george_c.

<p>Andrew: I've been shooting (non-expired) Acros at 100 and 80 based on Fuji's times but it's always been very flat for me (scanned at least, I've yet to wet print from the negatives but I hope to one night this week) plus I'm lazy about developers, I try to keep it simple. This roll was metered at 80 (and developed for the same) but I remember shooting these few frames about a stop overexposed to see what would happen: I got better skin tones and contrast. Got a few rolls left which I'm going to try metered at 50 but overall I think I'll go back to FP4+ which just seems to shoot well no matter what for me...</p>

<p>Finally got something half decent out of Fuji Acros, had to shoot it at about ISO 50 though</p><div></div>

<p>Not to be contrary, but save your money until your shooting style develops and you know what you're missing from your kit. It might be that you get on fine with the lenses you have, and the less time spent wondering which lens you should have on your camera means more time with your eye at the finder. It's easy to get bogged down by filters, reflectors, flashes and lenses, all of which is more to carry and to think about. Go out and shoot with what you've got, if you're really desperate to spend, then software / hardware and a photography course might offer more than accessories... George</p>

<p>My second post</p><div></div>

<p>...</p><div></div>

<p>My first post</p><div></div>

<p>A quick and dirty scan of a Fuji Acros negative developed in LC29 this afternoon, not too impressed with this film, might have to try varying the development times. Taken in Madrid.</p><div></div>

<p>Same film and developer, severely underexposed frame:</p><div></div>

<p>I gave up pretty swiftly on digital and sold the *ist D recently to fund more film and the Hexar AF, nevertheless, here are a couple from my MX and 50mm:</p><div></div>

<p>2</p><div></div>

<p>A couple from my new Hexar, 35mm f2, I think this'll be the last 35mm film camera I buy, the focal length might take some getting used to but It seems to be more useful for inside shots than my 50, that and it's quieter than my MX!</p><div></div>

<p>...</p><div></div>

<p>one single photo</p>

<p>No editing, just some strong directional light from those orange heat lamps that you find outside pubs</p><div></div>

<p>...</p><div></div>

<p>Someone once suggested filing down the base of a Pez dispenser to fit the hot shoe... I'm sure that would get them looking your way! This from a couple of weeks ago, the first time I've shot children, got through half a roll but I underdeveloped the negs so the mids are a bit grey and flat. Seeing the children again tomorrow so I'll have them near some more windows if I can</p>

<p>I would like a rangefinder and a 35, but for the time being, I'm getting on very well with a 50...</p><div></div>

<p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p ><strong>This</strong> <strong>has</strong> <strong>been</strong> <strong>dealt</strong> <strong>with</strong> <strong>almost</strong> <strong>a</strong> <strong>century</strong> <strong>ago,</strong> <strong>go</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>read</strong> <strong>Henri Bergson</strong> <strong>on cine</strong>-<strong>time</strong> (<strong>he</strong> <strong>deals</strong> <strong>with</strong> <strong>shutters</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>successive</strong> <strong>moments</strong>) <strong>in <i>Creative</i></strong><i> </i><strong><i>Evolution and Matter</i></strong><i> </i><strong><i>and</i></strong><i> </i><strong><i>Memory</i></strong>. <strong>Walter</strong> <strong>Benjamin</strong> <strong>then</strong> <strong>critiques</strong> <strong>Bergson</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>his</strong> <strong>own</strong> <strong>essay <i>On</i></strong><i> </i><strong><i>Some</i></strong><i> </i><strong><i>Motifs</i></strong><i> </i><strong><i>in</i></strong><i> </i><strong><i>Baudelaire </i>which is also worth a read. </strong></p>

</p>

<p>Windowlight</p><div></div>

<p>Sorry Javier but I have to speak out: let your photos tell the story and leave out your subjective views. I don't think that 'creepy' 'horrible' and 'ugly' are appropriate labels neither are they particularly helpful in this, a photography forum. Assume that your viewers are able to make informed decisions, and let them comment on your images for what they are... images. </p><div></div>

<p>I use an SMC M 28mm almost exclusively on my *ist D because I like the FOV. It performs well most of the time but throws up red flare in some harsh lighting and often gives off purple CA. I like to shoot with the aperture fairly wide as well and this means that focus is unforgiving, even with a split image screen fitted, but then this is a complaint against the viewfinder more so than the lens. For these reasons, if I'm shooting something that matters to me, I'll stick with my MX and 50 (The M 50 1.7 has performed pretty well on digital too but it's too long for my taste...)</p>

<p>Had my second paid gig last week, had to shoot digital obviously, so it was nice when that PP was finally done and I could get on with some real photography for my own pleasure. Taken on the street outside a pub in south London</p><div></div>

<p>The trip 35: I'm a pentax guy but I have to hand it to the little Zuiko for being unbelievably sharp. Makes me wonder if I should try an OM-1 and 50 alongside my old MX...</p><div></div>

<p>...</p><div></div>

<p>I guess my own aesthetic contributes to my choice of favourites: Treen, I like that a lot, reminds me of a Corbjin, Garry I like your second shot and Michael, your landscapes are just missing some soiltary figure. Chune-Hoong, I took the photo when the image in the viewfinder looked good to me, in retrospect, I guess I wanted to include the windowlight to the right and the detail of the papers in the bottom left. Portrait would've lost that and from memory, the light from above didn't pick out much detail from the waist down anyway. Somanna, I think it was stopped down to f2 or 2.8. Howard, thank you for your comments, I suppose there is a balance of angles that mimic each other, there's also highlights that form a triangle in the middle keeping it a bit geometric which I've just noticed. Michael, my resolutely untechnical 'testing' of this lens (i.e taking pictures with it) puts it above my SMC M 50mm 1.7 in terms of how it deals with flare and how it renders out of focus areas, unfortunately, it doesn't meter well on my MX so it doesn't get much use. Out of interest when did photo of the week become photo essay of the week?! I jest... Let's pray for some sun here in London so I can get some colour in my life, the *ist D seems to fall apart at ISO 400, <br>

Regards to all, George</p>