rob_piontek

<p>Well I think this is totally cool. There are other superwide pano format 35mm cameras, but they are pretty expensive. I'm ordering one now!</p>

<p>Get the 5 section stands and the double fold umbrellas!</p>

<p>I had a hard time getting good color when I first got my epson. I tried the main software options. The colorperfect PS plugin gave me much better results than I could find elsewhere. Check out the demo. </p>

<p>I bought a 6x7 in bargain condition from keh last Christmas. It came looking pretty used and I guess I got about 20 rolls through it before it broke. I decided to try another one, and ordered the same thing. This one looks much better. So far so good. I will try to get the first one fixed. The 6x7s are so cheap it's hard to resist. I have the 150 2.8 and I love it. </p>

<p>I'd bet it will look great scanned on the V750 at that size. 300 dpi for prints that big is not needed, IMO. I've printed MF negs larger than that, scanned on a coolscan, and the results are great. Soft and grainy when you're right up close, but at the intended viewing distance they were really nice. 4x5 would be better yet.</p>

<p>Try a test crop printed at A4, hang it on the wall, and stand back a bit. What do you think?</p>

<p>I've had the same problem. Then I had the problem that the mirror would sometimes get stuck all the way up (not half way as is normal with a dead battery). I just got a replacement body and will now look to get my first one fixed. Though I imagine it's not worth it.</p>

<p>It's hard to really comment without seeing what you're talking about. For me the images are mostly pretty good to start with. I pick the good ones, also say 20, make some basic changes and zap the pimples in LR. In PS I might dodge and burn a little, add an unsharp mask to change local contrast, soften the skin a bit, and maybe an action for color. It takes a couple minutes per image. Often though I discover that I could have gotten almost the same thing from LR itself, but in a different way. </p>

<p>I think the key is to control the lighting so you're getting pretty much what you want in the camera. Then you're only making minor changes with software that don't take much time. </p>

<p>I've been thinking about buying an adapter to use my P67 lenses on my Nikon DSLR. But I worry that the lenses simply don't have enough resolution to give a good image on a small sensor. Can anyone comment?</p>

<p>I would not ask & I would leave it. </p>

<p>I guess you can find plenty of people who are both happy and not happy with the cactus triggers. For digital I think they are ok, but I wouldn't use mine if I was shooting film. Too unreliable. At $1 per shot, plus your time, the investment in a quality set of triggers is easily worth it.</p>

<p>I have an exhibit coming up in a local wine store of some of my portrait photography images. I am wondering how I can get the most out of this in terms of new clients. My original idea was to print up cards which are good for one free session (I normally charge an up-front fee), and one small print, which could be given out in combination with say a $20 purchase from the store. I am worried, however, that people will be expecting to get a great deal, however my prints & albums are priced relatively high (though obviously I'm completely happy to honer my offer with no strings attached). Anyone done anything like this and can offer advice? One thing I wouldn't want to happen, for example, is that somebody gets turned off because I'm too expensive, and they don't go back to the store next time to buy wine.</p>

<p>Hilarious! While I love my Holga, I can't believe a fancy holga sells for 350 euro. Or at least that people pay it.</p>

<p>I think the pictures work well because they are lit in a way that draws your attention strongly to the subject, so that shallow dof is not important to keep your eye on the subject. The lighting is dramatic, and generally looks like flash was used. The fact that the backgrounds are important to the subject, and the story behind the picture makes it important to see easily what's there. But when people generally talk about 'portraits' they mean pictures of their kids or other people close to them. I think for this kind of work it's best if the lighting is great, but still looks natural, which means in part that the exposure on the subject is just a tad brighter than the background. Without too much contrast here it helps to blur the background to keep your eyes on the subject. I realize you know this already! Personally my favorite portrait photographers do you use primes, and use them wide open, and I love the look. But the style is totally different from Barker's. You can't compare and say what's right and wrong, you just have to know what you want the shot to look like. </p>

<p>I would say you don't need to buy anything. If you know how to get good light you will get some good pictures. There are lots of ways to get good light, one is natural light only, which is free. I also think it's the most challenging. Some of the natural light books kind of suck... but I can recommend 'Natural Light' by Don Marr for a start. Personally I like the combination of 1 reflector with natural light. It's simple, gives some more options than natural light alone, I don't have to worry about batteries and strobes. I use a California Sun Bounce mini on a 5 section stand. This would be all of your budget. The round fold up reflectors are cheap, work just as well and are more convenient to take with you, but you need someone to hold it. </p>

<p>In some sense though I think flash is easier. You just need a stand, cheap flash, and umbrella and some way to trigger it. Once you get a feeling for it, it's easy. Look for some shade, put the thing at 45 degrees, and balance with the ambient. Looks great. </p>

<p>If you want a lens and are on a budget, I think the 50 1.8 is the only way to go. It's a good focal length on crop bodies.</p>

<p>I would start with the Don Marr book and see where you go. It's cheap and if you learn to shoot well with natural light you might not ever need or want to buy and lug the extra junk around! It's so nice to only have to go out with your camera for a shoot!</p><div></div>

<p>A reasonable option is to stitch 6x6 or 6x7 frames. If things are far enough away you don't need a tripod or a pan head. I stitched a 3 frame 6x6 landscape earlier this year, as my fixed lens camera wasn't wide enough, and it turned out super nice. </p>

<p>In the end, after a train ride in my backpack, the mirror came down. The battery no longer will light the LED. I shot four frames and it seems to be working ok. Now I wonder if the reset button combined with the shutter button would have worked. I guess I should just have it looked at. Thanks for all the suggestions!</p>

<p>To clarify - the mirror stuck up and NEVER came back down. The shutter is open. Took the lens off and got a good look at that first frame! Any way to convince the shutter to finish the exposure?</p>

<p>It seems mine needs repair, but I just want to confirm before I send it off. I loaded a new roll, took the first shot, and the mirror did not return. The mirror is stuck all the way up, not partially. From reading the web, if the battery is dead the mirror sticks but not all the way up. I took the battery out, and the mirror did not come down. The battery confirmation light did work, and the battery was pretty new. After sitting overnight the battery light doesn't come on anymore. The shutter speed dial is not in-between speeds. Also I was losing about 1 frame per roll before this happened, which seemed to be because the shutter wasn't opening correctly (blank frames) but can't rule out that I sometimes bump the aperture ring and underexposes. I don't know if that could be related or not. Any thoughts? </p>

<p>Honestly I have to say that I was pretty disappointed with the Nikon scan. I think most of the info going from 2000 to 4000 dpi was wasted. That depended a bit on the negative, though. While it would be nice to get 300 dpi for a huge print IMO it's overkill. When you stand in the room and look at the picture it looks fantastic!</p><div></div>

<p>I had been wondering how big I could print from my 6x6 negs, and finally now have some personal experience with it. I had the negs scanned on a Nikon 9000. Black and white, can't remember what film, but ISO 100, though I think the exposure was off as the scans are pretty grainy for this speed. Had them printed direct on aluminum, at 1.5m X 1.2m (meters) which is about 60x40 inches. It looks great. Really it does. Only a picky photographer might complain about sharpness or grain close up, and I wouldn't care if they did. And, this was the worst of the 3 negs I was considering having printed. All in all I'm super impressed and wouldn't hesitate to go even bigger with a better negative.</p>

<p>A friend of mine in Hamburg on a rainy day...</p><div></div>

<p>Matt is exactly right - you need to start showing them huge images, and you can do this with an LCD projector. You start at something like 40x50, and have them pick their favorite image at that size. Then you offer the price for the largest size, which will be the most expensive. You go DOWN from there. The smaller sizes will seem more reasonable. Now think about trying to do the reverse, starting at 8X10 and going up from there. </p>

<p>I totally agree with the OP. Manual focus, no meter needed. Way more fun, and better pics to boot. </p>

<p>Personally I've been amazed at what I come home with using my 6x6 TLR with an 80mm for landscape. It cured me of the feeling that I need to shoot as wide as possible. But I agree with Edward that it doesn't really matter. When you only have one focal length, you simply look and find compositions that work with what you have with you.</p>

<p>I have the Epson 3200 which can do up to 4X5, but the disadvantage is there is no ICE with this model. I paid 50 euro on the bay. I'm pretty happy with scans at 2400 dpi (so about 25MP from 6x6). I have yet to print them larger than A4, but I think it would be no problem.</p>