staticlag

As best as my google search hase come up with, Rilex makes filters and 4x5 cameras. Here is a link I found

<p>

<a href="http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=15217&item=3809028460">Link</a>

I wear photochromic glasses also, and the best thing that I do is just put a Polarizer on my camera whenever I am outside.

Ok, for just a bit of clarification,

 

The slide film was Ektachrome E100gx, the 2nd push photo was Kodak gold 200. And a handheld incident meter was used with the F1 and the metering technique described above.

 

The 100gx photo is soft, because they were moving and I was using a slow shutter speed because of the stacked filters, sorry I posted it, I didn't want my 15 min of waiting on scanned film to be wasted!(it looked ok in the preview).

Kodak Ektachrome g100x<div></div>

Another sucessful push<div></div>

These are from the rolls I shot on the F1 accidently at 400ISO

 

I Pushed the Negs on these, the pics above on Reala and Impressa were

scanned from prints, and these are scanned from negs. Kodak is robust!<div></div>

Another<div></div>

Fuji Reala!<div></div>

I dont know why their not displaying Inline, they are 500 pixels, sorry.<div></div>

Impressa3

Impressa2

This last weekend, I had the opportunity to try out many different films, as I

attened our first Regatta of the season. I tried the following films for the first

time: Konica Impressa 50, Fuji Reala, Ektachrome G100X, and Fuji Astia

100F.

 

I got the prints back on Tuesday and I was astonished by Fuji reala, simply

amazing,

 

I dropped my only roll of 160NC in the lake, and I managed to not set my F1 to

the correct film speed for two whole rolls of film.

 

I really wanted to see the prints from Konica Impressa, but when I got them

back I was really disappointed with how it handled the scene. It appeared to

smear the reds to a really ugly bright bloody messy colour, and on the

highlight reflection areas, I saw what looked like digital blooming. Reflective

metal with purple and magenta highlights, even though the rest of the print

had no magenta cast. And then an overall washed out performance by the

film.

 

The roll of Impressa was cold stored by me when it was bought in december,

with an expiration date 9/2004.

 

My lab uses a Frontier Pro and printed on Fuji Crystal Archive, is this the way

that Impressa is supposed to look?

 

The following was shot on a F1 w/ a 200 2.8 w/ lenshood extended, metered

at 50 ISO for the shadows with +.5 of a stop added to that reading.<div></div>

Those look about right.

<p>

The 75-300 is not really a "bad" lens, its just not L series.

<p>

Here are some horribly scanned qualex standard prints from my 75-300.

<p>

<a href="http://www.tconl.com/~celestine">Crew</a>

<p>

The coverpage pic was taken with the 75-300 at about 300 from my dorm room. Its soft(though it was scanned on a crappy scanner from a kmart print), but it looks alright to me.

Hi, I just bought a used FD 200 2.8 version II. From the specs on the

internet, it does not have any UD glass, only the later and more

expensive versions of this lens have UD glass.

 

From those who have used this lens; does it have bad chromatic

abberation?

 

Thanks

 

-Dan

If you really want a used one, just talk to newspapers, they will be wanting to get rid of their old stuff when the new DII hits.

Sigh,

 

I only wish my editors and patrons called it creative cropping.

in "ken" his foot is partially cut off, and in "hilary" her head is partially cut off.

An umbrella works great, otherwise just cut up some thick heavy bags and use some gaffers or duct tape to seal your camera up, leaving a hole for the lens.

<p>

This might fit your camera, it looks pretty nice:

<p>

<a href="http://www.kirkphoto.com/protects.html">http://www.kirkphoto.com/protects.html</a>

400UC

A minitape recorder works for me.

A 70-200 by itself will be fine, just ask to sit in the dugout. If anything, a 1.4x might help a bit, but its not really necessary if you have the freedom to shoot from the foul line.

Autofocus- Did you allow the camera to refocus on every frame?

Most of the time I stack medium warming and polarizing filters(losing ~3 stops), so a fast lens really would be useful.

 

I really want the zoom because of its flexibility, but I also really want the prime because of its low-light ability, and relative 'compactness'. Which are two directly competing principles!

 

At this moment, I am leaning towards the zoom, because of its zoom ability.

 

The only pro-shop in my area doesn't have the 35/1.4 in stock, so I can't really try it out. I have tried the 24-70 and like it.

If you are unhappy with your current camera's metering, I suggest you get a handheld spot reflective meter. The only real thing that an incident meter can do that a reflective meter can't is flash metering, and you said you didn't want that anyways.

Most incident meters don't have the sensitivity to meter in really low light conditions such as by low moonlight if that is what you are looking for. If you really were leaning towards low-light, then just get the spot meter, it will be more accurate than your current setup, and all you have to do is meter off of a middle-grey tone(pavement, etc.) and you get an effective incident meter.

 

If you can swing it, the Minolta F is an excellent meter.

I have D100 for the paper and a few 2.8 lenses for it. But when I am using my canon film stuff because I like a challenge:

 

When I am just taking stupid pictures of things for dumb articles:

Indoors:

Fuji Superia 400.

 

Outdoors:

The same

 

When I am intrested in producing my best work:

Indoors: Portra 400UC, NPH, TMax 100, or HP5+.

 

Outdoors:

Portra 160NC or Tmax 100.

 

Get the digital, film really is a pain in the butt to scan before deadlines.