taje

<p>Sorry for an off topic parenthesis, but this thread makes me love my enlarger sooooo much. Who said di@ital is easier and quicker?! ;-)<br>

I really hope you get everything right, though, Megan.</p>

<p>By the way, I think that "extinction of detail" is a secondary problem. The real, more worrying trend is the extinction of judgement.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well, I must admit that I have no idea what "fussy" means in visual terms.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry for the harshness, but that's a problem you have to address :-)<br /> Jokes apart, I'm absolutely sure you can get a wonderful print from your digital file. This is the important point.<br /> However, if we're really up to some pointless, picky comparison, I'm sorry to admit, Dan, that the dslr crop is nowhere near the OP's one. That is NOT to say that the 5D2 is inferior or anything: shooting conditions were different and thousands other variables may be involved. But still, as it is, the digital crop has a very unpleasant array of artifacts, plasticky textures and burned highlights which make the quality really not comparable.<br /> So let's state clearly that THIS IS NOT A TEST nor it's closely designed like one; but at the same time, let's try not to stick our heads in the sand.<br /> Friendly yours<br /> Marco</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"to transfer from the stop bath"</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Michael, please forgive me if I'm stating something obvious or don't consider your knowledge, but the above expressione might make me think you're stopping BEFORE developing. It's just I wouldn't let the thing unsaid, since what you're experiencing is quite weird...</p>

<p>That would make 5 meters, anyway ;-)</p>

<p>Ok, lots of good info here, really... But the guy was talking FINE ART? Back when photography was different from pornography, FINE ART involved little less than a 4x5 viewcamera. That's not just a status quo. You want to sell a "fine art piece", printed LARGE on archival supports, dry mounted, guaranteed to last hundreds of years... and you do that with a noisy point and shoot?!<br>

Let's leave potatoes with potatoes and carrots with carrots... If you want a P&S to shoot photographs, that's just fine, but PLEASE don't prostitute that as fine-art. The world is so dumb, nowadays, that they might believe you.</p>

<p>Very nice location and I really appreciate the job, as I'm doing my first steps there, as well. There are some very good ones, but I would apply some tighter selection. 100 shots are a lot to manage for a common attention level, and the top images end up not boosted like they should be.</p>

<p>Just my 2 pennies. Lovely work, anyway!</p>

<p>It happened to me in different amounts. I found the problem to be fixing, in every case. Try fixing a bit longer. For example, I use Rollei RXA: time listed on the booklet is 3-5 mins at dilution 1+4. I use 6-7 minutes. If the fixer isn't fresh, you might want to fix even longer.<br>

Never had any more casts.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Photographing my wife is very easy. She will readily get involved in my photographic proposals - whether a day with kids or something more staged.<br /> Trouble begins after that. She seems to be an inordinate blinker - killing 75% of shots and the shots I think are great or even just sweet she will say she doesnt like herself in them - usually for nothing quantifiably obvious.<br /> Here's a shot taken yesterday she didnt like and Ive no idea why..</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, the reaction experienced by a non-trained human when seeing his/her portrait is one of rejection. That was wonderfully covered in a philosophy compendium about portraiture I read some time ago. A portrait is a way to look at yourself you NEVER experience; not even in a mirror, because of the left/right flip which gives away the wrong proportions.<br /> A portrait, being it in painting or photograph is the truliest, and at the same time the falsest representation of one's self. You can't expect them to accept it ;-)<br /> Anyway, my fiancée (don't know if we'll ever get married, but I assure we are maybe something more than husband and wife) is my lifeblood when it comes to photography. I got her introduced in the black art as well, and really enjoys both sides of the camera.<br /> My real problem is finding other models, beside her... My portraiture portfolio looks quite boring!! :-D</p>

<p>Agree on the Blurb idea. That's great stuff!</p>

<p>Richard, Richard.....</p>

<p>You say you lack the middle focals.. but you have the 50mm. That's all you need. Really. Forget about this all-western buy-all attitude, go shooting with your 50 alone, and maybe you'll also find a less sub-human girlfriend.</p>

<p>All the best<br>

Marco</p>

<p>Or have a look at this (it's in the States: shipping is cheaper) :-)</p>

<p>http://cgi.ebay.it/Hasselblad-Focusing-Screen-500cm-body_W0QQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp3286Q2ec0Q2em14QQhashZitem3ef2697c1aQQitemZ270354971674QQptZLHQ5fDefaultDomainQ5f0QQsalenotsupported</p>

<p>Mike, so you actually have a split image screen?!? That might be comfortable or not, personal opinion: but I think it would be quite hard not to understand if something is in focus or not..<br /> Can you state your problem again? I mean... You focus with the split and it's ok, and then the negative is out of focus? Or simply you can't focus with the split?<br /> <br /> I should have an older screen (without split image) amongst my "backup accessories", if you're interested in buying it used :-) But I believe we should focus (pun intended!) on identifying the problem correctly, before you start changing focusing screens.</p>

<p>Can you say "Supercalifragilistichespiralidoso" over and over quickly while shooting that image, also? ;-D</p>

<p>Well, that's my two pennies :-)</p>

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

<p>Oh, well, my first paragraph was addressed to Finley. Sorry for the mess :-)</p>

<p>I don't want to sound patronising, but the above shot is a 300mm x1.6= 480 mm equivalent; shutter speed 1/250. Do you think you're an android or something? Photography has limits. WE have limits. And they're usually more restricting than the camera's. And God bless those limits, because the choices we make about them are what turns images into Art. The rest is just representation ;-)</p>

<p>On to the topic. Elle, just buy what you can afford. I own an "old" 5D, although I shoot film 99% of time; it's very well built. My parents own a 40D. Same good evaluation there. Of course you can run into a defective camera, but that happens with Nikons, Pentaxes, whatever. It's just statistics, manufacture isn't what it used to be anymore. I agree to save money on the body, since I believe they're just chasing the market. It's just frills. You need a diaphragm, a shutter and a light tight box :-) Should you have some extra cash, put it into lenses: those will definitely last longer.</p>

<p>My two cents.</p>

<p>@ Miguel:<br>

Yes, I got as low as 4 minutes.. Below 5 minutes developing time, Ilford suggests 5 sec agitation every 30 sec, instead of the standard 10 sec every minute, but it's just a guideline... You should be just fine with 5 minutes, if that's the time required by the contrast of the scenes you captured.</p>

<p>As a relative beginner in studio lighting, I can tell you I was amazed by how much space is needed for a photograph. In general, you tend to have much more room AROUND the space you actually frame, than the "photographed space" itself...</p>

<p>I would say that 12x10 is maybe usable for head&shoulders portraiture... But consider you might want to use a medium-tele for more natural rendering. That needs some space between camera and subject...</p>

<p>So I agree with the previous poster: don't expect it to work for portraiture. Still life is feasible, I guess, but I'm not into that, so I'm leaving that to more knowledgeable answers.</p>

<p>:-)</p>

<p>I will PERSONALLY give 100 bucks to anybody who can duplicate that effect with a good lens.... Man, it's impossible! No shutter speed, no focus, no damned Nikon X-rays-photonic-devastating-starship will solve the problem. The rest is just chatter.</p>

<p>;-)</p>

<p>I find Acros 100 just LOVELY in Paterson's FX39.. That is, if you're looking for high acutance, which I think might be the case with urban night shots and the lot you mention...<br>

If exposed at 100 ISO, my development is 10 minutes in 1+19 FX39, at 20°C (68°F).</p>

<p>Enjoy.</p>

<p>Sorry, guys.. but there is no way this can be a motion blur or focus problem. Be cause the blur is not consistent within the frame. They seem to be ok in one spot, but the rest of the photo shows blurring which is impossible to produce with out of focus or blurred shots (even zooming). The lower part shows a kind of blur that MIGHT look like some zooming during shutter release.. But the movement is NOT radial, and the upper part has no signs of those "comas". The upper part might seem out of focus, but the distance is the same as the points which are in focus.<br>

And then.... misaligned elements. Have the lens replaced. Full stop.<br>

That is, unless you like this "creative" output: it's not bad for some kind of images! ;-)</p>

<p>It might look like some misaligned group inside the lens. Definitely, this IS NOT the way it's supposed to work.</p>

<p>Just a quick one, but I believe it could be VERY IMPORTANT to point out, Richard, that EFS lenses WILL NOT even mount on the 5D. It seemed to me, from some of your sentences, that you were considering the option.<br>

That aside, before re-converting to film almost completely, I've used -and still own- a 5D with an EF24mm, EF50mm f1.4 and the 70-200 IS f2.8L. I understand your point about the full frame, but I believe good lenses will add more to the overall quality. High ISO? Not really. I mean, noise cuts back that quality much faster than lens quality. After 200-400 ISO noise gets visible on the 5D. You can surely still use the image up to much higher ISO, but that's not a great factor -at least to my view of photography-<br>

A 17mm is roughly a 28mm equivalent. That's a rather good focal for landscapes. Also 50mm is perfect for that. I really don't want to sound condescending, but I'll tell you because I've been involved in the wider and wider "race" in the past. Til you realize that landscape isn't at all about including the most you can. Rather the opposite. So my personal advice is still: go with good lenses. I would invest on primes, but that's personal. Nothing develops your brain as much as primes. Choose the lenses for their personality and perspective, not for their angle of view. You'll be satisfied :-)</p>

<div></div>