steve_robb1

Thanks for the insights Yann. What is it you like about Tri-X over HP5?

G'day everyone,

 

I'm getting back into B&W portraiture a lot lately, planning on doing a lot

more (mostly for display at home, and for family/friends. I'll be developing

my own negs, and at this stage probably getting the prints made down at a local

pro-lab. It's been a good ten years or so since I've developed my own, or been

in a dark room regularly, so I'm really looking forward to it.

 

The question I have is about films, I've seemed to have always had the best B&W

experience with Ilford films, but like I said, it's been a while since using

true black and white. I'm just wondering how people think the Delta's compare

with the older films? Is there a noticable difference? For better or worse?

I'll be using 120 (in 6x4.5 format), indoors with natural light, would anyone

recommend any one of these films over the others for that situation, and why

(other than the obvious, that I'd probably need the extra speed of the

HP5/Delta 400)?

 

Thanks everyone, I really appreciate your input. Of course, I know this is

another 'personal preferance' area, but I'd love to hear what those preferances

are.

 

Thanks for your input.

 

Cheers,

Steve

I've been thinking along similar lines lately too. I almost need someone to tell me "Right, I'll see you next weekend, have a film fill of XY & Z".

 

I read a post on here (I think?) recently where someone mentioned an 'assignment' to run off a film (or memory card I guess) of pictures of shadows. I think things like that really get you thinking. Most places I go (including the short walk to work most days) I carry my camera with me on the chance that I see something worth photographing. However, because I'm not looking for anything specific, I may just look around in general waiting for a scene to hit me. On the few occasions I've gone out with a 'goal', it's been easy to snap off a few rolls, but with no direction, I could be in the most inspiring place and not even notice it!

Thanks Danny, that's somewhat comforting to know. You wouldn't happen to know what voltage your 283 is synching at would you?

Hi Wil,

 

Thanks for the reply, but as I mentioned, I already know the voltages of my flash, I'm wondering what the P645 will sit happily with. I use my 283 on a bracket with my old Pentax ME Super all the time, but have to conciously remember not to attach it to my newer camera's (that can only handle 6v sync).

Hi everyone,

 

I've searched back through past threads and can't seem to find an answer to

this. I have recently bought a Pentax 645 as my first MF camera (still

planning to run around with the 35mm, but come back with the 645 when I find

something extra special) and am eagerly awaiting it's arrival. I think my

wife's sick of hearing how excited I am every day!

 

I'm just wondering if anyone could tell me what the flash sync voltage is? I'm

wondering because one of my two favourite flashes is my old Vivitar 283, but

it's one of the earlier ones with the 200+ sync voltage, and I'd hate to spend

all this time in anticipation of a new piece of gear only to cook it with my

first test roll.

 

If anyone can tell me (or tell me where I overlooked it in the manual) I'd

really appreciate it.

 

Cheers,

Thanks Nige, hadn't actually thought too seriously about that problem to be honest, just figured I'd point it in the general direction and cross my fingers ;) That is a good point though...

Thanks Jim, I will, it'll probably prompt me to get around to scanning a whole lot of images I've been meaning to "modernise".

Hi Nige,

 

One reason I'm interested in using lenses rather than just the body cap, is to get varying focal lengths. If your average pinhol looks to be roughly similar to a 24mm lens, it'd be great to be able to frame the picture a little differently if/when the occasion arrises, I know it won't be true-to-pinhole, but as I mentioned, I'm after the 'effect', rather than being more true-to-form. Thanks for the suggestion, I'll check out the lensbaby, never heard of that, it'll be interesting to look it up.

 

Cheers.

Yep, that's from the light source getting directly (or on a sharp angle)down your lens, the hexagonal shapes are the shaps created by your aperture blades (I believe?). Perhaps try just using your camera to look around with a modest wide angle lens (28mm-ish)since they are most prone to flare, that'll give you an idea of what sort of angles and focal length you need to get the type of flare you want.

Thanks for the suggestion Randy, but like I said, I'd really like to experiment with using lenses, just for the sake of experimentation really! Cost? Well, the most it would cost would be the few calories I'd burn getting the filters out of my bag and screwing them on ;) I just thought I'd pop it up here in case someone had already played around with it and struck on a good formula, so "yes", I know the real answer is "try it yourself and see", just wanted to hear from anyone who's thought along similar lines before.

 

Cheers.

Hi all,

 

I really wasn't sure whether to pop this down in the "Other" section or not, so

hopefully this is okay.

 

I love the look of pinhole photographs, but until I get into gear and set

myself up to print at home (or develop negs at the very least) I don't feel

that I can get too experimental. Some time ago I thought of popping a pinhole

cover over an SLR body, then looked on the web the other day and saw all sorts

of contraptions from body cap's with holes, to the Loreno (I think...?) body

cap lens. But I'd like to not so much do actual pinhole photography, but

rather replicate some of those effects in my normal 35mm photography.

 

So, flicking through some pinhole pictures the other day, I tried to define

just what it is I like about them, I was able to put my finger on: whispy

effects of trees and clouds, seemingly infinate depth of field, overall

slightly soft focus and slight (or extreme) vignetting. I got thinking, how

can I replicate these effects?

 

So I'm going to try the following, I'd love to hear if anyone else has tried

something similar: stopping my aperture right down on a 28mm lens, stacking a

few ND filters on the front, possibly with a 25 red too (working in B&W) to

slow the shutter speed down even further. That should give me good depth of

field (not infinate, but I'll live), slow shutter to capture movement of trees

and clouds and whatever else isn't nailed down, and having a number of filters

should start to vignette the image (especially if I have to use my 49mm ND

filters on my 52mm lens). That should start getting me some interesting

results, as for the slightly soft image, well, I can just kick the tripod

during exposure ;)

Now PLEASE understand, I'm not being facetious, or trying to stir up trouble, I

genuinely want to know... Just what is it that makes a Leica so good?

 

In one of the first books on 35mm photography I read as a child I distinctly

remember seeing the picture of a Leica M3 and thinking "WOW!". It had an extra

attachment of some sort on top (I've only seen it on a few other M3's that I've

seen pictures of) that made it look real "gadgety". I then remember a few years

ago when Robin William's film "One Hour Photo" came out he made reference to

the "Best camera in the world" being a Leica Minilux (going from memory here).

Just recently, I've been reading a lot of stories of people travelling the

world on going on wild adventures with nothing but their "tried and true Leica

M7" (and probably a small bag of clothes).

 

Silent shooting does sound very appealing, since I'm the sort of person who

doesn't like drawing attention to myself with a loud "CLUNK!" when I hit the "I

want a photo of that" button, but what else is there about these little things

that makes them so appealing to so many people, and as a result, fetch the

prices they do?

A good friend got married recently, I helped him out by taking some photo's at

the grooms house before hand because the 'real' photographers could only get to

the bride's place, and at the reception since the photographers left right

after the official entrance of the happy couple.

 

During the ceremony I just sat back and enjoyed (apart from the odd snap here

and there) because I didn't want to step on the pro's toes, it's their job and

I'd hate to get in their way. However, it was interesting watching them work,

now, I'll admit I'm a little "camera shy" at times, and don't like drawing

attention to myself (I like to be the unseen, unnoticed photographer), so that

may be why their approach stood out to me, but these guys were darting all over

the place, running (well, power-walking) up the aisles and around the back of

the church to get to the other side, jumping up on the stage, sticking camera?s

in peoples faces etc... to me it just seemed very insensitive and paparazzi-

like. At our wedding the photographer set himself up against the wall in the

front row with a zoom and a tripod, and there he stayed, no-one even knew he

was there, and that's how we wanted it, he was there to record the ceremony,

not take part in it :)

 

Now, I saw a quick proof of some of the pro shots from my friends wedding and

some were great, some were pretty average (as you'd expect from any

photographer, you can't snap the million dollar pic on every frame). There was

one particularly beautiful shot of the bride, but her comment was "Yeah, it's a

good picture, but I just reminds me of when I was trying to remember my vows

and some monkey jumped on stage and put a camera in my face." Even though it's

a nice photo, I don't think she wants it purely because it has a slightly

unpleasant attachment.

 

So, I was just wondering what some of you wedding photographers think, is the

wedding a journalistic event that has to be covered from every possible angle

at every possible moment to make sure you've got some decent pictures and at

the end of the day, those pictures are what it's all about, or is it a sacred

moment between two people (neither of which is holding a camera ;) ) and their

family which you want to record without becoming part of the "show" yourself?

 

I'd be very interested to hear your different points of view.

Welcome David. i've only recently signed up too, after being directed (and redirected!) to this site numerous times over the past years. I love your photographs, particularly the ones of the old cabin, I really like the 'feel' about them.

Hi all,

 

I just popped a few films into a lab yesterday (going to be my new "regular", so

many other places aren't doing a good job with film anymore), and they charged

me a few bucks extra to develop the C-41 B&W films (Kodak BW400CN). I asked the

girl why, since it's on the same paper, running through the same machine, with

the same chemicles etc etc, she said it's just harder to print B&W than it is

colour.

 

Now, it's been a few years since I used to develop my own films on a regular

basis, and even then I only did true B&W, but I did print from a colour film

once, and I remember that being a pain. To print from B&W negatives, you just

get your crop in the right spot, set your timer, and there's your print ready to

be developed, but with colour, that's where you have to fiddle around with the

different hues to try to get it looking natural (or so I found anyway).

 

So, does anyone know why a lab would charge more (only talking a couple of

dollars here, but still...) for what was traditionally a simpler to print

picture? maybe some of you guys who work in 1hr labs can tell me?

 

Cheers,

Steve

"What do you need to do to keep from getting this in your lens?"

 

I've heard of people keeping a few packets of those moisture eating granuals in their camera bags all the time, just to stop any moisture forming in the first place. It makes sense to me, no moisture, no mushroom food.

"Oh, I can get 'em apart ok...."

 

Yes... me too! I've recently developed a coupele films from different bodies where I used that lens for a few shots and all seems to be good, like I said, at this stage it isn't too bad at all. You have got me thinking though... I've still got an old geological black light, that'd give anything a healthy (or not) dose of UV. Might give that a try I think...

Hi guys,

 

Yes, I wouldn't try to dissasemble a lens I actually like! Thanks for the tip Wigwam, I'll try popping in the window sill and see if I notice any change in the structure etc. You said "then I'd say use it (once disinfected of course)", by disinfected, are you refering to killing with a good dose of healthy sinshine?

 

Oh, and thanks for the tip on the ammonia/peroxide Dave, unfortunately it's on an inner element, so I won't be giving that a try in a hurry.

 

Thanks again.

Hi all,

 

I've just got a quick question: I've recently been going through all my

photography gear and starting to get right back into it. I've got mostly older

gear and noticed that one of my favourite mini-zoom's (Pentax-m 35-70 2.8) has

started a small mushroom farm! It's not THAT bad, it doesn't seem to noticably

affect the images (shot a few pics on 2.8 down to 5.6, other than DOF I noticed

no difference in sharpness, other than the slight softness you'd expect when

wide open). I did have an old 85mm lens I picked up on the cheap once that was

so infected, just looking through it to focus it had dropped about two stops.

 

I'm just wondering, once a bit of fungus has started, is it possible to stop it

from spreading by filling my camera bag with those little moisture eating

sachet's? Or once the first sign appears, is it simply too late? Also...

(sorry if this sounds completely rediculous!) is there any chance that this lens

can 'infect' others? I just know that fungus spores are good at getting into

the tightest of spaces, so could the fungus spread by keeping this lens in the

same bag as my others (I'd if my 50mm 1.4 got sick!).

 

 

Thanks for your opinions everyone.

Thankyou very much for your responses (& thanks Nadine for the straight forward explanation!). I'll look forward to getting this test roll developed and see how everything has turned out.

 

Thanks again!

G'day Bruce, thanks for the response. Am planning to bounce flash with a card for most of the night, unless of course this test roll reveals that one of my difusers is far superior. Will be using a Vivitar 283 on a bracket for most things I'd say. The ceilings are not rediculously high, from the photo's on their site, I'd say perhaps around 10', and a slightly cream colour, which leads me to another question...

 

Lighting seems to be those largish down-lights, they 'look' to be the older reflector globes, rather than halogen. For the colour camera I'm debating what to do, if I'm bouncing the 283 off a creamy ceiling, what are the chances that the colour will be altered enough towards orange that I won't need to gel it? I'd assume not orange enough to put an 80B filter on without them looking at least slightly blue? I like the idea of very warm toned backgrounds, so I'd be happy with the tungsten lit, slightly blurred background with clearer (slightly warm) forground.

Hi all,

 

I've got a question that's probably got a very simple answer. I've spent the

last few days searching past forums (in the on & off free minutes I've been

getting at work), but haven't seemed to turn up what I'm after, so if someone

could set me straight, I'd really appreciate it.

 

Firstly, I'm not a professional photographer, and most certainly not a wedding

photographer, although I have played 2nd shooter at a couple, and done one

myself, but I'll get to that in a minute. Most of my photography to date has

been with existing light, or using hot lights, I guess I just like to know what

the picture's going to look like, as far as shadows, tones etc go. I've always

avoided flash, except for the occasional "happy snap" sort of situations at

family get togethers, my wife's birthday's etc. Anyway, I've been reading up a

lot here over the past few weeks on different flash techniques, slow sync etc

(read the documents here, and on Planet Neil, great ideas!), and I'm feeling a

lot more confident in my 'after dark' abilities now.

 

So (yes, finally getting to the question!), a good friend is (finally) getting

married, he's got a professional for the ceremony, but has asked me to "go

nuts" at the reception. I shot his sisters wedding a few years ago and had

great results, but that was all outdoors (including reception), on a lightly

overcast day. Perfect conditions really, I just grabbed one of the kids there

to hold my reflector for me and we were set (I should mention, this was a bit

of a shotgun wedding, the budget was next to nil, hence why I was called in).

I'm a little concerned that I won't be able to get shots as good at this

indoor, evening reception. He's not putting any pressure on me, they're both

from big families, so there will be a hundred or so P&S's going off all night,

and definitely no shortage of photo's, but we're great mates and he likes what

I've done in the past, so he's just hoping for some slightly-above-average pics

of the night.

 

Now, I know I've rambled a bit already, so I'll get straight to it. I'll take

two bodies with me, one auto, one manual, I'll probably pop my B&W in the auto

to get some nice shots I can frame for them as a present (since my manual

focusing can be a bit sloppy, especially for quick shots in low light) and

colour in the manual. The lighting in the venue seems to be fairly even

throughout (looking at their website), so my thought was: if I get in there,

take a grey card reading, set both cameras to that (or a stop or two below),

chuck my flash's on top and set them to the aperture that the grey card gives

me (probably aiming for f5.6, I think that's the lowest any of my flash's will

go with ASA400), would that give me an acceptable exposure? I know it's

impossible to tell an individual situation from another, but in your

experience, would that give me a good ballpark exposure for the background,

with the flash exposing the groups, tables etc that I'm photographing?

 

By the way, in case it makes any difference, I'm planning on using Fuji 400H,

and Kodak BW400CN, I've also got a few Fuji 160S's in the fridge, but had just

planned on the 400H, since it seems to be a standard with wedding

photographers. I've currently got a roll of 400H in my old Pentax ME Super

that I'm using as a test roll for flash techniques. I've shot off some

comparing a few tricks already (bounce card, couple different diffusers) while

dragging the shutter a little.

 

Thanks in advance for your answers, really looking forward to hearing if this

simple idea would be feasible.

 

Cheers,

Steve

What a warm welcome, I should have done this years ago when I first found you guys ;)

 

...and Leszek, believe me, I have! My main bodies's are the humble old Pentax ME Super's. I've always had an affinity for them, the small light size is just so easy to handle.

Well, like the subject said... "Hello Everyone!". I've just recently joined up

so I thought I should pop by and say G'day before I start bombarding the place

with questions.

 

Over the past, I don't know, probably four years, whenever I've had a

camera/photography related conundrum, I'd do web searches, and nine times out

of ten end up at some site called "photo.net". I could always find the answer

I was looking for, and there always seemed to be someone much less embarrassed

than myself to ask a "silly" question, which really helps us shy folks out.

I'd always think "Wow, this is a really helpful site, and (almost) everyone

seems really genuine and helpful, giving concise and respectful answers. I

really must remember this site." ...of course, within five minutes I would

have forgotten it again!

 

Anyway, I was planning to write a little about myself and my photographic

history (not all that exciting or lengthy though), but it's been so busy at

work that this is the first chance I've had to post. Every day for the past

two months I've opened up half a dozen threads, then slowly through the course

of the day managed to read one or two of them, never actually had the chance to

post. Did make the time to sign up last week though, I thought that would

inspire me to make an appearance!

 

Well, I'm looking forward to learning as much as I can from all of you on here,

and thanks again for the great resource!

 

Cheers,

 

Steve.