plasma181

<p>I bought a 35mm SLR about 8 years ago. Soon after I bought it, I got curious about the shape of the area in focus. Is it a plane or a sphere. In other words, say I focus my lens 5 feet in front of me. What will be in focus? Everything in the plane 5 feet in front of the lens regardless of distance, or everything in the sphere drawn 5 feet from my lens? ( Does this make any sense? ) </p>

<p>I conducted a few experiments and found that the shape of the focus area is indeed a plane. If 10 people were standing side by side, and you took their picture, the people on the ends would be farther from your lens than the people in the center, but they would all be in correct focus. </p>

<p>As for this problem; if your camera is looking straight ahead so it is neither pointing up or down, you should be able to take a standing portrait with everything in focus. If there is tilt to the camera, some parts of the subject may be out of focus. </p>

<p>Most of my portfolio is film that was scanned with my dedicated film scanner. I find that it's better to start with less contrast ( higher dynamic range ) than you would like in the final print, then increase the contrast in your software. You can start with too much information in your image, then throw out what you don't want by clipping the ends of the histogram. You can't create data that you don't have. </p>

<p>Let it go people .................... let it go. </p>

<p>I have had very good luck with the Portra films. Yes, they tend to be low contrast, but what does that mean? I just go into PS Elements and I can make it any contrast and saturation I want? </p>

<p>I generally take out zits, scars, blemishes, anything blatent. Other than that, I don't "fix" skin. Human skin is human skin. If I didn't like the way it looked, I would just shoot flowers. </p>

<p>I use Vuescan. In fact, most of my portfolio film scanned with an LS-2000 using Vuescan. I basically scan into TIF format, send it to PhotoShop Elements, and put on the finishing touches. Vuescan may do a few tweaks, but that hasn't been a problem for me. </p>

<p>You can pick up a used Nikon LS-2000 or Coolscan IV off eBay fairly cheap. <br>

Most of my portfolio is film I scanned with an LS-2000. </p>

<p>That's a tough one. The problem is that film has a lower contrast and higher dynamic range then film. In PhotoShop, you can reduce the contrast, but you can't increase the dynamic range. You can't create information that's not there. </p>

<p>Fuji used to make a film they called True Definition 400. It had reduced saturation and contrast. Basically, it was designed for scanning. It was a response to Kodak High Definition 400. I think both are now discontinued. </p>

<p>When photographing people with on-camera flash, my experience is that a little underexposure is better than a little overexposure. ( I know that portraits with on-camera flash is not recommended, but sometimes you have no choice. ) </p>

<p>Hindsight is wonderful ........ isn't it? </p>

<p>I just scored some Hi Def 400 on eBay. </p>

<p>I will third the notion of the FM3a. Most of my portfolio was shot with it. </p>

<p>Saturday evening, I took pictures at our company holiday party. I shot about 2 and 1/2 rolls of Portra 800 through my FM3a. Just to mess with people, I would go up them after taking a picture and say, "Want to see?" And I would show them the back of my FM3a. :-)</p>

<p>My Pentax P-30t I obtained in the mid 90's was made in China. And the Japanese don't know why their economy stagnated when it looked like they would steamroll over the rest of the world in the mid 80's. </p>

<p>With that said, my Nikon FM3a was made in Japan. :-)</p>

<p>Very few of the portraits in my portfolio were formally posed. Most of them were candid. Now it's importent to remember that there are several shades of "candid". You can't walk around with the invisibility cloak from Harry Potter and take pictures without people seeing you. My subjects usually know I'm there. The thing is that I don't ask them to pose. I just let them do their thing and take their picture. Of course, this is harder with people you don't know. </p>

<p>About 10 years ago, they used to make something they called Royal Gold. That was a very good film.<br>

I also liked High Definition 400, but I can't find that anymore. </p>

<p>About 25 ( or so ) years ago, I was at a wedding where there was no photographer. Each table had one of those cheap throw-away cameras, and we were told to shoot at our hearts' content. I guess the hope was that enough monkeys with enough typewriters would eventually write a Shakespeare play. I never learned how the pictures came out. I think I took some some good ones, but there was a lot I missed. </p>

<p>I store unexposed film in the refrigerator. I am guessing that will help with exposed film as well.</p>

<p>I'm not really a fan of super wide lenses. Yes, you can shoot in low light, but your depth of field at portrait distances is only centimeters. For landscapes, the problem is not so bad.<br>

I have found that tripods also help. If you can get your subject to remain still for 1/8 or 1/4 of a second, you can get some good available light shots. </p>

<p>In the pharmacies, you can still get Fuji and Kodak. But I haven't found that Kodak High Definition 400 in quite some time. That was a great film for my style. It scanned nicely. </p>

<p>I would recommend buying a used Nikon Coolscan from eBay. The LS-2000 or the Coolscan IV would be good choices. Most of my portfolio was scanned by a used LS-2000. </p>

<p>"What do you think about scanning film after developing it and still have to end up on the computer."</p>

<p>That's pretty much what I do. I shoot film, have it developed, then scan it with my dedicated film scanner. Most of my portfolio was produced this way. In this shot, there was a freighter on the horizon. I took it out with PS Elements. <br>

<br /><a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/3343800">http://www.photo.net/photo/3343800</a></p>

<p>A shot from a family reunion in Pennsylvania. Nikon FM3a, Fiji Superia 200, 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 Nikkor. <br>

</p>

<CENTER>

<IMG SRC="http://static.photo.net/attachments/bboard/00Z/00Zc8l-416259584.jpg">

</CENTER>

<P><div></div>

<p>I have had good luck with Portra. They used to sell something called Kodak High Definition 400, which scanned very well. Though I haven't seen it in almost a year now. <br>

Fuji's answer to High Def was True Definition 400, but I haven't seen that in a couple of years.</p>