michaelphelan

Very nice, Stuart, and welcome to the weekly thread. Here are a few from a Minolta X-300, using the Minolta 35-70 MD f/3.5 lens. The film was Kentmere 100 developed in PMK Pyro. We have a long holiday weekend ahead so I hope to be able to post some more stuff over the next day or so.

 

Nice shots. I especially like That Gate.

 

Belfry

 

[ATTACH=full]1215116[/ATTACH]

 

Ivy

 

[ATTACH=full]1215117[/ATTACH]

 

That Gate...

 

[ATTACH=full]1215119[/ATTACH]

 

Secured

 

[ATTACH=full]1215120[/ATTACH]

 

Community Books

 

[ATTACH=full]1215121[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<p>I'm a long-term Pentax user planning on moving to Nikon because I continue to be disappointed by Pentax product inconsistency. In my case, I tether my Pentax K20D to a laptop when shooting portraits. It works great. However, the newer Pentax DSLRs do not support the Pentax Remote Assistant software that makes tethering possible. When the K7 was introduced at a demo held in San Francisco, I asked a Pentax representative if the camera supported tethering. I was told that it would be available in a future firmware upgrade. It never was. Pentax customer support has told me there are no plans to add tethering to the K5. The remote software is only supported by cameras that are no longer in production.<br>

At Photokina 2008, Pentax announced a 1.4X rear converter. It is still not available. In the 1980's, Pentax introduced the LX pro camera, by many accounts one of the best 35mm cameras ever made. Pentax not only never marketed it, they never upgraded it to autofocus or Program during the 22 years it was in production. Yet, their lens lineup included some wonderful, long A lenses with a Program function that was only available on the cheaper cameras that didn't have mirror lock up.<br>

Pentax touts their weather-sealed bodies, which really are remarkable. However, Pentax no longer makes the long lenses typically used by many outdoor photographers, for wildlife and sports.<br>

As some of you have pointed out, all camera systems have their shortcomings. But, Pentax seems to have an additional disadvantage with their misdirected and disorganized product strategy.</p>

<p>Nice work. I'm glad you posted these shots. It's good to see work like this in the Pentax forum, but why didn't you post it in the Street & Documentary forum?</p>

<p>Yes. I have a rollup Daylite screen mounted above a double door. I project 645 slides from an old Bausch & Lomb projector. Velvia is beautiful this way. I haven't used my 35mm Sawyer in quite awhile though, but I've been thinking about it lately.</p>

<p>The official entry thread is right where?</p>

<p>As for a Pentax full frame, the president of Pentax USA, Ned Bunnell, has said in his blog that a full frame Pentax DSLR is very unlikely, especially with their plans to release a digital 645. See http://nedbunnell.blogspot.com/search?q=full+frame</p>

 

<p>I tried that Porter's link today and the price is: <strong>$399.99.</strong> <strong><br /> </strong> </p>

<p>Marcus, As Michael Axel says, it would be helpful if you specified which 4x5 focal lengths you would use, so you could be told the 35mm Nikon equivalents. I believe the rule of thumb is to divide a large format focal length by 3. For example, the 35mm equivalent of a large format 90mm lens would be a 28mm. How wide or long do you usually shoot?</p>

<p>Kona, Hawaii. Velvia 100F, Bronica RF 645</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks, everyone, for your input. Peter and Peet's experiences are definitely encouraging and I will give it a try, but with a cable from a store like Frye's, as Shun suggests.</p>

<p>That's great information to have. Thanks, everyone.</p>

<p>HDMI cables are not cheap, so I'd like to get feedback, if possible, before buying one and trying to view shots on an HD TV. Has anyone used their DSLR HDMI output to view images on TV? Is the image quality acceptable?<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>ICE doesn't work on scanned Kodachrome, which puts it at a big disadvantage today. Newer films are designed to scan well. Goodbye, Kodachrome, and thanks for all the memories.</p>

<p>The wedding photographers I assisted in Los Angeles in the early 90's always wore tuxedos. Assistants wore tuxedos or suits and ties. Some wore comfortable, black walking shoes instead of dress shoes. I once ran into a photographer I knew at a casual party in Pasadena, and I almost didn't recognize him because he wasn't working and wasn't wearing his tuxedo. I agree with the importance of looking professional over being comfortable, but your mileage may vary.</p>

<p>My old Bausch & Lomb medium format projector was working fine until I loaded glass Gepe slides into the tray and inserted the tray. Now the tray is jammed tight and won't move in either direction at all. It won't advance automatically or manually. I tried using the jam knob underneath, with no result. I think I will have to dismantle it to remove the tray. Has anyone taken one of these projectors apart and can give me a heads up on what to look out for?<br>

Thanks</p>

 

<p>Look at this on the Ektar web site. Very surprising that Kodak would go to the trouble and expense to promote a film by sponsoring a contest with Disney. The winners get photo ops and workshops at Disney World: http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/products/films/ektar/US_disneyPromo.jhtml?pq-path=13319/1230/13328/14887</p>

<p>Speaking of Ilford Pan F, has anyone here developed it in XTOL? What were the results?</p>

<p>Mark,<br>

The question was about customers' perceptions of film vis a vis digital, not why photographers use one or the other. Have you had any feedback from your customers in this regard?</p>

 

<p>Thanks for the replies. From what Bob said, it seems that your commercial customers don't care what you use, just that you deliver, which is what I would expect.<br>

I'll try what Mike suggests and see if I can find out what the wedding customers reasons were for insisting on digital. My hunch is that it has to do with equating equipment with professionalism, because that's the only sign of it they know.</p>

<p>I don't shoot professionally now, this is a general information question.<br>

I've heard from a couple of pro and semi-pro wedding photogs in San Francisco that they had to move to digital because their prospective customers rejected their using film. One photog had invested in a Mamiya 645 system and hardly got to use it before having to move back to digital per customer demand.<br>

For the customers' convenience of sharing wedding pictures, I can understand this attitude. But, I wonder if the fashion of digital plays into it. I also wonder if pros of other types of work, portraits or architecture for example, have run into this reaction. Are any of you using LF or MF film? How do customers react to your film cameras?</p>

 

I had a broken film crank on my Yashica Mat. Mark Hama fixed it. Check with Mark.

Many ballet positions, such as standing en pointe or in arabesque, don't require a fast shutter speed. You just have to be ready for them. Prepare in advance by attending at least one rehearsal before the dress rehearsal just to observe. Look for slow or still positions that will make good shots so you can be ready for them before they come up when you're ready to shoot.

Thanks, Greg and Bruce. I'm usually reluctant to buy on evilBay, but on your recommendation I bought a couple.

Does anyone know where I can get a battery holder for a Vivitar 283?

Thanks.

Nicely done. Even scanned and viewed online the superior clarity and tonality of LF is keenly evident.