antonrussell
-
Posts
129 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by antonrussell
-
-
Zach, I'm doing a similar trip in 2 weeks time - full moon, mountains, snow. Did you have any success on Mt Whitney, and what sort of exposures worked well?
-
-
Tom, I agree about the Kiron 105mm f2.8! I have the Vivitar branded version of this and it delivers very sharp photos with knockout contrast and colours. The bokeh is quite harsh, though.
-
If you have the time and gear to scan film yourself, then that's a better option than having a lab do it. Labs can be very hit and miss.
-
Oops. Who needs built-in obsolescence when you have gravity and hard surfaces?
-
Well spotted. It's probably best not to worry about it.
-
I'm glad that's resolved! Will you be posting photos from the Yashicamat when you get them developed?
-
2-4 MB doesn't sound like much. A number in megabytes is not a measure of resolution, just disk space. Which varies enormously between files of the same megapixels (MP) depending on compression, encoding, bit depth... You need to know the MP not the MB!
-
At the risk of sounding stupid, you know about the shutter locking lever, right?
-
It might be worth taking a look at the mirror in case it needs cleaning or has popped out of its clamp. The viewfinder is very easily removed and replaced after unscrewing the four small screws attaching it to the camera body.
-
Well, I'm in no way equipped with the intellectual tools to properly deal with the question, but here's how I see it. Think of a photo as a composition on a flat surface. You can look at this composition in terms of the reality it represents. You can also look at it in terms of the lines, shapes, colours that physically occupy this 2-dimensional space i.e. it's inherent form. It is possible, and in fact very easy, to take a photograph whose representation of reality is meaningless, indiscernable, or weak, but whose form in terms of pure compositional elements is very strong. This could be said to be an abstract photograph. Whether or not it is manipulated in post processing is irrelevent. Just my initial thoughts reading your question. All the best, Anton
-
Omar, I think you're right - you intentionally underexposed to get the look you wanted. The scanner at the lab would then have used its own autoexposure on the negative resulting in the massively underexposed scan you posted, with noisy greyed out shadows. This isn't the lab's fault, they're just doing what usually works. To get a better scan you would have to do it yourself or take it back to a good lab and get them to do just the one image and explain exactly what you want. I don't know if there's a cheap solution. <p>Shooting slide film will remove some the lab factor because what you see on the slide is what you get. But with slides it will be harder to nail the exposure. <p>All the best, Anton.
-
Zigview? It's only been around for a couple of weeks. The first page of google revealed one review: http://www.kickstartnews.com/reviews/hardware/zigview_digital_angle_viewfinder.html
-
Ailen: That's quite a haemarroid you got there. <p>
Ellen: I know. No wonder we're finishing last.<p>
Ailen: How come it's wearing a tracksuit?<p>
Ellen: What!?<p>
<i>and so on</i>
-
Man at the back- "Ride some bumps! Oh.... yeah..."
-
Your first answer, from Ellis, was glib but accurate. If a lab cannot do good prints from good Astia slides, do not go there again. Maybe try taking a slide to a number of different labs and ask them to print it at 4x6 or 5x7, to see the variation.
-
For anyone who comes across this thread: Wellington Photo Supplies do not in fact process e6 - they send it just round the corner to Wigan Street, where two very good photo labs face each other across a narrow alley. Both process e6 film in house.
-
The *ist and MZ-S have all the above except mirror lock-up.
-
I think the thing with digital editing is to keep it as simple as possible, otherwise it really can be counter productive. Try to just import your image, crop it, tweak the levels a bit (maybe sharpen) and print. If you took a good photo to start with, you shouldn't have to do much more than that, and the workflow becomes very simple. Some programs have the workflow as an inherent part of the user interface (e.g. Helicon Filter).
-
Now, who wants to submit their webcam pics of themselves trying to see Todd's 3D vase?
-
In the field, usually with a macro ring flash on the lens filter thread or (better but less compact) two ordinary flashes on brackets, mounted on either side of the camera. The light from the flash falls off in proportion to the square of the distance from the bulb, so the subject can be perfectly lit and the background jet black. Ring flashes give very flat and even lighting to a flower; using two synchronised flashes gives you a lot of creative potential with angles and distances to get interesting lighting effects.
-
Speaking from New Zealand, my cheapest source of film is, yes, B&H in the US. Reala/NP*/Portra/Sensia prices here are around NZ$9-$12 for a 36 roll and Astia/Velvia/Provia/Ektachrome are double that. Getting the stuff developed can be utterly ridiculous - labs here love to milk the tourists and are rarely up front about their prices.
-
I fall through the gaps in your taxonomy! I'm a point-and-shoot amateur with a manual focus SLR and a set of prime lenses, who only takes pictures of strangers from behind and wears black but never looks cool. I also drink everything.
-
Sorry, GR1v as Daniel said, not R1v.
Toadstools
in No Words
Posted