wogears

I don't think it has anything to do with film v. digital. "Bokeh" is one of the few supposedly artistic qualities you can buy. Get Zeiss Glass--I mean ZEISS GLASS--and you will Have Bokeh. No talent, observation or practice required. You can feel superior with nothing but an outlay of cash. "Look at the way that lens "draws". See the creamy "bokeh". You can't see it? Well, we artists..." Okay, I exaggerate, and yes blur can be distracting in some circumstances, and nice blur may add a certain indefinable quality to a good image.

I confess that "they" got me with the Sam Yang 135mm f2.0; however, I traded a spare macro lens for it, and paid less than USD 200. It has nice blur. It is also very sharp, and focuses to a near-macro range without a tube.

#3

#2

Here are a few shots.

I have one, and it's excellent. I will try and post some shots tomorrow (EST).

You'll find some other interesting large-format Kodachromes at this site (and elsewhere on the internet). I want a time machine so I can date #36.

There WAS 8x10 Kodachrome.

I am emphatically not an adherent of the Bokian Heresy, but you can get nice blur from lenses like the 105 f2.5 Nikkor, or the 60mm Fujinon macro for X-series, or the non-VR/IS Tamron 17-50mm. Also the Nikkor 180 f2.8 AI(s) and the Canon 50 f1.4 FD. The big advantage of the "full-frame" (giggle) lenses in this (very incomplete) list is that you can shoot film with them, and fake the EXIF so people think you spent thousands on Zeiss "glass". BTW, if we stopped calling it "bokey" and used "nice blur" and "really nice blur", all the nonsense would cease.

Okay, I'm stunned. These pictures are SO good, they could make "Explore" on Flickr. Or maybe not. At least they're not subtle. I mean, with a subtle nature image, you have to look at it for more than ten seconds, and that's like, way out of my attention span.

Go to "Your Account". I was signed in.

I had to include the ads I'm not supposed to get to show you the message that seems to make no sense.

Yup. I need to order some PEC pads--mine vanished in the last move.

Whack the ol' Saturometer!

I notice that my local camera store (yes, there is one) has Edwal film cleaner in stock. I only used that stuff for really bad situations in the Old Days, so I'm not buying any yet.

Picked this up on Ebay, and it will arrive sometime this week. It's never been used, and the seller looks fine (100% real feedback). Paid about 30% of the cost of a Nikon 9000, and this one has the holders (most of the Nikons don't, and single holders go for absurd sums). Now I have to learn to really obsess about cleaning my negs, since no IR channel. I'd appreciate any Useful Advice from people who have owned these, or the (identical) Microtek ArtixScan version. I actually had a Sprintscan 4000 (35mm only) and the scans were great. I'll hold on to the Coolscan V as well. Only sad thing is, I was finally getting excellent scans from SilverFast 8.8.x, after years of failure, and it's not available for the Polaroid. I do have Vuescan, and a 1394 card is on the way, so I should be fine. Negative cleaning advice is also appreciated. I've got a radioactive brush and canned air, but if there's somebody with the old Kodak electric brush who wants to get rid of it, I'll pay.

I have no problem with nudes. When they shade over toward softcore porn, I have no problem either, but don't look at them. Sites, however, are privately owned, and can dictate their terms of use. This gets discussed a lot, but it all seems a bit pointless.

E100G was my very most favorite chrome. I hope the new stuff is better, and at least relatively affordable. I miss the "slide look", even though I can sorta fake it with digital. (I like Ektar, but IMO, it doesn't really replace E100G.)

We differentiate between wet food (dog food) and dry food (kibble). Also in out house, dry cereal for humans (like corn flakes) are also called "kibble".

And they can't even bloody SPELL!

Well, I don't like her site much, but I do like a good number of her portraits. I had the misfortune to acquire (temporarily) two years worth of "Loan Collection" portraits, which made almost anything else look great. As to the "film look", why not just shoot film?

That's why I used quotation marks.

:) . Digital surpassed 35mm film in resolution some years ago (except for some ultra-slow copy films, that blow everything away), but "analogue" still has certain advantages as well. Yeah, that helps a lot. ;)