Jump to content

graybrick

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    501

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by graybrick

    Hand holding ND filters

    in Accessories

    Posted

    <p>: )</p>

    <p>I'm going to Maui in a few days, and i just got my hitech grads from b&h today. Initial tests today indicate that yes, you can hand-hold with some success, though watch out for reflections off the filter surface- I got them shooting into the sun, guess I wasn't holding the filter close enough... as for the polarizer, I'd say get one as it can make a big difference in certain situations with contrast and reflection damping. Enjoy your trip. I know I will!</p>

     

    And I was the only one who didn't get a picture...

    in Casual Photo Conversations

    Posted

    <p>I went to a concert this evening featuring a well-known, once popular band. It's been a fews years since thier last album, so the show was held at a small outdoor venue and there were a comfortable number of spectators. The ticket fine print forbid photography or video 'of any kind', so I left my 20D in the car. As the show started, the pocket cameras came out- one, two, fifteen, twenty... I was surrounded by photographers. So, I wandered back to the parking lot, grabbed my camera, swapped my chunky 70-200 for my relatively inconspicuous 50mm, and headed back in. The guard at the door waved me by, but just as I was walking off, I heard "HEY! I can't let you in there with that camera!" I turned and saw a twenty-something staff-type person sizing me up.</p>

    <p>"Well, everyone else is taking pictures in there" I replied.</p>

    <p>"Yeah, but little cameras."</p>

    <p>I guess it's time to buy a point-and-shoot. Or perhaps call ahead for press credentials. Or work on my Jedi mind tricks. "This is a little camera." (waves hand)</p>

    Scanning prints

    in The Digital Darkroom: Process, Technique & Printing

    Posted

    <p>I have noticed that the bow in film ceates uneven sharpness, and flatter film is easier to mount in the holders and scan. I'm not unhappy with the quality of the 4490's film scans, but I am noticing that optical prints are much more detailed than what I can get by scanning my film on it. I don't have money to invest in a dedicated film scanner, and I'm wanting to start printing anyway. I'm wondering, in theory, what size I need to enlarge to on an optical print to maximize the available detail from a 35mm negative. Obviously, it will be easier for the scanner to get detail from a print which is multiple inches versus a negative which is a fraction of the size. I'm comparing prints made professionally (not by me) many years ago which I have scanned to the scanned images from the same negatives, and the results are clearly in favor of the scanned prints.</p>

    Poor scans - May explain why some switch to Digital

    in The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry

    Posted

    <p>"Poor scans"</p>

    <p>No kidding. Are we still debating whether film outresolves modern digital cameras? Still debating whether drum scans or scans from a dedicated film scanner which costs about as much as a new digital camera body can give better detail than the digital camera? Seriously? Do you people ever do anything fun or interesting?</p>

    <p>I think what's probably missing from the argument (no, I haven't even bothered reading this posting) is that there's a cost to film, processing, and a scanner, not to mention the time involved scanning all those expensive little frames. I'd say people mayrealize that they're trading ultra resolution which they never really took much advantage of (as the vast majority of people don't print huge, ever) for the convenience and comparable quality (at normal pint sizes) of digital imaging. Some would still evenargue that at realistic sizes, digital makes better looking images. But that's another silly, poorly crafted argument for another inane, pointless and ridiculousy long-winded thread. </p>

    scanned film vs digital

    in The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry

    Posted

    <p>Holy mother of bob, you people are soooo missing out on the joy of living. So film outresolves digital, so what? How did we get so far from Willie's original post, anyhow? In essence there is a difference in scanned film and dgital, though in fact both scanned film files and digital camera image files are both digital image files, simply derived from different sources. But, I digress. This ludicrousy longwinded bickerfest has taken me at least eight precious minutes (which I will never get back) to sort through to come to the conclusion that you are all a bunch of idiots for sitting at your computers banging on your keyboards trying to convince us all that you are mroe intelligent and RIGHT than some other idiot. Grow a pair, get your camera, and go shoot. And for Pete's sake, put the <a href="mailto:f@#$ing">f@#$ing</a> spices away. </p>

    <p>GM</p>

    Overall Best Canon lens for the money

    in Canon EOS Mount

    Posted

    <p>Depends. The easy answer is the 50mm f/1.8 for price:IQ ratio. However, if you're shooting, say, wildlife or macro or landscapes or sports, the 50mm f/1.8 is of very limited use and thus little 'value'. I think this is a rather silly question because it will depend on the user and the expected product. This is similar to several other open ended questions you (and others) have asked recently. Figure out what you want to shoot, and read lots of reviews and tutorials or photography theory books, and you'll figure out what might be the best value for you.</p>

    Manual focus - when is it useful?

    in Beginner Questions

    Posted

    with manual focus, you focus on what you want in focus. with auto, the camera makes the decision for you. as you shoot more, you'll find that there are times when each method has a distinct advantage for one reason or another, including those reasons already stated above. seeing through the viewfinder comes with time, and most slrs have optional viewfinder screens with manual focus aids such as split prisms, etc, to increase your accuracy. the camera does not always make the same decision you would make, but again this may be hard to appreciate until you have done quite a bit of shooting and start to see the limitations of the autofocus feature.

    I can't let this Leica glow thing go

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    <img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2356/2203316276_6fe5659f38.jpg?v=0"><br><br>Fine, then. Mamiya-Sekor glow. It aint exclusive to Leica, if that's what it is. It's more exclusive to shooting wide apertures with good lenses. It's not hard to get 3D separation from small DOF if you have a focal length/aperture/minimum focus distance combination that gives it to you. In this respect, most macro lenses 'glow'. I'm still not seeing anyone offering any evidence that Leica lenses do anyhting better than any comparable lens from another manufacturer, nor offering any examples of how comparable images differ as a result of passing through Leica glass rather than Some Other glass. This has become the Longest, most Pointless thread I've seen in a long time as everyone seems to want to offer an unqualified opinion on 'glow', but no one is able to produce a concrete example that actually illustrates said 'glow'. Seriously, people.

    26 Megapixel 40D Compared to 35mm Film

    in The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry

    Posted

    the 40d gives essentially no noise, where the grain at this magnification even in unsharpened scans will certainly be a factor, and at some point beyond the resolution of your Nikon scanner will become resolution-limiting (which seems evident here anyway). Whatever the maximum resolving capability of these films, they will not match the smooth clarity of the digital image and given the inherent lack of grain in the digital image are not comparable "apples to apples". That said, I still use film and digital, and I tend to prefer film for most subjects I shoot. At these magnifications, however, the digital gives a more pleasing image which is essentially the same evident resolution as the film.

    I can't let this Leica glow thing go

    in Leica and Rangefinders

    Posted

    Sonnar: backlight with flare in #1... could be 'glow' in #2, though we have not yet established what 'glow' refers to, so I'm unable to say for sure. Is it the 3-D look? Is it only tenable in black and white images? It's an enigma. The OP can't even describe what it is or compare it among other shots which do not have the 'glow'. I'm on board with the Holga Glow from the examples posted here. It's a combination of vignetting, edge softness, and moderate contrast which create a dreamy look, similar to what the more expesive Lensbabies give us for other camera systems. Holga is famous for thier revolutionary plastic lens design...
×
×
  • Create New...