rob_piontek

<p>I think DOF preview is not important. Usually I want either as much or as little DOF as I can get. So I'm either wide open or stopped down as much as possible. </p>

<p>I love my TLR. My SLR is not better. They are just different.</p>

<p>I will just add that if what you want is sepia, this traditionally comes from printing in the darkroom and toning your prints sepia. What that means is that if you want sepia, you need to print yourself in a wet darkroom, or do the conversion to sepia in photoshop with your scanned image. But then you could just shoot digital. So one point is just that you can shoot digital and get vintage looks.</p>

<p>I think the problem of the TLR backwards viewfinder thing is overblown. Takes a bit to get used to it but no big deal. I find composing on ground glass is easier than a prism viewfinder. Somehow looking at an image on the screen as opposed to looking through a hole lets me 'see' the final image more easily. I think the ground glass allows you to better visualize what the scene will look like in 2D.</p>

<p>The big advantage of at least some TLRs is the small size and weight. </p>

<p>One thing to consider... if I was doing this on a long trip, I might worry that I would have a camera problem at some point, but would never know it until I get home and develop the film.</p>

<p>I have a Yashica MAT 124G. It doesn't focus very close, so the parallax problem is no big deal, at least for me. If you are worried about it, you can shoot on a tripod and just change the column height to the approximate location after you're happy with the composition.</p>

<p>One more...</p><div></div>

<p>I am loving my new to me Pentax 67. The only downside is that I will now never buy a Hasselblad.</p><div></div>

<p>Here is a late one from me. Meant to post all week!</p><div></div>

<p>Looks to me like they are basically the same camera, but I only own a Holga. You might have more fun playing with an old 6x6 folder or another antique. Lots of cool old cameras out there. I always wanted a box camera myself. </p>

<p>I agree it's your imagination. Film can have a different 'look' to it, but digital can be processed to look like film. I own an expensive Nikon DSLR but it sits in the closet most of the time. I feel my film images are stronger because I take more time to compose and think about whether it's really worth to take the picture. I like that. I shoot film because for me it's more fun. </p>

<p>I agree that it must be fake, but generally you can get this kind of look in camera (not the perfect ghosts but the veiling flare that reduces contrast, not sure my terminology is right though). Just try playing around shooting into different kinds of light. Try changing angles and how much and how close to the strong light your camera is pointing. Try different lenses. It can be really nice but you need to tune it to get the right look.</p>

<p>And a 2nd shot of our Christmas tree this year...</p><div></div>

<p>My parent's dog Rusty with my new Pentex 6x7 with the 150mm 2.8.</p><div></div>

<p>I'd suggest the Sigma 30 1.4 or Nikon 35 1.8. You can find a used Nikon 17-55 2.8 if you up your budget a bit.</p>

<p>I would want to know if the 6 in 1 folds up as small as the 5 in 1 does. The circles are nice because they fold up so small. In any case I don't think you need the 2 stop diffuser.</p>

<p>I have a PhD in physics (really) but often I can't decipher people explanations. But neither was I very good in optics! And it was 10 years ago. I read the blog post quickly, and I think what your missing is the magnification factor of the background that makes long lenses seem to have shallower depth of field. I would put it this way... for the same subject framing, DOF is the same for different focal lengths (for the same format at least) if the aperture is the same. But the longer lens will appear to isolate the subject better because the blurred background is larger. Am I wrong?</p>

<p>I just bought a pentax 6x7 with a 150 2.8 to hope to get something like an 85 1.4. Just got the first negs back today and can't wait to scan them tonight. But I think the quest towards shallower depth of field has it's limits. While I like the portrait of the man in the OPs gallery, to me the shallow DOF (and maybe some kind of movement?) is a bit distracting from the subject. I wonder what non-photographers would think of this portrait? Also, on the other side of things, sometimes when your shooting people you might actually want more DOF. Say you have two people or a group. Or maybe the environment is important to the story that goes along with the picture, and you'd like it to be sharp. Or maybe the light is getting low and you'd rather have a 1.4 on 35mm compared to a 5.6 on 5X4 (though I see you have some fast LF lenses, I didn't know they made these). I've noticed this already with my pentax on the first roll!</p>

<p>After shooting for a while with the sunny 16 rule I decided to buy a meter. But in the end I don't like using it, it feels cumbersome and takes a bit of the fun away. So now I tend to leave it at home or only use it when I'm not confident.</p>

<p>I am happy to have scanned this with my new scanner!</p><div></div>

<p>I guess I prefer the original, on my uncalibrated screen. One thing to consider if that if you're working on a JPEG and making exposure and WB adjustments, these can add color casts which wouldn't otherwise be there with a raw file. Another idea is to keep some files around which you know have good skin tone and compare what you're editing to these reference files. If you're screen isn't calibrated there's not much point in fussing too much about it. WB targets help quite a bit, shoot one frame with your target, and makes color correction much easier than hunting around the frame for a neutral value that probably isn't neutral. If you have white/grey/black in your target you can quickly check all colors to make sure the cast is gone, then you can warm it up a bit too taste.</p>

<p>On my uncalibrated screen the original shot looks fine, skin color as well. Maybe 1/3 stop too hot. Fix 1 is definitely way under.</p>

<p>You could argue that for shooting guys with guns you might actually prefer smaller lights. I wouldn't bother renting something unless you know what it's going to get you. If you get a big box and flag it you'll lose power compared to using a smaller box to start with.</p>

<p>Frustrating isn't it? I ran into the same problem. Why can't they let the sync port fire when it should, so you can mix? Is there a good technical reason or do they just want you to buy more SB-900s? My solution is to just use only dumb flashes. In a studio setting there isn't much advantage to using CLS anyway.</p>

<p>I bet you'd get the same pics with a D5000, 50 1.4, 35 1.8, and an ultrawide zoom. I backpack as well, with photo gear, and you should seriously ask yourself what heavy 2.8 zooms and FX gets you for the weight penalty. </p>

<p>Still I would have thought that somebody here would have actually tested it in practice, say run music every other day and see if there is any correlation in site statistics or inquiries. I'm now running an auto playing slide show of background images on my main page, and I could image the response could be improved by music. I know how much more captivating DVD slideshows are with music than without, at least for me. I have the same feelings about music on the web in general as you, but I still think it would be worth the effort to actually look at the numbers. If I try I'll let you know. Thank you for the thoughts.</p>

<p>For portraits you don't need AF at all.</p>