dpeterson

<p>Hey, thanks for all the great observations and advice. I am still fine tuning so you will see an odd link here or there that leads to a dead end. I have simplified the design so that there are fewer colors competing with the photos. Also, I have added a cache to speed up loading time. I decided to slow down my development of the site to insure that my best work and thoughts are there. it is designed for beginning photographers to inspire them to capture good images with what they have.</p>

<p>All of the photos were shot by me with the exception of a couple of product shots for reviews I did. In fact, the vast majority were captured with nothing more than a Nikon D40 and kit lens and the humble Nikon 55-200mm VR lens.</p>

<p>Thanks again for the good advice!</p>

<p>Hey, I appreciate the honest critiques giuys! Just a quick question . . . how do you feel about the spontaneous slide show? Kinda Neat, huh!</p>

<p>Actually, I would love an honest critique or opinion on my newly born photography website at <a href="http://stylepeterson.com">http://stylepeterson.com</a><br>

Thanks for your time and observations</p>

 

<p>I own the Sony Alpha A200 which hs the same sensor and specs as the A300. I rarely shoot above iso400 so I can't comment on that. However, the image quality of jpg images with the DRO option enabled is often better than what can be obtained from RAW images. The sensor is excellent at capturing highlight detail, one of the best I've worked with. The RAW converter is not so good for final image quality. You will get better results from Bibble Light or Pro. However, the jpeg images straight out of the camera are exceptional for color and dynamic range. All that is needed is sharpening. Here is an image from the A200 shot in low light at 100 ISO in jpeg with the Advanced DRO option enabled. The in camera processing is quite impressive.</p>

 

<p><img src="http://www.abqstyle.com/papa3.jpg"></p>

I find that the default white balance and exposure is the best in Photo Lab. However, I find that Lightroom is much more flexible in arriving at a final image--far more editing flexibility. If you want to spend less and get about 80% of Lightroom's power, Bibble Light is an excellent alternative.

Truthfully, any of the consumer grade films will give great lattitude and good skin tones. After all, most consumers are shooting family pics (faces) which is what consumer negative film is optimized for. My best advice: Buy the film that that your developer stocks. Walmart stocks Fuji Superia XTra, a very nice film and Kodak Gold (underrated, but a great value) among others. They also carry Kodak UC400 which I have found to be the best overall film stock for general photography. They are experienced in developing the film they carry and that guarantees the best results.

I would recommend a dedicated film scanner--you will see a major difference in quality on screen as well as in print. Since you will not be printing very large, look for a Minolta Scan Elite--they are discontinued but you can find new stock on ebay at great prices. It has Digital Ice for auto dust and grain removal--an essential if you plan to scan negatives. The Scan Elite will scan 2800 dp and I've seen it selling at around $300. To get equivalent power in a Nikon scanner you will be paying $250 more.

<p>I use negative film exclusively with a Nikon Coolscan V scanner. You will need Digital Gem (grain aliasing software) to get the best results from negatives (it is included with Nikon and other better film scanners). Digital Gem removes grain in a way that can make better negative films look as smooth as silk while retaining detail. All of the images im my <a href="http://www.abqstyle.com/index.htm">Albuquerque Photos</a> website come from scanned negatives!</p><div></div>

It is true that the default digital images produced by most dslr's are "flatter" I find that most will slightly underexpose to preserve highlights that will otherwise be blown out (ie: a bright sky in the background).Digitals images usually require more work in Photoshop or other editing programs to get the right balance of brightness. Also, the default white balance may be contributing to washed out images. These differences are especially apparent if you are comparing digital to negative film images which can capture a woderrange of dark and light tones than slide film or digital.

<p>I have used both the Scan Dual and the Nikon Coolscan V extensively. The Coolscan is simply a superior scanner. It does a much better job with negative film and includes Digital Gem and Ice which does wonders eliminating dust and grain from negatives. Plus you will spend much less time getting great results with the Coolscan V.</p>

 

<p>Here is a scan of a Kodak Gold 200 35mm negative with the Nikon Coolscan V (The film was three years past expiration).</p>

 

<p><img src="http://www.abqstyle.com/jemez/pics_1.jpg"> </p><p>Most of the photos on my <a href="http://www.abqstyle.com/index.htm">Albuquerque Photos</a> website are scanned from 200 and 400 asa film using the Coolscan V.</p>

I second the choice of Kodak UC 400. It has a very fine grain and vivid color that is well suited for landscape shots. Plus, it handles the occasional very well. Just as importantly, this is a film that pretty much an minilab will do a good job of processing.

<p>I'm a long time Kodak Ultracolor 400 user (mainly for flower macros) who recently tried Fuji Superia Xtra 400 on a whim and was very pleasantly surprised. Not as contrasty as Ultracolor and reds seem a bit less over the top. Truthfully, either film will do the job for me quite well. However, the fact that the Fuji Superia Xtra 400 is almost half the price of the Kodak Ultracolor 400 in Walmart was the biggest factor in my switching over to Fuji.</p>

 

<p>Here is a photo from my <a href="http://www.abqstyle.com/index.htm">Albuquerque Photos website</a> shot recently on Fuji Superia X-tra 400. It was scanned on a Nikon Coolscan V with no color correction:</p>

 

<img src="http://www.abqstyle.com/albuquerque_photos_15/abq_botanic_43.jpg">

I was thinking . . . it seems that the biggest problem is that you may had had the white balance incorrect on the images. That can be quickly corrected in Photoshop or Picasa.

I did a quick bit of photo adjustments in Photoshop. I used to "Auto Color" function to balance colors, Used "Color Balance" to remove the pink cast from the skin and sharpened the image using Unsharp Mask. There is nothing that can be done about the bright yellow spots caused by other lights. However, the raw images may be saved with a bit of "Photoshopping".<div></div>

Realistically, disposable film cameras will provide better photos and will far less cost for what she has in mind.

<p>Here is a shot I took recently using Kodak Gold 200 that was three years past expiration date. It was properly stored (in the refrigerator) for that time. If the film has been kept cool it should be fine even if it is a couple of years past expiration date. I fell in love with Kodak Gold 200 after shooting this roll. For general photography, it is cheap, available everywhere, and yields good processing results with most minilabs as it is their default film.</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.abqstyle.com"><img src="http://www.abqstyle.com/jemez/pics_1.jpg"><br>Albuquerque Photos by Donald Peterson</a></p>

Keep in mind that Velvia is not very good in bright sun--it tends lose shadow detail, creating very black, dense shadows. Use Velvia for "Golden Hour" photos early morning and evenings before sunset. For midday shots you may be better off with a negative film like Kodak 400Uc or Fuji Provia or Sensia slide film.

<p>I love Kodak 400UC! It has a fine grain and beautiful saturated color. I find I get more consistent results using 400UC than with Velvia. It is not as fussy about metering and lighting. Plus, it is a great film to shoot in noon sun. I have used Walmart and Walgreens for processing over 100 rolls and am generally very pleased. I can have great prints in an hour! Because this is a popular consumer film, the Frontier machines have default settings that get good results from it. I generally keep the prints as proofs and scan the negatives. Again, a fantastic film!</p>

 

<p>Here is one a many macro flower images I shot using Minolta manual SLR's and Kodak 400UC from my <a href="http://www.abqstyle.com/index.htm">Albuquerque Photos</a> website:</p>

 

<p><img src="http://www.abqstyle.com/flowers/pic4.jpg"></p>

<p>I own about seven Minolta manual bodies going back to the SRT101 up to the X-570. Frankly, they are so cheap to purchse that I simply purchased 2 of each body just in case on fails. There are after all 25-plus year old cameras. Having said that, I have had one X-700 fail-the usual capacitor. It is the only Minolta body I had a problem with. I personally think that the X-570 is a better body. Mine has been extremely reliable and more suited to the needs of photography enthusiasts.</p>

 

<p> This photo from my <a href="www.abqstyle.com/index.htm">Albuquerque Photos</a> website is shot with a Minolta X-700, and 50mm F1.4 lens:<br><br>

<img src="http://www.abqstyle.com/flowers/pic4.jpg">

<p>I've used a number of digicams from Fuji and Panasonic, and have found that noise crippled too many of my images. They are great cameras as long as you are shooting in perfect lighting conditions. The only digicam I have found worth the investment is the Olympus c-8080 a discontinued but highly capable digicam. Why not purchase the new Pentax K100 and a zoom lens that covers the range you will need? I think it will be a more usable tool over the long term.</p>

 

<p>I use the Pentax *istDL. I has the size of a compact digicam, is very light, inexpensive and uses just about every lens ever made for Pentax cameras. The K100 adds image stabilization to the mix--you can't beat it!</p>

 

<p>A photo from <a href="http://www.abqstyle.com/index.htm">Albuquerque Photos</a> taken with the *istDL (you could not get this grain free low light 400ASA shot with any digicam:</p>

 

<img src="http://www.abqstyle.com/albuquerque_photos_4/albuquerque_classic_car_1.jpg">

<p>I have used a Nikon Coolscan V for the past year. I am very satisfied with the results. It contains Digital Gem and Digital Ice, two essentials for getting grain and dust free scans quickly. I have tested the Epson flatbeds ad found them to be inadaquate for 35mm scanning. Here is a sample scan from my <a href="http://www.abqstyle.com/index.htm">Albuquerque Photos</a> website:</p>

 

<p><img src="http://abqstyle.com/jemez/pics_2.jpg"></p>

I have found that the old M42 lenses (I have Zeiss Jena and Soligor primes) are incredible bargains. Lens quality has not improved in the digital age. Also, while the best zooms can approach the quality of primes they cannot best them! I use my M42 lenses on a Pentax *ist DL with very satisfying results.

They are very much worth the trouble. Generally, I would avoid older zoom lenses in the M42 mode. However, older M42 prime lenses represent excellent used values on ebay. Lenses have not improved in the digital age, so many older lenses are very competitive with the best lenses offered today.

 

I recently purchased a Pentax *ist DL that uses a M42 adapter. It allows you to meter in stopped down mode. Unless you are doing action photography this is a perfectly acceptable way of working, especially if you are a more deliberate type of photographer. For less than the cost of one top quality modern lens, you can purchase a range of excellent used prime lenses that will yield beautiful results.

<p>Shutterbug magazine gave the new Kodak Max 400 a great review, and compared its fine grain to many asa 100 films! It is sad that negative film is becoming better than ever in the face of a declining market. I used Kodak Gold 200 for the first time ever this month--After ignoring it for years, thinking that no consumer film was worth purchasing. I was amazed at the beautiful color rendition and fine grain it has. Needless to say, I have rid myself of my prejudice against consumer grade films from Kodak! I am going to try Max 400 very soon.</p>

 

<p>Here is a pic shot on a roll of Kodak Gold 200 that was 4 years past expiration date!</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.abqstyle.com/index.htm"><img src="http://abqstyle.com/jemez/pics_1.jpg"><br>Albuquerque Photo Galleries</a>

<p>I typically have my negatives processed at Walmart or some other mini-lab. I find that mini-lab processing of negatives is a reliable process that produces consistent results--especially if I am using popular films by Fuji or Kodak. It is only in creating prints where the quality can be "hit or miss." I use the prints simply as a catalog of the negatives.</p>

 

<p>I use a Nikon Coolscan V (a $500 investment worth that produces results equal to the finest digital camera from negatives and slides in my opinion). to scan my best negatives (as done with the landscape image shown above). Working this way gives me greater flexibility in producing final print size and quality. I have produced excellent, consistent results using consumer films like Kodak Ultracolor 400, Kodak Gold 200 and Fuji Reala. Plus, I get one-hour processing--almost as fast as digital!</p>

 

<p>Here is another sample image using these techniques and Kodak Ultracolor 400 film. For all practical purposes, to my eye, this is as visually satisfying as the digital output from the top Digital SLR's. And, I save a ton of money on equipment!</p>

 

<p><a href="http://www.abqstyle.com/index.htm"><img src="http://abqstyle.com/flowers/pic27.jpg"><br>Albuquerque Photo Galleries</a></p>