings Road? I used to live a 90 second walk from

there and I had a kebab for dinner at least twice a week!

I'm in the camp that thinks 24 to 105 is way to big of a gap for a beginner unless you are doing ONLY landscapes. I won't say that you MUST have a 50mm, but there is little reason NOT to get one - they're cheap, fast, and high quality. You can then figure out the type of photography you like to do and add to the wide or telephoto end as needed.

You might try carrying an abbreviated portfolio of your previous work to show nervous

subjects (or owners of subjects) that your intentions are good.

I had no problems using PSCS on 10.4.3 or 10.4.4 on both a PowerBook G4 and an iMac G5.

</a> Does that work?

I did not find the statement ambiguous at all. In Slashdot terms, I would suggest to "RTFA". It says:<blockquote><i>Silver halide photography, which is fundamental to photography, has advantages over digital in such areas as power of expression, long term storage capability, reasonable prices, easy handling and a highly established and convenient photo development and print infrastructure.<br /><br />

 

We intend to continue our silver halide photography business and to further cultivate the culture of photography, and in so doing, continue to support our customers and retailers and all those who enjoy photography.</i></blockquote>It sounds to me like they are stating a commitment to film.

You didn't mention whether you want something with AF or not. If you don't need/want it, I

would also suggest the Nikon FM or FE range. They are tough, small, and fairly light. I also

agree that a 35mm lens seems more appropriate than a 50mm.

Fluorescent lights (and most other types of artificial lights) always shift to the warm or cool

side of the spectrum. Personally I think the photo on the left with the green looks fantastic!

I forgot to mention a couple of other things. Avoid direct light on an inexpensive filter in

front of your lens as that causes colors to wash out. Always have a lens hood on when there's

a chance of stray light hitting the front element of your lens.

I'm sure that there is something you can do with your RAW processor or Photoshop, but the

real keys to saturated colors are colorful subjects, good light, and a polarizer. The best way

to end up with a killer image is to make sure that most of the work is done when the shutter

snaps.

Those manual Nikon, Olympus, Canon, etc. cameras all needed a battery if you wanted some

sort of metering. What is it that you don't like about your current camera? Consider buying an

EF 50mm 1.8 lens for about US$80 and mount it on your 300x. Click you command dial over

to "M" and you'll be 80% of the way to where you were with the old Pentax. The one thing that

you will be unable to replicate well is the manual focus lens. The awful zoom lens that almost

certainly came with your 300x is most likely you biggest problem.

Another bald eagle area is the Kansas (Kaw) River right at the bridge in Lawrence. Last time I

was there I believe there were two nests.

I don't know the answer, but hopefully the same answer will apply to skiing photos. I've been

in on the slopes this week and it is really difficult to capture the steepness of the black runs.

I don't know the answer to your question, but I appriciate your "Blazing Saddles" reference!

To build on what Daniel said above, the "look" you are referring to is likely caused by unsaturated colors (at best) or unrealistic color reproduction (at worst). Certainly Kodachrome seems to have a look that is not realistic. My parents' photos from the 60's and 70's appear from that age from not only the fashion and long hair but also the distinctive color rendering of the film. Tree and sky colors (those colors haven't changed) have a certain hue that screams 70's. I suspect that playing with curves in Photoshop will eventually produce this, but I don't have a specific formula (nor do I want one!).

Ken Rockwell (<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/20f4.htm">www.kenrockwell.com</a>) has a good review of this lens.

Does anyone have any experience with Kood filters for the Cokin P

system that are being sold on the UK Ebay site? They are cheaper than

Cokin, Lee, etc. and I would expect them to be of lesser quality. Can

anyone give me some guidance on the differences there might be between

say a Cokin circ. polarizer and the same thing from Kood?

<br><br>

By the way, the only mention of Kood on this site is an old,

unanswered post here:

<br><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00755f">

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00755f</a>

As others said, it is hard to no be in a beautiful place around the Valley. My favorite is White Oak Canyon trail.

 

http://www.hikingupward.com/SNP/WhiteOak/ [these are not my pics!]

 

I have only gone in the summer and it is certainly spectacular (several waterfalls and towering cliffs). I don't know how it will be in the November/December time frame as I think the leaves will be dropping quickly now.

That should be "Paris Hilton's Expression" (no s required because it isn't plural).

As both images were obviously taken under bright sunlight, I doubt there is much that the photographer did to modify the lighting. Instead, I'm sure there was a combination of film choice (not Velvia!) and post-production.

I had this happen on a Canon FTb I bought on eBay. The light sealing foam around the door

had turned in to a tar-like goo that stuck the door closed all around the edge. With carefully

applied pressure I started to see the door come open - confirming that it was not a

mechanical issue. An FM2n would be significantly newer than my FTb, so I don't know if the

seals would have had time to rot, but it is a possibility.