michael_barnes1

Jen-

Been through this one myself... Tough to come up with something original that's not too cheesy yet more original than "portraits and such". Something I thought of, but have not chosen to use myself based on the negative connotation, was "Photographic Mercenary".

Depends on how serious you take yourself and your job. Good luck to you.

M

Greetings all,

I have searched the forums until I'm weary-eyed. I can't seem to

find anything on the advantage of the Nikon 24-85 2.8-4D over the

Sigma 24-70 2.8EX DG DF so I now feel I need to ask everyone's

opinion.

I am an advanced amateur photographer, using a Fuji Finepix S-2. I�m

looking for a sharp, full-length portrait lens and figured the 24-85

would be a good choice. My 50mm prime does a great job for head

shots, but I need to back away to about 15 feet to get a full length

portrait and this diminishes the intimate look (in my opinion) that

I find with the same lens mounted on my Nikon N80.

So, does anyone believe one of these lenses to be superior?

Thanks in advance.

Michael

Andy,

Thank you for that response. You said exactly what I needed to hear.

Regards,

Michael

So if I am understanding correctly, underexposing leads to more grain, therefore correct exposure (or slightly overexposed) along with fresh film will provide results closer to what I am expecting.

I will try some more tests and not give up completely on faster films.

Thank you all for your help. I trust the experience that you all have.

Michael

Oskar,

You are correct, my statement was quite vague. Let me try again with specifics.

I shot a wedding anniversary with Kodak Supra800 color print film. The photolab I always use asked me why I shot it with 800 (I also used digital and had no problems). My reply was, I wanted to use available light (high ceilings, chandeliers and candles). I got standard 4x6 prints and the results had grain that I thought to be beyond acceptable. To echo Fazal, grain and sharpness are not directly related, and I mis-spoke when I wrote that. The sharpness was fine, exposure was correct and the colors of the room were exactly as I remember them. The grain simply seemed to be more "coarse". I have seen other photographers use 400, 800 even 1600 in both b&w and color with wonderful results. This led me to believe that I had done something wrong in my exposure, i.e. too long or too short. So my question should have been phrased more along the lines of, "Will exposure times affect graininess?"

I've attached one here not from the wedding but rather from my backyard. I used Portra 400VC and scanned the negative with a Microtek 5900. Other than some cropping, I have not changed this shot.

Do you feel it has too much grain or is this what I should expect?

Thanks for you help.

Michael<div></div>

Greetings,

I have used Kodak Portra 400 and Supra800 pro films and been very

disappointed with the results. I have seen others use fast films and

the images, although not as tack sharp as say an ISO of 50 or 100,

they are very sharp. I expected grain to be visible in my shots, but

not to the extent that I saw. Have I missed something in "film 101

class"? Will I get better shots with different shutter speeds?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,

Michael

Thanks to all of you who answered. I will take them all under advisement and take a few test shots before I make any final decisions.

Thanks again.

Michael

I have read through a lot of the posts about using an 80A filter for

indoor shots with daylight film but I still have a question...

I will be taking the obligatory "couple at the Christmas tree" (as

well as the random roam around the room shots) pictures at my company

Christmas party and wanted to ask for some tips. The party is at a

hotel banquet room - high ceilings, low lighting, etc. Christmas tree

w/lights and varied couples coming and going. Different skin tones

and different clothing of course. I will be using Fuji 400 film for

the speed, camera mounted on a tripod, slow shutter speed and either

the on camera fill flash (slow synch shutter) or an external flash on

a bracket.

My question is, should I go with the 80A filter and flash or no

filter and not worry about the ambient light?

Any suggestions will be helpful.

Thank you.

Thanks to all for the input. After I posted, I looked at the prices of Oly lenses (here and on eBay) and you are correct... they are a bit on the spendy side aren't they...

The camera in and of itself feels fine. Smooth advance, shutter release, timer, etc. Looks like I'll just be using the 50mm that's on it and the Vivitar flash unless someone has other avenues for purchases.

Thanks again for your help.

I have my Nikon AF cameras and accessories and will not part with

them, but recently I've been kicking around the idea of buying a

manual Nikon. Maybe it's the whole retro thing coming around or maybe

I'm stagnating and need to challenge myself. In either case, my wife

and I were talking and she pulled out of the closet her Olympus OM2S

she used in high school photography class. I started looking it over

and thought I might try this instead of getting another Nikon. Would

anyone care to comment on my decision to dust this thing off and run

some film through it? I really don't know a lot about Olympus (other

than I have heard the OM10 was junk) and would like some other's

input.

Thank you for your time.

Edsel,

Is that to say when you have your 2 lights set at 11 feet and 8 feet, you would use f8 aperature for your shot? Please explain further. This is very interesting.

Michael