adara

<p>Hi, I was hoping that someone would have experience with those filters. It's always frustrating to hear reviews on websites of camera stores that say nothing more than people are glad they bought the filter or that any protection is good. Those kind of reviews say nothing specific about a specific model. So, hopefully someone reading this will have experience with those filters I mentioned.<br>

My camera is a Nikon D80. </p>

 

<p>For a Nikon 10-24 DX lens, I just want something to protect the lens. However, two questions I have:</p>

<p>1) Do I specifically need a wide-angle lens filter?</p>

<p>2) I'd like the regular lens cap to fit over the lens, which, according to several reviews, is not the case with the Tiffen 77mm skylight wide-angle thin glass filter (Mfg #77WIDSKY). Does the Tiffen Digital HT Ultra-clear Glass filter (Mfg #77HTDUC) have threads for the lens cap to fit onto?</p>

Thanks very much for the responses. I sincerely love my N90s and even if they sell for half a cent on eBay, no one gets mine! I'm sure one day when I'm elderly and gray, I'll get a digital, but I was really just curious to know what camera might be about the same level in digital.

 

Thomas, would you mind giving me a phone or address for where you send your negatives? That sounds like an excellent idea to me to simply get the negatives scanned.

I thought "through the lens" meant exactly that but wanted to make sure. Thanks very much.

After a long hiatus, I'm jumping back into my photography addiction. However,

I am completely abashed that one very simple but critical piece of knowledge

has escaped me.

 

When I use a filter on my N90s, does the camera's TTL metering system adjust

for that filter factor, or do I need to manually adjust the exposure

compensation?

 

Really, I should know this...and I simply completely forgot.

Out of curiosity, what is the approximate digital equivalent of an N90s?

 

(I'm guessing it might be a D80)

Hi Mark,

 

It depends on your definition of "trash." If someone says that a photo is just a piece of rubbish without offering any helpful comments at all, then those comments are not helpful to anyone. However, if someone says that an exposure needs to be adjusted or something in the photo doesn't work, then those are constructive comments because they pinpoint a specific argument. Personally, that's how my own photography improves. Others may see aspects that I don't. If everyone just sits and around and compliments all the photos, then no one really learns anything new. I would hope that everyone invites constructive (but not mean-spirited) criticism.

Hi Amanda,

 

With all due respect, the "holding up a tree or wall" shots actually do dominate senior portraiture today. Although your shots are nice, I'm not sure they really fulfill the purpose of a senior shot, which is to submit a photo to the yearbook and get dozens of wallet-sized prints for family and friends. For the guy's portraits, the one that really doesn't work at all for me is the one of him in the baseball cap, peeking out from three (what look like) boxes. It's just a bit too juvenile and kitschy, I think, and would work better for a toddler or only slightly older child. The girl's shots are extremely common. I don't know why so many people think that a hand up a tree or wall is unique, because it's so extremely common today and, quite frankly, screams "senior portrait."

 

I think there really is a dividing line between "fashion" photography and "senior portrait" photography, and trying to mix the two results in a formula that has been widely copied and really doesn't quite suit the purpose of what a senior portrait needs to be. Almost everyone I know who has those types of portraits never wants to look at them again and wishes they had simply a classic shot (which doesn't need to be in a studio).

 

Amanda, I hesitate to state my opinion but it isn't so positive and I honestly don't want to offend you at all. I hope you ingest my comments in the sincere and helpful mode that I wish they are received.

 

Best wishes and keep shooting!

Thanks for the responses. Edward, my preference for film doesn't have anything to do with nostalgia. I just prefer the look of real film over digital or digitized photography.

I forgot to add one thing: I'm not doing the scanning. I'll take the film to a local lab (not a Walmart/Walgreen cheapie place but a photography store that usually does good work; they told me that they scan an image to 70M -- does that sound right? -- before printing) where they will develop the film and then scan it and then print from the scan.

 

It sounds like the best option is to scan the film, whether positive or negative, and then have the scans printed.

 

Slightly aside from my original question, just very generally how much would a decent scanner cost? (Of course, I have a "regular" scanner for mostly documents, but I'm sure that is not what most people use to scan film)

Thanks Juergen, I'm considering for the negative film: Kodak UC400 or Portra 800 or 400VC and for the positive film: Kodak EPL 400.

(I apologize for the double posting. Somehow my original post got posted in

the Nikon forum instead of Film, and I can't see where to delete it.)

 

The world of photography has obviously changed drastically, and I have a new

dilemma.

 

I will be shooting (either 400 or 800 speed) film and solicit your opinions as

to which would make better prints, up to 5 X 7 in size.

 

The choice is between shooting positive or negative film, but here's the deal:

most unfortunately, both will be "digitized" (sorry, but my skin just crawls at

that word...) after development. So, the print will be made from a scan of the

film.

 

Thus, which method "digitizes" better for prints: negative or positive film?

Thank you very much for all the replies. I'm just so sad that labs routinely "digitize" even film. I was told that scanning the negative (they said they blew the photo up to 70megs) would suffer nothing in quality. Oh yeah? Well, we'll see! Thank you very much Tom Burke, for the address of the lab. I'm going to get a comparison photo of a shot at 8 X 10 that I had printed and we'll just see if there's a difference. If this lab does the kind of job that I think they'll do, they have a brand-new customer for life.

I just wanted to clarify: I think that the printing from a scanned image (taken from a negative) is industry standard, not just quickie labs. A &I in California is a professional, well-respected lab and even they do this, as well. Fortunately, they will print directly from a negative, but it isn't their usual practice, and it will cost extra, believe it or not, to do so.

 

Richard, I mean absolutely no offense to anyone who shoots digital at all, and this is only my personal opinion, but shooting with film is simply a lot more film, in my opinion. Also, I do have a tiny Nikon Coolpix that I have to use as a back-up scanner (for documents and such) for research when I'm overseas and no other facilities are available. However, I'm simply a much better photographer when I shoot with film. I'm forced to make better decisions about everything: composition, exposure, film speed, and such. I have a more intimate experience with real film as opposed to digital. One could make a very bad pun and say that the right chemistry is present with film that is impossible with digital, but I'd never do that.. I also take black and white photos, print them on real paper, and then apply oil paints directly onto the paper. I know it can all be done digitally, but digital just loses the essence of it all.

 

I also should clarify, when I enquired about advantages using film, I meant simply in photographic quality. If every image (both real film and digital) will be scanned before printing, then it seems a waste to shoot film.

I'm quite bummed. It is next-to-impossible to find a local lab who will

actually print directly from a negative. I'm not talking about cheapie labs

but local labs that have always delivered excellent results in the past for

me. I called A&I in California who said they would print directly onto a

negative but that I would have to specially request it.

 

I really, really love film and my N90s. But I'm rather upset that my

negatives are all going to be scanned and then printed (with all of the lab

machine's little corrections, although I realize that occurred before the

onset of digital, as well).

 

Here's my question. If the negatives are only going to be scanned and then

printed, what is the advantage of using color negative film over simply

shooting with a digital camera? (I hope there are some, because I do not want

to switch to digital at all.)

I'd love to know how you managed to get your film hand-inspected in the airports! I've not had any trouble in the US, but I travel frequently overseas and in Amsterdam, London, and Charles de Gaulle, I've been told that my film WILL be scanned, or I will not be boarding the aircraft.

Dan, thank you for sharing those photos. Although the shot at 300 is obviously closer, I agree completely that the one at 200 is simply much better.

 

Since I'm not one to frequently change or buy new equipment, I'm now definitely leaning towards the better, faster lens.

I think many of these answers are actually quite helpful. Rather than labeling something "professional" or "amateur," perhaps it would be more useful to figure out what features you require and then ask if a specific camera contains those features. Even among professionals, requirements for equipment are not uniform.

Thank you very much for the replies. Richard, your advice was so spot on that I can't argue. I've decided to give the rolls of film to my kids to use with an old semi-automatic camera, and they can play to their hearts' delight. I'll just buy some fresh Kodak Elite (or other inexpensive film) to use, because the only thing that's really important for me is that the exposure be exactly what I shot.

I did a search and found several posts about using outdated film, but I didn't

see anything that seemed to apply to the date and condition of my film.

 

I'm just getting back into photography and want to hone my skills with a lot

of practice (especially using flash). I have several rolls of outdated film

that has been constantly refrigerated (never frozen).

 

I'm not using this film for any important events. However, what is paramount

to me is the accuracy of exposure for learning purposes, so that's why I want

to use positive film. The color isn't terribly important. But, if you think

that the results won't be beneficial, I'll just chuck the film and start anew.

 

Here's what I have:

 

Provia 400F (RHP III) expiration date: December 2002 8 rolls

 

Velvia ISO 50 expiration date: February 1998 4 rolls

 

Sensia 100 expiration date November 1998 1 roll

 

(and although this is negative film, I'd still appreciate input) Kodak B&W

infrared expiration date: November 1996

I'm looking for some film to shoot outdoors in the spring (graduation

ceremonies), and in the most extreme conditions, let's say

 

1) it's a cloudy day

 

2) I'm using a 300mm lens at preferably F11 for a decent depth of field

 

3) Even though I'll have a tripod (using it as a monopod), I still want a

fairly fast shutter speed to reduce the chance of blurred photos since I won't

have literal tripod steadiness.

 

With those conditions, will 400ASA be fast enough, or do you think I should

use 800?

 

I want medium to higher color saturation and fine grain (as much as possible

for faster film), so I am thinking of Kodak Ultra 400UC (I've used 100UC and

love it), but if you think that may not be fast enough, I'd move up to a Porta

VC800 or Fuji ProZ800.

 

Also, I doubt any photo would be enlarged any bigger than a 5 X 7, although

the absolute largest would be 8 X 10.

 

Any suggestions would be very much appreciated.

Michael, thank you very much! This is exactly what I needed.

Hello, this is my first time posting.

 

I have an N90s body with these Nikkor lenses: 35-70mm F/2.8D, 24mm F/2.8D,

and 20mm F/2.8D.

 

First, I should say that, for various reasons, I haven't really been involved

with photography for probably 7 years, and I'm sometimes embarrassed by how

much I've forgotten.

 

I want to shoot several graduations next spring (May-June). I've always

wanted a longer lens, so this seems like the perfect opportunity to get one.

 

As far as lens quality, I think little doubt exists that the 80-200 F/2.8 is

superior. However, I have two reservations about it: 1) the cost, and 2) I

don't know whether it will be long enough for what I need.

 

What I'm seeking is a visual contrast between a normal view of a scene, a

200mm lens view, and a 300mm lens view -- to see just what the difference is

between the latter. Does anyone know of a website that shows a visual

comparison of the three?

 

I have looked over this fantastic website and didn't seem to find an example,

so I apologize if I missed it.