california-seascapes-photo

About a month ago I did quite a bit of research and had narrowed it down to the Eizo L768 which seemed to have many good reviews from different sites and was in the price range I was looking to stay in and has a 5 year warranty. I was also looking at the Apple's, which seem to always be considered among the best, but at the time were well over my price range. The Apple 20 inch is now an option, although I am also using a similar Laptop configuration so will most likely go with the Eizo. I also tried the computer superstores, etc. and have found not to put too much faith in their advice for a quality photo editing monitor. I will be making the purchase in the next couple weeks and hope to hear more input here.

<div></div>

I have always shot film and one of the reasons for me not going digital yet is the loss in the wide angle coverage of my 18-35 lens. Now days probably 80% of my seascape shooting consists of being in the 18-20 range and couldnt imagine being without it. It depends on what your photographing of course, but once you get used to that extra wide angle it would be tough "for me anyways" living without it.

Heres one. Last summer I had a couple rolls of already exposed Velvia that I somehow managed to leave on a car seat after photographing the previous evening sunset. Went out to the truck the next afternoon which was well over 100 degrees inside the vehicle. Went to grab the film, it was so hot I had to immediately set it back down. Believe it or not developed with no problems whatsoever. Also had 1 or 2 drop into the ocean. I immediately snatched them up out of the water, while there were a few bad frames, most were good.

Thanks Ethan,

<p>

Yes, the monitor does seem to be the obvious choice, the reason I say I am fairly confident it is not the monitor is just from months of use uploading to the web and comparing my uploads to other photographers uploads and also viewing them on a few other monitors elsewhere, although these were not calibrated. While I cant say the monitor is giving me 100% correct brightness levels, increasing the levels by 20 pts to get a proper print just seemed extreme compared to this. The spyder is about 6 months old, I am using an LCD so this may have something to do with it. I have viewed the prints under many basic lighting situations and they are fine "with the levels increase"

<p>

The prints do seem to be quite consistent in color and brightness, I will talk with them again at the lab when I pick up my current order tomorrow about the QSS change, etc. The present profile for this printer is dated April 07, 2004 and "supposedly" good till October, I will ask them about this as well.

<p>

I was unaware of the issues with LCD's so am beginning to think this is the possible cause, although I have heard of many others using LCD's for editting? Like I say, I am getting good results, I just dropped off a fairly large order this afternoon, it just adds some unnecessary complications while viewing/editing and more proofs to be made.

<p>

Thanks again for the detailed suggestions.

Hello everyone,

<p>

I have been having some printing done on a nearby Noritsu 3101 printer

and while the results are well beyond my expectations I am having a

brightness problem. I have to increase brightness using levels approx.

20 pts on average to get the prints brightness at a correct level. My

monitor is calibrated using the colorvision spyder and am quite

confident the monitor levels are correct. I have tried using two

different printers using the procedures and profile from the Dry Creek

website and am still getting the same result. The colors seem to be

great and am getting quality prints, it is just the brightness issue

that seems to be extreme to say the least and would like to solve.

<p>

I should also add that I tell the machine operators to turn off all

auto color corrections, etc. I believe there is a step in my workflow

that I am missing somewhere and hoping someone else has had a similar

problem? Any suggestions in regards to this would be �greatly�

appreciated.

<p>

Thanks, Steve

�Outdated� may have been somewhat extreme for me to say. The F4 �is� a very capable camera and mirror lockup is the one feature I will truly miss. I just have come to get used to the newer functions and the easy command dials for shutter/aperature adjustment along with the many custom features. What I �really� appreciate is that the controls on the F100 are almost identical to the N80 which I use as a very inexpensive backup around saltwater. It has been sprayed by saltwater many times and still keeps ticking. Their light weight is an added bonus for me. Both are great cameras no doubt about that, �F4&F100� just have to go with the newer models for my use.

I have owned both and while the F4 is very rugged and does feel good in your hands, this is about all I can say for it. I finally sold it about a month ago as it was only collecting dust.(: It is a very outdated camera and as others mentioned there really is no comparison.

 

Back in its day I am sure the F4 would of been the camera of choice, but not today. IMO get the F100 or depending on your use even an N80 and spend the rest toward a lense.

To Illka, when you mention Velvia as being difficult to scan are you using the 5000? I am presently using the older Coolscan IV and am scanning Velvia 100% of the time and having a very difficult time. I am about ready to upgrade to the 5000 and am interested in your experience scanning this film.

Thanks Guys, it sounds like this may not be too much of an issue. From the previous posts that I read, it sounded like the quality with this type of lense with digital wouldn't be sufficient.

My main photography is done wide angle "landscapes" and for this I will continue to use film. As mentioned above I would mostly be using this camera for wildlife and was concerned the lense I have wouldn't be sufficient for this. I'm not prepared to spend $5k+ on a lense just yet.

Hello all, I am considering purchasing the Fuji S2 as a second camera

mostly for wildlife, birds, etc. I was getting very close to the

purchase when I read here that the image quality isn't as good with

some of the cheaper lenses on these cameras or with digital cameras in

general. This will mostly be used with a Sigma 50-500 which isn't

considered the best of lenses, but was satisfied with its results used

with the F100. I am just curious if anyone has compared the quality of

lense sharpness between a film and digital camera and noticed a

significant difference in image quality with somewhat cheap lenses and

if this is anything to be concerned about.

Thanks.

Thanks for the compliment Simon.

 

Sounds like you are close to a decision. The F90 with the Sigma 170-500 would be a good choice. As said previously if you can manage the extra finances for the F100 I would go with that, but the F90 is fine also. The 170-500 wasn't available when I purchased my lense so had to go with the 50-500. I only mostly only use it at the 400-500 range though. A 6 lb. 50 mm lense is somewhat ridiculous to me, I can use a different lense for that. When first starting out I believe economically zooms are a much better way to go. For landscape photography you can start out with a 24-85 or similar, and Nikon makes at least a few different lenses to choose from. The good thing is if you grow out of a lense and are ready to upgrade the re-sale prices are nearly the same or within 20%, especially if you purchased it used. As Michael mentioned you can use a manual focus lense for surf photography, I have used mine in manual focus, but had much more slides that were keepers when using auto-focus and can concentrate more on composition without the worry. To have a 1200mm lense might be worth it though :-) It can be very difficult manual focusing a moving subject. A flying bird is impossible, i've tried.

Just to add onto this, you will need a sturdy tripod. At least a Bogen 3021 to start. These are frequently on E-bay.

Hey Simon,

I am no expert, but have shot some surf photos a few times and moving animals which is pretty much the same thing. I would definitely go with a camera that has the continuous auto-focus mode, but think it would depend on how serious you want to get as it can get very expensive. Here on the west coast the best light seems to be in the early morning when the surfer is frontlit and at that time it can be very difficult to get a fast enough exposure with decent depth of field, so critical focus and a fast lense can become very important. I was using a film camera so didn't have the magnification factor of digital, I believe it is 40-50%? If given this 40-50% I would still go with at least a 400 mm lense. I first tried my 70-300 Nikon with 1.4x TC =440 and it wasn't enough. I now have the Sigma 50-500 ($700.) with the 1.4x TC = 700 and that seems to get me close enough, but is a pathetically slow lense and almost worthless in the first hour or so in the morning with a moving subject. I shoot Provia 100, pushed to 200 to help this. If you plan on doing a fair amount of surf photography I would definitely eventually go digital for the magnification factor, as far as the lenses go it just depends on how much you are willing to spend. Unfortunatelly this doesn't come cheap, the lenses the pros use are approx. $10K or more.

 

Hope this helps.

Thanks for bringing this up Wilson. While out in the cold I thought about this more than once while shooting. An FM2 would be nice to have in these situations. I did use my F4S somewhat as at least I can manually rewind the film and save some battery power while manually focusing as well. I really like my F100 though, and mostly try and use that with my N80 as a backup. Both have very similar controls.

Thanks guys, it looks like I will be going with A&I. I have been hearing good things about them. I just contacted them and their mailers are going to be only $5.50 bulk price per roll + $1 addititional for the rolls needing pushed.

 

They said I could drop them off in person once I get the mailers, as I am still not real comfortable with sending these through the mail.

 

To lose this many rolls would be devastating to say the least.

Hello all,

<p>

I have 225 rolls of Velvia and Provia that need developing from a

recent trip around the western states. I am hoping someone can steer

me towards a quality photo lab here in Los Angeles that they have been

using for a while and trust that has reasonable prices (maybe bulk

pricing). 40 of these need to be pushed 1 stop.

<p>

I live in Torrance, but don't mind driving North if necessary.

<p>

Previously I have been using Costco for my developing, but not sure if

I trust them with this many rolls and also not sure if I want to fill

out 225 envelopes.

<p>

Thanks alot for any help.

I shoot alot of sunset photos over the ocean. The best colors usually show up after the sun has gone down and the light is also much easier to deal with after its gone down unless the sun is behind a cloud or mountain, etc. . A neutral density filter is your best friend in these conditions. The contrast between the foreground and the sky is so much that it is very necessary to use unless you want the foreground to go black as a sillouette. You can otherwise waste alot of film without one of these.

 

What I do is meter the foreground then meter the sky and the difference between the two is the filter intensity needed, usually for me it is 3 stops of ND. Just set your cameras meter for the foreground , place the ND filter in front of the lens and it is a good idea to bracket exposures. There are a few different brands of ND filters, but the cheapest is Cokin, about $18. at B&H Photo.

I changed the custom setting to turn off the film rewind. This morning I went on a hike after it had already warmed up some. I took many pics and didn't have a problem until just before dark. A couple times after around 10 pics or so, the LCD would say "END" as in end of film roll. I would put some new or warm batteries in it and press the shutter and it would continue where the last frame had left off "around 10 or so", so it is pretty obvious now it is just a coldness/ battery problem as it didn't start happening until near dark this evening.

 

I said before that the temperature was around 20 during the day, but I think it is actually much lower than that. I am just guessing, but probably less than 10. Some of the doors on my truck have been frozen shut for 3 days now and when I wake up in the morning the water bottle beside me is an ice cube. Oh- and when im near a stream my tripod has frozen to the ground just in the amount of time to take a few pics.

I changed batteries about 8-10 times today.

 

Thanks

Sounds like lithium are the way to go. Hopefully the weather will warm up here, if not I will be searching for them soon.

 

Regards, Steve

Some excellent suggestions here.

 

Thanks David, I just downloaded the manual and the extra battery holder would be very nice, I will definitely do this. I have been keeping a second set in my pocket to keep them warm, but the hassle of switching batteries when your fingers are half numb isn't very fun.

 

I will also have to get the lithiums, I didn't realize they could be had that cheap and didn't realize the cold affected the batteries as severely as they do. Although I just drove out of the park a couple hours ago to a Costco and picked up 28 duracells. I don't think there is a Home Depot around here, but will be prepared next time.

Wow that was fast. Thanks alot guys, I will change the setting and see if that works, it probably will. I thought there might be a setting adjustment, but forgot my manual at home.

 

I am new to cold weather photography and knew that batteries went fast, but had never heard of this happening. I will try it out this evening and if it works will at least be good until I get back into warmer weather where I can see if there is still a problem.

Hello all,

 

I have a Nikon F100 that I have had for about 6 months now. I have

been having problems with the camera rewinding the film way before it

gets to the 36th exposure the last couple of days. It seems to vary,

sometimes it will do it after 12 exposures, sometimes around 20 and

sometimes it will last the full 36.

 

I am in Glacier National Park where it has been pretty cold,

about 20 degrees in the day. I am not sure if this has something to do

with it or its my camera.

 

Hoping someone else has had this problem, I am wasting alot of film.

 

I have been using Velvia 50, but don't think it has anything to do

with the film.

Thanks alot,

Thanks alot Jason. This works great. I have been having trouble figuring this out for the last month or so.

 

Just to expand on this a little more, if you don't mind:

 

After I make the adjustments to the sky, is it possible to select everything else but the sky and make aditional adjustments to the rest of the image. I know that I could just do this to begin with, but it would be very useful to know. I thought maybe inverting would select the rest of the image, but that doesn't seem to work.

 

Thanks, Steve