brian steinberger

<p>I ended up getting CS6 and love it. With the bridge I just open them into a window where I can change WB and or exposure if necessary then import to PS. That's exactly what I wanted. Simple. Thanks everyone!</p>

<p>I'd like to stick with Adobe, so can CS5 import my RAW files from my D800 or do I need CS6?</p>

<p>How so? It should allow you to use Photoshop CS with those DNGs.</p>

<p>I downloaded the program, took a raw, converted it to a DNG file and tried opening in CS. It told me it was an incorrect type of file.</p>

<p>Thanks guys. These are some good responses. I am certainly no beginner in photography. I shot chromes for years so know all about metering for the highlights for chromes, and digital is no different. I spent the last 6 years shooting and developing and printing my own black and white work which I am continuing to do. However I took a hiatus from color work until a Nikon DSLR got to the point where it was atleast as good as 35mm. With the D800 it's there and a little beyond which is why I picked one up. Shooting chromes and sending film out and paying for drum scans gets very very old after a while, hence the reason to move to black and white work. But I'm used to old school Adobe CS and simple editing I used to do in say 2004. I'm enjoying shooting TIFFs in the D800 because I can just bring it into PS and work on it, like I've always done. </p>

<p>BTW... I downloaded DNG converter and it doesn't work with CS. I understand a RAW file holding more information. I'm just a creature of habit and I hate having to spend money on software just to open a non-native file so that I can re-save it and open in PS to work on. I don't know. I'm still not sure.</p>

<p>Thanks Brooks. Is there any difference in converting NEF files to DNG and editing this way rather than using the newest PS to convert?</p>

<p>Wow, this is scientific stuff! L.G where can I get Camera RAW? And do I have to use a new version on PS? I'm still running CS because it has everything I need to edit photos.<br>

Also, would there be any advantage to shooting TIFF compared to RAW? What about the possibility of being able to open the files in the future?<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>I just received my D800 and see I can shoot in TIFF format now instead of just RAW or JPEG. I'm really enjoying shooting in TIFF. I like to open my files directly into PS and work that way. With RAW I have to open them in a Nikon software I am totally unfamiliar with, then usually just end up wanting to open them in PS to work on them but can't. </p>

<p>What is the real advantage of RAW files? Especially vs. TIFF. I find that on my card the TIFF files actually take up more space then RAW. This doesn't make sense to me. </p>

<p>Someone help educate me please!</p>

<p>Thanks!</p>

<p>Thanks for the responses guys! Looks like selling my grads was a mistake! <br>

I'm thinking that maybe a 2-stop hard and 2-stop soft would be good enough. Seems if lighting would call for slightly more or less then that could be handled in the computer. Thoughts? <br>

I agree best to get it right in camera. I used to shoot grads all the time back in my chrome shooting days. Been shooting mostly black and white for the last 6 years so I guess I just assumed with digital now that grads weren't necessary anymore and I wanted to get money for them while I could. Ooops!<br>

HDR is a nice tool, but it is over used much of the time and I don't enjoy tons of time spent at the computer editing. And if movement or blur is going to cause even the slightest issue when stitching shots I don't want to have to deal with that. </p>

<p>I just received my Nikon D800 finally after having just sold all my ND grads to help pay for the camera. I'm now researching on the net the use of ND grads vs HDR for the same reason. It seems that the argument against HDR is that wind moving items in the foreground or moving waves would complicate stitching in HDR. But how come it's not possible to only use one exposure for the foreground and use a single exposure for the sky and overlay just the sky? Thus eliminating any need to overlay more than one exposure which would include moving parts of the image.</p>

<p>Dave, thanks for the response. The 135 is not a true "macro" but does focus closer than the 150. It focuses just as close as the 180 which is 1 meter. I'm sure 80 to 180 is a huge jump but it would be the only two focal lengths I would need. I have other cameras to fill in my other needs. If I did get the 135 I would then need to get either the 200 or 250 to fill in my telephoto needs. This is not necessarily a bad option, just another one. The 180 is close enough to 200 that it would be a great portrait lens as well as a decent telephoto. But the price for the 180! The 135 is a cheaper option.</p>

<p>I've finally decided on a MF 6x6 kit. I'm going with the Bronica SQ-A with an 80/2.8. I would like to add a another focal length for situations that I cannot do with my MF rangefinders; telephoto and close focusing for portraiture. My lens options are the 135/4 PS or the 180/4.5 PS. Both of these lenses focus close enough for close-up portrait work. Not sure which to get though. I would also like a longer focal length around 200 or 250mm. If I got the 180 that might fill the void of two lenses, being able to do close up portrait work and be long enough to be my telephoto for landscapes. Where as if I went with the 135 I would want to get another lens, either the 200 or 250. But still, as a pair, the 135 and a 200 or 250 is cheaper than the 180 alone. Also something else to think about.<br /> <br /> Any thoughts from using of either of these two lenses? I've heard some reviews that the 180 has a nicer perspective than the 135. Also heard that the 180 is a rather large and heavy lens. I'm sure both are great lenses, I'm just looking for some opinions from users.</p>

ID-11 1:1 works just great with this film. If I had to push process no doubt i would use DD-X. Great results, but you pay for them. If you don't need the extra push, stick with something simple, Xtol or ID-11.

I ordered lights last week, and now need to focus on backdrops and a stand

system. I'm going to be shooting senior pics, general portraits, full length,

and families. So obviously I'm going to need several sizes. I'm looking at

either muslin or canvas. I'd love to have all canvas backdrops but they are

really expensive. Would a 5x7' canvas be enough for a head and shoulders

portrait? I was thinking muslin for full length portraits, maybe 10x20'?

 

Also, what about a support system? Any good recommendations for around $150?

I'm looking for something portable.

 

Thanks

 

Brian

I'm taking the first steps toward starting my own photography business and need

to buy my own lights. I've been using others. I want to know what a good

starting kit would be. I've been looking at some of the Impact kits with

600-700 total watts. I'm going to be doing senior pics, families, product, and

some interior commercial jobs. I want at least three lights, an umbrella, and a

soft box. How many total watts do you think I really need for jobs like this?

Thanks for any and all suggesions!

 

Brian

Another vote for Rodinal. Works great with the slower speed stuff, and as mentioned, keeps forever. For the faster stuff, I'd recommend DD-X. It is well worth the money. If you need to save a little though, use it at 1:7 or 1:9 instead of 1:4. I prefer Xtol to DD-X for faster films, though it is not a liquid.

The other day I tried 120 Delta 100 EI 50 in Rodinal 1:50 for 9 min. That seemed

to be general concensous for the time for Rodinal. The negs were bulletproof.

Tonight I did some Fomapan 200 EI 100 4x5 negs in Rodinal 1:50 and the general

concensous seemed to be around 8-9 min. Judging from my previous experience I

gave them 7 minutes. Again, bulletproof. Why are my negatives so overdeveloped

when the times that I'm gathering from people are well under the times

recommended by manufacturers? My metering is fine.

 

I'll give a detail of my process. 2 minute pre-soak, agitation in dev. constant

for the first min. then 10 sec every min. 30 sec. in 1% stop bath, then 5 min in

fix, 2 min. hypo clear, 10 min. wash. Could the 2 min. presoak be to blame? Ive

always been taught to presoak films. Any other suggestions would be great. The

tonality of Rodinal is amazing! If only I could tame those highlights...

This is great advice. Thanks! I checked my camera and the serial number starts with 0, so that's good news! I think I'm going to email these places mentioned by you folks and see if they can do the matching for me. If so, then I'm going to purchase the lens and complete the set! Thanks again!

Jimmy,

 

Anyway I can tell if my camera has the 135mm lines or not?

I just purchased a used Bronica RF645 with both the 45 and 65 lenses and love

it! I have recently come across a good deal on the 135mm lens. I know that

Bronica had problems with the 135 lens due to focussing, so they discontinued it

and instread introduced a 100mm lens. I'm not interested in a 100mm lens. But,

is there any way I can purcahase the 135 lens and send my camera somewhere to

have it calibrated with the new lens for perfect focussing. I've heard in other

forums that this is possible. Has anyone else done this with the 135 lens and

where can this be done? Thanks alot!

Stephan,

 

I developed a roll of Fomapan 200 and a roll of FP4 together once and the Fomapan took on a horrible blue stain! I give my films a 2 minute pre soak. I'm guessing that the stain came from FP4's anti-halation backing coming off in the pre soak, which is blue in color.

 

I have never developed two rolls of different films together again. What I do when I test (since I dev. 2 rolls of 120 at once) is shoot the test roll, then shoot another roll, of random things, or else scences with an average SBR of 5 stops and that way you get a roll of "controlled" tests and a roll of real life situations, and look at the results for both. Hope this helps! Good Luck!

 

Brian

Just wanted to let everyone know that I decided to go with the Bronica RF645 after hearing so many good things about it. I found a used one with both the 45, and 65mm lenses. I haven't recieved it yet, but will be certain to leave my first impressions here after a little bit of time with the camera.

I'm looking to purchase a medium format rangefinder. I've narrowed my two

choices to the Bronica RF 645 and the Mamiya 6. I've previously owned the

Mamiya 7 and Bronica SQ-A. I ditched the SQ-A because it was too bulky, and I

ditched the Mamiya 7 because I liked the 6x6 format better. So immediatley I

thought, the Mamiya 6 would be perfect. But I'm reading more and more about the

Bronica RF 645. I understand it's not 6x6, but it sounds very intriquing. I

went back through my Pop Photo magazines and found the reviews from the Mamiya

7ii (basically the same as the Mamiya 6) and the Bronica RF 645 including lens

reviews and the Bronica RF 645's lenses actually tested better than the Mamiya

7's. That's hard to believe because if there was one thing to die for about the

Mamiya 7, it was the optics.

 

Then there's the issue that I keep reading about the Mamiya 6's parts are so

hard to find, and the winding mechanism goes back after a few hundred rolls,

which really scares me because either camera I get, I'm going to get it used.

 

I'm looking for any opinions from users of either camera and especially users of

both! Any suggestions, help and direction is greatly appreciated!

 

Thanks

 

Brian

So a linear polarizer gives the effect of a circular one on full polarization? You cannot acheieve in between effects?

I have this lens on my Voigtlander Bessa R that I bought a few months ago, and

I'd like to purchase a circular polarizer for it. But the filter size is not

marked on the lens. The lens is the 39mm Leica screw-in type. I measured the

front of the barrel and come up with what looks like excatly 40mm. But they

don't make 40mm filters, just 39mm and 40.5mm. I thought that maybe since the

rear threads are 39mm that they made it easy and made the front filter threads

39mm. Anyone have this lens that can help me out? Thanks

Marisa,

 

FP4 works beautifully in ID-11 1:3 for 19 mintues at 68 degrees agitating for the first full minute, then once per minute for 10 seconds. I have also recently begun developing it in Pyrocat HD with beautiful results.

 

I suggest starting with ID-11.