rick_hensil

I hate prints! I currently only shoot 35mm and 6x6, and in both there

is nothing like looking at the slide through a light table--projection

onto a screen ruins the whole effect.

 

I'm wondering, do people display their transparencies directly on

their walls? I am envisioning six 8x10 lightboxes mounted on my wall,

each with a transparency in front. Would this cause the transparencies

to fade?

What about the Nikon FA? It seems pretty cheap, and even better than the AE-1??

many thanks, everyone! I am going to try out an FG and an FE2 and get one of those.

I love my Canon AE-1. Superb build quality, all-metal feel, but not

too heavy, and beautiful manual focus lenses.

 

However, I'd like to find the equivalent in Nikon--a solidly built

manual-focus camera with some sort of autoexposure capabilities, and

electronic shutter (My Canon F-1 is just too heavy).

 

This way, as I expand my manual focus lens system, I can always slap

the lens onto a D1x if I need some digital photos and then go on using

the old camera as usual. I'd like to invest in some nice primes and

don't want to be buying obsolete stuff.

 

Man, if only Canon would make a one-off FD compatible DSLR...

 

Thanks.

Sorry for the spam, but I have a perfect-bellows Standard Speedex for sale in the classifieds section.

 

-Rick

Man I clicked this thinking Canon had come out with a 0.8 lens! They've done 0.95, why not?

It's not really happening to Canon FD though. I've been looking for a 1.2 50mm or a 1.2 85mm for cheap and you can't find it in Canon FD. I'm willing to go with Olympus or Minolta but I can't find any 1.2 lenses there...I'm just looking for a low-light camera.

Haha! after seeing that ad, the idea seems really bad. :)

Total n00b question:

 

Instead of a huge zoom, why don't they have a bracket that lets you

rotate between three primes? I mean the mount would get in the way, so

the lenses would probably have to be specially designed, but I can

imagine a 24/2.8, 85/1.8, and 135/2.8 are lighter, better, and cheaper

than a 24-135/2.8 zoom.

 

While I'm ranting, why don't camera bodies record shutter

speed/aperture/other information underneath the film on the sprocket

area, or in the millimeter between frames? Or do some bodies?

Horowitz and Hill is garbage--a lot of recipe circuits with no explanations or justifications. If you want to LEARN electronics start with something else.

Not to be insulting (I've never even shot a wedding), but the bride looks truly horrendous in this picture, like she is half dancing and half careening across a field. Sounds like a tough situation, but I don't think this will satisfy anyone.

In response to the frog to make people laugh---keep a stuffed Elmo on hand. If you encounter someone over 30 who won't smile, pull out Elmo and in a sickening baby voice say, "Do I haff to get out Elmo? Doeth Elmo need to cheer you up?" And the person will be so embarrassed and feel so ridiculous that they will start cracking up and SNAP! you have your smile.

That's interesting, it looks like the Tri-X pushed to 1600 has less grain than TMAX shot at 1600. As for shooting in color, I've never tried to print up a color neg in the B+W darkroom; is it pretty easy?

Thanks guys! Judging from the responses, I will clip a Speedlite onto my AE-1 with some 400 speed B+W and an 85/1.8, and clip a Canonet with TMAX 3200 onto my belt. Should be good :) As for a tripod, I would like to be unobtrusive, so I am going to be doing everything handheld. If the AE-1 gets too heavy/annoying, I'll ditch it in the car and stick with the Canonet.

 

Thanks!

Rick

Hi,

 

I'm going to a friend's wedding and I am not going to be a

professional by any means (they are super rich!). But I would like to

shoot some B+W with the hopes of getting one good frame to enlarge and

give to them as a gift.

 

So all I'm looking for is one good B+W frame, not a documentary of the

whole ceremony.

 

I'm a definite beginner in photography overall; have shot 35mm for

about 5 years, 20 rolls/yr, and have been working with my Rolleicord

for only a month. My guess is that I'll have to use 35mm as

 

1) I'm no flash expert (all I can do is hook in my Speedlite and set

it on Auto), so I don't want to use a flash

 

2) My 35mm lenses are 1.7 (Canonet) and 1.8 (AE-1) while my 'cord is 3.5

 

3) I'm not yet comfortable with my Rolleicord

 

My problems with using 35mm are:

 

1) Without a flash, I'll probably be using TMAX 3200 shot at 1600;

will the grain be too obtrusive for a decent enlargement?

 

So what do you guys think? The Canonet or the AE-1? What sort of film

do you recommend? Also, does my plan to go "no flash" sound reasonable

or not? (The wedding is indoors).

 

I know this is the 2893742th "first wedding" post but I read a whole

ton of them and couldn't really find anything that addressed my

specific concerns.

 

Thanks

Rick

Can I use digital to become a better film shooter? I would like to

learn two things really well; flash exposure and light-painting. The

turnaround for film is too long and the per-exposure cost discourages

wanton experimentation.

 

I was thinking of using a Canon DSLR to try to learn the basics of

flash exposure. My question is, will it translate to film? If I shoot

a DSLR at ISO 50, will that same exposure come out right on Velvia?

Also, how should I compensate for focal length multiplication? Should

I spring for the full-frame DSLR so I won't have to worry about it?

(This will be a one-week rental, not a purchase).

 

Thanks.

Well there is one sure way to make a model's face looked like a glazed donut...but she might not appreciate it.

Are there any metering/automation implications to buying a breechlock lens over a bayonet mount? Or is the difference only in lens changing ease? I have a Canon AE-1.

 

Thx

Thanks for all your help, guys! I definitely know what you're talking about when you say you like to get photos of people who don't know they're being photographed; that is actually how I have gotten all my best pictures. For some reason, I have a particular ability to aim the lens almost perfectly from hip level, (and estimate distances pretty well) so I can center people's faces in the frame without them knowing till too late.

 

I do like to keep the portrait to the face, neck, and shoulders area usually, but I have found that I keep getting great results from my 50mm; I am really comfortable with it, and as I mentioned before I have mastered the art of aiming it without looking into the viewfinder. I think I will stay with it for now, but I will be getting a 28 to sort of start looking at wide angle (with a 20 to follow if I enjoy it).

 

Thanks for all your advice.

Hi,

 

I'm wondering why the 85mm-135mm length is considered "classic" for

portraits. I know the stock answer--it compresses the facial features,

so people with big noses don't look like monsters. But *why* is that a

good thing? Why is a compressed face good?

 

The reason I ask is that I want to make a photographic collection of

my girlfriend, and right now all I have is a 50mm. I will be getting 2

more lenses for this, and I'm just wondering why this facial

compression is so important. What looks *bad* about portraits shot

with a 24mm? Does anyone have any examples of such a portrait? I've

gotten some really good pictures with the 50 (partly because it's so

damn easy to use, I'm always ready when the perfect moment comes along).

 

P.S. Her nose isn't particularly large or small; I don't see why

flattening it is by default "A Good Thing." She has near-perfect skin,

so sharpness is good. My system is Canon FD.