tsuacctnt

<p>Have you tried burning a roll off outdoors? Mercury Vapor lighting flickers pretty bad. It's possible, with a fast enough shutter speed to capture the instant between pulses of light and end up with those severely underexposed photos. Anything equal to or faster than 1/60 sec would put you at risk for this. That's why some photos seem right on themoney and others, only seconds later, seem so far underexposed. Of course, if you were using a flash then that debunks my theory.</p>

<p>I finally got some film developed out of my shoebox O' film. Canon T90. New FD 50mm f1.4. Hennepin Avenue Bridge in Minneapolis, MN</p><div></div>

<p>I used to drop stuff off at Sam's club for develop and scan but whoever did their scanning did terrible work. I've never seen such grainy pixelated stuff in my life. Just sent a test run to Dale Labs to see how they do. A little bit of everything, some APS (don't laugh), some 120, some E-6, some 135, some B&W. I would love to find a place I could send everything and get good results and not spend a fortune. There's a local shop that does good work but they charge $20 a roll for develop and print 35mm. Too rich for my blood. I have a shoebox that is filling up with undeveloped film so its time to get it developed at the very least.</p>

<p>Throw on the lens, jam some film in the back and you're good to go! These go for almost nothing on the big auction site. I think a lot of the people who still shoot film don't have that much interest in the T50 because the only adjustment you can make on the camera is the ISO.</p>

<p>I tried the adjustments brush and it got rid of the shadow okay but that's where the faces turned red on me. Maybe I'm just overdoing it. But it's good to know I'm heading down the right path. Would the photoshop approach work better? I may just end up ditching the affected photos altogether since the composition is a little screwey with that tall guy in the back and I have other photos that cover the groups but I thought if I could fix it without spending hours and hours then I'd throw it and its companions up on the event site. </p>

<p>I'd like to retouch the attached photo as much as possible to remove the darkest shadows on the wedding partys' faces in Lightroom. This is one of those many instances where I'm paying the price for not getting the shot right in camera. My strobes were placed a little far apart so that the light hit the group a too steep of an angle, casting shadows on anybody in the second row. There seems to be plenty of detail in the faces, but all of my efforts at retouching have resulted in a sort of lobster red glow where the shadow used to be. Any tips would be much appreciated.</p>

<p>Thanks!</p><div></div>

<p>Is it my monitor at work or do they all look a little cartoonish/watercolerish? I guess I just prefer colors that are a little closer to real life for most candids.</p>

<p>I normally shoot with a D200 but this last weekend used a D90 along side my D200. Aside from the controls being a little slower to get around to it's a great camera, and the newer technology blows my D200 images out of the water. The D90 feels like a bit of a toy compared to the pro-sumer models.</p>

<p>My Grandmother recently went into a nursing home. My brother came up with a pretty good idea for keeping all sorts of pictures handy for her. He bought her a digital frame and an SD card to store a thousand different pictures. Pictures of Grandkids and pictures of old friends all in one handy spot.</p>

<p>Michael's right. Take up the slack and listen carefully to determine whether the film is rewinding back into the film casette. Be careful not to wind it all the way back into the film casette if it is indeed not properly loaded. It's a pain to fish out the leader, but a waste to just toss a whole roll of film. At least you noticed the problem early on. When I first got my A-1 I misloaded film all the time. I'd keep shooting and shooting and shooting and then finally realize that I'd taken about 40 shots on a 36 exposure roll. Now, I'm extra careful when I load either my A-1 or AE-1 Programs to take up the slack right after I've threaded the leader so I can tell if everything is working properly as I advance to the first frame. The other thing I'm really careful about with my A-1 is to turn it off when I'm done using it. It seems to drain batteries if left on, unlike the AE-1 programs.</p>

<p>Well....as long as they don't take my APS away...</p>

<p>My beef with the A-1, or at least my A-1 is simply that it drains the battery if you don't turn it to the 'L' position when you're not shooting. Other than that I think it's a dandy camera.</p>

<p>Sometimes I'll throw an FD body and a 50mm prime in with my digital cameras to shoot some black and white candids. I like the Ilford HP5+.</p>

<p>The shower curtain idea is brilliant. Like a big sun-powered soft box.</p>

<p>It is probably better to be safe than sorry, it doesn't help matters that the windows all have a sort of blue green tinting to them. Ideally I think I would just use strobes as the main light but I don't think I have enough power to make that work. I just have a 400 w/s novatron head with three strobes. Works great in a dark room with just a few people but I'm not sure it will do the job in a bright room with twenty people. </p>

<p>I'm taking a group photo tomorrow in a large room with a solid wall of windows on one side. At the time of the portrait the sun will be pouring light in through these windows - Southwest exposure in the afternoon. Should I bother lugging my strobes to try to fill in shadows or just make due with available light and an on-camera flash?</p>

<p>With a trip to Radio Shack and a soldering iron you can build a 6 volt battery pack that will hold the shutter open for hours on end. I slipped a four AA battery holder into a big pill bottle, added an on/off switch and an indicator light (serves absolutely no purpose but I love sticking lights on anything I make) and connector leads attached to a cylindrical piece of plastic the same size as the battery. Works fine. You could do the same thing with one of those big six volt batteries, a couple alligator clips, a few feet of wire, and a dummy battery.</p><div></div>

<p>Canon A-1, FD 50mm f1:1.8, Portra 160VC<br>

Hennepin Avenue Bridge on a Chilly Spring Morning</p><div></div>

<p>I'd stick with what you know and are used to working with.  If you're shooting a photo journalistic style wedding you'll need gobs of storage shooting it RAW.  Sometimes, if I'm feeling especially paranoid about the lighting I'll shoot the formals in RAW but then all preparation, reception, and ceremony in JPEG.  If you haven't shot in RAW before definitely go out and experiment with it before the wedding to see if you can integrate it into your workflow.  </p>

<p>I have piles of 35mm film SLRS and keep accumulating more becuase they are so cheap to purchase anymore, however,  I think Luca's advice is right on.  With film, aside from the developing and printing costs, you have to realize that when you send your film out for processing someone else is usually manipulating your image.  Lately I've been having a terrible time finding someone who does a decent job with my print negatives, they just adjust everything to 18% gray whether that's what the picture needs or not.  Finding a good (cheap) photofinisher isn't always easy.  The only way to get around this with film and get a good idea of what you're actually shooting is to shoot chromes (slides), as those aren't altered by the photofinisher during printing, but the film is epensive and local E-6 processors are even harder to find than good print film processors.  With digital you can quickly check your results as shot and prints sent off to target or wherever are usually a much closer match to the original.</p>

<p>I think the 18-105 lens covers a good range, is light and compact and optically great for a casual shooter such as myself.  My only complaint with the lens is the plastic lens mount.  It will break with minimal abuse.  I just had to send one in to Nikon for repair for $100.  If you plan to shoot sports/nature go for the two lens combo; you'll really appreciate the extra reach the 55 to 200 gives you. </p>

28mm f 2.8. I think the wider angles help to produce that layered you can walk into the picture look.

Frank: Thanks, that's just the explanation I was looking for. I have a bad habit of trying to keep old gear going as

can be evidenced by my collection of old Canon FD Gear... actually the Promaster was originally purchased for use

with my Canons along with a Canon FD thrysistor module (the modules attach to the bottom of the actual flash),

then I got a Nikon AF module for the flash to use it with My Nikon Film bodies. Actually, the best results I've been

able to get with the FTD 5200 on my D200 was by using the Canon FD module since it has the light sensor on it and

just setting the aperture to either f4 or f8 depending on which mode is selected on the Canon module. One of these

days I'll learn to fully embrace modern technology.

Lex: The REAL solution to my problem is probably to get the actual Nikon TTL cord rather than the aftermarket. I think it's ridiculous how much they charge for cables. How do you attach your flash to the bracket?

It's an RPS studio flip bracket. I think the issue is that the mount for the flash on the end of the TTL cord just isn't machined to a tight enough tolerance. I sent it back once thinking it was defective and then just learned to live with the problem by jamming some paper between the top of the flash foot and the "hot shoe." I'm thinking about getting a Metz 58 AF-1 for use on the bracket just because it was the more traditional screw down foot which works great on my bracket....plus I need another strobe. Maybe I'll check out the Custom Brackets CB Junior and see if that plus an SB 600 would be cheaper than the Metz.