greg_campbell1

<p>I've seen examples that go both ways. Some trigger shots do manage to catch the early branching, while others show only a thin pencil of lightning. I suspect it depends on the trigger, your camera, and variability in the actual lightning. Triggers are just about mandatory if you NEED to catch daylight lightning. By twilight, shutter speeds have slowed to the point that simple DSLR machine-gunning is probably your best bet. You won't get 100% shutter-open time but - depending on the shutter cycle time and flash write latency - you should be able to catch most of the action. After dark, when exposure times grow to minutes, film becomes a very appealing option. Long film exposures can accumulates wonderful colors, and you get none of the electronic noise, etc. IMO, film's highlights are generally prettier too; the roll off is more gentle and natural looking. </p>

<p>Yes, pleast post some pics when you get a chance.<br>

In the meantime, keep in mind the narrow dynamic range that slide film covers. Anything more than ~2 stops overexposed will be solid white, while shadowed subjects 2 stops under will be getting quite dark. (There is detail down to ~3.5+ stops underexposed, but it's very difficult for a scanner to dig it out.)<br /><br /><br>

So, you've got to fit everything important into that 4 stop window. That's where a spot meter comes in handy. Measure the brightest highlight that you want to keep, and the darkest shadows that will require detail. If the difference between the two is more than 4 stops, you're going to have to re-evaluate the scene - wait for more gently light, re-compose to accomodate the black and white areas, etc. In practice, try 'placing' the important highlights (that fluffy cloud, etc.) at +1.5~+2. Now, observe where the mid tones and shadows 'fall.' If they are within acceptable limits, fire away!<br /><br /> <br>

You can use a spot meter, a long lens on your M7, or even another camera to measure the scene's brightness range.<br /><br /><br>

Look for some Sensia or Astia slide film. It's one if the least contrasty slide films, with another stop or so of range. Kodak's E100 series is not quite as gentle, but has notably more range than the Velvia family.</p>

<p> </p>

Alan, <BR><BR>

 

What aspect of your photography are you looking to improve? <br><br>

I see you have a 6x7 and have done landscapes with it. The tonalities, resolution, etc. of these Mamiya images are as good as you're going to get with anything this side of a $20K digital back or LF film camera. If these images aren't making you happy, may I gently suggest that you need to address the photographer's shortcomings! :) IMO, 90% of landscape photography happens in your head (planning, composition, anticipating and waiting for best light), well before the shutter is pressed. At that point, all the camera has to do is 'get out of the way' and record the images.

<br><br>

I'm not saying you shouldn't get a DSLR, but I wouldn't worry about megapickles, crop factors, and all the rest.

<p>Most of your image is the bright blue background. That is what the camera sees when it decides on the exposure. (If the critter took up more real estate in the frame, the camera would 'see' it and start to average its darker tone into the exposure value.)</p>

<p>Forget f stops. If you are shooting in any sort of autoexposure mode, changing the aperture will not do anything - the camera will simply adjust the shutter speed to compensate. (What mode ARE you shooting in? Aperture priority, green box, ?) What you need to do is adjust the exposure compensation. This will raise the exposure value for everything by whatever bias you decide. Play around with it and raise it as much as you like, observe what happens to the subject and background. At some point the sky will get blown out; this is generally (but not always) considered a bad thing.</p>

<p>As mentioned, photographing the sunny side of the bird will also help the situation. For best lightning, you probably want some separation between you and the sun, relative to the subject. This will create side-lighting which will accentuate the subject's features.</p>

<p>I really think the film has been physically 'abused' at some point. The broad vertical bands suggest the film was pinched between rollers, likely at the lab or - just possibly - in your camera. The smaller smeared artifacts suggest physical damage to the film when it was wet. Look at the reflected surface with a loupe, viewing it at an angle with a bright back light. I suspect you'll see smearing in the upper layer of the emulsion. Try another lab! </p>

 

<p>See your e-mail...</p>

<p>Can't say I see a worthy point to the OP's post.<br>

My short answers are: "Because I enjoy it!" and "Who are you to judge the media I choose to shoot???"</p>

<p>Biting at the lure, I'll also offer a longer rant:</p>

<p>Photography is not a resolution contest, and it doesn't care if your lens has a pretty red ring around the end. Photography is about the process and the 'seeing' and (hopefully) about producing pretty images. The camera you choose to use is completely irrelevant. </p>

<p>My Bronicasaurus gives me a slightly wacky square frame to fill. This is a good thing in that it forces a different way of seeing the world.</p>

<p>I get a HUGE viewfinder so I can actually see what the *bleep* I'm shooting at! (As opposed to peering into the soda straw masquerading as my Drebel's finder.) 90% of photography happens before you push the shutter, and being able to see the subject does help the effort!</p>

<p>The cost is just high enough that it discourages 'spray and pray.' Besides, changing the film is a minor PITA. This forces you to stop and think and fret a little - things that are necessary if you have any hope of producing a satisfying image.</p>

<p>Last but not least, there is no computer to fight. I never need to 'pull out' of the viewfinder and wade through a stupid menu system to select the one AF point (out of way too many) that will make the camera focus where the *bleep* I want it to. Observing others when on local field trips, I see that Joe Sixpack spends half his time driving the camera, trying to make it do (or stop doing) one of 5 bazillion largely useless functions. That is NOT photography.</p>

<p>Adams for the win! :)<br>

Both books mentioned above are superb. </p>

<p>Adding a metering prism and winder (thumb or powered) to the Bronica box will transform it from an awkward studio camera into a large, auto exposing, handheld SLR. The kit won't be quite as elegant as the RF Mamiya, but will work just as well and can be had for a fraction of the price. I don't think the learning curve is steep at all. You will may to practice loading the film, and shoud give the manual a read before proceeding. <br>

<a href="http://www.tamron-usa.com/bronica/prod/sq.asp">http://www.tamron-usa.com/bronica/prod/sq.asp</a><br>

<a href="http://www.tamron-usa.com/assets/pdfs/SQ-Ai.pdf">http://www.tamron-usa.com/assets/pdfs/SQ-Ai.pdf</a><br>

<a href="http://www.tamron-usa.com/assets/pdfs/SQ-A.pdf">http://www.tamron-usa.com/assets/pdfs/SQ-A.pdf</a><br>

<a href="http://www.tamron-usa.com/assets/pdfs/SQ-B.pdf">http://www.tamron-usa.com/assets/pdfs/SQ-B.pdf</a></p>

<p>My thoughts on the SQ lineup: The bodies are built using a lot of 'plastic.' They aren't flimsy or cheap, but aren't indestructible bricks. Compare them to a modern mid-high end DSLR. The lenses, OTOH, are very robust; lots of steel, brass, whatever, and plenty sharp. The film back and prisms are somewhere in the middle; plenty of metal, but it's not applied in tank-like quantities. Overall, the system is entirely competent and is - due in part to the ignorant 'Blad Snobbery you've seen here - an excellent value. Buy a nice Bronica kit for $500+ and spend the money you just saved on a photo-vacation! </p>

<p>Pitch a tent at Mahogany Flats, way up in the relatively cool Panamint Mountains. (8000+ ft elevation.) Sleep during the days and shoot the valley by the light of the moon and twilight / sunrise hours. </p>

<p>Any more updates? :)</p>

<p>p.s.</p>

<p>As others have mentioned, a 6x17 isn't exactly an ideal 'beginner camera' for someone who hasn't ever used film. (I seriously think you need to re-consider. It's going to bite you!)</p>

<p>At least consider 'downgradong' to something like an X-Pan or one of the smaller Noblex cameras that eats 35mm film. This will reduce your costs, reduce setup and viewfinder issues, etc., while still giving you a panoramic image.</p>

<p>Sunil, <br>

With all respect, it sounds like you don't have a very good grasp of metering principles. You're going to be upset if all your film comes back with blown highlights. I suggest you shoot the much more forgiving Ektar100 in that big camera. Yes, it's a negative film; you won't get those glorious 6x17 transparencies on the light table. On the other hand, the film has many more stops of dynamic range, and produces very good colors. Assuming that you'll wind up scanning everything, and then doing some digital post-processing, you could shoot just about any portrait negative film with great success. </p>

<p>If you do want to try slide, I'd go with Provia 100F or one of the equally excellent Kodak E100 films. These have a little more range than Velvia, but will still produce wonderful E6 colors. </p>

<p>Regarding exposure, dynamic range, etc. Look up the old Adams book, 'The Negative,' at the local library. It will explain everything in a very clear, concise manner. ('The Camera' isn't a bad read either!)</p>

<p>IMO, Tim is right. There will be shadow detail down to -3, maybe a little more. You'll be able to see it through a projector or on the light table, but finding a scanner that can dig it out cleanly will be a challenge. </p>

<p>Have you considered a spot meter? They are very handy to 'wave around' and sample the scene. Meter those fluffy clouds, then add 1.5~2 stops. Now scan the shadow areas. Anything below -2 will be pretty dang dark - you may need to adjust your composition accordingly. With a little practice, you won't need to blindly bracket. Assuming the old film hasn't become erratic, a spot meter will allow you to 'nail' the proper exposure the majority of the time. </p>

<p>You might head to the local library and check out "The Negative" by some old fart named 'Adams.' He does an excellent job explaining dynamic range, 'place and fall,' exposure compensation, metering, etc. </p>

<p>Have fun!</p>

<p>Mr. Collin! Have fun with your new toys, but please don't get trapped in the gear-dweeb tar pit of endless, pointless, 'upgrades.' Let your photography drive any future purchases! You may find yourself itching to try a different format, or have need for a specific feature that only Camera X can provide. </p>

<p>For now, just go shooting! :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Methinks Mr. Rodeo has been bucked off and landed on his head a few times too many. :)</p>

<p>ANY MF SLR will have a big mirror flapping about, making loud 'Kathunk!" noises. I think the Pentax 6x7 has a reputation as the the camera most likely to trigger a major earthquake, yet even it produces crisp images. As for the "Leaping out of your hands..." <a href="

<p>FWIW, I like the square format. It's slightly rare and different (certainly in today's DSLR overrun world) , and usually produces unique images. Composing for SQ format is requires a slight change in how you 'see' the world, which is often refreshing. </p>

<p>Please let us know what sort of folding camera you wind up with - I've been itching to buy one of Certo's colored-leather beasts. A few months ago I was shooting the shot-to-death Antelope Canyon, when a German tourist saw my SQ. "Analogue!" he said, with surprise. He had some 9DMK4 monster digicam, but he stood and watched me shoot for several minutes. I don't know if he was amazed at the camera, or the 'stupidity' of this Yank, shooting an obsolete dinosaur. LOL! I can only smile when I imagine this same fellow's reaction when he stumbles across a photographer shooting a 50's era antique! :)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Colin, where do you live? There might be a P.N member nearby who can show you their toys.</p>

<p>In the meantime, check out Youtube! There are any number of camera demos and tutorials. <br>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/user/fraserhopewell">http://www.youtube.com/user/fraserhopewell</a> has several Bronicasaurus vids.</p>

<p>I'll throw in another irrational personal preference! You can buy a Bronica 6x6 kit for about $400, although this will likely not include a metered finder. (Looking at KEH and Fleabay, they seem to have gone UP in price recently.) This won't buy you a phat dose of 'Blad Snobbery, but it will leave you with a competent camera; sharp and reasonably well built. The SQ series does use some plastic in the bodies; they are sturdy enough given normal use, if not indestructible. The lenses are old school steel and brass and are essentially bomb proof.</p>

<p>Bronica's fastest 6x6 lens is the 80mm 2.8, the others are f/4 or worse. (This will be true for most MF systems - in general, the larger the format, the slower the affordable lenses.)</p>

<p>More at:<br>

http://www.tamron-usa.com/bronica/prod/assets/pdf/br_cat.pdf<br>

<a href="http://www.tamron-usa.com/bronica/slr_archives.asp">http://www.tamron-usa.com/bronica/slr_archives.asp</a></p>

<p>Feel free to holler or e-mail me if you've got any SQ-specific questions.</p>

<p>ALL lenses are infested with specks of dust. In theory they will scatter a little light due to diffraction, but in practice you won't see ANYTHING until you start throwing handfuls of dirt on the glass....</p>

<p>Agree that it's mediocre at best. They've had several blatantly photoshopped covers over the last year that I find a real turn off. The articles are superficial, and not really informative. Worst is the deluge of ads and "Buy this crap!" articles. In effect, it's little more than Pop Photo with a different cover. No thanks. </p>

<p>Spring weather is wonderfully changeable. Expect everything from 90s in the lower elevations to thunderstorms, hail and light snow higher up. See <a href="http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmut.html">http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmut.html</a></p>

<p>Forget the Gear Anxiety! Gear is WAY overrated. Bring a tripod, a camera, and a fair selection of lenses. No, you don't need continuous FL coverage. That's all the gear you need, stop! (OK, throw in a cable release for Jackalope and the many other slots you will hopefully take the time to find.)</p>

<p>The single most important thing you can bring is TIME. Proper photography takes time. Sure, you can run along like a typical tourist and blast off a few hundred pop-shots of whatever happens to be in front of you. But it you aspire to create something better, you will need time to immerse yourself in the environment, time to wait for the light, time to relax and 'see' the beauty around you. You don't mention your trip duration. How long will you have? How much do you 'plan to see?' </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'd go so far as to say that 'proper' photography in Antelope, or any other tight slot, is impossible without a tripod. FWIW, I suggest you spend the morning in the Lower section, then brave the hordes in Upper sometime around noon, when the light-beams that everyone so covets will be active. If you bring a 'pod to Lower, they will give you a 4 hour pass and turn you loose. This is ideal in that it allows time to explore and appreciate the gorgeous terrain - an essential pre-requisite to taking pretty pictures, IMO. <br>

How much time will you have in the area? There are a bazillion other photogenic destinations in S. Utah besides the standard touron-infested pit-stops. Holler and I'll e-mail you a big list I've compiled.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I find myself upset that he somehow gains recognition as a photographer by strapping himself over with camera gear.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMO, the entire concept of 'photography' has been hijacked by the marketing monkeys. They're spent squillions pushing the idea that 'you need a better camera' to take decent pictures. (And don't forget to buy the 'best' RAW processing software, tripod, etc., etc.) This notion has taken root among amateur photography and has effectively pushed out other, more artistic, considerations. When groups of photographers gather, they invariably yap about gear and software; discussions of philosophy and aesthetic achievement are limited to obscure forums read by a tiny fraction of the general population. Once you've chugged the gear flavored Kool Aid, the inverse argument - if you have spendy equipment, you MUST be an accomplished shooter - makes perfect sense.</p>

<p>As for the 'conquest' issue, I see it all the time in nature and scenic photographers. Living in Aridzona, I've visited Antelope canyon on several occasions, sometimes with local photo groups. When I am with a group, I've noticed that roughly half the people will be utter obsessed with those dumb 'light beams' that spill through to the canyon floor at certain times of the day. Yes, the beams are pretty, but all of Antelope (either section) is a sublime locale; anyone with a shred of aesthetic appreciation in their soul could spend hours there. Yet I've seen hardcore Beam Baggers literally running (well, moving as fast as is possible given the difficult terrain) to the spot where the beams await. Once there, they, like the Great African Hunter mentioned above, spend maybe 5 minutes composing a few mediocre shots. Mission accomplished, they turn around and leave! DOH! (Horseshoe Bend at high noon is next!) OK, so not everyone is that blind, but I'm still surprised by how many people have zero interest in creating anything pretty or self-expressive, and instead define their photographic success by completing a "hit list." Yes, they are out there and there are more of them than you may suspect!</p>

<p>I'm game for 2 or three kits.</p>

<p>Your EOS 3 has a wonderful multi-spot metering system. I'd use it, with a 'place and fall' method. With slide film, blown highlights are usually the thing to avoid. Use the spot meter and take a reading off the brightest subject area. Now dial in +1 1/2 to +2 stops (depending on your film and camera meter accuracy) of exposure compensation. This will result in nice, bright, highlights that are not quite blown out. Mid tones and shadows are uncontrolled and will 'fall' where they will. You can take multiple spot readings to gauge the distance (in stops) between the areas in your photo, and to determine where the darker tones will wind up.</p>

<p>Slide film will record detail from around -2.5 to +1.75 stops, or thereabouts. Above +2, response saturates and you get 'blown' highlights. There is detail below -2.5, but it's often hard to dig out of the soup.</p>