johnw436

November 30, 2011

<p>compare to an image with no foreground object. It looks surprising flat and two-dimensional, even though the actual scene is about as 3-dimensional as you can find.</p>

<tbody>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/ChurchesAndCathedrals?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite">Churches and Cathedrals</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

November 30, 2011

<p>4x5 scanned negative.</p>

<tbody>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>Pick any detail, such as a tree root, and let your eye wander. It's almost like getting inside the photo. To Gerry's point I think it has a LOT to do with how much field of view is there for a given depth of field.</p>

November 30, 2011

<p>Same here, Cosmin. I remained a film die hard even after owning several digital cameras. My Pentax K20d finally changed that. That was the point, for me, where 35mm film didn't make sense anymore. I just recently printed 13x19 prints of a wedding I did with it. They were incredible. That camera is two generations old now but the printed images are stunning. </p>

<p>Is my K20d the equal to my Bronicas? Nope. Let's be real. When I get prints from 6x4.5 and hold them next to my APS-c stuff it's just not the same. I don't necessarily mean 'better' but it is very different and most people (non-photographers) prefer the prints from medium format when they see them. I believe much of what they like about them is the spacial effect discussed in this thread. (Tonality is smoother too, but I doubt most non-photographers even notice.) Most people have never seen that 3D effect in a print before.</p>

<p>I also shoot 4x5. That is a whole other ball of wax. But using that camera is a planned event. When I look at those negatives I feel like I can crawl inside the scene and walk around.</p>

<p>I still love my little YashicaMat TLR. It has a look all it's own, and I often prefer the prints from that camera to prints from any other camera I own. The aesthetic is just different. </p>

November 29, 2011

<p>I wish I could paint like Bob Ross. How's that for perspective? I wish I could cook like Emeril. Both have their detractors, both have fans. People who cannot do what those two do are typically fans. </p>

<p>Once upon a time when I was learning how to make a competent photograph, i.e., learning how to use a camera in Manual mode and actually have a photo turn out the way I imagined it- I thought any use of photoshop was digital art and wholly unnecessary. Why? Because I thought just turning out a good photo was hard enough. To me, a photo was what you did with a camera and if you wanted better photos you learned to do more with your camera.</p>

<p>Then I discovered studio lighting. Modifiers. Filters. Hmm. This changed things. Now I could manipulate the image before I took it. This flew in the face of my previous mantra. After all, if it was okay to manipulate before I pressed the shutter what was the difference?</p>

<p>Then I began developing my own film. Whoa. Stone Age Photoshop at your fingertips. (Stone Age for me... Space Age to someone like Ansel Adams.) </p>

<p>I was forced to accept that my ideas of where boundaries lie had more to do with where my own bounderies met my abilities. </p>

<p>Don't get me wrong: I still want to puke when I encounter people who believe that "art" is an excuse for shoddy craftsmanship. If you CAN'T take a good photo then it isn't art when you make bad ones. Then again, I'm more technical than artsy. By a long shot. Again, it's MY boundary, not yours. Art is what it is to ME. Your art can be whatever you like.</p>

November 29, 2011

<p>Excellent example, Cosmin. The effect is still there in the crop, although I might never notice it had I not seen the whole 6x6 frame which makes me feel as though I am actually standing there "inside" the scene. To me it is the difference between looking "at" a photo and feeling as though I am involved in the scene. Your first photo makes me forget I am looking at a photo.</p>

November 28, 2011

<p>I'm loving my K20d still. Sure, I long for the K5 especially for its low light ability. It will be my next camera. But the K20d just keeps clicking every time I press the shutter and I'm long past the point where I babied the camera. I'm still in love with the prints I get from it. Unless I just fall into a thousand bucks I have nothing better to do with, I imagine I'll keep shooting my beloved K20d until the wheels fall off. I have come to the conclusion that this camera is tougher than I am and anything that would kill it would kill me first. </p>

<p>I figure that when my K20d dies there will be a crop of second hand K5s looking for a good home. If the K5 holds up anywhere close to the K20d I have no fear whatsoever about buying one second hand.</p>

November 27, 2011

<p>This was one of those accidental encounters where I thought, "I wish I had my camera.. hey... it's in the truck!"</p>

<table>

<tbody>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/NatureSeries?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite">Nature Series</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>The wind was blowing and this was the best I could do under the circumstances. I handheld and tried to catch the web when the wind would settle down.<br>

Sigma 70-300 APO DG at 300mm<br />1/250 @ f.8 ISO 560</p>

November 24, 2011

<p>I think a lot of it has to do with the inherently shallower depth of field combined with tonal gradiation from the big real estate of the film. Actual separation (distance from the subject to the background) plays a part due to light ratios. All of these things can be done in smaller formats, but the effect is much more apparent as the film gets larger.</p>

<tbody>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/CivilWarBrooksvilleRaid?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite">Civil War - Brooksville Raid</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>I get this effect a lot with a 75mm lens (normal for 6x4.5) Same lens. Same film. Same day.</p>

<tbody>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/CivilWarBrooksvilleRaid?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite">Civil War - Brooksville Raid</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>The effect is not so pronounced. Below photo was taken with an APS-C sensor camera and 70mm prime.</p>

<tbody>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/2009PineIslandKids_K20d_inCamBW?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCNfT88Xzu4K6Jw&feat=embedwebsite">2009 Pine Island kids_K20d_in cam BW</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>Same effect or not quite? All three shots are set up pretty much the same. Close subject in the foreground, distance background. Strong lighting and lots of contrast.</p>

November 24, 2011

<p>I think a lot of it has to do with the inherently shallower depth of field combined with tonal gradiation from the big real estate of the film. Actual separation (distance from the subject to the background) plays a part due to light ratios. All of these things can be done in smaller formats, but the effect is much more apparent as the film gets larger. These first two were shot in 6x4.5 </p>

<table>

<tbody>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/CivilWarBrooksvilleRaid?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite">Civil War - Brooksville Raid</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>I get this effect a lot with a 75mm lens (normal for 6x4.5) Same lens. Same film. Same day.</p>

<table>

<tbody>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/CivilWarBrooksvilleRaid?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite">Civil War - Brooksville Raid</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>The effect is not so pronounced. Below photo was taken with an APS-C sensor camera and 70mm prime.</p>

<table>

<tbody>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td>From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/2009PineIslandKids_K20d_inCamBW?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCNfT88Xzu4K6Jw&feat=embedwebsite">2009 Pine Island kids_K20d_in cam BW</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>Same effect or not quite? All three shots are set up pretty much the same. Close subject in the foreground, distant background. Strong lighting and lots of contrast.</p>

October 29, 2011

<p>I don't know if you're still checking this thread, but a very likely cause of an intermittant problem could be the ribbon cable that controls the print head. I don't know why this didn't occur to me before. Cheap to find out. But if it mysteriously goes and comes, that does sound like a plausible electrical issue and the ribbon cable is the most likely culprit since it flexes every time the print head runs back and forth. Obviously it would be worth checking connections before buying a cable. </p>

October 20, 2011

<p>I would reload the printer driver. If that doesn't help I'd begin looking at the printer. When color casts come and go it is often due to ink starvation on one color or a dirty print head. A head can go clean/dirty/clean depending on how it rides across a dirty wiper at the capping station.</p>

<p>What does your nozzle check look like?</p>

<p>If your nozzle check is bad, do a cleaning using the maintenance utility. ONCE. If that does not fix the nozzle check then I'd say you have a very dirty print head or a wiper with an ink booger on it. Don't spit all your expensive ink in the gutter by doing print head cleaning after print head cleaning through the nozzle check maintenance utility. Actually take a piece of paper towel (lint free towel is best) and wet it with warm water. Hold it directly to the print head with very light pressure. The damp towel will wick away the ink stuck to the print head. DON'T WIPE. You can damage the print head.</p>

<p>If you pull the towel away and it is really coated, then you need some solvent. (A clean head will have bands of individual colors. A dirty head will make the towel look like the ink is mixed together such as blotches of indicriminant color.) If you need solvent, Windex will do in a pinch. Spray it lightly on the towel and first clean around the outside edge of the print head. If lots of goo comes off then the wiper is not doing its job when the print head exits the capping station. You probably need to deep clean the wiper and the rim of the capping station. Qtips work well for that. Hot water, or a little Windex might be necessary if the Qtip keeps pulling off ink.</p>

<p>If you get little flakes of what looks like rubber, don't be afraid. That is dry ink. There is no part of your printer that will decompose into little strands of rubber. It's ink.</p>

<p>If your nozzle check fails, but the head is not dirty, then you could be sucking air into a damper on the print head. Pull your ink carts and reseat them.</p>

October 20, 2011

<p>Is the comic strip about the lens cap? To me it is poking fun at the self-proclaimed artiste... being mistaken for a sad Halloween ghoul. You know.. the "my pictures are blurry because that's the way the world looks through my tears" type. </p>

October 20, 2011

<p>Jemal, thank you very much. I love the look on her face, too. Enough that it makes a shot worthwhile that normally wouldn't be a keeper IMO. </p>

October 16, 2011

<p>Fantastic. Thank you, Leslie.</p>

October 16, 2011

<p>This is from last week. I had the opportunity to shoot a Filipino wedding.</p>

<tbody>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/GordyWedding?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite">Gordy Wedding</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>The hall was very dark. I used two AB800s bounced off the high ceiling to get fill for the room. The reflection off the glass caused the colors from outside to be somewhat muted, but the couple likes them and I think saturating the greenery outside would be a distraction from the couple. There is a little piece of arm from the Maid of Honor on the left, but the print matted and framed covers it up. I printed this to 13x19 and it held up perfectly.<br>

K20d, DA70, f5.6 @ 1/60 at iso 280</p>

<p>These were taken with the same setup, DA40, iso 200 f4.5 @ 1.60</p>

<tbody>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/GordyWedding?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite">Gordy Wedding</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>You can see one of my strobes in the background. When I crop it, you see the DJ over the bride's shoulder. It looks better this way in my opinion. For some reason when the crowd is there your eye ignores them better.</p>

<tbody>

<tr>

</tr>

<tr>

<td >From <a href="https://picasaweb.google.com/john.jwphoto/GordyWedding?authuser=0&feat=embedwebsite">Gordy Wedding</a></td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

<p>The flower girl blowing bubbles at the reception. DA40</p>

October 16, 2011

<p>Hin, I love night shots. Your first one is really nice. You captured the scene very well and I can really feel the mood. The second is something I would not have thought of. Great photo. Very interesting play of light and surfaces. I like it a lot.</p>

<p>Markus, those shots are ridiculously sharp! Wow! I'm loving the root of Carlito's name.</p>

<p> Anirban, this series from Calcutta you have been posting is FANTASTIC. You know I like your work already, but these shots have really been taken to the next level. It could be that Tri-X is my favorite film or that it is so well suited to the subject matter. But I can't say enough good things about your shots lately. The tones, the mood, the composition... they are all excellent for me. Very Salgado in my opinion, which is a high compliment in my eyes.</p>

<p>Yury, I like your ideas. Perhaps some fill flash would bring the exposure up so we can enjoy the colors and details you saw when you took the picture?</p>

<p>Bob Marz, awesome as always. Panasonic should use these for ads to sell the camera.</p>

October 9, 2011

<p>All I know is that there are about 100 million mechanics and technicians in the US who would absolutely LOVE to move to the metric system exclusively. Buying two sets of every tool you own is ridiculously expensive. It's also easier to grab a 9 if an 8 is too small- or a 10 if it's too big- when you're on your back with no light and there is dirty crap falling in your eyes.</p>

October 8, 2011

<p>I thought you were talking about the new TV Show with Charlie Sheen and Lindsay Lohan. It's called "2 1/2 grams."</p>

October 1, 2011

<p>I'm thinking the issue is in the multi-exposure function. </p>

<p>My suggestion, if you haven't done this already, is to remove the the back so you can look through the lens from the rear. Obviously, set the shutter to bulb or something that will keep the shutter open long enough for you to see what's going on. Wind to cock, then fire. If the body believes that the multi-exposure is engaged the mirror will just kind of wobble as you do this and never reset. You can wind on forever. When the multi exposure is not engaged it will work the way you expect it to. If you see no difference... voila. Multi-exposure mechanicals are out of whack.</p>

<p>The only thing the battery does is set shutter speed. When the battery is dead the shutter will still fire, it just fires at 1/500 all the time. If you have a metered prism finder, then the battery powers the meter. Be warned- if you have a metered prism, take it off the camera when you are not shooting. If you leave the meter knob turned on it will draw on the battery continuously. There is no auto-off. If you take the metered prism off each time you stow the camera your battery will last a good long time.</p>

<p>I don't know how much time and effort I'd put into repair. I would get another body and use this one for parts. </p>

<p>I'm anxious to hear what you come up with.</p>

October 1, 2011

<p>Michael Yon's photo, "In His Arms"<br>

<a href="

October 1, 2011

<p>Rice paper will go nearly transparent when laid down and then wet. This is how a lot of graphics get put on surf boards. Rice paper is fairly easy to print. You lay it down, it goes clear, leaving the image standing out. I would expect wood grain to show through the image.</p>

<p>I print images onto R-film, which is a clear sheet used for making screen printing stencils. Remember overhead projectors? Same clear plastic sheet. Inkjets print on them just fine. Since a printed photograph relies on the white photo paper, everything white will be clear when printed on R-film. I have many photos printed and hung on my windows like a poor-man's stained glass. Night photos are especially cool with the outside sunlight shining through the photo.<br>

<a href="http://www.silkscreeningsupplies.com/water-proof-film-positive-waterproof-inkjet">http://www.silkscreeningsupplies.com/water-proof-film-positive-waterproof-inkjet</a></p>

<p>Depending on what you mean by "transfer image onto wood" there is also a machine that laser engraves images INTO the wood. Image a woodburning kit made into a printer and you've got the idea. Really incredible when you see it in person.<br>

<a href="http://www.touchofwood.com/">http://www.touchofwood.com/</a></p>

September 18, 2011

<p>Nathan,</p>

<a href="http://www.michaelyon-online.com/">http://www.michaelyon-online.com/</a></p>

<p>Make sure you go through the archives. </p>

<p>Michael Yon's contact information is easily found on that site. I suggest you do just that and get some firsthand information. </p>

September 15, 2011

<p>If he is a competitive MMA fighter, I suggest going to the gym where he trains and use the octagon for the shots. You can mount lights up on the ring posts to accomplish anything you want to do. You can even shoot outside the cage using the chain link as the backdrop if you need more camera to subject distance. </p>

<p>The great thing about an MMA gym is he can hit the weights briefly to get a good pump and do some rolling to get in the zone mentally. The surroundings will put him at ease because he'll be in his element and less likely to pose unnaturally or look self-concious. Not to mention.. props galore you don't have to supply.</p>

September 9, 2011

<p>Hi Michael, I'm not plugged into the fight community, so I'm not a good source of information regarding prospective revenue streams. I did these shots as a personal favor since he is a good friend of mine.</p>

September 8, 2011

<p>+1 on the TL500 (EX1). I was madly in love with mine until two weeks ago when it went swimming in the river. It is sitting on my counter right now. I can't bring myself to throw it out.</p>

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by johnw436