anne_dirkse

<p>Iceland<br />Bhutan<br />Iran<br />Yemen<br />New Zealand<br />Prague<br />India<br />Sri Lanka<br />Greenland<br />Alaska<br />Howland Island<br />The North Pole<br />Scandinavia during the Northern Lights<br />rural Japan<br>

and back to everywhere I've already been!<br>

<a href="http://www.annedirkse.com">Anne Dirkse</a></p>

<p>They aren't too heavy if you have a reason for them, but for me, anyhow, I wouldn't bother to upgrade, necessarily. I did exactly what you are talking about with the 16-35/f2.8 which I took in place of the 17-40. My reasoning was that the extra speed would be better for star/milky way photography, but it turns out that the 16-35 has horrible coma wide open. I ended up selling the lens, though I liked it, because the 17-40 is also excellent, and a heck of a lot lighter.<br>

Likewise, how often are you shooting at f4 on the 70-200 now? That's a decision I weighed too, only I have the super-light, & cheaper non-IS f4L. I determined that the only think (ignoring IS) that the 2.8 would get me was more flexibility with extenders, but that gives you a lens at 400/5.6 if you use the 2x extender. I decided to get the 400/5.6 prime instead, which is a GORGEOUS lens, especially for the weight. If I'm shooting wildlife it comes along, but if I'm sticking to wide-angle or medium tele, my bag is super light. I just did a strenuous 2 week trek with a 6D, 17-40 & 70-200 on my back, and I still had a little room left over for snacks. :-) <br>

Anyway, good luck deciding, it's a fun problem to have!<br>

<a href="http://www.annedirkse.com">Anne Dirkse</a></p>

Hi All,

(Pardon the lengthy intro, wanted to give some background to the

questions.)

I've not been in a darkroom for 15 or so years and have recently moved

into a house where I'll finally again have space for a darkroom but

want to avoid some of the mistakes I made last time. I learned B&W

processing in a combination of school & home darkrooms with

inconsistent film, equipment and chemicals, mostly because I was in

Jr. High/High School and had no money, so I was opportunistic rather

than calculated in my choices. I was trying to learn about exposure,

film development and printing all at once, shooting with my dad's

light-meter-lacking Yashica and using often expired (but free) film

that my dad would bring home from work and whatever chemicals I could

get my hands on, mostly D-76 and stop bath/fixer remaining from my

dad's high school days. I would often re-use chemicals endlessly, etc.

Though I got some good results, miraculously, my results were

inconsistent at best. So, needless to say I've learned a lot about

what not to do.

I got a dSLR last year and love digital but also really miss B&W

photography & processing. The B&W results from digital/Photoshop just

aren't the same, or maybe I just miss the smell of a darkroom. I

shoot mostly macro shots, flowers and insects and in B&W have a strong

attraction to mechanical things, old farm equipment, etc.

Anyhow, thanks to the dSLR I am now confident that I can at least get

a decent exposure and a friend recently gave me his 'old' (read: film)

EOS body so I now have a film camera that leverages the fortune I've

spent on lenses. My plan at this point is to get decent at processing

film and then make the investment necessary for printing when I have

that down. (I plan to scan negatives in the meantime).

I think that I'll benefit from some consistency in film/chemicals at

this point and based on what I shoot, my preferences, my typical ISO

settings on the dSLR and what I've read, I've purchased a bulk roll of

Delta 400 and the basics for film processing, minus chemicals.

So, a few questions that come to mind:

1) I haven't purchased a bulk film roller and wonder if that's

necessary. When I did that before, I went into the darkroom and

approximated the correct length of film necessary and did it all by

hand. I'm planning to do the same now but would buy the equipment if

there is a compelling case.

2) I am not sure what developer to use. I've read a lot here and

elsewhere, and Xtor and DD-X seem like good choices but to be honest

it seems like every developer has been recommended for Delta 400 at

least once, and I am looking for a suggestion that suits my particular

case or an 'it really doesn't matter.' Ideally, I'd like something

that I could use in a variety of situations and get a good feel for

before trying another. I prefer non-grainy, contrasty, cool images (&

realize that film processing is only part of that equation). I would

rather focus on optimal results than saving a buck, but also don't

want to spend more than is necessary. I'm more-or-less a beginner,

after all.

3) As far as the other chemicals, what I've read seems to indicate

that these are less critical compared to the developer. My plan is to

go with the same brand-line as the developer I select for the rest,

but want to make sure that I am not making a mistake in that.

Thanks to all for all of the wonderful questions and responses

throughout the site. I learn so much here!

Anne

Hi Ben,

Thanks for your help. I used the wrong term when I said zoom, I guess I really meant to say longer focal length, sorry. I'm not looking for a zoom lens in particular.

Thanks for your advice.

Anne

Hi All,

I bought a Digital Rebel XT a few months back with the kit lens and

have been fairly happy with that so far. I hadn't used an SLR in ages

and thought that it would be a good first lens since its price would

let me buy the camera sooner and get familiar with it before I leave

on vacation (in December). I am still learning a lot of the basics and

find that the lens is sufficient for most of my purposes, but my heart

is really in macro photography and I'm really feeling the limitations

of my current setup there. I've been using the kit lens with a set of

close-up lenses and have had pretty good luck, but much difficulty

also, and I'd really like to get a decent macro lens before I leave.

I'll be taking photos in the jungle and would also like to have a bit

more zoom than I currently have to photograph animals and birds, but

my primary focus when shooting is always the detail under my nose.

I've been looking at the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM and was

wondering what you all thought of that, and particularly if you would

recommend something different.

Thanks for your help and for all of your informative posts. I'm new

and have learned a lot from reading many of these threads.

Anne