exitium

<p>Thanks Paul for clarifying what I had started to feel. I really wasn't impressed with the results so far and for all the effort of re-spooling 120 film on to my 620 spools...and having to make sure I get the spools back from the lab..or re-spool again is a long way to go for not much reward. <br>

Actually, I do have my eye on a Rolleiflex 2.8 (good recommendation Anthony!) at the local antique store, beautiful portrait cameras they are. I have to put a roll through it, but the price isn't too bad. It's at a consignment store so the seller isn't there and the store owner wasn't happy that I opened it and a partially exposed 35mm roll jumped out. It has one of those adapters installed and he will have a heart attack if I go back and pull that out too, lol. The price is too tempting not to.<br>

John: Tourist is a disappointing f8.8. <br>

I am still going to try the six-16 given the neg size (might make for some interesting contact prints with alt processes) and will try some 127 in the Brownie reflex for novelty purposes. </p>

<p>I've managed to have had a variety of antique/vintage cameras come into my possession over the past few years and I want to pick one or two and sell the rest to support shooting the chosen model(s):<br>

I have multiple metal 620 spools and I am familiar with rewinding 120 film on to them. I am happy to see 127 film is available. My main interest is lens quality and negative size as well as effort required to use (repairs needed, film availability/modification, manual controls etc)</p>

<p><strong>Brownie Hawk-eye</strong>: lens is a mini fungal colony <br>

<strong>Kodak 2-C Junior Model A</strong>: I see some of these have glass in the front of the iris and others don't (not sure if this is a case of it missing or by design), mine does not have glass in front of the iris.<br>

<strong>Target Brownie 6-20: </strong>shutter is a bit wonky, doesn't open sometimes, seems slow at times<br>

<strong>Target 6-16</strong>: Landscape mirror is loose, otherwise seems good<br>

<strong>Kodak Jiffy 6-20 #1:</strong> Shot a roll but have yet to process, seems to be in good working order<br>

<strong>Kodak Jiffy 6-20 #2: </strong>Currently completely taken apart to lubricate shutter and re-glue mirror. I have put a roll through it, didn't seem like anything too special.<br>

<strong>Kodak Tourist (gray plastic top)</strong>: Seems OK<br>

<strong>Ventura Synchro Box</strong>: Can't figure out how to open yet, seemingly good working order<br>

<strong>Kodak Junior Six-16 Series II: </strong>lens may have slight scratch, haven't tried cleaning, seems ok otherwise<br>

<strong>Brownie Reflex: </strong>Seems OK. What a beautiful viewfinder! (other than some fungus/de-silvering of mirror)</p>

<p>I have a potential buyer that would want them just for show and not actually taking pics, so the Hawkeye might lend itself for that application unless it has a far superior lens about it etc. <br>

So, which one or two would you go with?</p>

<p>Think there is a chance my case is a knock off? The screw is WAY over on the side, like a half inch away from the edge of the case. It has a "Germany" stamp on it but well...<br>

I love it, as much as I find it hard to justify shooting 35mm (if I want big prints I scan med/large format on an imacon, otherwise it's digital) , the experience of the camera is such a treat. I was shooting in a stream/marshy area early morning in the summer with my DSLR and 500mm lens, which I find exhausting-breath control, finicky focus, etc etc<br>

I switched to the SL with a 90mm and a couple of extension tubes for a break-that big bright viewfinder is unbelievable. I find it's similar to a Swarovski spotting scope/binocs, it's nicer looking through them than my eyes!</p>

<p>Hi Robin, <br>

I'll send you a PM if that's ok?<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Thanks Bill. I can see what you mean about the SL, there are a few parts that could add a bit of thickness. These cases are being sold all over ebay with the idea of being interchangeable with the SL/SL2. Does the SL2 have a tripod mount off to the side as opposed the mid-area of the body? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>I bought a black leather case (see pic) on Ebay for my Leicaflex SL (it's claimed that it fits the original leicaflex, SL and SL2) but it's a tad too narrow and the screw mount doesn't line up. Am I missing something? I tried stuffing it in, and blew a few stitches in the process...<br>

Also, can anyone recommend which vintage case actually fits the Leicaflex SL?</p>

<p>Thanks,</p>

<p>Peter</p><div></div>

<p>I've been wondering for a while what camera this polaroid pack will fit<br />but, I think I found my answer:<br>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK1FwL11bMs<br>

Polaroid Land Pack camera right?<br>

Thanks,<br /> Peter</p><div></div>

<p>I am getting a little confused by zone plate construction involving a laser printer and overhead transparencies. The various zone plate generators have a spot for focal length-I assume this is for when one is printing the zone plate on plain paper and photographing with a camera? <br>

Am I right to assume that my focal length then would be the distance from the film plane as no lens will be involved with my zone plate construction? <br>

Also, I am right to generate the zone plate to a scale of 1X given there will be no re-photographing in my specific case?</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Peter</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I wanted to clarify: from there, I make a copy to soft-proof using the lab's printer profile, make adjustments, and convert to the lab's printer profile (Costco using Drycreek custom profile). </p>

<p>Hi Everyone, apparently I forgot to hit post, so this is my second attempt at this question.<br>

Background of my setup and my understanding or lack of):<br>

Monitor Profile: custom profile using X-rite 2<br>

Camera Profile (D70): Adobe 1998 II<br>

Editing Space: Pro Photo RGB (NX2+CS5)<br>

Workflow: Edit RAW in NX2, save as TIFF for editing in CS5.</p>

<p>I am getting tripped up on the setting in NX2. I have my default space set as Pro Photo RGB, but I am not sure about the checkbox underneath:<br>

"Use this instead of embedded profile."<br>

I assume the embedded profile is the camera profile. By "use", does NX2 want to change the embedded profile or the editing space? I assume I'd want the editing space to remain ProPhoto, and want the embedded profile to remain the camera profile.<br>

My other question is, when I save the RAW to TIFF, in the dialog options is an option to:<br>

"embed ICC profile"<br>

With the "Use this instead of embedded profile" option checked on, and the embed icc profile when saving, I end up having a TIFF that when opened in CS5 has a ProPhoto profile. I believe one does not want an editing space assigned to a file, is this correct?<br>

From there, I convert the file to the lab's printer profile. Any insights are welcome.</p>

<p>Thanks guys. I am definitely going to check out Toronto Image Works now. elevator looks pretty good, but I think I'll wait to have a bit more work behind me before waltzing in there. <br>

Ian, just curious about the advantages having proofs made somewhere if your not planning on printing there?</p>

<p>Hi Everyone,<br>

I will be trying out Pitko and Colourgenics tomorrow to see which place I like better, are there any other labs in the downtown/brewery district that others have had good experiences with?<br>

I'll be printing a whack of 4x6s, and a couple of 8 x 10s tomorrow, but have plans for canvas wraps, 16x20 and up etc. in the future. I am looking for knowledgeable yet non-snooty staff and good colour management. Basically, I am shopping for a lab that I can build a good working relationship with over the long-term.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>I have a 2008 MBP (2.26 dual processor) with 4 GB of RAM. It runs LR3 and CS5 pretty smoothly but, sometimes I find myself wishing I had 8GB (definitely a want, not a need) so I can have more programs open, play music etc. without a thought. <br>

I upgraded the default 2GB RAM from the factory, and I think it was one of the best decisions I have ever made, so definitely go for at least 2GB, more if that model can take it.</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone's encouragement here, I've looked up some tutorials, and I have to say now that I know about anchor points I am seeing a lot better results. Not to mention, I forgot about the U-point aspects of Viveza and the other Nik plug-ins that one can access within photoshop.<br>

I definitely agree about Lightroom's brush being less than ideal.</p>

<p>Matt,<br>

Your taking my use of the word couple too literally, or perhaps I am using it too figuratively, lol. I'll just have to keep one foot in each workflow as time permits. Enjoying the glimpses of your pics btw.</p>

<p>Thanks for the quick responses gentleman. I think I am going to do some tests, take a couple of images and limit myself to NX2 for one set, and Adobe for the other within a set timeframe and have some prints made, and see which I prefer, and how time factors in. <br>

I'll let you know how it goes. </p>

<p>Thanks for the response Matt,<br>

I like that idea, a nice blend of automation and personalization. How would you rate the brush controls in NX2 compared to photoshop?<br>

I've admittedly never given much time to the brush in NX2 or Lightroom, I've always gone to PS if I needed/wanted to do some brushwork.</p>

<p>Maybe it's because I like making more work for myself, but I find I prefer manually painting in selections/masks in Photoshop compared to trusting the automated aspect of the U point control points. It is how I learned, and I feel like I have more control, not to mention the adjustments being made are reliant on me, the artist rather than the software.</p>

<p>Any opinions out there? Anyone made the change without looking back?</p>

<p>I've recently settled the Lightroom/ACR vs Nikon RAW processing debate for <strong>myself</strong>, as I found some pics looked better in Lightroom while others looked better in Nikon's software, and I find I am more comfortable in Lightroom and Photoshop. I shoot all of my RAWs with as little in camera settings as possible (no sharpening, moderate saturation etc), so I find the Camera Neutral profile in Lightroom suits my tastes of having as vanilla an image to work with.<br>

The only thing keeping me with Nikon software is the possible potential of the u-point controls...</p>

Well, I am leaving in a few days for a friend's wedding. I've been asked to take a few shots as there is concern

about the quality of the supplied photographer, even though I insist portraits are not my forte.

Anyways, I am fascinated by the high speed B/W documentary style shots...so I am bringing along one lonely roll

of Ilford Delta 3200 and a half shot roll already in the camera. I am not too worried about a hand inspection at

Toronto Pearson Airport...

However, anyone have any experience asking for a hand inspection leaving from Punta Cana airport, or any airport

in the DR?

Thanks in advance for any advice.

I've been waiting all weekend to read the replies. Thank-you all that responded. I had a good laugh too. I hope to respond in more detail this week as I will be on the road for most of tomorrow.

Thanks again.

I will try to keep this as short and concise as possible. About a year ago, a

former co-worker who I kept in touch with via the web (we only ever talked

online, even at work) asked me if I was interested in doing her wedding photos

after she had seen some of my work (none of which were of people). I explained

posed, formal portraits really aren't my thing and it's my weakest area of

photography and I would most likely be in over my head doing a wedding with my

lack of experience and missing key items of equipment.

She then had the idea that I could do the engagement photos as a trial run and

she would want to pay me for them. She mentioned how she hates having her

picture taken and the thought of a complete stranger taking her photos seemed

"scary." I had a hard time making an offer because she really wasn't a friend,

but I recognized they were doing me a small favour at the same time. Anyways,

they agreed upon my offer. I sent them a printed invoice with the cost and what

I was including in the shoot. I didn't feel comfortable taking any money up

front or on the day of the shoot so I said to just bring a post-dated cheque.

She insisted on paying me the day of the shoot because it would be easier. I agreed.

Day of the shoot comes and the shoot goes better than I had expected. She wasn't

as terrified by the camera as thought she was. Anyways, this is where the

headaches begin. They had lost the invoice, and forgot how much I was charging

them. ($175, all prices in this post are in CDN$) They could only pay $50. I

took it as a deposit.

Edit the photos, pick out the keepers, send them online proofs. They said they

looked "weird" in them. As well, I was now told any photos of them kissing

couldn't be used due to religious reasons. They really wanted to see the entire

shoot so to prove my point that these really were the keepers I sent proofs (via

e-mail) of the entire shoot including the awkward ones and photos where eyes

were closed. They make their selections (all of which were from the orignal

proofs sent) and I send off a final invoice. The cheque comes, it's off by $5.

Anyways, the family loved the photos and they made great presents.

I decided half way through this there was no way I was doing the wedding. Months

go by and no mention of it, even though we had talked a few times. Then, out of

nowhere they say they want me to do the wedding and to send them some kind of

offer. I figure, it's only worth doing if I make a good profit, so I made my

prices pretty high ($2500 total coverage, inluding tax, and $300 in

prints/albums...not that high, except for the fact this would be my first

wedding and I would be competing with photographers not in a large urban centre)

hoping they would balk and just find someone else.

I think two months go by before they respond, and they accused me of my prices

being too high and that they are higher than other "professional" photographers

and want me to haggle my mid coverage price ($2200). They mentioned they found

packages of similar content for $895.

I responded by saying, if you have found someone local and you enjoy their work,

you should hire them, I can't beat that price. Currently waiting for a response.

So what would you have done? I am not deadset on becoming a professional wedding

photographer, I wouldn't mind the experience (I enjoy being well rounded) but my

dreams and livelihood don't depend on it. I would rather wait for a close

friend's wedding and do it at cost or even for free, or do the same as a second

shooter under a professional with clients who don't blur the line between client

and associate/friend.

Thanks for your time if you have read this far. :)