DWScott

<p>I always keep the boxes for my photo gear. I've never regretted it. It makes it easier to sell when I want to, and easier to ship for repairs if I need to.</p> <p>Besides photo gear, the only other boxes I keep are for Apple computers. Every other box goes out. But I keep my Macs for so long, I could probably dump those boxes too.</p>

<p>Hi Ian,</p> <p>I have the V500 and use it to scan medium format. Obviously with a V800 your experience might be different. However, I found scanning in general and with the Epson in particular, to require a methodical approach to get best results.</p> <p>If by "all over the place" you mean exposure-wise, I have found that accurate manual selection of the scanning area is most critical. If the "crawling ants" dotted line includes anything but the actual image, I find it skews the exposure greatly.</p> <p>Vuescan is great, but doesn't "automatically" deliver great results. To develop a methodical approach, I invested in "The Vuescan Bible." This book is well worth the price. It took away the guessing and helped me be clear about how best to proceed. Here is the book:<br> http://www.amazon.com/VueScan-Bible-Everything-Perfect-Scanning/dp/1933952695</p> <p>I can't say I'm a master scanner, but I have come a long way from my first abysmal results.</p><div></div>

<p>I echo the suggestions of a Pentax K-5. It's a great camera. Bullet proof construction, good in low light, and excellent autofocus.</p> <p>I would stick with the pro level (K-7, K-5, K-5II, K-3, K-3II.) The K-5 is the current sweet spot. After shooting a K-5 for a long time, I just picked up a K-7 for a great price (149 USD.) It offers the same body style as it's newer brothers, but is definitely more languid about focusing and not as good in low light. But if you work in a deliberate manner (not shooting sports, mostly shooting daylight) the K-7 is a good bargain choice.</p>

<p>Rick Drawbridge, I love #2. Negative space suggests the uneasiness of a dog awaiting his pack leader.</p>

<p>Chris, your sculpture photo actually looks perfectly exposed -- for the sculpture.</p> <p>It all depends what you want the final result to look like. I often expose like this, getting proper exposure for the bright side of a day-lit subject, and nice sky+clouds. Knowing that other parts of the background will fall to darkness, I can use that to selectively emphasize or demphasize things.</p> <p>If that approach does not appeal, then I would fall back on the old advice of exposing for the shadows on negative film.</p>

<p>Rick, your photography is always enjoyable, but I enjoyed these shots especially. Thank you for sharing.</p> <p>It's an old saw about "a great photographer being able to make art with any old camera." This is broadly true, as you say it's proven by the good work done with toy cameras.</p> <p>What is amazing in these photos is how they succeed in the broader category of "straight photography." These pictures don't take advantage of any particular aesthetic built on the limitations of the camera. They are not pictorialist, or dreamy, or working with light leaks or image softness.</p> <p>I believe there is an intersection between the point at which a camera/film is capable of sufficient image quality to render the photographer's intent, and the point at which the photographer's skill is capable if wringing sufficient image quality out of a given camera, light and subject. You and the Click II have found that point. At this print size, this work is beautiful and indistinguishable from that shot with much more expensive gear.</p>

<p>#3. Allan Gardens - Ceiling Light</p><div></div>

<p>#2. Allan Gardens - Cactus</p><div></div>

<p>Some great work this week. The Vito II is really showing it's stuff! Bill, I also love the Spyder Lilly. Rick, that camera/lens combo is one of my favourite, proven again by your images.<br> Here's a few shots from my first roll through a Pentax 67. The lens is the 165mm f/2.8. Film is Fuji Acros, developed in Diafine and scanned on the Epson V500.<br> #1. Allan Gardens - Hanging Garden</p><div></div>

<p>Of your choices, definitely the 35mm f/1.8.</p> <p>I would also consider the Sigma 30mm f/1.4. I have it in Pentax mount and love it. It's amazing to shoot at f/1.4 in darker conditions. The 30mm focal length on a DX body is perfect for me ... about a 45mm full frame equivalent, which is a nice loose normal.</p>

<p>Choices of developer that might have yielded "flat" results when printing optically are to be favoured in digital scanning. I get good results scanning film developed in Diafine, and have also heard good things about scanning film developed in Caffenol/Caffenol-C.</p>

<p>Curious why you are unsatisfied with the Speed?<br> <br /> I've had both, but went in the opposite direction (Graphic View II to Speed Graphic.) I'm tempted to say -- don't sell the Speed Graphic until you come to grips with the Graphic View.<br> <br /> Of course the Graphic View is a lovely view camera. Well built, and oddly handsome and stylish. It looks like an art deco designer's idea of a view camera, especially with the red bellows and red compendium lens hood. Usage is straightforward (for a view camera.)<br /> The challenge I had was with the size, weight and cumbersomeness of transportation. My Graphic View came with the original vulcanite case, where the Graphic was hung upside down from it's rail, with the rail supported at the top of the box. The box had enough accessory compartments for extra lenses and a number of Riteway holders, a Polaroid back and a rollfilm back.<br> <br /> Unfortunately I found the size and weight to be a barrier to me using it. It was not comfortably carried any distance from the trunk of the car, and view camera shooting was not suited to any of the "social" photography I like (going on photo outings with friends.)<br /> I sold the Graphic View, kept all of the Graflok bits (film holders and backs, lenses) and instead bought a nice condition Speed Graphic. The whole thing is much more compatible with how I like to work. I appreciate that my kit can now fit comfortably in a backpack, and weights less.<br> <br /> If you need real view camera movements, there is no substitute for having the rail, with separate front and back movements. I rarely used the movements, so the rail became a boat anchor to me. The Speed Graphic is much the same camera, but without my boat anchor.<br> <br /> Of course, your mileage may vary!</p>

Very nice. My favourites are the first and last shots.

<p>Michael, that's what I was alluding to. When I first moved from small-sensor cameras (mostly Kodak and Fuji models) to a DSLR, I found it difficult to match the sharpness and image quality. The DSLR had a learning curve, it demanded steadier handling, it revealed the smallest focus problems, and required me to pay more attention to exposure, and to shutter speed in general. For a month I feared I had a terrible DSLR, or that I was hopeless. It was humbling! The small sensor cameras do a really good job, and have real advantages for taking high quality snapshots.</p>

<p>I agree in general with everyone. There are enough cameras available used at good prices, that there is no excuse to not get a well-built, well appointed machine.<br> Buy from somewhere trustworthy like KEH, B&H or Adorama. If you want manual focus, go for any of these:</p> <ul> <li>Nikon F3 -- the king of professional manual focus cameras. The last camera before professional bodies became oversized and automated.</li> <li>Nikon FE-2 -- gives you more exposure automation, in a nice lightweight manual focus body, still built like a real camera.</li> <li>Nikon FM-2/FM-2n -- basically the FE-2 with simple meter and no auomatic exposure. The purist's all-mechanical dream machine.</li> </ul> <p>These are all recent enough to likely still work without requiring cleaning or service. They all deliver the same basic experience as the FM-10, but using top-grade parts that are reliable and feel much nicer to use.<br> Series E lenses will work with any of these cameras. Same for AI / AI-S lenses. Get a few and enjoy!</p>

<p>Cool test. I have always used Downtown Camera in Toronto, and their 2000x3000 scans look more like the ones without grain removal. There is a grain, but importantly it is uniform. I dislike how your "grain removed" scans have smooth areas and grainy areas, where it was trying to preserve detail.</p> <p>Since Downtown Camera began offering an extra-high resolution option from their Noritsu, I haven't even bothered with doing any noise reduction myself. My medium format frames are amazingly grain free, and 35mm looks great. The added resolution seems to have gotten past the threshold of grain aliasing.</p>

<p>I think that's a great camera to start with. Those Fujis deliver a very nice image, especially in good light. They have good handling, and will likely deliver more "keepers" than you would get when starting with a DSLR.</p> <p>Advantage: smaller sensor, keeps more things in focus. Let's you concentrate on framing and subject matter.<br> Disadvantage: smaller sensor. Less sensitive to light (i.e. not a camera for shooting in the dark), less ability to isolate subjects from the background with selective focus.</p> <p>For some types of shooting, you will never notice the disadvantages -- i.e. landscape, travel, daytime street, macro. For other types of shooting, you will eventually feel constrained i.e. portraits, shooting in dark areas like concerts, shooting indoor sports.</p> <p>As you try out different kinds of shooting to see what you like, try and look at different kinds of photography too. Look at contemporary stuff, historical stuff, colour, black & white, pictures of the "masters" as well as online posters. I found photographs that I loved, and wanted to be able to shoot like, and that helped me figure out what skills I needed to learn, and what equipment I needed to achieve the results in my head.</p>

<p>I agree with the advice received. I also empathize.</p> <p>My first forays into "large format" were frustrating because I had no knowledge of the huge variety of cameras, backs and permutations available. I ended up with a 2x3 camera with a Graphic back! This surprisingly got some use as a 6x9 rollfilm camera because it came with an ancient rollfilm back, and the rangefinder was still aligned to the included lens. Not really what I wanted though. On try two, I got a Meridian 45B. This was a highly regarded camera ... but I had to put a lot of effort into making lens boards and even making my own ground glass (the original was cracked.) Only to find that the Meridian back was not a standard Graflok.</p> <p>Finally I decided to be patient, and wait for a good condition Speed Graphic with everything I wanted, at a good price. It took more than a year, but I found what I wanted. It was listed for sale at B&H with a very generic listing at a good price. I called, and got everything confirmed before I ordered -- 4x5, Graflok back, ground glass in good condition, with viewfinder, and rangefinder, and intact sports finder frames. Shutter functional. I bought it, and also ordered some brand new lens boards. Together with other bits I collected over the years (Riteway holders, 4x5 Singer rollfilm holder with lever wind, even a 3x4 Polaroid holder, and a set of lenses, I finally have the Graflex camera I wanted. But it required collecting a lot of knowledge about each bit to make sure I got what I wanted.</p> <p>Starting with a franken-camera would be a very frustrating way to go.</p>

<p>I also wanted to say, I have been able to call KEH and speak with someone who could look at the cameras and describe them to me better. For example, when they have had two or three cameras listed in the same condition at the same price. They have been willing to say, "this one looks cleanest" or, "that one has a little scratch on the top plate" so I could make up my mind. Then I just order the camera right there over the phone.</p>

<p>I have always been pleased with BGN condition. It sets a good minimum standard, I have never received equipment that was worse than what I personally would consider "bargain" i.e. scuffed and worn but functional. Sometimes I receive equipment that I would rate as Very Good -- no blemishes at all, or even Mint, with that fresh shiny patina as though it just came out of the box.</p>

<p>I didn't see a post from Mike! So I'll start it off with one from my MZ-S. Partly manual though, because this was shooting my SMC A 35-105/3.5 manual focus lens.</p> <div></div>

<p>Hi Kimberly,<br> What are you developing with? I wasn't a big fan of Tri-x until I developed it in Diafine. Now Tri-x is one of my favourites, exposed at 1250 ISO and developed with Diafine.<br> I also really like Fuji Acros 100. It has a nice tonality, that reminds me of Kodak BW400CN, which I also loved.<br> I find the Ilford Delta films and XP2 Super have too much contrast for my liking, so maybe they will be to your taste?</p>

<p>It's the Fuji W1, the first generation of digital stereo point and shoot.</p><div></div>

Of course I need to offer the obligatory camera shot :)

<p>There was some transit chaos earlier today, from an unrelated power outage. It affected subways and streetcars (electric trolleys.) Once the snow hit, the system was back up and running normally, including this bus.</p><div></div>