ed farmer - mount laurel,

<p>OK . . . I know that I could make some guesses or do a "snip test". I just picked up a used Diana camera. Inside I found a fully exposed roll of 120 film. The tape wrap on the roll says "Panchromatic Film Made in Germany". I have no idea how the roll is!<p><p>Anyone want to make their own guesses on processing? My two most common developers are TMax and PMK. My first guess is to use the TMax and just pick the average of all processing times for a given temp. This developer doesn't seem to vary much in processing times.</p>

<p>Mike,<br>

It's not really a simple question at. The answer is "Yes or no . . . maybe". If you are going to shoot it at f5.6, it will be sharper, but that is not the end-all of portraiture. In fact, it can be a negative. It is a little short, although I find the 85f1.8 to be a little long shooting digitally. <br>

So, the 50 can be too short (you don't say what kit lens you have) and the 85 can be too long (particually if you are working indoors.) I find my self shooting most of my portraits with my 70-200f2.8. But, this is usually outdoors. <br>

In the end, it depends on what you are trying to do that you can do with your current kit. Do you need something sharper? Do you need to blow out backgrounds. However, I also think that a 50f1.8 (or better yet, 1.4!) is something that should be in almost everyone's bag.<br>

Ed</p>

<p>Mirror lock up is when you release the mirror (the viewfinder goes dark) and then release the shutter a few seconds later. The idea is that the mirror causes the camera to vibrate and can cause unsharp pictures. Releasing the mirror early allows these vibrations to die down before the shutter is opened.<br>

I doubt that this will be an issue for you doing portrait work. Your shutter speeds should be plenty fast enough to avoid this form of unsharp image. <br>

Ed</p>

<p>Like Robbie and some others, I don't think that you are going to have a problem. I have 24x30s cropped from Fuji S2 files and they look great. It is about the post processing though. <br>

The first thing that I would do is talk to the lab that you are going to use and ask them what they want in the file. You can also run some tests. You don't have to make large prints. You can size up a file, by whatever method that you plan to use and then crop an 8x10 out of it and take that to your lab and explain what you are trying to do. <br>

In the end, don't sweat this end of it. Go out and get the shot. If you are worrying about the printing, you are not paying attention to the client.<br>

Ed</p>

<p>Although I would do this with a green screen, greens in the background do make fleshtones pop . . .<br>

Ed</p>

<p>You really need to answer this yourself Mat. None of shoot exactly like you do. We can only tell you how the two kits would the way that we work.<br>

BTW: Niether would work for me . . . I shoot Nikon . . . ;)<br>

Ed</p>

<p>What Aimee said . . .<br>

The first thing that you have to do is look at the work that goes into each product. In this case, I suspect that both require about the same work on your part. This means that the difference in price to your client should just about match the difference in price that they cost you.<br>

In other words: Let's say that the flushmount costs you $300 and the Adorama book costs you $33.90. If you are charging $700 for the flushmount, you should be charging about $445 for the Adorama book.<br>

Keep in mind that when you add lower cost products that compete with your other products, they are potentially taking money out of your pocket.<br>

Ed</p>

<p>My guess is that the focus sensor that you think the camera is using is not the one that is being used. When you press the button to focus, the active sensor will blink in red in the viewfinder. The camera will focus on whatever is behind this sensor. Remember, the camera has no idea what your subject is . . .<br>

My D80 and D200 both tend to change AF sensors when my nose hits the rocker dial on the camera back. <br>

Ed</p>

<p>Mark is exactly right! When the flash is above the camera (as when you hold the camera normally) the shadows fall below and behind the subjects. They are hidden (mostly.) When you turn the camera on its side, the shadows also move the side (the other side) and they are not hidden.<br>

This is the reason that you see wedding photographers with their cameras on brackets that keep the flash above the the lens. Well . . . it's one of the reasons anyway . . .<br>

Ed</p>

<p>The Nikon 50f1.4 (I never really fell in love with the 1.8 version), 85f1.4 (even the 1.8 in this lens), but my favorite lens for portraits, shot wide open, is my 80-200f2.8.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Well . . . about 18 months ago, I sprung for a 50f1.4 Nikkor. I feel in love with the lens shooting wide open at weddings. The shots that I was getting of little details and shooting available light at the reception were fantastic! In August the lens and my D80 were stolen. The used D200 that I bought to replace it included the 50f1.8. I figured that I could get along with the f1.8 lens. This spring, I bought another 50f1.4.<br>

The two lenses are just not the same. The f1.4 is sharper, wide open and everywhere, has better color and much better look. I can't really explain it.<br>

The end of the story here is that you don't NEED a 50 prime. The 17-55 is a great lens. It can't do with the 50 can though. It's up to you to decide if you WANT to do the things that the 50 can and the 15-55 can't.</p>

<p>Ed</p>

<p>Did you have any filters on the lens? At what elevation were you approximatly?</p>

<p>Ed</p>

<p>I am not sure where you live, but have you looked for rental darkroom space? I would still recommend that you process the film at home. Both for better results and less expense.</p>

<p>All that I can say is that I know that Kodak and Fuji print the film type on leader. I can't imagine that Ilford doesn't do the same thing. You should be able to unwrap one or two layers, in subdued light, and see if there is anything printed.</p>

<p>All that I can say is that I know that Kodak and Fuji print the film type on leader. I can't imagine that Ilford doesn't do the same thing. You should be able to unwrap one or two layers, in subdued light, and see if there is anything printed.</p>

<p>The bigger problem here is that you have let a bride dictate how you will work. I can understand wanting a female photographer for some of the getting ready shots, but after that it really doesn't matter. The next time that this happens, I would explaing that you need to be compfortable with your second shooter that you also work with who is available on a given weekend. Sometimes a male . . . sometimes a female. If I take my car into the shop and say that I only want Bob to work on it, they will tell me that may have to wait longer to get Bob. He has a few cars in front of mine. In other words, if I want Bob, I have to conform to THEIR schedule. If she wants to pick the weekend that gets married, she gets the second photographer that is availalbe. </p>

<p>Isn't interesting that most of the JPEG shooters say, "I shoot JPEG because it works for me." Many of the RAW shooters insist that RAW is the "only way to work". I always get nervous when someone says that their way is the only way . . .</p>

<p>See . . . I agree that we should all just do what works for us. When you talk about capturing more information to make cropping easier, you are talking about resolution, not the bit depth of the capture. There is no difference in resolution when shooting RAW vs. JPEG.<p><p>Your brides don't care if you shoot RAW, JPEG, MF digital or with a 1M camera. And they shouldn't care. All they care about is the quality of the prints that you produce. That is your product, not a bunch of bits captured on your CF card. If you convince them that RAW is better (and that is what you are doing by making it an extra cost option) who are you really serving the interests of? You think that it is the best way to work, but you charge your clients extra for it. ;BTW: RAW doesn't capture "more" information. It just doesn't process the information until later.

The Library of Congress has significantly more information than my local library, but my son doesn't need to go there to work on his papers for school.

 

I can shoot JPEGs and produce beautiful 20x24 inch prints. I don't know if I can produce a billboard, but I have never been asked to.

<p>I suspect that I will be chewed up and spit out for this, but I feel that JPEGs have always been good enough. When I am shooting for myself, JPEGs are all that I shoot. It speeds and simplifies my post processing. Means that I need less mass storage which makes my back up easier.<br>

Now, having said all of that: I have been photographing for going on 40 years. I understand exposure and lighting and know how to get it right. When I shot film, the vast majority of my prints where between plus and minus 1. If your exposures are good (they don't even have to be great) you can easily shoot JPEG.<br>

Probably the best way to determine where you are is to look at your current post processing. When you shoot RAW, how many of your images require changes from your standard "processing". If you are adjusting a lot of exposures, white balances, etc, from file to file then you can't shoot JPEGs. If you just let the conversion go and touch up a few images, you might as well be shoot JPEGs anyway.<br>

It will be interesting to see what others have to say . . . this discussion comes up quite often on these sites . . .</p>

<p>James,<br>

Does the file type really have those characters? It looks like the file may just be named incorrectly. Try making a copy and renaming it something like "test1.jpg". See if this works.<br>

It may just be that PS is smart enough to look at the structure of the file and see that it is a JPEG. </p>

<p>Well . . . I think that you are going to have to give us a little more of an explaination here . . .</p>

About 15 years ago, I was a very active black and white photographer with a great and functional darkroom producing

some nice work. I had moved from 35mm to medium format and was looking at 4x5. One night when I was browsing

a magazine looking at some new gear, my wife (a very nice woman by the way) said, "If you are going to buy one

more f$&%ing camera lens, you better start making some money with it!"<p><p>She was actually right about that,

but over the next few years the business of wedding photography pushed the darkroom work off to the side. This

year, I have pretty much shuttered the wedding business (long story!) and I would like to get back in the darkroom.

The problem is that I am suffering from a lack of inspriration . . .<p><p>What do others do? What are you reading

these days that inspires you? How do I get back off of my ass and start working again?

<p>I loved my 85f1.8 until it was stolen/lost . . . I replaced it with a 50f1.4 which I also love. However, I have been using the 50 differently from the way that I used the 85. I would love to pick up another 85, but I don't think that I will spring for the 1.4.</p>

<p>If you look deeply into your manual, you may that there is a little more going than that. Settings may also vary with focal length. Long lenses and longer focus distances may stay wide open through faster shutterspeeds than wide angle lenses. This would assume that a wide angle lens focused at 15 feet is taking a "group portrait" and advance the aperture sooner.<p><p>However, you are correct that you should really try to learn how photography works. I primarily shoot in aperture priority with the occasional foray into manual when needed.</p>