thomas5

<p>Thanks, everyone.<br>

There's lots to think about here.<br>

I should've mentioned that I'm 6'3" and so I like bigger, heavier cameras. It's one of the reasons I got the K10D in the first place and then added a grip; the whole thing feels substantial in my huge mitts. :)<br>

I'll have a look and see what I can find.</p>

<p>I have a K10D and am looking at getting a K20 shortly. I wanna have an old film body to go with them so I can shoot the occasional roll of 35 when it strikes me.<br>

It's such an odd thing to ask in a digital age, but I figure this crowd can help.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance.</p>

Thanks, you two. I thought that might be the case, but I always get flummoxed when I

think about it too hard.

And for what it's worth, Peter, I did a preliminary search (the guys over in the MF forum are

ruthless if you don't :) and didn't find what I was looking for.

I'll have a look at your suggestions.

Cheers.

What I wanna know is are the DA lenses (and the FAs, for that matter) true in their focal lengths or are they

subject to the multiplier (1.5x) that I have to use to judge other lenses I buy? More to the point, is my kit

lens the 18-55 really that or is it a 27-70-something?

I wanna go wider than the lens I have, I just wanna know what that's gonna mean.

Thanks.

Excellent.

Knowing that it's out of the purview of Lightroom is helpful. I managed to find it in

Photoshop, thanks to your kind interventions. Until recently, I only shot film and sent it out

ot be drum scanned. As such, a working understanding of digital photography wasn't

necessary.

As to why the files need to be the way I've been asked to make them, I couldn't begin to

know.

Thanks, everyone.

I need to know how to adjust the levels of my images, which seem to default at 0 and 255. My editor tells

me I need to submit them at 5 and 250.

I don't pretend to really know all that much about digital cameras so go easy on me. I've honestly

searched the web and the archives here, but I'm not sure I'm using the right search criteria. I've looked

through (as near as I can tell) all of the menus in Lightroom (I have 1.1) to no avail.

Am I on a fool's errand? Or is this gonna be one of those things that I'll feel stupid about for not getting it

on my own? Can anyone shed some light?

Thanks in advance.

Well since you're all still answering queries, how about this: You can see that I'm pretty well

clueless as far as the digital side of my work goes. I've been paying for scans of my negs but

I've recently gotten access to the local university's photo department and have scanned a few

of my own negs. I also recently downloaded Lightroom, which is beginning to make sense to

me. Given my novice level of digital understanding and the K10D I have, is Elements 5 a

better choice for output or can I stick with Lightroom?

Thank you all. This has been very helpful for me. The short subtext of it seems that since

I know my film camera already, there's no reason to deviate far from it. The digital is

considerably smaller and lighter, however. (smile)

Kelly, I see that you're really concerned that I might fudge my numbers, but I have to

emphasize to you that I don't speak fluent enough digital to want to try to pull the wool

over anyone's eyes on this. I'm asking for my own edification and I plan on asking the

agency with whom I'm working as well to make sure I'm all clear.

I'll certainly check in if I have other queries.

Cheers.

Aye, Neal. What you've said makes sense.

I think I ken how the numbers might make one compression different from the other. What I

don't quite understand is perhaps why the people who've requested my images would ask for

8 bit (and a quick look determined that) when the 16 would (apparently) be more

advantageous.

Thank you, kindly.

And cheers on the teaching of maths. I'll stick to English. Maths is all Greek to me. (grin)

Score!

You're right, Justin. This is completely new territory. I want to understand though, so I'm

paying attention.

I have been making 8 bit files, not 16. That one piece of information is where I consistently

was going wrong.

Thank you for pointing that out! Now I just have to figure out what the difference is... :)

Appreciated, Amund.

I can only seem to make my RAW files 27 or 28 Mb. Where (or better yet, how) are you

getting 57Mb from?

I know this all seems simple to many of you, and frankly I'll probably use the camera mostly

to shoot personal family-type stuff, but on the occasion that I can get it to work like this, I'd

like to already be in the know.

Sorry, Kelly. I didn't mean to offend you.

They asked for the images and I told them what I'd shot them with. There really wasn't

any subterfuge. I'm nowhere near that clever.

You have, however, answered my question: I can't. The biggest I can get the file to be is

the 20Mb I've managed to achieve. Thank you for that.

And, since I've been an English teacher for the last 10 years, I think I can say with a level of

certainty that many football players wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a

mouse (but I understand there's more dark meat on a hamster) mixed with hamburger

helper and they'd be none the wiser if you chose to feed them thus.

Thanks a million.

I don't plan to ditch the film. Believe me.

What I want is a digital alternative though.

I downloaded the free version of Lightroom to see how it worked. It's still plenty

confusing, but I managed to output some TIFFs that were only 20Mb. What amazingness

am I missing to make my images bigger? I mean, I'm shooting in RAW (which I

understand to be proprietary anyway), what more is there?

I've been shooting film and producing negs and slides I can scan for the stock agency I work for. I figured

it'd be nice to suppliment that work with a digital camera and so far I've been fine.

What I want to know is can my new digital camera do what I ask if I crop my images to a square and what

software do I need to make TIFFs that match the ones I'd been scanning from film?

Thanks.

I run a little darkroom in RIchmond, Virginia. I bought it from a woman who had a good run with it for

about 15 years. Slowly, chemistry processes and the advent of digital put her slowly out of business. I

bought it and kept it viable for about 3 years and now, it operates completely in the red.

I would like to keep some of the equipment, but for the most part, I need to sell it. My question is how

and where? I a black and white RC paper processor, a color processor, and two enlargers with color heads

that print up to 4x5 that I need to sell. In my mind, eBay's not going to work well, but I don't know.

Does anyone have a suggestion?

Thanks in advance.

Thanks so far for the responses.

I ran it past my wife and she asked, "Are you interested in a Leica because you're a camera

snob?" The truth of the matter is yes. And moreover, I think I'd like a new toy. The last

new thing I got was a 50mm CF lens made in 1984. That was two years ago. (So, my old

German glass is actually made in the fatherland, Lee. :)

I considered sticking with film, Stephen, but I'm not a huge fan of scanning film myself

and I'm looking for faster turnaround. I still have a fridge full of Acros that I'm not giving

up.

Pablito, I think you might be right, but I was hoping for something a little more romantic

than a DSLR, although I haven't ruled them out.

Jeffrey, the LC1 was actually my first choice, but there was a D1 on eBay that was really

cheap and... Well, you know how that goes.

Thanks for your input. Honestly. I'm still not sure what I'm gonna do yet, but I feel a little

better informed.

Here's the thing: I usually shoot film. I have a Hasselblad. I like it a lot.

My wife will deliver a baby girl in another few months. She'd like a bit of documentation. She wants

digital.

That's all well and good, but since I've been using (in my mind, at least) a top of the line film camera for so

long, I don't really want to have the newest fastest Canon or Nikon. What I want is a digital camera that

shows that I know what I'm doing without a million and one other features I'm not likely to use.

To that end, I kinda think I'd like a Leica digital. I know that for the purists, it's a Fuji or a Panasonic, but

Leica still makes the lenses, right? That's good enough for me.

Anyway, my question is this, given that I'm not out to make the world happy and am not so concerned

with resolution that I need (or want) a lot of digital versus film tests, what is the likelihood that an old

Digilux 1 or a 2 or even a Panasonic LC1 will fit me? I'm happy to go cheaper, but I understand that newer

will cost more. For my purposes (snapshots of a new kid and stuff like that), will there be an appreciable

difference in what these cameras can do?

Help.

And before anyone has a conniption about what the archives have to say on the subject, I looked and

didn't find anything that spoke to my specific question.

Thanks in advance.

I'm with Q.G., with a little additional information.

If you intend to make small enlargements, 5x5s and things of that nature, the 105 is likely an

easier choice. If you plan on 8x8s or larger then I'd consider the 80.

There's also the issue of the names. Never heard of the Anaret, but Nikons (and I have 3

105s, an 80, a 75, and a 135) are generally pretty good.

Can you try them out before buying?

Generally, good shops know what cross process means, but if you are at risk of having

someone foul it ou, just tell them to process your film as if it were C41 INSTEAD of E6.

I have to drive to Fredericksburg to shoot some portraits for a friend but I live in Richmond.

As such I have no idea what the city's like -- I tend to skip it on the way to or from D.C.

Anyone know of any places that might be good for exterior portratiture? In Richmond, I gravitate to some

of the historical areas of town as well as places with nice greenery and large grass fields.

Any direction would be helpful.

Thanks in adavance.

I suppose it all depends on how still you can stand. I once saw a guy shoot at 501 CM with a

100mm lens at 1/2 second handheld. Wasn't something I could do, but the negative was

pretty sharp. I can do an 80 at about an 1/8th, but it's not in my comfort zone. I don't

usually go beneath 1/30 for any lens.

*shrug*

You can either listen to all the old fogies or you can say f-it to the rules and step outside the

box. It's only film, after all.

Interesting. If by "two inversions a minute" you mean only like 2 seconds, that might be

where your problem is. When you invert the tank, you should rotate it as well so that the

chemistry moves around more and the density levels out. I don't think it matters, but you

only typically need about 30 seconds of water to stop processing before fixing and you

should be agitating the whole time.

I agree that it might have been rolled on the reel incorrectly, but had the film been

touching itself, the images would have been affected more.

I'd suggest trying another roll.

One last thing: How old is your fixer? Old, "tired" fixer might contribute to such a thing

as well.

I'm not sure about this, so answer some questions for me, please. You developed for 6

minutes. How much is "quite a lot of agitation"? I think for D76 agitation is something like

10 seconds per minute. Did you rinse the film or use a stop bath between the developing

and fixing?

Assuming you did those things, was there enough developer to cover the entire roll of film?

I've done this (and seen it done) when the dev level is beneath the level of the film in the

canister.