charles_watson

i've taken about ten rolls with the fuji, and i love it for planned photography, when i can ask someone to pose for me or when it's a landscape. photographing kids with the fuji is downright impossible though, and i miss depth of field when looking through the camera.

 

do you know if ttl on the 6x7 is adequate?

A seven year old kid recently dropped my D300 into a lake, instantly killing it. Repairs are the cost of the

camera : it's completely destroyed. I need a camera with "better than 35mm" results for an advanced photo class

I'm taking. I currently only have a 6x9 Fuji rangefinder left, but without a light meter it's a bit useless.

 

I see a "Pentax 6x7 SLR w/ Mirror Lock Up, 105mm f/2.4 and TTL" being advertised for $500. Would this give me a

fully-automatic metering environment, something similar to aperture priority metering on most digital / 35mm SLRs?

 

I'd like to get a "point and shoot" medium format SLR camera. It's a pain to use a 6x9 RF, because it's too

technical -- although, the results are phenomenal. I love portraits with great depth of field, so a SLR is a must.

 

Does $500 USD for the 6x7 SLR, MLU, TTL and a 105mm f/2.4 all in "good" condition sound reasonable?

 

Thanks,

 

Charles.

Thanks for the straight answer. I haven't seen any Pentax Originals on eBay as of yet. It's an excellent camera, though, so I wouldn't mind hanging on to it.

Sorry, that middle paragraph got dissected.

 

The serial is No. 179132 for the Asahi Pentax Original "K"

 

The serial is No. 380652 for the 35mm f/3.5 Auto-Takumar

 

The serial is No. 169117 for the 55mm f/1.8 Auto-Takumar

 

The serial is No. 784649 for the 55mm f/1.8 Fujinon

 

Thanks, Charles

Hey all,

 

My teacher gave me a Pentax Original that was broken, but in good shape, with a

couple of mechanical problems. I fixed those problems and now all the camera's

functions are in perfect working condition. I have an amazing near-mint 35mm

f/3.5 Auto-Takumar, a good condition 55mm f/1.8 Fujinon, and a 55mm f/1.8

Auto-Takumar in bad condition [takes awesome pictures, but there's a scratch in

the rear glass].

 

The serial is No. 179132 for the Asahi Pentax Original "K"

The serial is No. 380652 for the 35mm f/3.5 Auto-Takumar

The serial is No. 169117 for the 55mm f/1.8 Auto-Takumar

The serial is No. 784649 for the 55mm f/1.8 Fujinon

 

I've spent a lot of time and a bit of money repairing this, and I'd love to be

able to turn a profit. The shutter speeds, etc, are all working well.

 

 

Thanks,

Charles

I'm positive it's a matter of color spaces. I shoot JPG and RAW, but I know the difference. How do you find Bridge's color profile, and make Photoshop use the same one?

Well how do I find what color space Bridge uses?

Hey guys,

 

Adobe Bridge renders my pictures perfectly.

 

Adobe Photoshop CS3 makes them look over-saturated and washed out.

 

How can I use Bridge's color space in Photoshop? Where do I check?

 

Thanks

Yeah, this is quite common.

 

Film is scanned by backlighting it. Documents and prints are scanned by front lighting.

 

You *MUST* attach the transparency adapter at the back in order backlight and therefore scan film.

Hey all,

 

I'm looking at a Zeroimage 4x5 pinhole camera and a 4x5 back.

 

I'll be using Fuji FP-100C film.

 

In order to use this film, what backs can you use? Obviously the PA-45 by Fuji,

but those are hard to find. What does Polaroid make? Will the 545i / 500 / 545 /

405 take 4x5" Fuji film?

 

Thanks,

Charles

I guess I'm not being clear, sorry. I have the original 12.3MP RAW file. I have the .PSD with the layer-based edits for the 1000x667 web size. I just don't have the .PSD with layer-based edits for the original 12.3MP, and I'm wondering if I can implant the colors and tones of the .PSD, as seen on flickr, to the "original"

I used Genuine Fractals and I'm not pleased with the results. Resizing from 1000x677 [around one megapixel] just doesn't give good enough results.

 

The ideal way would be to preserve the sharpness of the original 12.3MP file, which I still have, with the color and tone edits of the 1000x677 file.

I shoot RAW and use Adobe Bridge to open copies of any JPEGs that I have. It's a really good workflow.

 

The problem is that my editing style involves a lot of "Apply Image..." to a new layer, so by the end of my hour-long editing session, the .PSD at full-size will be around 400-600MB.

 

That's why I often downsize my .PSD, considering until recently I've been without a printer -- until recently, I've done more simple edits that I've thought could be reproduced with a layer adjustment or two from the RAW file.

 

Another example of this is my photo on flickr "Terminus". When JPGMag asked for a 2000 pixel minimum height/width, I had to try and re-edit the original RAW file to get similar results.

 

http://www.jpgmag.com/photos/661056

 

Once again, this is true of my photo on flickr "decay".

 

http://www.jpgmag.com/photos/660101

 

I'd really like help if someone is confident of the way to make the original-sized copies have the tones and colors of the "web-sized" flickr versions I made...I tried match color and similar operations but it does not give good results.

 

Thanks!

Hey all,

 

Here's my problem. I retouched a photo of a friend for a class project on

portraiture. I spent about an hour editing colors, tones, etc, until the image

looked great. I then saved it, no worries. I made sure to include the layers in

case I wanted to make any changes.

 

Then, a day or two later, I resized the image to 1000 x 667 to upload the photo

to flickr. I accidentally saved the .PSD at this size, without realizing it.

 

Now, I want to make an A3-size print. All the layers are there, as they should

be, but it's too small. I have the original 12.3 RAW file from my D300.

 

Is there a way to, say, increase the size of the .PSD, retaining colors and

tones, but to use the sharpness of the original RAW file?

 

Or, since I have the .PSD, can I send it to someone feeling charitable on

Photoshop and have them edit the original RAW to match the .PSD?

 

Some of the steps I took used layers which I then merged, so a lot of sharpness

is lost if I just resize to A3, and the edits that use only adjustment layers

make up about 30% of the editing overall. I did a lot of healing brush, clone

stamp, brush tool...

 

- Edited

- Unedited

 

Thanks!

Sorry, made a mistake typing it in. This M645 kit cost me $7000 to build -- $4000 was the cost of the M645 1000s + 120 film insert, metering prism and 80mm f/2.8. He wants all of it, which is a bit absurd.

 

I talked to him on the phone today.

 

He said "no one wants to buy the M645 anymore. no one even wants the 500C/M. the only medium format camera people buy these days is the 6x9 Fuji's". I found that to be absurd, said "thank you", and hung up.

A local camera store owner is selling a Fuji 6x9 with a 90mm non-interchangeable

lens for HK$5000, or just under US$650. He said that he'd sell it for HK$2000 if

I trade my Mamiya M645 1000s, M645J, 210mm f/4 and 80mm f/2.8, 120 and 220 roll

film holders, and one Lunasix 3.

 

The Lunasix 3 is a little inaccurate, and the 210mm f/4 has weird discoloration

if you look through the lens from the front element [it doesn't affect picture

quality though].

 

Considering this M645 kit cost me around $4000 to build, does trading the whole

M645 kit and then paying an EXTRA $2000 (US$250) seem right for the camera? I

think it is a mark II or mark I edition -- I've seen the newer mark III and it

doesn't look like the one in the store.

@James

 

I don't see your point. I'm trying to find if there's a similar film with colors / contrast similar to Word War II era "Safety Film" [which I think was a generic title back then for all Kodachrome].

 

Lets say Ansel Adams used Tri-X. If I stood next to him with his massive 8x10 or 4x5 or 6x6" camera with an APS-C sized point and shoot, and we both used Tri-X and the same exposure settings, the image would have a "look" that was the same, or at least very, very similar [poor contrast of the lens, no shift / tilt, etc]

 

You *CAN* get the same results with 35mm. You cannot, however, get the same sharpness or accutance with the smaller negative. I'm comparing films, and it doesn't matter if the chemicals of those films are spread over a 24x36mm area or a 8x10in area

@James

 

"The library of congress flickr site mentions these were 4x5" color slides."

 

I don't think the camera is really relevant, right? I mean, other than expensive cinema color-corrected lenses [aka repackaged Nikons], the camera / lens have little impact on the contrast / color of the film?

Also, is there a direct film comparison, for example, side by side photos taken with different films at the same scene, on a tripod, with the same lens or same focal length and the same settings, with the only the changing between the photos the film and the shutter speed [to accommodate ISO changes]

Hey guys,

 

I'm looking at the Library of Congress's flickr website.

 

A lot of the photos were taken on ...ASTMAN SAFETY FILM [Kodak Eastman Safety

Film].

 

 

What current films have similar color and contrast levels? You can tell by some

of the darker lighting scenes that it was a [relatively] high ISO, probably 100

to 200, and it appears reciprocity wasn't a huge issue, as shown by the night

photo.

 

The library of congress flickr site mentions these were 4x5" color slides.

 

What current film would give these results, without digital post-processing?

 

Thanks

@Steve,

 

Sorry, what I meant was that I tried the setup on a digital camera to test the flash exposure. All three flashes were on manual mode, but to make sure I wasn't overexposing, I shot first on Digital, then plugged the wireless flash / PC-cord into the film camera.

 

@Craig

 

The X-Sync for the M645 is listed as "60X", 1/60 + X-sync. Does this mean I'll only be able to use flash at speeds of 1/60 or slower?

 

---

 

Also, I'd like to get a motor drive / grip for the 1000s. Can I use grips for the 645 PRO or only grips designed for the M645 / M645J / M645 1000s? A friend of mine is selling the "WG402" for a decent price, would this work on my 1000s?

 

Another question, I have the 1000s with a metering prism, it goes from eight seconds to 1/500, but since the camera I have is a 1000s, it seems a bit wasteful. Are there any other meters that for the M645 that provide something like, eight seconds to 1/1000, plus auto exposure? So I don't have to spin the dial and adjust aperture and use needle metering, rather I can just use "f/8" and the prism meter does the rest?

 

I'd love to see an auto-winding grip and an auto-exposure prism, so that I can keep one hand on the focus and the other on the shutter release. What Mamiya-series camera would I have to use to gain this ability?

 

Thanks

Hey all,

 

I shot some shots with three Vivitar 285HV's -- one on the "FP" flash PC-Cord,

and two connected by the eBay flash triggers -- PT-04's.

 

I set the shutter speed to "60X" and the aperture to f/8.

 

When I had the setup on Digital to check exposure, everything went fine.

 

When I had the setup on film though, the flash all went off but only the PC-Cord

flash made it into the sync speed.

 

What to do?

 

Charles

Patrick,

 

Thanks for the response!

 

I've set up the Epson and I'm getting great results when printing from the desktop, as Epson has supplied ICC profiles for it's papers. I can make prints with colors that are at most ~2% different from the monitor's.

 

The problem is that if I then try to scan the print, or look at the .PSD on the laptop, the colors are radically different.

 

I guess the answer to my question would be any modern color calibrator that supports glossy laptop screens, and manual controls for the scanner.

 

That way, if I print a print after soft-proofing using good paper and the right ICC's, off of a calibrated monitor, scanning would result in a scanned picture that is similar to the original.

 

That'll be my benchmark...

 

But for now, I think Vista is working well. Compared to when I was running XP on my desktop, Photoshop loads in maybe half the time; and I haven't ever had a crash...yet.

Hey all,

 

I have the following things that I need calibrated, the difference between the

devices is overwhelming. A pure red document on the desktop comes out purple on

the laptop.

 

1) Dell M1530 [with Glossy Screen, not ideal at all].

 

2) Homebuilt computer with a WFP2407 [great results].

 

3) Epson R2400

 

4) Espon V700

 

5) Nikon 4000ED

 

6) Nikon D300

 

Colors are all over the place. I've received all of this equipment except for

the D300 using used / refurbished parts to save costs, I even added the hard

drive and operating system [both computers are running Vista Ultimate] to the

laptop myself to save costs. This has led to some complications, though --

despite setting color profiles to sRGB whenever I see the option, the image

comes out significantly different when I use different devices.

 

Is there a way that I can calibrate all six devices to get at least somewhat

accurate hues / levels of saturation? I'm not looking to constantly update the

monitors every week, I'd simply like to be able to get a workflow going that's

more accurate.

 

My budget is around $200, so I can afford a Huey but not a Spyder PrintPro. Is

there some kind of ICC profile I can load the printer / scanners with that would

keep things streamlined? I only use PhotoShop and Bridge for my editing, which

should simplify things.

 

So, pretty much, I need a way to roughly calibrate two scanners, two computers

[one glossy / one regular screen], a camera and a printer for under $200.

 

Once again, I'm not looking for industry-leading quality, more like "I can scan

or upload the same image onto either computer and what I see will be the same,

and when I print it the colors, it'll come out the same from either computer"

 

Thanks,

Charles

Dean, what's the name of that first folder 4x5 you posted?

 

Looks really simple and lightweight.