jlemire

<p>This has moved far beyond the intentions of my original post. Not that that is a bad thing - open discussion of ideas is always generally a good thing - just not what I expected!</p>

<p>In some ways I agree that the print - or at least the captured image - is the desired end product, thus my bemoaning over my lack of physical prints. However, there is also something to the <em>process </em>of taking photographs that is gratifying. Perhaps it is the post processing that I do not find gratifying and I only have noticed it recently since I only have ever spent time in the digital darkroom. I have all my film processed at a professional lab so I have never had to deal with that aspect of it. I have had prints made from digital files, but only after I have processed them in Photoshop. The few times I have not done so, I have been disappointed with the <em>quality</em> of the final image (color, sharpness, contrast, etc.) - clearly a consequence of post-processing (or lack thereof). I have never been disappointed with the processing of film prints (once I started using a pro lab). So, I disagree that dropping off an SD card is the equivalent of dropping of a roll of film. Different end results. And I personally prefer the end results I get with film. I have gotten some excellent prints from digital files that I have edited in Photoshop, but I really dislike the process (should it be 97% on Unsharp Mask? or maybe 102%? ) and it takes me a tremendous amount of time to get the image like I want it, especially given the fact that I have 100s of images to look through and tweak. Could I spend as much time and feel as much angst if I developed and processed my own film? Probably. But I am blissfully ignorant of those procedures.</p>

<p>I can't separate the image from the process and because of that I love my film images more than my digital images (at least at this time).</p>

<p>I get what you are saying about not loving the photos - but there are photos that I love in there - it's a personality flaw that keeps me from going "out of order" with the processing. I know it is a personal thing - 100% me - nothing intrinsically wrong with digital (I never meant to imply there was) - just doesn't fit with the way I like to do things. Like I said, it's me. Not digital media. Regardless, I have found my digital camera to be constraining and not liberating. Should I just "suck it up" and move forward with the new digital age? Probably. But since I don't have to (not at least until 35mm film disappears), I think I'll try moving back to what I know did once work for me. Just call me a Luddite.<br>

As for just shooting 36 "exposures" at a time - I like that angle - maybe have to give that a try at some point. Still, I think I'm going to enjoy my return to film first.</p>

<p>Steve - I agree - I do not want this to become a digital vs film thread. It's funny to realize that those debates are still going on - I remember seeing many of those threads years ago. Using the digital camera certainly increased the number of pictures taken (I've probably taken more digital photos in the past 4 years than all my film shots combined over the past 15), but FOR ME 100% digital is not working. I don't plan on abandoning digital altogether - there are certainly situations where it will be preferred - but I need to pull back some.</p>

<p>Tom - thanks for the compliment about the white balance. Here is a situation where the digital camera really comes in handy. I've never been able to shoot film inside an ice rink as well as I've been able to shoot digital - the combination of low lighting, weird white balance, speed, and high contrast is perfect for both in-camera and post-camera digital processing. Good idea too about the photography course - I'll have to look into that</p>

<p>Been a while since I posted (or even lurked) on this forum...but just thought I'd make a quick note about my planned return back to film. It took me quite a while to "buy into" going digital - I had a good understanding of my system and process and am generally slow to jump into new technologies (still no facebook page, iPhone etc.) But several years back took the jump with the Pentax K100D. I like it, but I've realized I just don't seem to be enjoying it as much as I did with film - the challenge"of figuring out how to best handle a given composition or lighting situation. I also found that while I was taking a zillion pictures, I was sharing fewer and fewer of them with friends and family. Secondary processing (i.e. Photoshop) became such a tedious, dragging process that I'd put it off for months, yet continue taking pictures. So it got to a point where I had such a backlog of unprocessed digital files that the thought of sitting down to take care of them was disheartening. And since I had such a huge backlog, I stopped taking photos all together - every time I thought about it, I realized that the photos would probably just sit on an SD card forever.</p>

<p>I tried getting my act together and putting things online, but in the end, I just couldn't keep it going (my best effort was probably the "Summer 2007" series still online - <a href="http://jimlemire.com/albums/">http://jimlemire.com/albums/</a> - and it is telling that those photos are 3 years old). My kids are now 9 and 6. The last nice <em>print </em>I have is probably 4 years old. I have lots of SD cards though. Somewhere on those cards are countless birthday parties, sporting events, and vacation memories. At this point, I can't remember the last time I picked up my camera. And that is just sad. So, I've dusted off my old film cameras and ordered myself a pack of Fujifilm 160S. I'm actually excited again about picking up the camera and paying full attention to the light, composition, and exposure, and even at NOT being able to see the photo immediately (there's something quite exciting about having to wait until the film is developed to see how good - or not - things came out).</p>

<p>Now, if I could only remember how to properly meter a scene (actually, I hope I can still properly load film!)</p>

My boy learning to play...<div></div>

1) nice shot

2) doesn't look WAY underexposed to me

3) isn't that a 'she' and not a 'he'?

Thanks for all the suggestions. I agree with Javier - I don't really want to spend $$ on this. I am not expecting my daughter to go out and create award-winning photos - I want her to have fun and explore and try things out - if it means having 10,000 pictures of her friends making funny faces, so be it. My concern with some of the cheaper things out there I've seen is that I imagine they're pretty crappily made and perhaps not even worth their relatively low price. I feel a bit stuck, as usual, between not wanting to spend a lot of money and thinking the cheaper stuff just ain't worth it. I'll keep looking and thinking. Thanks.

It's my daughter's birthday soon and I was thinking of giving her a digital camera. Any suggestions? Obviously

it can't be overly complicated with buttons and options and I'd like to keep it relatively inexpensive, but I'd

also like something half-way decent. Anyone have experience with the Optio class cameras? Do you think a

viewfinder is necessary - I personally hate using an LCD screen to compose, but then again I started with a K1000

so perhaps I'm just old and curmudgeony. OK, I'm just rambling now. Any help would be appreciated.<br>

<br>

(BTW my daughter already has <a href="http://jimlemire.com/kids/photos/july05/em_camera.jpg">film "experience"</a>)

I agree with Rose about the cabinetry vs kitchen sales. Maybe you could get some close-up shots of the detail on the cabinets themselves - wood work, hardware, etc. - something that puts the focus on them and not the kitchen as a whole

Thanks! I will try your suggestions.

I have just noticed that when I open a RAW file into PS CS2, perform whatever

edits and adjustments as appropriate, and then "Save for Web" the resulting jpg

is rather unsaturated. There is a distinct difference between the RAW file in

CS2 and the jpg.

 

If I shoot in jpg mode and do the same things in CS2, the resulting web file is

fine.

 

Is there something I'm missing when working with the RAW file?

Following up Eric's post about Pentax repair I was wondering if routine

"preventative" maintenance is recommended for Pentax cameras and lenses. I own

a K1000, P3, ZX-30, and K100D and a handful of lenses - none of them are in need

of repair, but should/can they be tuned up?

K1000ian? K1000iast?

close-up #2<div></div>

close-up<div></div>

Can anyone help ID these "things"? I found them growing in my coldframe next to

my swiss chard. I think they must be a type of fungus, but have never seen

anything like them before. They're little - maybe 1/4" in diameter and some

seem to have opened up to reveal a few tiny, smooth grayish "pebbles".

 

The first photo shows some scale - the mystery things are in the lower right and

that's a swiss chard seedling in the upper left. The next photos are close-ups

(the third is actually a crop of the 1st).

 

Does anyone know what these are? Thanks!<div></div>

I work as the coordinator for undergraduate research in the marine biology

department of a university and am looking for a camera that I can use to take

photos of students/faculty doing research, giving presentations, or otherwise

engaged in scholarly activity. These photos will be primarily used for our

website and promotional usage (newsletters, flyers, brochures). We'll probably

want to post some on the announcement board as well. I suppose students/faculty

may also use the camera to document their research.

 

I'm a Pentax SLR and dSLR user - I own 4 bodies and a suite of lenses - and I

seem to be unable to think rationally about what I need at work. A dSLR with

interchangeable lenses is surely overkill for what we need, right? But I know

nothing about fixed lens cameras. There are so many out there!

 

So, can anyone offer me some suggestions for a camera that should suit my needs

without going overboard?

 

Thanks!

I did not bring a tripod and am glad that I did not - there is so much light that you don't need it for most shots and it would have been a major pain in the butt to lug back and forth from the boat to the islands. If I go again (and I hope I do), I will consider a monopod for when a little extra stability is needed.

my favorite lens is my 105mm Macro, so most of my Galapagos shots were taken with it. You can get SO close to everything there that the macro lens can be a great tool. (no matter how much I read about how close you could get to the critters, I was still didn't expect to get as close I did - I had to be careful not to step on anything!)

 

Take the macro lens - you'll want to use it.

as noted above, be prepared for a lot of bright sunlight. Contrast will be high - not just becuae of the light, but also because of the subjects. I recommend bringing a film that is less contrasty. When I went I pretty much shot Provia exclusively. When I ran out I shot some Velvia. You won't need anything too fast, though I did bring and use some ISO 400 which was useful for a couple of shots.

 

Before I went I test shot a few rolls of the film since I hadn't used it before - this gave me an idea of how it behaved under various conditions. If you decide to use a new-to-you film I suggest you graba few rolls, head outside on a bright afternoon and test some yourself. I was very pleased with the results I got from Provia, but you you're better off testing it for yourself. Have fun!

a 1 hour exposure isn't really all that long for this sort of thing, so I imagine you had some bright lights and/or haze in the area - even relatively faint lights will show up during these exposres. Your best bet is to shoot once the moon is down (or before it come up, or best yet, on a moonless night) in a remote location. This shot was taken in the middle of nowhere in southern AZ. It's close to an 8 hour exposure if I remember correctly.<div></div>

I have the 105mm macro - it's my favorite lens - awesome for both macros and portraits - check out my porfolio for examples. The build is good, the optics are good. My only issue with it is that AF is pretty slow and often searches, but I usually ficus manually anyways, so this is not too big an issue in the end.

as a follow-up to a previous post, can anyone tell me what the differences are

between these two lenses (other than the $200+ price difference - which is what

leads me to believe that there must be something else). Both are Pentax SMCP-FA

28-105mm zooms, both are f/4-5.6 - why is there such a big price difference?

Thanks.

<br>

<br>

<a

href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=8458&A=details&Q=&sku=40725&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation">Lens

1</a>

<br>

<br>

<a

href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=8458&A=details&Q=&sku=180122&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation">Lens

2</a>

<br>

<br>

What about these?

<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=8458&A=details&Q=&sku=180122&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation">Pentax SMCP-FA 28-105mm f/4-5.6 IF Autofocus Lens</a>

<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=8458&A=details&Q=&sku=258663&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation">Pentax SMCP-FA 28-105mm f/3.2-4.5 AL IF Autofocus Lens</a>

<br>

<br>

<a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=8458&A=details&Q=&sku=397591&is=REG&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation">Sigma 28-200mm f/3.5-5.6 DG Compact Aspherical Macro Autofocus Lens</a>

Instead of price, how about value? I want a good, not necessarily great, zoom lens for taking pictures of my family. I have several nice, fast, primes that I use now and will continue to use when I want something better than the zoom can give me. I would rather not pay alot, but I'm also not willing to buy a total piece of junk simply because it's cheap. So for this purchase (as with most of my other purchases), the cheaper the better, but there's a limit to what I'll sacrifice in terms of quality. Thanks!