Jump to content

eric bond

Members
  • Posts

    40
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by eric bond

  1. After having spent years in traditional B&W and doing my own processing, then going all digital, I'm returning to film.

    I am getting ready to shoot the Tetons and Yellowstone and would like recommendations for color, negative 35mm

    film.

     

    What is best for this outdoor situation? I used to use Fuji Reala. Anything better for saturation and the high

    contrast?

  2. Are they equally reliable? No. I have locked up several times with unDutchables. I never locked up with Wasia's version. The unDutchables is just the Wasia firmware taken a few steps further.

     

    It mostly tries to address added functionality in the Basic modes, such as ISO and ability to shoot RAW in Sports mode, which is the only feature I found useful. Just don't try to change from RAW while in Sports mode. You end up turning the camera off and back on to reset (no permanent damage). Just turn the command dial back to a Creative zone to change from RAW.

     

    I have also had no problems going among all three sets of firmware. When going back to Canon's firmware, just be sure to reset the CFn attributes back to the original settings (as found in a PDF at the above-mentioned website). Overwrite any firmware with any other firmware without having to reload the original, etc, which often confuses new firmware users. It's only software and you are overwriting it.

     

    Eric

     

    P.S. my rebel just died this week, so I purchased the hardware upgrade (20D). Oh well. Loved the little Rebel!

  3. I bought the AT-818 from Amvona for my wife to use with her spotting scope. It is rather comparable to my Bogen 3021PRO with a 3030 head on it. The heads are all but poured from the same mold, possibly uses the same manufacturing plant (certainly not unheard of and not unethical). I don't care for the ball-centering feet but otherwise, a sturdy performer, which is the point, right?
  4. When stumbling around Ilford's website today, I saw this press

    release, relased today<br><br>

    <a

    href="http://www.ilford.com/html/us_english/pr/pr_gt.html">http://www

    .ilford.com/html/us_english/pr/pr_gt.html</a><br><br>

     

    Reading through the middle section, it certainly seems to me that

    they are looking to sell off the film-based aspects of company and

    commit to digital media output interests.

     

    Anyone with some spare change in their pocket?

  5. Jim,

     

    That may have been the route you took and he may yet, but since he already has an EOS film body, he may have some of the accessories you've listed. You certainly can get a Digital Rebel, 256MB card and card reader for $1000.

     

    The rest mentioned are upgrades, with the exception of a telephoto lens if he doesn't have one already. You can certainly break into digital photography without buying every piece of equipment initially.

     

    Trey, buy necessary items now; add-ons and upgrades later. At least that's how it works in my marital situation.

  6. While cleaning your sensor (at least the first time) can be a little awkward, it's nothing like heart surgery. It's an extremely easy process.<br><br>

     

    I would rather spend the 5 minutes, which includes setting up the cleaning supplies, than have to compensate in PS for every shot.<br><br>

     

    The first time I cleaned the sensor, I thought "what the heck was all the hoopla about?" Care is needed, but it is a very simple process.<br><br>

     

    Try the methods above or at <a href=http://www.pbase.com/copperhill/ccd_cleaning>here</a>.<br><br>

     

    Good luck.<br>

  7. Another reason Canon changed the mount, and it would be hard to ignore, is newly-generated sales. Change the mount, increase the need for people to buy new glass and not keep using the same lenses. I'm sure that the EF mount will not be around for forever and will have compelling reasons to be upgraded, not the least of which will be new glass sales.
  8. Additionally, I would never format a card using a computer. Always use the camera's format feature. I also no longer erase (or cut/paste) using Windows Explorer. I have lost two separate cards using both methods above.

     

    Another aspect may be that your card reader is introducing the problem. One way to maybe test this would be to use the camera's USB (gack) connection and upload that way. This might help eliminate a potential source of your problem.

  9. Tim,

     

    What Jim was meaning is that this question has been asked countless times. Do please search the archives if you don't get many responses here.

     

    In there, you will also see what C-41 are recommended for specific situations, if any of those apply to your situation.

     

    Personally, I use XP-2 for all chromo shots. I prefer it printed in my darkroom than the digital shots that have been desaturated (not the actual method I use, but so everyone understands) printed out on inkjet printers/Frontiers. Personal taste, and all.

     

    Eric

  10. I, too, unfortunately learned this lesson the hard way. Thankfully, it was cheaper SmartMedia. It took me two cards to figure out that you do NOT format using anything other than the camera (brand, at least) that you use the media in.

     

    I spent a lot of time searching for, and almost found, a utility to reformat the cards in the camera maker's format. Nothing worked.

     

    I don't have any information on CF cards and what would cause it to not work. With the SmartMedia cards, it was a certain bit that got overwritten. I know the DRebel (of which I have one) can use FAT32, so I'm not sure why it wouldn't work though.

     

    Try to find a Window 98/ME computer and see about formatting it using FAT instead of FAT32.

  11. Again, the answer to the question "Is digital b&w better/worse than traditional?"

     

    The two are different. They have different looks. It depends on what you are trying to achieve. For traditional, there are several expected knowns (if the planets are lined up correctly) regarding film used, development processes and final print paper. Digital has many more variables, or at least, greater choices within the given variables.

     

    As with each method, technique and understanding of the process has a lot more to do with the end result than the raw materials. Raw materials do play an important role though.

     

    So, have I answered your question? No.

     

    Personal perspective: I use 20 to 60 year old cameras for my traditional b&w work and a dSLR exclusively for color work. Why? I just like the heft, the feel and the pain-in-the-arse brainwork it takes to produce a good b&w image I am comfortable with. I like the control and myriad of possibilities Photoshop gives me for color.

     

    Have I tried b&w in digital format? Yes. Will I continue to do b&w in digital format? No.

    Why? It's not the look I want for b&w. I love the way light reflects off of silver tilted at just the right angle. I like the feeling I get when looking at a traditional print. And, I can't resist the smell of an acid stop bath.

     

    Yes, digital manipulation makes dodging/burning, contrast and many other adjustments so easily for me. I can produce a technically better print in PS. But it lacks what _I_ want.

     

    No one can tell you what is a better method for you. We can all, and hopefully do, make suggestions and recommendations. As with any serious post I've ever seen here, it all ends with:

     

    only you can decide what is right for you.

     

    Eric

×
×
  • Create New...