connor_roelke

<p>Thanks for the insight, all.</p>

<p>A little more information: <br /> - The boat is truly made for shallow water. See photo. 17', seating for 3-4 (max), and the reason it can get where canoes/kayaks cannot is because it has power and floats in a similar amount of water. There are estuary and river systems in Maine that we fish that are some of the most beautiful locations I have ever been to, and would require a long paddle if it is possible at all. In a 4 or 8 hour day, we could cover quite a significant amount of ground. <br /> - It's certainly not a luxury vehicle. There's no accommodations or facilities. It exists as a platform, nothing more. Is this really prohibitive? <br /> - I'd like to limit it to 1-2 photographers to reduce the common photographs and focus on a more personal experience. The advantage of what I'm offering is that we can go anywhere that you want to - making micro-adjustments with a push pole to get the shot you want.</p>

<p>With all that being said, I think I may pursue this. It's a pleasure to be out on the water and a background in photography, fishing, and boating create quite a unique offering.</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback!</p>

<p><img src="http://www.thehulltruth.com/attachments/boats-sale-wanted/368301d1381851696-flats-boat-ranger-184-ghost-2011-ranger-profile.jpg" alt="" width="432" height="322" /></p>

<p>Hey all,<br>

First things first - I hope this is not interpreted as self promotion, advertising, etc, as I am not looking to sell my services here. This is for curiosity and discussion only! :)</p>

<p>I have been kicking this idea around for awhile and figured I'd post to get some feedback before investing any serious time or money into the venture. I am a long time photographer and slightly more recent owner of a flats boat. These are used for fishing in very shallow water and allow access to places that even canoes and kayaks can't reach.</p>

<p>I live in coastal NH/Southern Maine and the waterfront around here is some of the most spectacular on the east coast. Hiring guides for fishing is quite common, but would there be interest in hiring a "guide" to access locations that cannot normally be accessed/photographed? The day rate that most fishing guides get is spendy - $300-$600 a day depending on time spent on the water. But, you could cover quite a bit of ground and we are all used to waking up early to access the best light of the day.</p>

<p>I have seen and made some of my best photographs while on this boat, so it is intriguing to leverage it as a side business. Is this something you, or someone you know, would pay for? What's the price range that would make it viable?</p>

<p>Cheers!<br>

Connor</p>

You won't get much for the camera if it's broken. Send it to Dave or get your money back.

I'll try different positions Bruce. Thanks.

It was just a bad negative Bruce. It was creased and overexposed. Nothing to worry about, just a bad shot. No leaks as far as I can tell.

Ah, but that's the thing. I have another back and the negatives look fine?

 

That is interesting, though. They do seem to be aligned with the sides. Maybe I am just scanning them wrong. The film holder holds two negatives.

Hi everyone.

 

I purchased an A12 back for my Hasselblad 500c from KEH in BGN condition a month or so ago. I have started

scanning some of the first rolls of film (I've been away) and I'm noticing that the negatives are crooked. I'm scanning

with an Epson 4490, and when I go to crop the negatives to leave a little bit of border, two sides are always crooked.

Not even like a pixel or so, they seem really off. What could be happening? I'll attach a file to demonstrate the

problem. (Please excuse the bad shot... :P)<div></div>

Even though you may technically need a lens 60% bigger, you can crop the medium format negative to the same size as that of a 35mm one and it will, in theory, have the same detail and magnification.

 

So, if you're willing to crop sometimes and benefit when animals are closer, I can see the 645 system working for you.

Not a problem. No sales tax in New Hampshire. :) :)

Thanks for the advice everyone. I think I'm just going to bite the bullet and go spend some money. It helps that the copy I tried was absolutely tack sharp, I hope they still have it.

I guess my real question here is new or used. $20 doesn't mean anything to me. $70 does. I'm a kid in highschool.

 

Thanks for all the responses everyone.

Hi guys, this is more of an opinionated question, so I hope everyone can chime in.

 

I'm in the market for a 35/2 and see three options. Buy used for ~$250, buy new online for $330 (w/ shipping) or

pay $350 and support my local camera store. On any normal circumstance, I would probably try and find it used

first. But the more and more I go into the local camera store the more I realize there is never anyone in there

and always a bunch of people working. Everyone is super friendly and helpful. Would it be worth it to grit my

teeth and spend $70 or so extra?

 

Any opinions would be great. I plan to shoot it on a D50 (possibly D200 soon) and Nikon FG.

Ah, alright. I won't worry about it then. Thanks.

This could potentially be a very stupid question. I don't know.

 

On my Nikon D50 (and also tested on a D200) my 70-300mm VR's infinity is not actually infinity. I was doing some

moon shots (a fairly good subject for infinity focus tests I would say) and I had assumed I can just spin the

focus ring all the way to the infinity end and things should be in focus. This was not the case. It went right by

infinity and put things out of focus again. Using the autofocus, It snapped back into focus, but the focus ring

was not at the extreme end. Rather, a few mm's away.

 

Is this normal? I just noticed it on a 105/2.5 PC lens I have recently purchased. If it is normal, why is it

built that way?

It's only worth about $200 and the price is falling daily. You should probably sell it all to me really quick to avoid losing more money.

Forgot to add, the purpose will be some web things (which the 4490 is great at) and large prints. Most will not be above 13x13's.

Scanning mostly 2 1/4 and sometimes 35mm, is it worth the $300 or so? I have the option to sell the 4490 for $15

less than I bought it, so now would be the time to upgrade if I wanted to. I don't have the budget for a Nikon

9000 or anything. My budget is around $500.

 

Thanks.

The Bronica Sq series is great. Many cheap lenses, bodies and backs are available. Look on www.keh.com for an sq-a or

sq-ai.

I found the leak!

 

I took the roll of color out after I finished it and inspected the back under the light. It was hard to see at first, but definitely there. My Dad saw it too. It's right at the corner of the dark slide so I'm going to take a look at it tomorrow. Hopefully that's the only one.

 

I'll keep you guys updated. Thanks so much for the help.

Being primarily a landscape photographer, I think I need to improve my filter collection. Currently I have a 77mm

circular polarizer as well as an infrared filter for digital work. I've been noticing my need for a graduated ND and a set

of ND filters. The problem I have is that the different options are confusing me. I want to make this as cheap as

possible with good results, the best bang for my buck system I can put together.

 

So, my questions.

 

Currently, I shoot with a Hasselblad 500c and 80/2.8 C. I plan on eventually getting a 150/4 and either 50/4 or 40/4.

Is the filter size on the 50/4 going to be larger than the equivilent of 77mm? Should I work around that? I know the

filters for the 40/4 are rediculous, so I'm not really worried about that.

 

Is there a particular brand I should be looking into for value? Are their any starter kits available?

 

Aside from a polarizer and grad ND/ND filters, should I look into any of the color filters for black and white

photography? A red filter? Maybe warming filters?

 

As most of my printing happends digitally (and always with color), I have photoshop available to me. Would this

eliminate the need for some filters? Which ones?

 

I appreciate any help that you can give. I realize this is a lot of questions, but I'm just trying to figure this out and

hopefully before my trip to Nova Scotia in a little more than a week (!!).

Epson 4490 if you're on a budget, Epson V700 if you have some money to spend, or a Nikon dedicated film scanner (such as the 9000) if you have no budget what so ever.

You can get crazy color shifts, often loss of film speed, things like that. If the film has been stored cold it's whole life, it should behave much like fresh film. If it has been laid in a box in someones garage, even a few years expired could have some crazy effects. If you are going for pure unexpected results, look for just that. 5+ year old film that has been sitting in someones garage. If you buy in bulk, the first roll should tell you more or less what the rest will be like, so if its nothing less than normal you can save it for more serious things.

 

I don't know much about expired transparency film as I don't shoot many transparencies at all. Processing is horrible where I live. I think I read somewhere that it looses film speed faster, though. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Expired film would be interesting. Check ebay, a 10 year old roll of film can be had for less than a dollar. It might be completely normal or it could be really interesting.

 

As for new film, some Provia 100f would be nice to try as well.

Dont worry about it. I am using the steel developing tank available from Adorama and an old reel of my dads. The tank and

lid are brand new. I'll take the lid up to a bright light and check it out.

All excellent ideas, thank you. Once I finish this roll of color I plan to do all that.

 

I've pretty much ruled out developing. I just don't see how it could be this consistent.