jmalever

I have a laptop, so my monitor is not great. I would be willing to get a peripheral montior for digital work if mine i not sufficient. I heard that PSE 7 also has ACR. Is this correct? It also sounds like the channel adjustments in BW conversion mode are what I would need. Thanks.

Thanks for all the advice. It can be quite scary to consider to amount of cash one can spend on this stuff. I think I have ruled out P&S cameras as I feel they will be too limiting, though the size is convenient. I find the Pentax K10d with a 40mm pancake appealing and it is quite affordable used. I have an older version of Elements (version 2) which I would probably upgrade and might even use a plug-in for certain effects. I have never used PSE other than to resize and remove scanner dust fom my prints. Does it have enough capablity to mimic a BW darkroom wthout going to the full blown version? Also, if I don't intend to print at home, does my monitor need to be calibrated (or is this just done to coordinate with the printer)? Thanks.

Hello all,

 

My thoughts are really scrambled regarding which path to take in my photographic endeavors. I currently shoot film

cameras (primarily 135, but also 120) and develop/print in a humble home darkroom. I like the results and the ability

to print with different papers and processes (standard silver, lith, etc.), but there are the obvious limitations as well:

the continual expense of paper and chemicals, the need for a dedicated workspace, the inability to see what I've shot

until the roll is completed, being stuck with BW when I want a color shot and vice versa, the tedium of developing

film, the ever greater tedium of washing FB prints, etc... Additionally, I may be moving and losing constant access

to my darkroom in the coming months. So, I've been giving strong consideration to a digital camera. After hours of

researching reviews on a variety of cameras from advanced PS to DSLR I'm thorougly confused. Perhaps someone

will convince me otherwise, but I think film generally looks better than the thousands of digital photos I've seen

online. Now, I am not trying to bait anyone. I know that there are many possible explanations for my impressions.

Among them could be that because of the sheer number of people that have access to a digital camera, the web is

flooded with awful photos. Conversely, the people working in film MAY demonstrate a little more craft because of the

slower nature of the process and thus have nicer work. I may also just be acclimated to the look of film. I do like old

things aesthetically speaking. Digital often looks a little too clean and contrasty for my taste. Sometimes a little

unreal. Having said this, there are people getting some really great results in digital photos, so I have not given up on

the idea yet. I should also add that I get confused by all the tech heads testing cameras on charts or under the

worst lighting conditions (bright midday sun for example). They seem to have an entirely different set of expectations

than I. As a matter of fact, I often think some of the noise that reviewers complain about looks good (up to a point),

almost like a very consistent grain. To get to the point, I'm considering a G10, a GRD2, some sort of DSLR (though I

don't like the size), or a film scanner that works well. So, has anyone here been in a similar quandry and come to a

happy conclusion? Is a good film scanner a good option or should I venture into digital and develop some post

production skills? As you can see, my thoughts are all over the place on this and I am hoping for a little insight or

advice. I must admit that I am really craving the convnience of a digital workflow and would even be happy foregoing

prints entirely as I usually put them in a box and look at my scans on a monitor. I can always have a good lab print

on a higher quality printer than I could ever afford should I need a print. Help!

For the record, HCB did indeed print his own work early on. Take a look at Scrapbook. They are not of the same quality as his later professional prints, but he did them himself. The book also shows the cropped and uncropped version of the aforementioned photo.

Ben,

 

Avoid all of this confusion and listen to Dave Redman's response. I am in a similar situation having gone from strictly 35mm to a Mamiya 645 (as well as 35mm). I learned quickly that there is, to my eye, about a two stop difference between the formats. For example, photos with a lot of foreground shot on the 645 at f 5.6 were disappointingly soft/blurry/out of focus (in both the foreground and background) compared to my experience with 35mm at f 5.6. I am in the process of learning to shoot MF because my eye is so accustomed to 35mm. I don't usually use my 35mm lens wide open, so I find myself having to think much more about DOF on the MF because with slower film the aperture falls in the middle range (handheld). This middle range is like shooting close to wide open in 35mm. It's not as forgiving and requires that you consider your shots much more. If you are using a tripod, then you can use what ever shutter speed you need for a given f-stop. The science of optics makes things too difficult. Looking at prints clears the air pretty quickly. Hope this helps.

RE: the eraser method. Do you mea that the eraser will actualy buff out the burr? Or, does the rubber just fill in the gap? I can take the plate out very easily, so reidue in the body isn't a problem. Thanks.

What ISO did you have your camera on? If it was on 400, you probably came pretty close to getting it right, considering TX is usually quite a bit slower than its rating. Tmax developer has a speed increase, I believe, so the extra development and the speed increase probably brought you back to "normal." At worst you will have dense negatives that take a little work to keep the highlights/skies detailed. Split grade printing and/or pre- or post-flash works well for these situations.

Thanks all. I know about Edwal and have used the nose grease solution, too. I want to fix the problem, though. I took the pressure plate out and it looks like it makes sense to just buy another plate. Anyone know any good sources of NOS Nikon parts?

I think I found it. I'm not sure if this is good or bad. It appears to be a very tiny burr on the edge of the pressure plate, closest to the film canister. Now for the big question: how do I buff it out?

As for the cassette, the scratches are in the same place on every roll, which suggests the camera as the source.

No, I'm not bulk loading, so that is not the source. It is almost certainly coming from the pressure plate. However, like I said, it is immaculate. I'll try the hose trick, but I have used similar materials and can feel no snags. Thanks.

Clever...I'll try it!

I have asked about this before on other forums, but never get any definitive

help. I have a FM2N that creates a scratch through the length of each roll of

film. The inside of the camera is immaculate. There are no rought spots to be

found. I have made sure it is clear of any dust and carefully cleaned the

insides. Pressure plate sees as smooth as glass. No luck. I really love the

camera. I find it very intuitive and have created some very good photos with

it. However, if there are lighter gray tones in the path of the scratch, my

heart sinks and I start browsing the web for a new camera. Anyone have any

sugestions for a solution? Is this common with 35mm cameras or FM2Ns in

particular? Thanks.

I am looking for an inexpensve MF system and after thinking I was set on 6x6, I

reluctantly looked into the Mamiya 645 cameras. It turns out that they are

cheap and although the negative is not as big as I initially wanted, it is

significantly larger than my current 35mm. These may be the answer to my

quest. So, which one to get? Here are my needs in order by priority:

reliability (are these things built well?), waist level finder, manual

operation, and normal to wide lenses. I don't need auto anything, so if there

are models that keep the auto features to a minimum, let me know which ones to

look at. Thanks for any advice.

Johnnycake,

 

I no longer live in the D.C. area, but it is a fairly aggressive city. Taking photos of female joggers also seems to bring about problems, for better or worse. And photos of joggers are rarely worth the bother. Having said that, she was in the wrong, but one can understand her actions. My experience has also been that hip shots, if noticed, are perceived as sneaky and immediately make the subject of the "espionage" angry. I would take a differnt approach. FWIW, my worst experience in D.C. occured near Cardozo HS and involved Hispanic gang members. I wasn't shooting them, but I was in their neighborhood. I thought that at the very least I was going to get seriously beaten and lose my camera. Luckily, they just toyed with me for a bit and I got out of there. D.C. is a great place for street, but you have to be smart about it.

Disclaimer: I know nothing about the digital side of photography, so be gentle.

 

I just bought an Epson 4490 scanner to scan BW prints. It had Photoshop

Elements 2.0, which is a non-supported version at this point. Anyhow, when I

scan a print and save it to "My Pictures" in MS, the photo looks reasonably

good, i.e. tonally it's fairly close to the print. However, when I pull it up

in PE, it has a purple tint to it. Shouln't it look the same as the original

file? Remember, I haven't changed anything in PE; I have simply imported the

file through the browse feature. And, these are scans of prints, not

negatives. Thanks for any assistance.

 

Jonas

Not to sound redundant, but the first time you load a Hewes reel, you'll be sold. They are incredibly easy to load and much more durable than your generic SS reels. I would imagine the Hewes can handle a drop to the floor without much, if any, damage. As for repair, I'd try it first without reshaping it and if it's bent I'd spend another twenty for a new reel. I don't see much reason to drop it though. Usually, I'm so concerned with protecting my negatives that there is no possibility of dropping anything.

 

Jonas

Rating Tri-X at 200 is overexposing by one stop. Overexposure increases grain, all other things being equal. I agree with the recommendations for another film.

 

Jonas

Gordon,

 

I am one who is not opposed to photographing the homeless. I think, like others, that most people choose the wrong approach and, therefore, get a cliche shot. However, your shot above is very good. It really speaks about fundamental relationships and needs without merely portraying cliched suffering.

 

Jonas

Mitch,

 

Although I am not a linguist by profession, I did spend quite a long time studying linguistics. I would like to know the basis for your statement. Why is one lexical element "richer" than another. There is nothing lacking in the expression, "props." To native speakers it conveys plenty. It probably connotes far more than many of the richer expressions cited above. Any judgements about its position in some sort of imagined hierarchy are simply political.

 

Jonas

I have my opinions about photographing the homeless, but for those that think it's wrong, where does this feeling originate. I've heard all the argumants about exploitation, etc., but I'm also not convinced. I think just about anything is subject matter. Is it interesting? Ususally not. I don't rule anything out, though.

OT:

 

Marc Todd (or anyone else interested)--If you have been into Eggleston recently, you must find a copy of Los Alamos. Not only are the photos better than the Guide (my opinion, obviously), but the print quality is incredible. It's one of those books where the ink is very thick on the page, which works great for Eggleston.

JJ,

 

Utterly boring composition. The subjct is dead center, which isn't always a problem, but it is here. You should have posted the breast shot instead.

Bruno,

 

You mean we can buy your skills? It seems expensive, but I figure if one spreads the cost over the number of great photos we'll take, the price is insignificant. Just joking, in case that doesn't make it through the language filter. But, man, that is a harsh proposal. OT: is shooting in Germany really that difficult? That might make for an interesting discussion. The differences in shooting in various cultures/environments.

 

Jonas

Ed,

 

I'm certainly no expert on these matters, but here is what I've been doing recently. I shoot TX at 200 and then reduce the normal (i.e. 400) times by 15-30 percent, depending on the conditions. If it is really flat outside, I'll increase the time a bit. I never did any film speed tests to arrive at these figures. I just read others' advice and experimented a little. It is working well for me. One of these days I'll get over my lazines and do the film speed tests so that I'm truly working with the optimal setup.