steve_parrott

I hope I can state this so it makes some sense. Is there any way possible to set this camera so the focus points will illuminate and allow selection with a half press of the shutter button? In other words, I want the half press to not only focus, but to also immediately bring up the focus point grid. I would love to not have to take the extra time and effort finding and pressing the focus select button first. I have drove myself half nuts trying to find this information in the 500 page owners manual, and there is one area there that seems to suggest it can be done, but for the life of me I cannot get it to function as such ... if it even is possible. Thanks for any help / suggestions / info.

<p>This quote from Alan pretty well sums it up:</p> <p>"Just do what you enjoy as a hobbyist."<br> <br> If you look at things in a purely practical manner, I simply see no need for film. Digital is simply SO good now, and a much better "fit" into the world today, that I said good-bye to my MF film gear years ago, including my Nikon 9000 scanner with glass carriers. I have found something to be true, or at least as far as I have seen so far, and that is this: All previous PRO photographers who spent half their life shooting film in the past have grasped digital with joy and glee. It seems to be only newer photographers or hobbyists who want to use film for the novelty of it. I, personally, use film in a pinhole and other "lomo" camera bodies purely for fun and the "artistic" look I can get from them, but that is a totally different world of photography aesthetic. When talking "proper" photography where quality and integration into current uses is considered, digital has it all over film. <br> <br> For film now, I would say using "The Darkroom" gives you the best bang for the buck. You can get very large scans, and quality is good. Scanning at home can get very old, very quickly. Also, however, the cost of film, postage, processing, and scans can get old quickly. As one other poster alluded to, eventually you reach a point with film costs that high quality digital is not as costly as it initially seems. </p>

<p>You are leaving out a lot of important information. What camera and lens are you using? In general terms, for shallow DOF you need a moderate telephoto lens at a large - ish aperture. With MF, a 150mm lens typically gives good portrait results. You say you set your lens to f.8. I have to assume you mean f1.8. That is an extremely large aperture for MF. If that is what you are actually doing, it is no wonder you get parts of the face out of focus. Also, you say you are moving close to the subject, which tells me you are using a wide angle lens. No, that is never what you want to do. That will create a distorted face. Again, a lens in the 150mm range with an aperture of 2.8 or even 3.2 should give you a good portrait. Always focus on the eye that is closest to you. Getting the EYE in focus is the most critical part. A nose slightly soft is not as big a deal as is eyes out of focus. </p>

<p>Of course. I have had a roll of film processed when I only had ONE photo on it. The actual processing is the same no matter how many exposures were taken on the roll, so don't be expecting the processing price to be lower because the roll is not full. Even scanning costs will likely be the same. The only thing that would be less cost to you would be if you get prints made from the scans. </p>

<p>You have to lick, (or otherwise moisten), the tab at the end of the roll on Kodak Portra 160 type 120 format.</p>

<p>Chris, Sure, GIMP will do pretty much all that Photoshop will. It is "supposed" to be the same as far as user interface, but I have found that to not be true at all. I had GIMP downloaded and found it so confusing to use that I trashed it. That could be because I have used Photoshop for over 10 years. </p>

<p>As you are using film, Photoshop may be a four letter word to you, haha, but either of those photos can be helped hugely with some minor adjustments. I see your initial problem as simply you are shooting scenes with extreme exposure differences needed. Photoshop, when used correctly, is just a much easier and more effective solution than what a GOOD darkroom tech would try to do with dodging and burning in development. Here is your first photo, no doubt the same can be done with your second photo. </p> <p>http://postmyimage.com/img2/466_00duWz_562709784.jpg</p>

<p>I have to agree. The problem is not the film, or the negatives, or even the processing. Keep in mind, your prints are made from scans, and THERE is the problem. Perhaps someone new to the scan process did your films or there may be a problem with their scanner, but whatever the reason, poor scans are the reason for the flat look. Scanning is an art that is not walked into overnight, though it is not "rocket science" either. It may be that if you, and the lab, consider these as "proofs" only, they made little effort to get the scan process right, but it really should not be that way. This is the sad part of modern film photography, you now have to rely on someone to be in full control of the film to digital conversion, and this opens up such a huge can of worms that I simply no longer cope with it and use digital from the beginning, ... but that is another topic that has been beat to death. You may also want to consider getting a good film scanner and do your negative scanning yourself. Though I have since sold it, I could do far better scans with my former Nikon Coolscan 9000 that anything I could purchase from a lab. The Epson Perfection scanners are pretty much regarded as the best of the flatbed scanners but I would still seek out a high quality drum scan service for any large prints of 16x20 or larger.</p>