joshx

Hi Paul,

 

It sounds like there may be two different issues going on here, with three (or more) different 'solutions', so correct me if I am wrong:

 

1) Your photos lack sharpness.

2) Your photos don't have 'visual impact'.

 

A lack of sharpness can result from many things: mechanical problems (camera, lenses, etc), user error, or poor processing of the photo (either in-camera or in the digital darkroom).

 

Your camera is probably fine. If you bought it new and haven't noticed a change in sharpness, I wouldn't worry about it. Your hands may be too unsteady for slow shutter speeds, or you may not be able to focus perfectly due to eyesight or other issues. If you use autofocus, that's another issue. Try using a tripod sometimes; it can make a huge difference in the resulting sharpness of your photos. Lastly, most digital photos (especially shot in RAW) need some sharpening. Are you sharpening your photos at all?

 

As for your photos not "jumping out", since you are a beginner just chalk it up to inexperience. Go to the library and take out a few books on composition, color theory, and basic/beginner's photography. Or just try to read articles/web pages on the internet. Also, learn as much as you can about the digital darkroom and photo manipulation. A lot of people up the contrast and saturation at least a tad to achieve a bit of 'pop' to their photos. If the subject/composition are no good, then digital trickery will only go so far. Also, visit the digital darkroom forum here. I am sure they can help.

 

It sounds as if you need to develop an eye for photography, and basic reading can help with that, as can practicing your newfound technique/approach. When I started shooting photos 2.5 years ago I would ask myself, "How do I want the resulting photo to look?" I was thinking about the result before I even pressed the shutter. Try it. Firing away without thinking probably won't result in much improvement in your photos.

 

Good luck!

Gerardo,<P>

I am not a pro photographer, nor am I considering becoming one. However, if I were considering it, and investment capital were an issue (i.e. I didn't have enough money to buy 3 different medium format outfits at the same time), then I would do the following:<P>

- Rent each of the cameras I would consider buying, one at a time, for at least a few days, if not a week.<BR>

- Shoot many many rolls of film with each camera. (If considering a digital back, take lots of photos with that as well.) Some photos would be test shots of various set-ups I would likely use/encounter as a professional. Other photos would be whatever else.<BR>

- Take plenty of notes about the pros and cons of handling each camera.<BR>

- Either develop the film myself (which I usually do), or send it out all at once to a pro lab that I trusted.<BR>

- Critically examine the negatives, including scanning/enlarging a few from each camera.<BR>

- Determine which camera I felt most comfortable using and which gave the best results. Refer to my notes as often as necessary. If it was a close call, go with the camera that had better ergonomics.<P>

There is no substitute for actually using a camera. Using the method I outlined above won't be free, or even cheap, per se, but it could save you the costly mistake of buying a full medium format system and finding out that you don't like it. You'd have to sell/trade it, probably at a loss, and may never find that system that was perfect for you just because you listened to some people on an internet forum and bought what they told you rather than trying a number of cameras.<P>

There are tons of threads on this topic. One usually comes up every week or so. Either search the archives or just scroll down the Medium Format forum.<P>

Good luck!

Does anyone know if any company ever produced a Series VI warming polarizer

(Moose) filter? I have Googled and searched the archives here, but to know

avail. I suspect one doesn't exist, given that Moose filters are new and the

Series sizes are for older cameras.<P>

Alternatively, does anyone know of a step-up ring from a Series VI camera to,

say, a 49mm filter? Or is there a way to stack Series VI filters???<P>

Thanks for any help. I suspect I will be stuck using only a polarizing filter

once the peak foliage occurs in my neck of the woods.

I've used A&I and have been quite happy with the results that I got.

It's threads like this that make me run out and shoot with my classic cameras: a great photo followed by interesting discussion.

 

Oh, and who doesn't like 6x9 chromes?

 

Thanks John.

I second Randall's recommendation of Fred Parker's "The Ultimate Exposure Computer". That is one of the most useful photography articles I have read, and I refresh my memory by re-reading it every time I plan on encountering lighting situations I am unfamiliar with.

Rob,

 

I second Mark's statement: nice photo!

 

Is it your scanner (or compression/resizing) or the lens that results in a soft image? I am guessing your scanner, based on your feelings of it, and based on the fact that you asked if you should learn to use Photoshop.

 

Pretty much every scanned image needs to be sharpened some for best results. I suspect you didn't sharpen your photos at all.

 

In regards to 'learning Photoshop' I would say, "Yes, you should learn to use image editing software." It doesn't have to be Photoshop (which ain't cheap), but could be something simpler, or even free (The Gimp). Learning to use a few basic tools consistently well will make a huge difference in converting your analog images to digital (unsharp mask, contrast adjustment, color adjustment). The trickier tools can be figured out later on.

 

Thanks for posting your photos. Seeing images shot with classic cameras always puts me in the mood to get out and shoot with mine!

OT, but I thought you were talking about the cereal. LOL.

 

Sorry I can't answer your question, as I don't use Tri-X.

Angelos,

 

Consider a Fuji GA645. While 'only' 6x4.5, they have autofocus and are supposed to be very sharp. However, they meter externally (not TTL).

 

Check out KEH or eBay (there's one for $400, BIN).

120 film can be loaded in daylight.<P>

As for your roll, are you sure that the shutter works on your camera? Did you insert the film upside down? 120 film has a paper backing, and if you inserted the roll the wrong way (upside down), then your camera 'exposes' the paper instead of the film.

If it focuses properly, what's the problem? I ask only because with my limited knowledge of lens design, I imagine an improperly aligned element would prevent focusing.

Ivan, if you want to go as cheap as possible with larger negatives (but at the cost of convenience), pick up a Polariod 800 and load 4x5 sheets one at a time in a darkroom or changing bag. I think my Model 800 cost me all of $20 including shipping on eBay. It's true that the usable portion of the film is only 3.25x4.25 and it only gets about 30 lp/mm in the center, but 3x or 4x enlargements are fairly sharp and have invisible grain.<P>

The disadvantage to such a camera is that the aperture and shutter speeds are linked together to achieve a particular exposure value on the film. The only way around this is picking up another model Polaroid Land Camera that has a normal lens/shutter combo, i.e. you can adjust the shutter speed and aperture independently.<P>

As for a home built camera, depending on how simple you want to get, I imagine it won't cost much (except for the lens, but look for parts cameras on eBay). Obviously this route requires more time until you can shoot.<P>

The 'kit' cameras (e.g. Bender) aren't exactly "cheap" either, but cheaper than an existing used field camera.<P>

Good luck!

Very cool.

I figured it out for my Agfa Clack by just shooting a roll of B&W 120, developing it, and running it through with the back off, using a sharpie to mark numbers on the wind knob with reference to a small arrow I drew on the top plate at the base of the knob. (The mark is made after 2 full turns; you need to go past the number you want twice, kinda like using a combination lock.)<P>

I then repeated this with a roll of 220 slide film, and now get 17 6x9 shots out of a roll. (I need to wind something like 8 or 10 full turns and stop at the "1" to get to the first shot.)

Mike, read the front of the lenses. They will tell you either a number in mm (millimeters) or a range. If they have a range written on them, then that is your "zoom". (I suspect you are thinking in digital camera terms; I don't know anyone who refers to a film lens as "3x zoom" for instance.)<P>

If you tell us what your lenses say on the front, we can tell you if they are good for what you want to do (landscapes, etc). Generally, you want to use lenses with smaller focal lengths (i.e., smaller mm numbers on the front) for landscapes, and greater focal lengths for portraits. This is because smaller focal length lenses have a greater field of view (you can capture a scene that is "wide angle") and better depth of field (more of the scene from foreground to background is in focus). Longer focal length lenses have a smaller field of view (like a zoom lens) and less depth of field (only what you focus on is in focus, and objects closer to you or behind your subject are blurry; this draws attention to the subject and removes distracting backgrounds).<P>

A typical landscape lens might be 28-35mm, a "normal" lens (for group photos, etc) 50-60mm, and a portrait lens around 100mm. Longer focal length lenses (200mm, etc) are good for wildlife and things that you can't get close to.

Interesting. While B&H is pretty much the only camera store I actually walk into to shop, I have had different experiences there than others.<P>

I often end up with at least one salesperson or (especially) cashier who seems like they hate their job. They act professional, but in a cold and impersonable manner (won't say "Hello", "Thank you", etc or even look me in the eyes).<P>

I do often talk to at least one person who is in a good mood, but my general impression is that the salespeople don't really care about working there.

That might be the best $17 Canadian you've ever spent. ;)

I've never used your tank, so others will have to comment on that. However, intermittent agitation can be carried out a number of ways: you could flip/spin/rap as you suggest for 10 seconds every minute, or 5 seconds every 30 seconds. Either way will work fine.

Mike, you are going to have a blast with this rangefinder. Just be sure to show us some photos!

Did you use filters in the past? Certain filters will darken skin tones (green or blue?). Other than that, perhaps you were slightly underexposing/overdeveloping?<P>

By the way, I think that Rainer has an agenda to get everyone to use Rollei film. I would guess that half of his posts are promoting Rollei. ;)

Jack, given that film and processing will keep costing you money every year, while going digital will cost nothing additional once you buy the camera and memory, it seems to make sense that what suits your needs best is a digital camera. (I wrote a hefty diatribe in your last post about this issue.)<P>

The question then becomes "what type of digital camera (point-and-shoot, DSLR)?" If your $400 budget is firm, then I still recommend the Canon SD550. The photos from that camera will far surpass your "High Quality 1500x1000 jpg Image Photo CD".<P>

If your $400 budget is an approximation and flexible, then the Olympus DSLR that was recommended to you in the other thread seems like a great deal.<P>

Just realize that if you choose film, you will keep spending money on photography, going way over your $400 budget. If you choose digital, you won't.

Nice page, but this is in the wrong forum perhaps: your web page itself states that the Fuji G617 was "born from mother Fuji in March 1983". The Classic Camera forum is for cameras pre-1970.<P>

Perhaps posting it in the Medium Format forum would be more appropriate.

<a href="http://www.mcp.com.au/fuji/gw670.htm">This</a> web page says that it weighs 1.46kg, or 1460 grams.

As someone who not only got into photography a mere 2 years ago, but has been operating on a tight budget that entire time, I have recently begun to wonder if I would have done things differently knowing what I know now and wanting what I want now. The whole "photography on a budget" situation is a classic catch 22<P>

Used 35mm SLR cameras can get anyone into the game for a low initial price. If you want to develop your own film and prints you need a darkroom and all the associated equipment and chemistry. Your operating costs will add up to a substantial amount over time. Especially if you want to retain control of film developing and printing. Getting a film scanner? There's a big chunk of cash.<P>

Then there's the digital path. A DSLR with resolution that can compete with film will cost you a hefty chunk of money. But then that's it. Maybe you buy a nice printer, but you'd probably buy that anyway if you were scanning film. So your operating costs are very low (mostly electricity I suppose).<P>

Last week I did some math and saw that if I kept my existing 35mm SLR and lenses, bought a Nikon CoolScan 9000ED, and factored in my film and processing costs for 5 years I would spend over $5500 (and I have access to a darkroom for $40/year, B&W chemistry included). If I instead bought a Canon 5D, an 8gb card, and two decent primes it would cost me on the order of $4000, with virtually no operating costs. (Printing costs are excluded for both of these as I assumed it would be about the same.)<P>

So there's the catch 22: I can't afford the $4000 upfront, so instead I keep spending hundreds of dollars per year on film and paper and processing, dreaming of a good dedicated film scanner that I can use with my old Moskva-5 and Kodak Medalist II as well.<P>

So my advice to you, Jack, is that for your budget and for what you want there are two real options: cheap digital SLR or digital point-and-shoot. You got some good advice on a cheap digital SLR, and I think you'd be happy with it and it would serve you well. If you'd like to spend a little less, then may I suggest the Canon SD550 point-and-shoot? I have the S500 and love it as a lightweight travel camera. (My only nitpick is that I don't have aperture priority so more or less everything is in focus.) Whatever direction you take, just get out and use that camera!

Ben,<P>

I can't imagine your image quality will be affected that much unless you are photographing newsprint at 15 feet. Look at <a href="http://www.certo6.com/gallery/planar.html">this</a> and then tell me that you're worried about the effect of the scratches. :)