mark_houlder2

I used a polarizer in Egypt a few years ago and many of the shots came out with almost black skies, so watch out for that.

 

I think a lens hood may be of more use - watch out for sand and dust, too; you probably don't want to be changing lenses outdoors too often.

regarding the L version - is it a pull-to-zoom-in, or a push design? I have a Tamron SP 70-210 which is a push version, and i've never got used to it...

Is the A-TTL mode just for fill-flash? ie. if it's too dark to take a photo without flash, it will still be too dark to take it *with* flash (in terms of hand-hold-ability and low shutter speeds). It will fill in shadows, but won't provide complete illumination.

 

I have a T90 and 300TL but I use the flash so infrequently I can never remember how to set it up properly - so I may be completely off the mark. Have a look here, about halfway down the page, for a good explanation:

 

<a href="http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=008lKa">www.greenspun.com</a>

in the UK, 7dayshop.com is one of the cheapest places to buy film (if you don't mind waiting a week or so for delivery).

<p>I have only used E6 for night shots, like this one:</p>

 

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6926667-lg.jpg" alt="Booth"/>

 

<p>I considered Velvia but for some shots during this series exposures reached 10 minutes, and Velvia would suffer from reciprocity failure at those times. This was taken on Sensia 100, which is much more forgiving in that respect, but still has strong colours and fine grain.</p>

 

<p>I haven't tried similar shots with C41 but as others have said, machine prints from such shots may not be that good - if you're planning on getting the prints done professionally, or just want the negatives, I don't see why you'd have any particular problems. </p>

 

<p>One other thing that pushed me toward E6 is that I wanted to get some deep black areas, with isolated illuminated areas - I found it much easier to meter for transparencies (ie for the highlights) at night. Not that I expect it would really be any harder with negative film (and you'd certainly have extra latitude), but that was a factor for me. In the end I just bracketed and it worked well.</p>

i've been getting annoyed a bit at this error too, and I'm wondering if there isn't something that can be done to improve things without having to resort to buying hardware.

 

a couple of things that may be worth looking at are:

 

1. restricting the number of threads visible in the 'unified' view to the latest, say, 50. If the view was paged with a relatively small number of threads per page, the load would be split up much more between the pages, and each page would be much less resource-expensive.

 

2. caching: considering how busy photo.net obviously is, using server-cached pages, even with a short expiry time of maybe 5 minutes, would make a huge difference to the load on the database. even if only the unified forum view was cached, i bet it would make a massive difference. In addition to this, the unified view at the moment has a "no cache" pragma in the header - requesting clients to cache the page locally could also make a huge difference with very little work required.

 

i have experience of doing this sort of thing for high-traffic websites (although not with AOL server, admittedly) - I'm happy to give advice or help if asked.

<p>see <a href="http://www.7dayshop.com/catalog/product_info.php?cPath=777_1&products_id=100777">here</a>

</p><p>

to quote:

</p><p><em>

"This brand new 400 ASA Fuji professional colour print film now replaces Fujicolor NPH 400."

</em></p>

Try googling Kevin Carter - his Pulitzer-price winning photo of a vulture and a starving child kicked off such a debate in the press a few years ago.

I use HP5 quite a bit because I like it's "look", but it's scans (at least on my scanner) do show more grain than a lot of other films, especially when pushed. I still like it though.

 

I've also had good results with Neopan 1600, and found that Neopan 400 and 1600 both scan well (but I don't like the 400 as much as HP5 in general). The last wedding I went to I used a mix of HP5 (rated some at 400 and some at 800), and Neopan 1600, and they all came out really well.

 

I've heard good things about Fuji's Press Extra 800 (not sure if that's the exact name), if you fancy doing colour (neg).

india has a major insurgency problem? since when?

the t90 does have a DOF preview lever - well, more of a slidey switch, really.

the image theft/car theft analogy would be accurate only for cars whose doors have no locks. because that's about the level of security possible for any image you distribute on the internet for people to look at in their browser.

 

if someone is looking to use other's photographs for profit, they would know of several ways of getting round the right-click-to-save route, all very trivial to do and practically impossible to prevent.

 

if on the other hand they don't know any other way of downloading the image, it's highly unlikely they want to do anything other than have a local copy to look at when they're not online. if you think it's worth the effort to prevent that kind of 'misuse' (for want of a better word), i guess that's your prerogative.

i've printed a few rolls worth of C41 B&W (XP2 Super); in general I found the prints to appear virtually grain-free (i went up to 16x20 for the landscape roll), but there wasn't quite the range of tones that i'd expect from traditional B&W films. They had more of a 'graphic' look to them, if that makes sense - snappy and contrasty, but tonally 'shorter'.

i've tried neopan 400, hp5+, tri-x and delta 100 - all dev'd with Acculux 2 and scanned with a Minolta Scan Dual. The best scans in terms of grain / pixelation i find are from neopan and delta. hp5 is also ok, but my scanner emphasizes the grain much more than is visible when i print hp5+ traditionally. i just tried my first roll of tx and the scans from it are, comparatively, quite bad. tones seem very compressed and the grain has come out horribly in mid-grey areas. bear in mind though that it is the first time i've used tx, so that's prob more of a factor than anything else.

Provia 400X - which is becoming available around the world about now - is reputed to have grain equivalent to Provia 100F. Haven't tried it yet myself (due to receive some soon, though) but might be worth a try.

in answer to critics who think that the pose or setting is a bit too relaxed or passive; this may not be the reason, but there was a decisive turning point in the UK's perception of the Queen around the time of the death of HRH Diana. People thought that the royal family, and the Queen in particular, were far too distant, too formal, and out of touch with most people in the country. I would have thought that, that being the case, any type of portrait portraying power and authority too blatantly, would have been vetoed by the queen or her advisors.

 

these days the royal family is keen to project themselves more as first among equals, rather than the pinnacle of all things british.

 

i like the portrait, for what it's worth. lovely lighting, and a pose which doesn't look unnatural.

i have both the T90 and the X700 - the X700 was the first camera I bought after years of borrowing my dad's (Minolta) cameras, but eventually I switched to FD and now mostly use an A-1 and T90. I still have my X700 though, and I actually enjoy using it far more than my Canon bodies.

 

I find the user interface of Minolta cameras to be far superior to those of Canon. Canon uses buttons and multi-purpose dials, whereas minolta (in this case anyway) has a much simpler interface - dials and switches which all do one job and one job only. The x700 is also much lighter (because it has more plastic in it - which may be a good thing or a bad thing depending on how you look at it). Other small things like placing of AE-lock buttons, and easier use of DOF-preview, I also prefer on the x700. The Canon interface is more powerful in many ways, but isn't anywhere near as intuitive.

 

So why did i move from MD to FD? Lenses. Well, actually, not just lenses - I wanted a broader range of both lenses and bodies, which Minolta just doesn't have in manual focus. The T90 does things that just aren't possible with the X700, like spot metering, shutter priority, and an excellent dedicated flash system. I do a lot of available light photography, so things like spot metering are a big bonus for me. Also, there are lenses in FD that just aren't available in MD, like (for instance) a 1.4 24mm. However, I've since learned that these 'extra' lenses are either VERY expensive (hundreds of GBP), or hard to find, or, usually, both. So it's not such a great advantage for me (although in the UK i would say there are a few more FD lenses about than there are MD).

 

I personally don't see much difference in the lenses of the two systems, either in terms of optical or build quality. On an aesthetic level I prefer MD lenses, but that's just a personal preference.

 

When I chose to move to FD, i strongly considered going with Nikon (an FM3A or an F4) and the only reason I didn't was cost - I could get a T90 for half the price or less of those cameras, and the lenses were similarly much cheaper. If you can afford the pricier lenses, Nikon is in many ways a better system to start off with, as you can use your manual lenses with most AF bodies in the Nikon range (not quite that simple, but better than FD/MD obsolete lenses). The same goes for Pentax - if i was starting out now, I may well go for a Pentax system.

 

Personally, I don't care for AF so all the above wasn't an issue for me, but may be worth bearing in mind if you plan to go down that route eventually.

 

hope that's helpful

<p>OK, I'll bite :)</p>

<p>this is one of those articles that predicts massive changes in the future simply because technology has improved a bit. It reminds me of those 1950s "image of the future" TV slots with Jetson -style cars and everyone flying around on personal hovercraft. I really can't see it happening like this at all - at least, not in anywhere near the 10 year timeframe quoted.

</p><p>

For instance:

</p>

<p><i>Increasingly, newspaper photographers are being asked to shoot video for Web sites.</i><br/>

Are they really? I'm still seeing a few dozen stills for every video in the newspapers I read (UK based). Generally the only video on newspaper websites that I see are either of staged events (press releases, recorded interviews etc) or are mobile-phone submissions from amateurs who happened to be in the right place at the right time. <i>The Dallas Morning News</i> is not the arbiter of world journalism, last time I checked.</p>

 

<p><i>First, most of the major camera manufacturers that are now associated with still photography will probably be out of business by 2016. Of the majors now selling cameras, I would put my money on only Canon to survive.</i><br/>

I don't know where he gets this from - presumably because Canon currently sell the most pro/am digital cameras, it follows that everyone else will go bust? What a load of rubbish.</p>

 

<p><i>Already, Sony is moving to become the number one still-camera company. Their newest top-of-the line digital still cameras are based on designs from Konica, a company they absorbed.</i><br/>

Last I heard, the Alpha line was not smashing up Canon's, Nikon's or even Pentax's or Olympus' market share. This also contradicts the previous point about only Canon surviving from the majors.</p>

 

<p><i>...an algorithm that allows those frame grabs to be boosted to 16 megapixels...</i><br/>

Either the inventors are about to become exceedingly rich, or this algorithm isn't as world-shatteringly effective as this implies. Is he really claiming that a 2Mp image from a video camera (with all that implies) will be a match for something from a current top of the line full-frame still camera!? Canon, Nikon et.al must be kicking themselves - all that money wasted on sensor R&D when all that was needed was some fancy software. I can see now why they'll all be bust in 10 years!</p>

 

<p><i>The financial imperative to newspapers is clear. Their salvation, in a time of plummeting ad revenues on their broadsheets, lies with their online versions. Online demands video. For this reason, we can comfortably say that in 10 years photojournalists will only be carrying video cameras.</i><br/>

Utter tripe. It may be true that paper-profits are falling (though I suspect this is not such a black-and-white issue), but going from there to proclaiming that all journos will carry videos is a bit of a leap. It's just not feasible or even desirable to have video alongside many, if not most, stories which a paper would run. If video was so overridingly popular, TV would have killed the paper press decades ago. It hasn't for a good reason - the two mediums are suited to different things. The article completely ignores this fact, presuming that if it's possible to view a moving image with sound, it will always be the preferred option - regardless of whether it's suited to the story, or whether people want to sit through several seconds/minutes of video which could have been summed up in one photo which takes a single second to take in. It's the weakest argument I've heard all year!</p>

 

<p><i>We predict that magazines (those that still exist) in 10 years will be bound on the top or bottom, not on the sides as they now are.</i><br/>

hmmm, yes, because people love to flick through top-bound books, don't they. it suits those of us with arms at the top/bottom of our bodies, although those freaks with arms to the left and right, who are more comfortable holding one page in each hand, will just have to make do. laughable.</p>

 

<p><i>...However, it is more likely that paper printing will be long since gone, and instead newspapers, magazines and books will be delivered on "electronic" paper, in which case the visual presentation would most likely be video in the first place.</i><br/>

people have been saying that for the last 10 years, and you know what? the more advanced 'electronic paper' becomes, the lower the sales of electronic books gets. papers may be replaced by an electronic equivalent at some point, but not until the cost (to the user) is similar, they offer the same experience (large pages which don't strain the eyes), etc etc etc. 10 years? don't make me laugh. </p>

 

<p><i>Today, if you go to The New York Times online, you will notice that right on the front page is a box displaying video, not a still photograph.</i><br/>

no, i see several stills and no videos on the front page. know why? because it's much easier for people to take in a photo alongside text. I see wounded people being carried from a building by uniformed officers, and immediately i know that there's been an attack of some sort. if that were video, i'd have to sit through a couple of seconds to work that out, even if the first frame was the same as the photo, because i'd be trying to keep up with the moving image rather than thinking of the stuff in the image. that's why photos support text so well - you can come back to them as you're reading the text. video requires your complete attention - a different thing entirely.</p>

 

<p>this whole article reminds me of a well known photography magazine here in the UK, with a weekly columnist who writes the most banal, lets-make-the-tiniest-development-world-shattering pieces of 'journalism' i've ever seen (well, i'm exaggerating there, but still). you can tell that these people have some inches to fill, and just saying "hey, you know what, video is going to get more popular" won't cut it. so they see how successful youtube is, and think "that's the future!". just like 10 years ago people were saying of 2007:</p>

<ul>

<li>we'll all be driving hydrogen fuel-cell cars</li>

<li>every home will have it's own AI computer controller</li>

<li>all voting will be done online</li>

<li>all office employees will work from home</li>

<li>blah blah blah</li>

</ul>

<p>does anyone actually seriously, honestly, buy into this stuff!?</p>

thanks ben - will try that

well i've now looked everywhere I can think of and can't find the missing piece, so if anyone has a spare (part) they want to sell, i'd be grateful. My x700's crank seems to be firmly attached, so no joy there, either :|

I just took my A1 out of my bag, and realised it's missing a piece - the film

rewind crank (and the circular housing for it). The ASA dial now has a hole in

the middle, with a chrome screw poking out of it.

 

Does anyone know if I can replace it from another camera (ie is that screw

fitting likely to be universal?). I could buy a junk A1 for parts and take the

crank off that, but I also have a minolta X700 which doesn't get much use (not

to hand at moment) so if the parts are interchangeable, I can - for the time

being at least - take the crank off there and screw it onto my A1.

 

(Is it just a case of screwing on/off, or is it going to be more complicated

than that?).

good concept, and it makes the site simple to use and understand too, which is a big plus in my book.

 

my faves are january #19 and march #25

i believe (tho i may be wrong) that you can get digital backs for the RZ cameras, but not for the RB.

it could be something to do with the market, too; if canon is aiming at sports photgraphers (with a particular camera), for instance, then being able to take lots of shots quickly is more important than the increase in resolution, and the crop factor is an added bonus for that market.

 

if on the other hand it's a portrait photographer market (eg. wedding photogs), then high resolution is more important than a fast buffer, and the crop factor could be more of a problem.

why would it be impossible (as some state) to have both in-body and in-lens IS working together? surely if one can be made to respond to the other's sensor information (either way around), then they would compliment each other - each acting in unison, in a master/slave arrangement (of course, whether existing systems could work together is doubtful, but that doesn't mean it's technically impossible for them to be developed that way in the future).

 

if IS info is already available to the camera's CPU from current canon lenses - surely the hard work is already done?