conrad_hoffman

No doubt I'm the odd man out because I don't want my editing program doing anything at all with cataloging or organizing. I use various tools because no one program does everything perfectly. On that note, Qimage, which is really a printing tool, but also does some raw conversion and has some unique editing features, just added a new search feature that lets you search on various parameters including things in the exif data. You can search for images taken with a specific lens, camera or almost anything else that's in the data.

Depends on what you want to do. "Easy" is great until you realize it won't do what needs to be done, but you probably don't want a huge learning curve either. IMO, they all have a learning curve. Budget? I like Affinity Photo. It's inexpensive and powerful. There are all sorts of free choices like Irfanview and paint.net. Luminar is pretty good for a lot of things. Almost everything has a free demo or 30 day trial. Try some!

I've had a couple Calumets and they're workhorses, probably fine for what you describe. Now I've got an Omega, which is just a rebranded Toyo, and can't complain. Sinars are great, but priced a bit higher. Don't know a thing about 6x12 backs, but IMO, a rollfilm holder is a great thing to have, like a Calumet C2 if you can find one. Geared focus doesn't mean much; they all have some method of fine focus. The old Calumets were disk-in-groove friction focus and, clean and lubed, they focus as well as anything. Inspect bellows carefully for leaks and fix as needed. At the age of many, light leaks are common. I had a new bellows made for my Omega because the old one was falling apart.

Well, it's interesting to me. The function of all the mount features is described in various places, some correct, some with "alternate facts". You have pre-Ai with the fork on the aperture ring. After that you have various lumps and bumps on the back of the mount, the coupling notch on the aperture ring, that small circular notch in the surface of the rear flange and linear or unknown aperture movement vs. actuator lever movement. Maybe other stuff I've forgotten. The mystery to me is what body uses what features in what modes. For example, the FG is supposed to work with Ai lenses but I know it didn't expose perfectly in program mode with some of them. I've only owned FG, FM and F3HP, so limited knowledge.

Pretty sure the .22 LR is, or they wouldn't sell special subsonic rounds. We have a camera at work that can hit 1M fps, admittedly at reduced resolution. It's also not too tough with an old GR strobe, as Harold Edgerton proved. harold edgerton - Google Search Doing it brute force by shutter speed is impressive, but seems the hard way 'round.

Move the camera around a bit as you do that, otherwise you'll get an infinite number of images of the same thing. I like to get a sense of depth, so will choose vantage points to emphasize that, if I can. Visual balance is important, using shapes and tones, though I don't know of any rules. Top heavy images make people nervous and tend to tip over in their frames. I admit to rarely thinking about any specific rules when shooting, I just move me or the subject around until it feels right. I might make minor adjustments in cropping during post.

I used to have an interest is astrophotography but eventually came to the conclusion that the results are directly proportional to how much money one is willing to spend. There are people so into it, and with far more resources than I'll ever have, that my feeble efforts never satisfied me, not to mention living in a place where decent viewing nights are relatively few.

So now I have to buy a vest to process? My "solution" is just to keep a few raw chemicals on hand, and a scale. I mix as needed, which could be as small as a pint or so.

I remember D.O. Industries and think they had a building in or near East Rochester or Fairport. They did a lot of custom work. Bit of history here- Brief History of D.O. Industries lenses

An uncoated piece of glass reflects about 4% of the light hitting it, so you get an improvement in transmission. The light, AFAIK, isn't "cancelled"; you get an actual increase in transmission. You also reduce internal reflections because less light is reflected back into the lens from other elements and such. At least that's how I understand it.

That seems a bit dark but I remember HP5+ being dyed somewhat dark. How old is the film. I had very poor shelf life with HP5 and the fog got noticeable quickly. Still worked OK. I don't think it's a fixer issue if more fixing time doesn't improve it.

I'll play devil's advocate. I buy only new right now because both bodies and lenses are so sophisticated that you really need maximum warranty with the OEM. Sure, they don't fail often, but as said, $6k doesn't go that far anymore. I'll risk a few hundred bucks, but not much more. I'll extend this to cars too. Not having a warranty on a modern vehicle can cost you big time. My boss just went through three engines on his Subaru, all factory/dealer covered. Not his fault at all. He just traded it in on a different brand!

I'm amazed at the current sophistication of good real estate photography. The bar has been raised very high over the last decade or so.

Close-up use, a.k.a. "long distance microscope", was a selling point of the 3.5" Questar, which is optically excellent. A bit out of my league though.

I'm not a tripod connoisseur so don't grok the lingo. I see collet twist locks like my Tiltall, side facing knob twist clamps like my Bogen and lever locks like my cheap lightweight Slik "Instaloc". I think they all have their place. The Tiltall design is extremely rugged and rigid. I use collets in machine tools and, properly designed, they probably clamp best. The Tiltall knurl was aggressive and good for removing any skin you might not need. Rarely fail outright, though can get stuck and clogged with river grit. Needs occasional cleaning and maintenance. Knob clamps usually have more leverage but it's a double edged sword because they can crack and fail if abused. The lever locks are, IMO, light duty, but very fast to operate and get the leg lengths set for the situation. I'm good with all of them, thought the side knob clamps make me nervous because I've had so many fail on lighting and similar things, though never on a tripod.

That reminds me, stability on a tripod is all about balance. You have to have the center of gravity right over the support. Sometimes an aluminum adapter plate can accomplish that, if drilled in the right spots. If the center of gravity is away from the support, you end up with a cantilever spring that shakes every time you touch it. Combine that with bad damping and it will ring for a long time as well.

A big issue with any long lens is thermals from the sun heating the ground. Or car bodies, if you like to stabilize yourself on the roof above the door like I do. These thermals can be used for good artistic effect, or can drive you nuts. Mirror lenses tend not to have a lot of contrast, though mine is a particular bad Meade 1000 mm f/11 from many years ago. Should probably try it on the Z6, but haven't yet. One thing it's quite good at is sunspots, with the proper solar filter solidly mounted of course.

As for the couch and coffee, that's not really true. Behind the eye is the brain, which is very good at blending multiple glances into what you think is a wonderful image. There's an awful lot of image processing going on, probably optimized for survival over the last how many years.

Maybe for the speed advantage as large leaf shutters might not go faster than 1/250 sec, maybe less. Or, maybe just so you could get oval shaped wheels on race cars!

The Hubble backup mirror was made by Eastman Kodak and AFAIK, did not have the error. Hubble Space Telescope Backup Mirror | National Air and Space Museum

And there's always "Before taking photos, rotate the zoom ring to extend the lens."

Wow, I remember that!

I sold my D200 and almost all my Nikkor lenses collected over about 50 years of photography. I loved the D200 but the sensor noise was way higher than modern cameras. IMO, for almost everything you can just crank up the ISO on a Z6 and be perfectly happy with slightly slower lenses. I find the kit lens of 24-70 f/4, plus the 14-30 f/4 wide angle, plus the 105 f/2.8 macro does everything I need. Stick with the S-series if possible. I'm not a long lens user but if the need arises you can get an inexpensive longer manual lens and use it with an adapter, in my case a 300 f/4.5 IF ED AiS. The bird people couldn't live with it, but I'm not a bird guy. Some people work in dim light or need very high shutter speeds, so they just have to pay the higher price for faster lenses. For me it would just be bragging rights, not a meaningful improvement. This will probably be my kit to the end of my days, with maybe a body upgrade or spare at some point, depending on where Nikon goes and what deals are available used. So far the results have been better than I've ever had and it was no mistake selling everything else off to afford a complete (to me) system.

Well, this link was posted on another site and it confirms what I suspected- Image Degradation when using Extension Tubes with Nikkor Z MC 105mm Macro lens - Part 1 - WildLight Photography Note however that the combination is still usable with some cropping.

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I'd want to see some images from that bellows using the lens I intended to use, before shelling out big bucks. Might work great with some lenses and terrible with others. Lenses are not designed the way they used to be. One reference point I use is that the new teleconverters from Nikon only work with the specific lenses they were designed for. What do you suppose would happen if they could be used with the lower end zooms? Less lens profits for Nikon or bad optical performance? Not a clue.