jluebke

Thanks Michael and Christiaan. I did indeed change the batteries right away, and that didn't fix it. I will try tightening the rails and cleaning the contacts as well. Anybody know if there is some sort of battery located *inside* the prism that might be failing? I really don't think so, but...

I pulled my F4 out of the bag yesterday to take a quick shot, and the

display in the finder was acting totally flukey... at first it

wouldn't give me any readout whatsoever, despite the camera being

turned on. Then, once it did light up, it seemed like the display

would only refresh about every 10 seconds or so. To verify, I put it

on spot metering and aperture priority and scanned a range of

bright/dark values, but the shutter speed displayed did not change

with the light. Neither did it display exposure compensation values

as I changed them. After 10-15 seconds and/or a wiggle of the prism,

the right value would pop in to the display. In addition, I would

occasionally get the "FEE" error message, and "BULB" displayed, along

with assorted flickering and gibberish displayed in the finder.

 

Here's the weird part, though: I removed the prism and the display

started functioning normally again. I tried the same tests as above,

with different modes, exposure compensation, shutter speed values...

everything worked as normal.

 

Has anybody had anything like this happen before? I have checked the

row of contacts and there's no corrosion, everything appears to seat

properly, etc. The finder has always had a small amount of play, and

doesn't seem to have any more now than it did before. I'm hoping that

I don't have to pop for a new finder, or worse yet have the camera

taken in for a new top plate or whatever. Anybody have any similar

experience, or speculation as to what might be the matter? Any help

would be much appreciated!

American Eagle supplied caps for my F4. Highly recommended.

Outstanding effort, Eric. Nice balance between commercial and personal work, well organized and intuitive. I'm not bothered by the text over the images, but I do agree that your logo does not necessarily befit such an accomplished photographer. Ditto on the few typos that have already been pointed out. The slideshow speed was OK for me, although I did think the mouseover thumbnails took a bit long to load when browsing by number.

 

This site stands head and shoulders above most other commercial sites I have seen, by virtue of both the image size and the sheer number of examples that are available. I've seen a lot of other professional sites that have many beautiful images on display, but only low-res shite is not even worth looking at. Others give you too few, but a nice image size. I think you've balanced the two nicely, but I wouldn't want to pay your web hosting bills -- especially if you get a ton of hits and exceed your bandwidth limit! ;-)

 

Regarding your editing, you've struck a nice balance between the strictly commercial stills and the more arty, atmosphere shots. Thanks also for giving us a few "behind the scenes" looks in those series. The most burning question is, however: Did you go drinking with Dave Thomas, and can he actually skate?

I have an SP1000 that my father bought in 1974, just before I was born. He used it heavily up until around 1990, and I'm happy to say that it is still the first thing I grab when I head out the door to go shooting. Totally reliable, great build and viewfinder, and identical to some of the more expensive Spotmatic models, minus a self-timer.

 

As far as lenses go, I usually keep a 50mm on there, and the Super Takumar 50mm f1.4 is the best I've used -- far superior to the f2 and f1.8 versions that I have owned/used.

<p><b>Pros:</b></p>

<ul>

<li>Probably the best price/performance ratio on the market today

<li>Outstanding viewfinder, especially for manual focus

<li>Tank-like build quality -- mine has taken some knocks that would have shattered a lesser camera

<li>Familiar interface to your F3 -- knob and switch, rather than button and command dial

<li>Its weight is an advantage in terms of balance and stability, especially with longer lenses

<li>Backwards compatibility -- unrivaled support for manual focus Nikkors

<li>Electronic rangefinder is helpful in manual focus mode, even in the macro range

<li>MLU -- if you need it, it has it

<li>Full suite of accessories, if you need them -- interchangeable finders, screens, date or data backs, different battery/grip configurations, bulk film backs, etc.

 

</ul>

<p><b>Cons:</b></p>

<ul>

<li>Weight can be a minus if you're used to a much lighter camera

<li>Not a stealthy camera -- it will attract attention, so if you're into low-profile street shooting you might opt for something subtler

<li>AF speed is slow compared to the F100 you used to shoot -- not a great sports/action camera

<li>No VR capabilities, so that could limit you when you are looking to add to your lens collection

<li>Hobbled by G lenses, as you cannot set the aperture on the body

<li>You will get all kinds of grief from jealous D70 owners, who will invariably ask "why do you still shoot film -- don't you know that digital is better?" Just smile politely and bash their little <b>plastic toy</b> with your big manly camera ;-)

</ul>

I don't know about the rest of you, but I just looked up the number for my state ACLU chapter and added it to my cell phone address book...

<p>I doubt that anything positive in terms of awareness of photographers' rights, clarification or repeal of this vague law will come of this. Sadly, my conjecture is that the prevailing opinion in Texas (and elsewhere in the increasingly xenophobic and paranoid US-of-A) is "better safe than sorry" -- i.e. better to arrest and publicly smear some innocent man than miss the real pervert/wacko next time.</p>

 

<p>I'm not going to engage in any media bashing at this point, but I find it highly amusing that NBC 5i's story states that <i>"Vogel spent nearly 24 hours in jail... and his mug shot appeared in TV and Internet news stories."</i> They fail to state that Vogel's picture appeared on <b>their</b> TV station, <b>their</b> Internet news site, and <b>nowhere else.</b> Go figure.</p>

<p>It's a g*ddamn shame... after so much waiting and anticipation, Nikon releases a piece of equipment that, on paper, appears to be just about everything everybody wanted -- better viewfinder, nominal megapixel increase, quicker frame rate, metering with non-CPU lenses and better build quality at a very affordable price.</p>

 

<p>Somehow, people are still complaining. Let's face it, you are lucky that Nikon is innovative enough to bring you a camera in <b>2005</b> (check your calendar -- that's what year it is) that will meter with lenses from the 1980's. Last time I checked, Pentax was the only other camera maker that could claim that, and they don't even offer a full line of DSLRs. Now you're bitching that Nikon should have made it backwards compatible with 60's era glass? Get real!.</p>

 

<p>Tell you what -- all you malcontents need to stop posting here and go get engineering degrees so you can dazzle Nikon's R&D department with your collective brilliance. We're all waiting...</p>

In viewing the Cobra Snake's work, I can't but find his inherent devaluation of the "unbeautiful" people to be quite distasteful. He even goes so far as to label his latest gallery of non-clubbing folk as "New Trash". The images in those galleries are solicited from the website's viewers, as if the man himself woudn't deign to get his hands dirty photographing the great unwashed.

 

As for his party photography, it's OK, but very run of the mill stuff that you might see in a weekly entertainment/lifestyle fishwrap from any major urban area -- nothing remarkable. I'd much rather look at Mary Danger's work if I want a glimpse into a hip subculture. She's brave, and intentionally goes into situations where she's out of her element and creates images that don't seem to judge her subjects one way or another.

 

Cobra Snake is a coward who seeks the comfort in the sameness of other hipsters like him. In my opinion, 15 minutes are a bit too much for him...

<p>Check and see whether the meter coupling lever (which reads the position of the aperture ring) has been flipped up by mistake. Look here:</p>

 

<p><img src="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf4/features/metercouplerlever.jpg"> <img src="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf4/features/coupling.jpg"><i>Images come from this <a href="http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/nikonf4/features/index.htm" target=_blank>wonderful source of all things Nikon</a>.</i></p>

 

<p>That ring needs to be flipped DOWN (as shown on the left) in order to tell the camera how far over the aperture ring has been moved, and should only be flipped up if you are using Non-AI lenses in stop-down metering mode.</P>

The usual challenges: selecting a subject, creating an attractive composition, determining the proper exposure, focusing, keeping hands steady, pressing the shutter at the right time, etc.

 

Seriously, the G series lenses are fully compatible with the D50. Assuming you have actually taken a photograph before and have at least a passing knowledge of the controls on a modern camera, you should be OK. If you want a more specific answer, tell us the specific lens you are considering.

<p>Contrary to Neil's assertion, there's nothing "plasticky" about an F4. In fact, aside from its relatively pedestrian autofocus capabilities, the main rap against the F4 is that it's <b>overbuilt</b>.</p>

 

<p>Like Trygve, I gravitated towards the F4 because of the traditional "knob and switch" interface. Coming from a background of fully manual cameras, I felt more comfortable with a traditional shutter speed dial and aperture ring. The F90 is a little more oriented towards the "dial and menu" style of interface, so that was the clincher for me. YMMV.</p>

 

<p>The best way to make your decision is to actually *hold* each one of these bodies, and see which is more comfortable to you. Hopefully you have a camera store in your area that sells used equipment. Failing that, many pawn shops have cameras of this vintage for sale, and fondling is free. The standard F4s configuration with the battery grip and vertical shutter release is more than half-again as heavy as the F90 (1280g vs. 755g), so that might be a factor.<p>

 

<p>Finally, if you do settle on the F90, I would strongly suggest springing a little extra cash for the F90<b>x</b>, which has a better autofocus sensor and upgraded flash and ambient metering capabilities.</p>

<p>Kenny -- unfortunately, <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DXIY">seemingly</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00DKO7">every</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Camg">thread</a> that gets posted here recently turns into a political flame war, so I think that dissuades folks from participating. Also, a few threads have been deleted because they strayed so far off topic.</p>

 

<p>If we had more pros sharing their thoughts and less political trolling (from both sides), this would certainly be a more vibrant forum. If you are looking for a more civil place to read discussions of various aspects of reportage, I would recommend you visit <a href="http://www.sportsshooter.com" target=_blank>SportsShooter.</a> The drawback is that you have to be "sponsored" by a current member in order to register and post. You can browse the forums, but no posting...</p>

<p>Thanks for sharing this, Ellis. Just for fun, I thought folks might want to head over to the <a href="http://lcweb2.loc.gov/ammem/fsachtml/fsowhome.html" target=_blank>Library of Congress index page for this collection.</a></p>

 

<p>You can browse or search all 1,600 color or 160,000 black and white photos by keyword, and view both thumbnails and hi-res images. It's a great resource, and buried fairly deep within the LOC website so not too many people know about it.</p><div></div>

<p><i>"Are you disputing that a Reuters photographer was arrested in Gaza carrying a hand grenade?"</i></p>

 

<p><blockquote>Sorry, Eric, I'm not familiar with that case, but a quick news search revealed that he was detained for five days and released without charge. Are you seriously telling me that he was, in fact, a terrorist masquerading as a journalist but somehow managed to fool the Israeli authorities? Either Israeli Army Intelligence and/or the Mossad are completely incompetent, or the grenade was planted in order to harass him. Furthermore, as far as employing terrorists is concerned, the US government has a far worse <b>documented</b> track record than Reuters does. By that logic, should we trust anything the US government says?</blockquote></p>

 

<p><i>"Are you disputing that Reuters' global managing editor has said that his agency will not call terrorists "terrorists" because of fear of reprisal?" </i></p>

 

<p><blockquote>In a word, yes. Aside from the overtly and admittedly biased website you cited, virtually all other coverage of this topic has centered on Reuters' "value neutral" approach. The crux is to avoid using politically-charged words like "terrorist," and though you may disagree with that policy, it was not created out of fear of reprisals. Reuters reporters operate in conflict-torn regions around the world, and many of its staff have been injured and killed. It is ludicrous to suggest that they would blithely send their reporters into the West Bank and Baghdad, but worry that a choice of wording was going to put them in danger. I'll ignore that "craven" comment, since I know you pulled that out of Karl Rove's <i>Big Book of Empty Rhetoric</i>, but yes, I still trust Reuters. </blockquote></p>

 

<p><i>"It is typical of the left to attack the messenger and ignore undisputed facts. Yet, a supposed news story about an arrested Reuters employee written and published by Reuters as if it were indisputable fact?"</i></p>

 

<p><blockquote>Read the story again, Eric. The US military has confirmed that they are holding the reporter in question. As a typical leftie, I guess I was suckered into believing something reported by Reuters and <b>confirmed</b> by the US military. That seems pretty indisputable to me, but my judgement has probably been clouded by all the flag burnings and pro-Saddam rallies I've been attending lately. For all we know, that reporter is probably on a pleasure boat cruise on the Euphrates, being fed grapes by beautiful young virgins. After all, if you can't trust the US Military, who can you trust?</blockquote></p>

<p>So that scoop about Reuters "appeasing" terrorists came from a website called <i>Honest Reporting</i>. Gee, they sound honest enough. Let's see how they describe themselves, shall we?</p>

 

<p><blockquote><i><a href="http://www.honestreporting.com/a/About_us.asp" target=_blank>HonestReporting</a> was established to scrutinize the media for anti-Israel bias, then mobilize subscribers to respond directly to relevant news agencies... <br><br>Israel is fighting an uphill battle and needs all the help it can get. Much has been achieved, yet there is much more yet to do. One person alone may not make a difference, but thousands united can... <br><br>Join HonestReporting.com and help Israel win the media war.</i></blockquote></p>

 

<p>Pardon me, but I think Reuters may be a bit more authoritative (even when reporting on themselves) than this group, who has an explicitly stated agenda. I cited a <b>news</b> article, Eric. Feel free to do the same, but spare us your propaganda.</p>

<p>Read the full story here: <a

href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050824/ts_nm/iraq_reuters_dc"

target=_blank>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050824/ts_nm/iraq_reuters_d

c</a></p>

It's on the shooting mode dial, around the shutter release. After (S)ingle, (Ch)igh, (Cl)ow, and (Cs)ilent, there is a timer icon. That's your self timer mode. Set your shooting mode to timer, and you have a 10 sec delay.

Congratulations, Andy! I'd love to be there, and will definitely make it if I am free that night.

I think it's a cute picture to begin with, but I'm not a fan of Photoshop (or similar software's) "painterly" filters. They work OK if you're trying to composite a photo element into a painting and you want the textures to match, but even then you have to apply varying degrees of blur, noise, and stack layers in order to get it to look right. As far as applying this type of filter to an entire photo, I don't care for that look. To me it just screams "canned filter" or "Look what I just figured out that my software can do!"

 

If you want to do something more interesting with this, you might consider "stacking" some layers of your photo, then applying a SUBTLE effect to each layer and adjusting the blending mode and opacity of each layer to achieve a unique effect. A little Gaussian blur here... "find edges" there... maybe "solarize" if you're feeling adventurous... one layer set to "Luminosity"... another set to "Overlay"... After a little experimentation, I'm sure you can come up with something that looks a helluva lot better than any "out of the box" filter or effect.

<p><i>It seems as if the F100 is applying the compensation to both the ambient exposure and the Sb24...</i></p>

 

<p>IIRC, that is exactly what is happening. I don't have my Thom Hogan Nikon Flash guide with me, so I can't be certain, but that is how I have always treated flash/ambient exposure compensation and it's worked for me with my SB25 and F4/N80. In the case you mentioned, you might be better off taking the flash out of TTL mode and using manual flash to balance the fill. That way you can dial down the flash to a stop or two below the "proper" exposure, and underexpose the background without affecting the flash output.</p>

Well, Jose, for one, it saves you the time of having to digitally stitch them together. The Xpan creates a negative that is 24mm tall by 65mm wide, as compared to the traditional 35mm negative size of 24mm x 36mm. In other words, you get almost a 3:1 ratio of width to height, versus the 3:2 ratio of 35mm film and most digital sensors.

Also, unlike the panoramic feature available on most APS film cameras, this aspect change is accomplished by enlarging the size of the negative, rather than by cropping. As a consequence, you actually wind up with an effectively "higher resolution" negative that requires less enlargement to make the same size print.

 

A few other advantages of using a panoramic camera over stitching together a number of images is that you eliminate possible discrepancies in color balance, exposure, and perspective that you see quite often and have to correct for when stitching.

 

That's not to say that it comes without disadvantages. The ultra wide angle lens made for the XPAN outfit suffers from light falloff in the corners, and is sold with a special filter that is dark in the center to correct this phenomenon.

The film advance when using the Cs mode sounds a bit like the noise it makes when advancing the film leader when you've just loaded a new roll of film. Kind of a repetitive "Brrrr-ta Brrrr-ta Brrrr-ta" noise....

Lex, Photoshop 7 and later will display clipped values for you when doing a "Levels" adjustment. All you have to do is hold down the ALT key while clicking the black or white point slider. You can also adjust levels and view clipped values in real time if you hold down ALT while dragging the slider -- a nice little undocumented feature. You can also do this for each channel if you adjust levels for R, G, and B separately.

 

Sorry, I don't have a workaround for you on any of the other points you mention.