jsbc

By the way, even for one-hour shops, the quality can be much improved by using a digital printer.

 

2) You can also buy a cheap film scanner (operative word is film) and see how those turn out. That way, you can do color correction on your negative stuff, and also print out the slides.

 

3) the blah-ness of your existing pictures can also be due to your lenses, particularly if they are old zooms. The digital scans can give you a better idea.

It can be your lighting (most likely) but also check the colour space your camera is set at. Won't do to view adobe space photos with sRGB viewers.

But is a SB-800 fully compatible with F100?

The adapter I have (a Kenko) automatically stop down the lens dependeing on what aperture I set. Hence you can use it just like an AIS lens with depth preview on permanently.

 

Don't forget the lens adapter is totally mechanical, there is no way it can inform the body what aperture is set, and indeed, what the minimum and maximum apertures are.

Given the thread started with Hannah, it is remarkable and interesting that in half the pictures the characters are doing something interesting with their hands. I find that in posing, deciding what to do with the hands is quite difficult.

It varies with the weather.

 

But today I picked up a Yashica FX-3 Super with the Contax 45mm F2.8 Tessar Pancake.

 

After months on digital SLR and rangefinders (and even Medium Format SLR & TLR) it is fun to look at a semi-bright split prism and compose. I just click, click and click even though the camera is not a particular distinguished one.

My IIIg with a handgrip and a Nikkor 105 F2.5 attached.

I learned a lot about photography just by looking at different pictures, and try to figure out how they are done (not always successful). Brad, Peter A Mike Dixon's and other photos are inspiring in that way. They (and others on PNet have also generously answered my technique-related questions).

 

Many famous or good photographers have more than one way of taking pictures, and/or visualizing the images. It can also be an evolving process. Digital treatments (change of hues, saturation etc) are also increasingly important.

 

Well, if you take over-exposed, sepia-toned photos, do they look like the famous photographer's. Or even better? What are the results? I think sometimes you may learn more if you post here about your experiences and results in experimenting different processes.

 

I think b&w darkroom stuff is fun, but I don't know the relationship between different films and various developers. However, there is a lot of info in the archives.

 

A famous (or even unknown) photographer is not obliged to spent 20 minutes composing a detailed monograph to an anonymous email inquiring about his technique, equipment, or process. Maybe the time and labour this involves is even more important than the desire to keep the technique proprietary.

Robert:

 

You can scan the XPAN, and in any case, for development, there should not be any problems.

 

I think the Heliar is fun, and the 15mm that I have is extremely cheap, but if you want to crop the negatives to get a panorama, 135 format is a little too small. But should you go the Leica mount route, it may make more sense to get a cheap second hand M-mount body. Zeiss is also coming out with new superwides (including a 15mm F2.8) for the Leica mount but it will be expensive.

 

15mm is also very different from 21mm I find, and it stretches the edges so that many landscape pictures look kinda out of proportion.

2nd pix<div></div>

Will pop be dependent on CRT, LCD screens and viewing distance?

 

There seems to be more dissension about what pops and what doesn't than whether the bokeh works...I think that David & Rich's pictures pop. It is not just lens, but also lighting, composition etc. The fact that they pop out against a non-fuzzy OOF makes them very interesting.Peter's Pop too. But not Jeff's, for some reason.

 

Maybe in David & Rich's case, the smaller protagonist with facial features exaggerates the sharpness, but Jeff's photo also has the problem of flat lighting.

 

Aside from lighting, I think a popping lens has to be (1) fast, with wide aperture/small dof, (2) sharp wide open, (3) contrasty.For me the effect sometimes depend on increasing contrast on photoshop. The following pix are from a single-coated Rolleiflex 2.8F. Do they pop?

Well, the title's wrong. I cannot see your son's shadow at all, just some dark background areas.

 

Well, your lucky shot was better

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=009c0H

 

Johnson

No problems, although one can argue that due to the smaller magnification of the VF, focusing the fast lenses may require a tad more care if you are also working with the larger apertures.

I do not have either cameras, but I have a M7 Leica and a M7 Mamiya, plus the other cheap mid-60's rangefinders. I also have a Contax G1.

 

One thing is sure, with a Medium Format, you would be working with much much smaller DOF. This would be apparent especially when you use the Medium Format camera to take snap shots etc, on ISO 100 film (or even Velvia). It would be nice to have lenses that are as fast as possible, and if that is the case I would be much more comfortable with something that has focus confirmation, which an AF SLR would have. With my G1 I occasionally miss shots. With a medium format, sometimes I miss focusing even with a TLR. This does not happen with a rangefinder.

 

Of course, if you are primarily a landscape shooter who focuses on infinity, and shoot stopped down, it would not be a concern.

I have a Canon 35mm F2.8 (the steel version, not the black type). Some people like Al (or is it Bill Mitchell) told us the Winogrand preferred a Canon 35mm, I don't know whether this is the one. Anyway, the glass on mine is pretty clear, but the pictures it produce are still very low-contrast and slightly fuzzy. Kinda like the summar.

If the VC is 92% for 25mm, would it not be more accurate for 24mm?

 

How is the VC 25mm brightline. I have the old one, it works, but it is crummy.

and I'm interested in seeing some of the flesh photos mentioned above.

Karl:

 

Really nice picture. However, I notice that there is some vignetting. Is it always present when the lens is wide-open? Or did you attach a filter?

Peter N:

 

Thanks for the info about the framelines.

 

Johnson

It's odd, but until now we have not really have a chance to evaluate bokeh etc. to see which is the better lens.

 

Maybe CV thinks the cheaper price would also entice people who have the 35mm F1.7 to get the new lens? Certainly the rangefinder market is now slightly more competitive (more products, fewer users) than 3 years ago, when people can now get the Hexar 35mm F2, the new Zeiss lenses, and 35mm F1.2 etc. The new lens would also be a natural pairing for the R3A.

 

Finally, some of us LTM users may rather pay a premium for a larger 35mm lens than a M-mount lens which is unusable.

do you know which frame the 40mm Nokton activate on a Leica/Hexar, 35mm or 50mm?

Robert:

 

I have reached the stage where (1) I appreciate some fo the better photos here (2) The gap between them and my work are getting wider and wider. The solution: get a lens I rarely use, and shoot some slides.

 

Today is a dull flat day and I ventured out with Provia 400F (yes it is kinda dark) and a VC 21mm F4. It was quite a blast. I'm waiting for the slides to be developed.

What did she do to tick you off so much, George?

Hi:

 

Do you guys have problems printing brilliant blue skies using a

frontier system? I use Photoshop 7 and I have a calibrated monitor.

My working space is usually Adobe RGB, but I softproof and convert

my image to a Frontier ICC for glossy prints and then send the

images for printing on a Frontier 340.

 

However, All my skies turn magneta. This is even worse for Provia

scans which are slightly magneta to begin with. This is not a mis-

match problem, I don't think, since the skies also turn reddish on

my monitor as soon as I soft proof (though the actual prints are a

bit worse).

 

Is this an out of gamut issue? I have highlighted the skies and try

to tune with hue/saturation, but the skies still come out muddy.

 

What should one do? I jsut want to print brilliant light blue skies

(with a taint of cyan). Any advice?

Mark asked " I'm just asking if there is something special about the IKON that is different from the Bessa series "...

 

 

Hello Mark, you started this thread and you don't know.

 

Like: (1) The body is totally different. Just look at the shape of an R series camera and the ZI camera.

 

Like: (2) The lenses are totally different. Without resorting to lens diagram, CV do not make similar focal lengths with comparable F-stop (although in some cases CV is faster).

 

In fact, you CANNOT find any of the ZI stuff under the CV banner. So If I need an Ikon, I would damn well get an IKON rather than a CV, even if it is made by the company, because they are different products. Whether you like the ZI stuff is another matter.

 

Just do your homework because asking these inane questions.