morgan lee

<p>Most of my photography is with primes. Dust on my sensor became so annoying, along with other issues, that I went back to film. Promised myself that when digital photography finally had this problem fixed I would go back to shooting digital. Therefore, I'm getting a Ricoh GXR for Christmas. I'll post my impressions here shortly afterwards.</p>

<p>Until then, what made me take the plunge was both Josh Root's review on this site: <a href="../equipment/ricoh/gxr-review/">http://www.photo.net/equipment/ricoh/gxr-review/</a><br>

And, just as important to me, I like what other people are doing with this camera: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/ricoh-gxr/pool/">http://www.flickr.com/groups/ricoh-gxr/pool/</a></p>

<p>Yeah, David. I agree with you on Blurb books being pretty good. I really liked my first one on 100lb. paper and the novelty of seeing my work presented at that level of quality in book form has definitely not gotten old.</p>

<p>Robert, tell me about it. I was hoping that after self publishing photography books hit the mainstream market for a couple of years, that there would be more options and more thorough comparisons between them. If I were shopping for the latest-greatest lens/camera body I would be inundated with information. Not so with creating a photography book. This was the most thorough review I had found so far:</p>

<p><a href="http://photo-book-review.toptenreviews.com/">http://photo-book-review.toptenreviews.com/</a></p>

<p>That being said, I really appreciate the links you posted to Tamagini Design. I hadn't found that one yet and it is the most concise information yet on what I was looking for about 80lb. paper. Now I'm wondering if the good quality of the 80lb. paper is due to their recent improvement of their square-format books by going with a different printer specifically for them and is exclusive to that format.</p>

<p>Adorama looks fantastic for quality. I will definitely be checking them out in the future for a book to show around that is exclusively for use as a portfolio. The one I am working on now is a photographic documentary of a ballet company making The Nutcracker and I suspect that parents, family members and friends may want copies so I was looking for on line availability as well. Plus, once again, Adorama's books have you pay for the high quality with a smaller page count.</p>

<p>To do my part, I will post a brief review of whatever I finally go with on this forum. Thank you everyone for your input.</p>

<p>Yeah, Michael. I was looking through an issue of B&W magazine and, though the paper quality is excellent for a magazine, you can see the outline of the image on the opposite side of the page. I was wondering if it was the same with the 80lb. Blurb books. Edward, you are most likely right. I just wish I could get 100lb. paper from someone for more than 160 pages of book.</p>

<p>A couple of years ago, I created an 8 x 10 landscape hard cover book (with dust jacket) using Blurb. It was my first, and only book and I was thrilled with the results. It was 80 pages in length and I had it printed on their 100 lb. premium paper. It made a stunning first impression to me.</p>

<p>Now I'm making a book that I want to self publish but, due to the documentary nature of this series of photographs, I am worried that I will want more than 160 pages which is the maximum you can print with Blurb using their premium paper.</p>

<p>My question is, how far does the quality degrade using their 80 lb. paper as opposed to the 100? Would I really be slumming it by downgrading the paper? Would it feel "cheap"? Or does it still retain a "book store quality" feel?</p>

<p>If you want to recommend another publisher, my "dream" size would actually be closer to 9 1/2" by 12" but, in the Blurb, Viovio etc. pool, there doesn't seem to be anyone who does larger sizes in portrait format with quality paper. Plus, if it will be a nice book, I'm tempted to go with the "Devil I know" at this point. Still, I'm open to options.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>Well Done!</p>

<p>Though no one mentioned it, buying at a price point that wouldn't have "pi**ed" off the spouse is key to any new gear purchase.</p>

<p>Enjoy the ME Super and I look forward to seeing the pictures.</p>

<p>As a rule of thumb, I try to keep my purchases of manual focus cameras to under $30. I bought the ME and ME Super on E bay in this range. Both came with lenses better than the F 2 50mm. One a 50mm F1.7, the other a Vivitar 28mm. O.K. The Vivitar is not better IQ but at 28mm it is a wide. It is hard to give the Pentax 50/f2 away.</p>

<p>I bought a Honeywell Spotmatic for $28 with a body cover and without any lenses but it was flawless. Meaning I could not find a mark on it as if it had just come out of the box and been sent forward in a time machine 30 years.</p>

<p>All of these cameras were bought in the last two years and have been used regularly. Using the ME less and less but the ME Super still gets used all of the time and is a fantastic camera if you want your camera body to do some of the work for you on metering but still have fully manual capabilities. Plus, the pentaprism on the super is one of the brightest and clearest and will not disappoint going from your 1000.</p>

<p>It is unlikely the camera will need any maintenance. I have never sent mine in. My ME bodies were not as prisitine as the ones in the Craigslist photographs you linked to, though, but I'm not a collector. I buy these things to take pictures with and tend to beat them up even more using them vigorously in the field.</p>

<p>The camera batteries are cheapest at Wal Mart in their photography section but I have also found them at Target, CVS, and Walgreens. Of course, if conveniently located, as mentioned Radio Shack is also a safe bet.</p>

<p>The only time I have broken my $30 rule is to purchase a Black-Body K2 which did come with the f2/50mm. I paid $58 which was well worth it because, despite the brassing and massive dent in the bottom plate, it is my favorite camera. </p>

<p>If it were me, I would offer $30 and not go above $45. </p>

<p>Hope this perspective helps and good luck.</p>

<p>~Morgan</p>

<p>In all too recent American History, if an African slave was fortunate enough to escape from his masters, there were two choices. Flee North through the underground railroad, or South to Florida and the Seminole Indians where they were welcomed with open arms and immediately became part of the tribe with an opportunity for a new life.</p>

<p>Their fierce loyalty helped ensure that the United States would never win in a military conflict against the Seminole People and is a large part of the reason they remain a sovereign nation here in Florida to this day.</p>

<p>Kodak BW400CN shot through SMC Pentax-M zoom 1:4.5 80mm~200mm and scanned at Dwayne's</p><div></div>

<p>A long time ago in the history of Pentax when the K10D was crowned the best expert DSLR in the world by TIPA, the way to check for dust on a sensor was to photograph a white computer screen (a blank page in PhotoShop for example) with the aperture closed as far down as it would go.</p>

<p>I highly recommend against this. It made me so neurotic that I switched to film.</p>

<p>I spy a sign for footwear.</p><div></div>

<p>All things considered, I think it is a great time to be into film photography because we have so many great films from the past and companies are developing new products. For my day to day shooting, I go to Target. The kids there know me by name and have the first envelope filled out by the time I make it to the counter. No, it's not top notch developing but they do care and try their best to give good service. All told, I'm happy with their results. For more serious work, I mail order.</p>

<p>I like that there are so many choices from both the past and the latest technology.</p>

<p>For color, my favorite hands down is Kodak's Ektar 100. The more I use it the better it gets. I always liked the look of the old Pentax Screw-Mount lenses and Ektar 100 shot through these classics has a depth and quality that blows me away.</p>

<p>For higher speeds in color I switch over to the Fuji Pro line. I like the image quality and it still has depth to me more than the lower-contrast Kodak films.</p>

<p>I could go on and on about the future of film. How last fiscal quarter, the film division of Kodak was the only profitable branch of the entire company. Or the time a few weeks ago I was speaking to a dealer in antique cameras who said there was never a better time to shoot with antique cameras because all the 'odd' formats of film are available from European companies via the internet along with great information on how to use them. Not to mention the latest resurgence in lomography giving a boost to sales in 120 format.</p>

<p>The short of it is, I am 41 now and first seriously got into photography with digital and have switched to film for its finer, though not as easily defineable, qualities. Even if, over the course of my life, 90% of the film brands currently available went the way of the Kodachrome, I still would not have done all I could do with my photography with that last 10% available. And I would still be shooting film</p>

<p>Pentax K2 with Pentax FA 50mm/1.4 shot with Kodak BW 400CN Film<br>

Scan at Target on Target CD.</p><div></div>

<p>I spy a sphere.</p><div></div>

<p>I spy a cat.</p><div></div>

<p>So, Miserere, was that shot taken with a Tokina 400mm F/5.6? The Bokeh does not thrill me but the resolution in the foreground is fantastic.</p>

<p>A couple of birds for this week.<br>

This one is a closeup of a Publix sign. Shot with K10D and DA50-200<br>

<img src="http://www.realfloridaphoto.com/photos/594362342_uHv26-L.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<strong> 'B' is for Bird</strong><br>

This one I wish I had shot at a faster speed but I still really like the composition.<br>

Shot with K2 and Pentax M 80-200mm F4.5 With Fujicolor Pro 400H<br>

<img src="http://www.realfloridaphoto.com/photos/586065189_8UvFS-L.jpg" alt="" /><br>

<strong> And the Stork Slowly Walked Away</strong></p>

<p>I completely agree with Chris. You have not truly seen Ektar 100 until you have seen it as prints.</p>

<p>Great question and awesome answers. I live in Florida and want to travel with my film gear more in the truck but was nervous. Sounds like film is as hearty, if not more durable, than most modern electronic gadgets like cell phones, i pods and dslrs ;-) . Thank you to everyone for the great advice.</p>

<p>Thank you for your nice comments on my picture.<br>

At your suggestions, I have tried every black and white effect in my software arsenal: These include Daguerreotype, Albumen, Platinum, and Infrared Film along with good old black and white using various color filters. My two favorites were Albumen and black and white film with a blue filter. I do not even own a blue filter but, after seeing this, I may get one and try it with black and white photography. It does look like it should be a black and white photograph but, after seeing it in b&w, I realize how busy a shot it is and it gets muddy with the similar tones. In the end, I could only get black and white to look "almost as good as the original." If anyone wants to show me how it looks good in black and white, have at it.<br>

Back on topic. Henrik, you really know how to compose a capture! Those are beautiful photographs which, perhaps more than mine, show Ektar to its best advantage. <br>

Benny, in my experience Ektar 100 is a 'light thirsty' film. Easy to under expose to muddy effect but difficult to over expose. You can not go wrong setting your light meter to 100 and shoot a roll or two. Then adjust for personal taste.</p>

<p>P.S. Shot taken with Ektar 100 film.</p>

<p>I love the look of slide film and immediately fell for Ektar because, to me, it was the closest thing to slide film without the hassle of having slides turned into prints. My main observation was it is a print film and does best as a print as opposed to digitizing by scanning. I am newer to serious film photography than a lot of you, though. Maybe I have not given the lower-speed Fuji films a fair shake? I automatically reach for Fuji Pro films (color) for higher speeds.</p>

<p>As for color scans, my local target seems to do better scanning the modest Kodak Gold 200 over Ektar 100.</p>

<p>The following scan, however, is from Dwayne's (though shrunk substantially to post on Photo.Net) who do much better scans, period. Though with a much longer wait.</p>

<div></div>

<p>And here is a baby practicing her beauty queen wave for future parades.</p><div></div>

<p>A month ago, I posted a question asking <a href="00TeIt">which are the best full frame zooms (for Pentax K Mount)?</a> Thank you to everyone who gave great advice and input. I considered everything you said and went with the Pentax-M 1:4.5 80~200mm. Here are a couple of the first results from the Mount Dora 4th of July Parade. Both shot on Kodak Gold 200 with the zoom mounted on a K2.</p>

<div></div>

<p>LOL! Well Jordan, if your friends aren't honest with you, who can you trust? You wanted a critique, you got it! I agree with a lot of what was said above. My own take;</p>

<p>First, I love street photography. Your first three photographs, unedited, were not it. They were more like casual tourist photographs. Sort of a , "look at the cool stuff I saw downtown" snapshot display shown on a lot of Flickr posts or someone's cell phone shots shown to you Monday at work.</p>

<p>The last two shots, MUCH better and much closer to what is known as 'street' photography.</p>

<p>Whether you wanted to show cool machines (difficult at events like this) or street photography, I'll run down my take on all your shots:</p>

<p>"old school" had a lot of potential. Don't need to see the adult with the little girl waiting to cross the street in the background. No interest in the guy in the horizontal-striped shirt standing to the right. Could not care less about what is going on at 7pm on the sign at the top of the picture. The guy closely examining the motorcycle peering into the engine is, potentially, a great shot. Below is a simple crop and blurring of the background but I could not get a lot out of this file because it was small already and, I think, if you opened up the aperture and zoomed in/stepped closer to the focal point of your photograph before you snapped your shutter, you may have been on to a nice shot with this one.</p>

<p>"old school 2" you are 'bullseyeing' where you are simply putting the main subject in the center of the frame without regard for composition or background. You have great material for a background with those other beautiful bikes and I would use it. From the angle you are shooting, you could put the red tricycle in the lower left hand corner so the other motorcycles run diagonally to the upper-right corner of your photograph. There are lots of things you could do with a shot like this. Play with it next time.</p>

<p>On "classic" you are pretty much screwed with both lighting and background. You can focus on the car some by doing a direct side shot and blurring the background with aperture but I would have a hard time getting a decent shot of this car in this environment.</p>

<p>"classic 2": Closer to the engine and commit to an angle instead of just standing there and taking a photograph.</p>

<p>"beautiful curves'": I see what you were trying to do; it is technically not a bad composition by framing your shot so the tire is in the lower right hand corner and the three people in the background fill out the upper left hand corner. It just doesn't work with the busy background. Maybe walk back and forth for a minute, look flustered, and say, "O.K. If you guys are going to insist on standing in my shot, then you need to BE in my shot!" and having them pose as if they are modelling the bike or something. I don't do this as often or as well as I would like but, when I do, I have never regretted it. People like you finding them cool enough to be in your pictures.</p>

<p>I see you have what it takes to do this because of your next shot with the little girl with the 'tricycle'. I don't necessarily agree with everyone else about the angle. Kids are cute and fun to photograph because they are short, tiny and uninhibited. They look up at us adults and this melts our hearts and does not necessarily make for a bad photograph but can be a very good photograph. I do agree with the cropping and would add that if you are going to photograph the girl with her favorite tricycle, then have her <em>with </em>the tricycle: leaning against it, a hand on the handlebar, sitting on it, whatever. Not so much with the posing in front of it.</p>

<p>Same with the "rocker". Events like this don't light their musical talent for us photographers and it's a pain. I'll bet someone with that vibrant a personality would have happily posed for you between sets, though and he has a great look that would have made for an awesome street portrait.</p>

<p>All of that being said, I am no ones photography guru. The reason I commented extensively is because I shoot a lot of events like this and have shoeboxes, along with gigabytes of hard drive space, taken up with photographs of them that do not work for one reason or another but they are very rewarding to shoot.</p>

<p>I hope at least some of this helped and look forward to your future efforts.</p>

<p>~Morgan</p><div></div>

<p>Second, since it was just America's independence day, I thought I would throw in a little red, white and blue. A few posts back Len Kratz posted some photographs of trains on his <a href="http://lightssignalsaction.qstation.org/">Lights, Signals, Action</a> site. I know the photograph I am about to present is magnificent but I hope it does not discourage Len from continuing to pursue his extensive work trying to capture the majestic strength of 'Old Iron Horse' the way I have. Keep at it Len. You'll get there. Some day, if you keep at it, you'll capture the majesty of this great American machine as beautifully as I have here.</p><div></div>

<p>Yay Sunday! Sorry I let last weeks POW slip by. Especially since there were so many great photographs to comment on. Thank you for all of the kind remarks on my novel-length comments on the week before. I did not know if I was helping or disrupting the forum. Truth is, it helps me to objectively critique and comment on other's work so I hope the comments somehow help you.</p>

<p>Anyway, both my contributions this week were on Ektar 100 film with the Pentax Spotmatic Camera shot through a Vivitar 28mm 1:2.5 prime which is quickly becoming a favorite lens. </p>

<p>The first one was captured during a morning drive looking for good shots during golden hours. I saw some orange trees growing amidst a state-planted pine forest. I was hoping to show the contrast of these 'feral' orange trees that had sprouted up amidst this pine forest but none of them really worked out to effectively illustrate this point. This picture was kind of a "throw-a-way" shot I took towards the end just to show the symmetry of pine trees planted in rows like this. It ended up being my favorite one of the morning.</p><div></div>