paul_ogawa

Hi, I have a Nikon F Ftn camera and I've just bought a Nikkor 105mm

f/2.5 lens for it. I want to test the lens. So, I will first shoot a

roll on my mom. She's a little more than 40 and she want as little

wrinkle to show up on the pic as possible.

So what are some techniques (make up, film, lighting, focus...) to

make her as young as possible? (if there is any)

Thanks.

Digital might be here to stay. But I don't think film will ever die completely.

Just like photography did not kill painting.

Hi guys, I'm back. I used my father's modern AF lens with my Nikon F

and shoot a roll (Fuji 100) with it to test the camera. The camera

had no light leaks and is fine.

To be honest, I've gotten quite a few pics that were underexposed. A

great majority as a matter of fact. But that's because this is my

first time using a fully manual camera. Also, I did not have a light

meter. The whole time I was simply experimenting with different

shutter speed/aperture for different situations. Also played around

with the depth of field a bit.

I actually had 2 pics I really liked from this first roll.

Can you guys recommand a good, accurate, not too expensive light

meter that has enough capabilities? One with matrix metering would be

nice. I don't want the price to go over $200 on Ebay. I heard Sekonic

and Minolta makes some nice ones.

Since many pics are underexposed, there are a lot of dark areas. One

thing I've noticed is that on a lot of the printed pics, the dark

areas always appear "grainy". It doensn't seem they are the same

color throughout. There are actually micro white spots in it. Is this

because of the nature of printed pic? Might have something to do with

the max resolution of the printer. I've never seen such effect on a

computerized pic. Or it might be because of the grain of the film.

But the film I used is only ISO 100.

Speaking of film speed, what is the max. speed of film that can allow

for a 5X enlargement (over regular 3' X 5') and still have a sharp

resolution?

Thanks

" How did you get to be an engineer? The last I heard most states require a five year degree, several years as a registered trainee working under the supervision of a registered engineer, and passing an examination. Yet, below you say you are a college sophomore and twenty years old; could you perhaps be hyping us a bit? "

Wright Brothers, Bill Gates, Soichiro Honda, some of the greatest minds in history never have gotten a degree.

And pretty soon, I'll be a millionaire due to my patent, which ironically isn't even related to my major...

By engineer, I meant someone with solid creativity and analytical skills in physics and mathematics, with a true ambition to change the Earth for the better or worse. Not necessarily someone with a degree yet all they do is read date off a computer and report it the boss.

Thanks for the contributions.

I think it's about time this thread end. Everyone shared their opinions and thoughts. And even though there were times things gotten a little rough, let's not make it kill the atomosphere.

In conclusion, it's apparent that different people have different needs when it comes to equipment quality. But at least we can all agree that equipments almost doesn't have much to do with picture quality.

Let's not waste anymore time on this thread, so we can focus on more productive threads.

I will have a lot more questions once I get my Ftn rolling.

Thanks

"This is the biggest load of BS I've ever heard.. There's many people who have intense knowledge of how a manual camera works and still can't shoot a good pic to save their lives. There's also people who shoot in auto- everything, who churn out amazing pics. You are confusing the art of taking pictures with the mechanics of cameras, which shows you lack an understanding of what makes a picture truly good..."

1. A person using a manual will obviously have a better understanding of the equipment and the technical nature of photography. Advantage.

2. On the artistic side, neither one have an advantage.

Therefore, talking for the general population, the manual photographers will more likely turn out good photographs.

In case you want to say, "but, but, I know a person who uses an automatic and I know a person using manual and the automatic guy take better pics...".

Oh be quiet!

<< As for the respect thing, I didn't mean the metal manual cameras get more respect because of the metal. They get more respect because, at least IMHO, the PEOPLE using them deserves more respect. The people using them are generally more skilled than people using the point and shoot or auto everything cameras. >>

<< I'm the one being called ignorant >>

And ignorant you are.

Okay, maybe I was ignorant on this one. I'm sorry I didn't go out and survey every photographers on Earth. But I'm just using common logic.

Statement 1. You actually need to know about photography to use a fully manual camera.

Statement 2. You do not need to know much about photography to use a point and shoot.

Proof: without an understanding of what's going on, a manual camera would be impossible to use, since the photographer have control on everything. Statement 1 established.

with a point and shoot camera, a layperson can just "point and shoot" and therefore doesn't require much knowledge on shutter speed, aperture, ect... Samething can be said about a SLR in automatic mode, although to a less extent.

Although there are occasional exceptions, taken into account of statistical possibility, it's safe to say that GENERALLY, the people using manual SLRs are more skilled on average than those using fully automatic. Because even if you have a skilled person using the automatic, there will be the unskilled who will pull the score down.

QED: Claim established.

"You can cry and complain all you want. But you have made baseless and arrogant claims with no data to back anything up. Your claim that people must PROVE your accusations is absurd, especially when you yourself have proven only that you know little to nothing about photography."

Blah blah blah...

<< No Rob, you still haven't proved my comments as "absurd". Stop making generalized insult and actually start to debate like an intellegent person. >>

You have offered nothing to debate. Nothing anyone has said has even phased you. You are not looking for a debate, you are only looking for someone to prop up your ignorance.

As Michael said, you are not some poor little victim that everyone jumped on. You are insulting, you are arrogant, and you are wrong.

"You did not just start up a conversation about fine engineering - you referred to plastic cameras as toys that get thrown around. "

THAT IS about fine engineering! MECHANICAL ENGINEERING that is.

"Since a lot of us use these plastic cameras, and do not throw them around - your remark was extremely condescending."

And I used plastic cameras before too, and so does my father. But why would YOU get insulted if all I'm talking about is the cameras. Are you THAT attached to your camera? Heck, most of you guys here are a lot older than me and probably used more metal cameras then I've seen. I grew up in the 80s, the beginning of the plastic age. And I'm feel it's sad that I appreciate the good old quality built machines more than you do.

"Furthermore, you ask how we can tolerate this, as if there is something wrong with us for not insisting upon metal bodies. Don't act like an innocent victim here."

There is nothing wrong. It's nothing "wrong" to don't care about the equipments. But I just wanted to know what you guys thought of the issue. Perhaps you guys didn't even realize the trend. (as I found out)

"Because you can't recognize your own failings you refuse to accept anything but your own ill-formed and incorrect opinion. Anyone who makes claims otherwise is dismissed without any regard to the quality of their argument because you don't recognize the flaws in your own. It is a self-sustaining circle that can only be broken when you actually mature beyond the level of a 13-year-old."

There is no such thing as an "incorrect opinion". Sorry.

And their claims otherwise are dismissed because they are ignoring my point and going off in tangents. Or, they are simply trying to be make insults like a 13 years old, not me.

The only "ill-formed and incorrect opinion" I had when I came here is that "plastic feels cheap compared to metal". And if you disagree otherwise, that's fine. But I've already proven that it matters to more people than you think with the Nikon E class article. Heck, even some people who replied to this thread agrees.

So perhaps you should look in the mirror.

"Paul, don't drive your car tomorrow. The bumpers and dashboard are made of plastic. The Saturn has doors and fenders made of plastic. Another day, somebody bumped on my rear bumper but, I did not noticed any damage. Cameras made with polycarbonate can stand more bumps without damage than a metal one."

"Many engineering plastics are more costly than cheap zinc die castings; or aluminum die castings. Here folks are making fond dreams of cheaper materials; that weight more. Glass filled plastics cost more; the cost more to drill; than non glass filled plastics. The glass is added to add stiffness; and make the part more stable and stronger.

This whole deal about dreaming about how great mostly all metal camera cameras are is abit goofy. Maybe you could send the soldiers in Iraq metal helmets; that weight more; and have the same protection as a lighter modern composite helmet. "

...

I'm the one being called ignorant when these people are rephrasing the things I've already said earlier:

"All I wanted was a metal camera, that's all. Didn't mean to bash plastic.

Now, plastic is a very useful, don't get me wrong. It's lightweightness have many advantages over metal in a lot of applications. For example, they can significantly increase the fuel economy of a vehicle. Some high tech plastic can be even made stronger than metal and, combined with the lightweightness, makes perfect kevlars.

But when it comes to optical instrument, I think metal and glass allows for more precise tolerances. You never see plastic rack and pinion system on any device that requires exacting positional accuracy, or anything that is designed to last. "

See? You guys are completely ignoring what I'm saying.

"Paul, of course; the only one here making authoritative and absurd claims after having been involved in photography for all of 2 weeks.

There is no more "on-topic" here. This is a never-ending thread of Paul claiming he has all the answers and others pointing out he doesn't. There isn't anything more to say. No one is going to convince him of his ignorance."

No Rob, you still haven't proved my comments as "absurd". Stop making generalized insult and actually start to debate like an intellegent person.

2 Weeks? No... it's been only 1 week since I've decided to get serious with my OWN camera. But before that, I've used my father's N80 and F4 for quite a bit, but never was serious. Surprisingly I actually had some great pics taken. So since you don't know me, I suggest you back off.

Talk about ignorance. I only came here to have a casual conversation on the trend of "more and more plastics in the camera industry". Yet immediately I started getting insults like "

Great photographs are taken by photographers, not by metal. Or plastic. Plenty of people are producing great photographs with digital cameras and plastic cameras. Thinking otherwise is moronic."

I like quality built equipment. What's wrong with that? I like quality in everything I do. What's wrong with that? I'm a perfectionist, what's wrong with that?

As to how you guys think I meant "plastic cameras taken worse pictures" is beyond me.

I guess people back then are even more fussy about build quality than me...haha. Look at what happened to the Nikon E class lenses.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/nikortek.htm

"They were built with well thought out, simple to manufacture optics and cheaper mechanics that were more than good enough for amateur use. These cheaper mechanics are often better than what Nikon makes today in some of their cheaper plastic AF lenses. "

"These great lenses were never popular because Nikon was too honest.

Back then Nikon admitted that they used a little plastic here or there in the Series E lenses, which at the time was considered a crime. Remember everything is made of plastic today but back then that everything was metal and weighed a ton."

"Too bad, because the Series E were great lenses and far better than the discount ones. Today most Nikon AF lenses are far more cheaply made than the Series E were, and they are called Nikkor. Heck, even some of the super-expensive AF-S lenses have PLASTIC filter threads, and the Series E were solid metal."

"From what I've seen Series E lenses typically had anodized black aluminum barrels and focus helicoids instead of enameled brass barrels and brass helicoids as the manual focus Nikkors do. All Series E had metal mounts, although some had plastic focus heliciods. They had aluminum zoom cams. Today's cheap AF Nikkors have plastic mounts and very little metal anywhere. The Series E have plastic aperture rings, a crime in their time but standard on almost every expensive Nikon lens today. The series E were very precisely made mechanically."

Oh well

""In the mean time, I'm learning all the technicality of photography - optical physics, lens equations, all the termanologies, features, techniques."

Which is going to teach you nothing in terms of taking pictures..."

So you mean knowing how light converges in different lens design or how lens geometry affect depth of field or minimum focusing distance won't save me a little time when I actually go practice. Compared to someone who doesn't even know what an aperture is and just waste film and pray.

I will do experiments, recording the different shutter speeds, aperture, exposures...under different situations. Keeping all variables constant while varying one, to see truly how it affects the picture.

Once you know that can you become creative and actually start compose the picture.

""I have very high standard in everything I do and while I might not equal his work someday, I will not be a dog either. But then, who knows. "

You're pretty arrogant to even compare yourself with Galen Rowell when all you have is a metal camera with no lenses and no photos."

I'm not arrogant, only proud and confident. Galen Rowell might be a world class photographer, but he's only human. I'm human too. And in terms of creativity or intelligence or hands eye coordination, I doubt if I'm any worse than him.

If you think I'm arrogant, let me tell you this. I'm a college sophomore with no professor mentor or high tech equipment, all I had was a calculator, some papers, and a protractor, and I've solved a technical difficulty that the global companies haven't solved in decades. I've already won licenses from Caterpillar, Honda, Toyota, to name a few. Just because they have all the engineers in the world doens't mean I can't take them on.

If I don't do something, I don't do it. But if I decide to do something, I'll make sure it's worldclass, and I have the perseverance and the ability. I'm about the most competitive and perfectionist person there is. Don't try to scare me with Galen Rowell.

I might be a little more impressed if you bring up Einstein, the Wright Brothers, or Soichiro Honda.

"but I am trying to let everbody here know the use plastic is not for the consumer it is for the company. If anybody here knew manufacturing costs of your prefered nikon, canon etc you would be shocked. If i'm going to pay for something, I don't like the cost between manufactuing and retail price to be a difference of 200%"

True, they are using more plastics to lower the manufacturing cost while coating it with silver paint to fake metal so they can sell it to people who will pay the metal price.

In the mean time, I'm learning all the technicality of photography - optical physics, lens equations, all the termanologies, features, techniques.

Once I get the theoretical stuff nailed, I can't wait to get out and starting practicing in real life.

"Paul, please get out of here and shoot some nice photos with your nice camera, or buy more nice metal cameras and polish them. Seriously, no pun. "

I can't wait. Except I haven't got any lens for my camera body yet. I'm looking forward to purchase the following as soon as possible:

50mm f/1.8 AI

105mm f/2.5 AI-S

20mm f/4 AI

28mm f/2.8 AI-S

I've done my research and it seems those are among the best/sharpest lens you can put on a Nikon camera

"Remember back in the days? when the cameras were all metal and leatherette?

Maybe you should think about what you say."

Maybe you should learn how to use flexibility which is a trait of the human brain instead of thinking like a robot and taking everything 100% literally.

"Here's the bottom line. Quality metal cameras that are engineering marvels are available. You can buy them and be happy. So why worry about the plastic ones?

Buy whatever you like - it's not like metal cameras are no longer available. Not everyone wants what you want. That doesn't mean we are "less artistic" or "don't appreciate good engineering" or anything else. It means for us, plastic is fine. If it's not for you - then don't buy plastic for you.

Is that so hard to figure out?"

No, it's not hard to figure out, for I knew that before I came here. All I wanted to know is why the trend started in the first place. And why are you guys so rude?

I'm only a 20 years old and I don't even make any smartass comments. Please...

"You are obsessing over the equipment. Nice looking equipment is great, but nice looking equipment doesn't magically take better pictures, nor does it inspire the photographer to take better pictures.

The best photographer I ever knew (personally) always had junk. He would buy the "bargain" grade equipment - certain parts didn't always work. Often the shutter speed was wacked (his equipment rarely had electronic shutter) but he knew how wacked it was and would compensate.

His equipment often looked like it came from a dumpster. Not just the bodies, the lenses too. And since it was uber cheap, he didn't care if he busted it or not - he'd go flying around while mountain climbing, take it to tide pools and shoot with the salt spray coming right at him. Whatever - it didn't matter, as long as he got the shot. "

I don't OBSESS over equipment. I'm not the kind of guy who go out and buy the latest and the most expensive equipment, like the F5. I don't believe that having the best and most capable equipment will make anyone a better photographer.

But I do expect a little quality into the workmanship. I never said "I will never buy anything plastic". All I came here was to discuss why things were the way it used to be. But all I got was either rude replies or things completely inrelated to what I was talking about. (there were a few people who understood me at least, thank you)

just can't stand a camera that squeaks or have the silver paint worn off around the edges and show the white plastic underneath... yuck

if you are going to make it plastic, use high quality plastic and don't try to fake metal.

"Geez, I think you guys are missing his point about build quality. "

Exactly right. They just don't get it.

They think I mean a plastic camera would take worse pics than a metal one.

But then, why buy good watches when a TIMEX can just tell time? Why buy good cars when a cheap wheel can get you to your destination anyway? When live in a first class hotel...

"Galen Rowell often took your loathed "plastic" cameras with him when he climbed mountains. I'm sure you'll never be able to equal the quality of his works with any camera."

Now, you don't know ME, so please try not to make any comment there. I have very high standard in everything I do and while I might not equal his work someday, I will not be a dog either. But then, who knows.

and for the second to last time, when did I say plastic camera can't take good pics? Please get that into your head. You guys are avoiding the BUILD QUALITY issue and going off in tangents.

I never said metal camera is superior to plastic in picture taking. I only said, I prefer a camera that is solidly built, with care, that shows quality is #1, and not cost cutting, and going around corners, a camera that looks and feel like a PRECISION INSTRUMENT, rather than a plastic box (worse, with paint trying to fake metal) that squeaks when you hold it.

Sorry.

"I think if more people on this board demanded quality we would have more quality products (there are quality product today, but they are fragile). I shoot 16mm films and I can say the demand for quality has kept products from being made that are cheap and fragile. The differnce between the two camps is that still camera manufacturers have a broader customer base that allows for crap equipment to sell well."

That's exactly right. Most people simply don't have very high standards. OR...they probably aren't observant or detail oriented enough to even realize the stuff they are buying are plastic (trying to fake metal) with the artificial silver paint. But now that they know, they don't want to accept the fact. Perfectly understandable

I just found this interesting article, surprisingly, also in photo.net

http://www.photo.net/equipment/beaters/

here's a quote from it.

"Sure, a camera is just a mechanical-optical device for capturing light on film. Just a tool in the hands of the photographer. All real photography takes place between the ears of the photographer. Great photographers can take good pictures with any equipment. Yada yada yada.

Phooey. Yes, these bits of received wisdom are true, but they only tell half the story. Photographers are also equipment lovers, connoisseurs of mechanical minutiae, aficionados of quality lenses, appreciators of fine design. Some cameras and lenses simply "speak to us": something visceral happens when we hold them and use them."

Nothing I've said is "absurd" because I've always used softeners like "IMHO" or "GENERALLY". Now, how am I arrogant and ignorant? How about try to reason with logic. Prove it.

"The problem I have had with fill flash in daylight is simply that there often is no aperture small enough at 1/60 second or less to expose properly for the ambient light. If the exposure calls for 1/60 at F64, you're just out of luck!"

Can't you just use slower film? and get better pic quality along the way.