httpwww.someantyx.coma

I wish my dSLR had a MLU switch like my Mamiya 645AFD does rather than 10 million custom settings to cycle through. But if each custom setting had its own button it'd A) Be more like Nikon, and B) have no space for a lens! HA

 

Interesting to see I"m not the only one... I did it again this week too, being on the very edge (safe edge?) of Tornado Alley, there are some interesting cloud shots and sunset shots to be had.

 

I like that shutdown idea, I may steal it! Thanks!

C

Well I am one of those amateurs that purchased a couple of MF kits and coming from the digital world first and moving to film, I have to say I'm impressed with MF Film over digital and I'm not as alone as I thought in that opinion. This thread has been an interested read top to bottom and the opinions are very interesting.

 

I found myself initially agreeing with JDM that size shouldn't matter, (Hmm, where have I heard that argument before?) Yet about 1/2 through the remaining posts it occurs to me that the sensor size does matter. And I'm talking about what is available in the market today, not some miracle device we may see in ? years. Right now, the P&S sensors are limited to f8 and ISO 800. dSLRs seem to compare with MF gear as far as max ISO and Aperture, but if I want to shoot at ISO25 with my MF camera, I can and I can chose to do that as well as ISO50, or 64. My 1D/2, I can try ISO50 but I hear its full of noise. (Haven't tried yet). outside of Photoshop there really is no Pull or Push capabilty, and I think mimicking something like Push/Pull in photoshop is unrealistic. I can play with levels but if the sensor didn't capture the data then photoshop won't be able to do much there.

 

I bought into MF gear with the goal/intent of moving to a digital back when I could afford it and they became more affordable. Then I started reading and the 'cheap' digital backs for the Mamiya 645 are 'crop' sensors, smaller than the 6x4.5 area. I'm not interested in a crop sensor, but here again, I don't think the size matters between MF crop or full frame sensors. I really don't know and won't until I try. I would love to but these days it isn't likely I'll drop $10k+ on anything. As a hobbist, and an unemployed one at that, I just can't justify it.

 

Now, after learning about my 'new' MF gear (manuals can be downloaded online), and running several rolls of film through, developing, and scanning, I find my images 'pop' where my digital ones' do not. A lot is attributed to the prime lens on my MF vs zoom lenses on my digital gear, but still it isn't the same. I am of the opinion that the bayer filter (is that right?) tends to blur pixels together some and reduce overall image sharpness. This is entirely my opinion and I have no scientific data to back it up.

 

I'm thrilled with what Medium Format and FILM are teaching me, I get better pictures overall. When I shot the Frozen Four College hockey finals this year, the final game I took over 1000 images and I had more usable images. Patience, looking, and learning are all important and MF has taught me this. As I like to say, open the eyes, open the mind.

I recently bought into the Medium format with a Mamiya RB67 and Mamiya 645AFD and I have to say I'm thrilled. I also am 'learning' how to develop my own BW which is sort of fun and cost effective. I picked up the Epson V500 for $199 which handles 35mm and 120mm film either positive (slides) or negatives. At the time I didn't think I would shoot color as I have a canon 1d/2 digital for that. However with the 645 I am shooting color. Since I have the scanner I just ask the local labs to develop and not do prints. I think prints are a waste of money. If you shoot 10-16 pictures but only want 1-2 printed, why print all 16? So I scan myself. It isn't a fantastic scanner but it serves its purpose. For anything serious I can have a drum scan made for some serous cost. Local labs average $4 - $5 in Colorado for developing and another $1 - $2 for a contact print which can be worth it. Don't have each image printed unless you need it printed is my opinion.

 

I am now going to try LF photography but for that I will build a complete dark room for developing and perhaps even printing, just to try my hand at making a print the old fashioned way as opposed to digital & Inkjet. Probably won't try color there!

I'm not sure about the 160s, what I decided to do was to buy a few types of film in 5-pack boxes to experiment. I currently have Fujifilm 160C, not sure if its the same or different yet but I am googling it. C - High contrast.

 

However, my intent was to try several different types of film to learn how the film behaves in my camera as well as how various processors treat me and my film basically. We have a couple of Mike's Camera stores here in Colorado and I am taking my color film to each store to be processed to see how well they handle it. I'll also try some mail order joints to see which I like best.

 

I also plan on picking up a few rolls of BW film to run the camera through Ansel Adams routines to test things. I need to read the books again though before I truly understand it enough to do it.

 

Anyways, my take is to try a few types of film both to see what I like as well as be able to offer clients choice. What one person likes, another may dislike. Experience is a very good teacher and knowing what my setup will do with a Vivid or Natural (kodak) or a Fuji (C vs S) helps me IMO.

 

Just my $0.02, I don't argue that there are a lot of knowledgeable people here, but I like to see for myself how each of the different films behaves.

So I had an interesting scare today, its been about a week since I touched my

camera and I grabbed my 1D/2 to shoot a very interesting sunset, composed the

shot, squeezed the trigger, click, nothing. I double-checked my ISO, Shutter

speed, and aperture and the shutter was still open. No picture was taken and

there wasn't the familiar click of the shutter. I just read some posts on 20D

shutter problems, I know my 1D/2 actuation count is high too, like 130k high.

Panic set in! I powered off the camera and the mirror returned, everything

reset. Changed lenses, removed the battery, same result each time. Talk about

a real scare!

 

Turns out, the last time I used my Canon (I shoot MF film too) was at night for

a full moon shot and I'd enabled mirror lock up. Well I forgot it was still

'enabled' and it was doing what it was supposed to, just going to mirror lock

up. I never tried to press the shutter button a 2nd time, just assumed I had a

faulty camera.

 

Missed the sunset but I'm happy because my 1D/2 ISN'T broken! YEAAAAAAA!

Perhaps y'all will get a chuckle out of this and who knows I'm sure others have

had this happen too!

 

Chris

Not sure if I should open my mouth here, First I don't shoot weddings, I'm too scared to, its such an emotional moment and I'd hate to ruin it. That being said I started shooting with digital, I understand the speed, quickness, and ease of workflow very well. However this year I have begun to work with 120 film and even 4x5 film here soon. I do not believe that digital has caught up with medium format, but tens of thousands of others seem to feel it has, who am I to disagree publicly? I know when I pull a 6x7 neg out of the tank it looks better than anything I've shot on digital. The difference is so significant compared to my 1D/2 that I prefer it especially for black and white. Film is not dead. Some of the other comments such as renewing your image can revitalize your market significantly. Ensuring your style is updated to match the times too. All those struck me as significant reading the comments. The medium should be irrelevant, just a tool. The one holding the camera is important, that's what your clients are paying for. I don't ask home builders if they're going to use a hammer or an air-nailer before building my home. I don't care, so long as they aren't using rocks to pound the nails in I'm ok with either.

 

As far as building actions in Photoshop, how many hours unpaid are spent to create that action and get it exactly right? That's unbillable time unless you chose to bill each client for the hours you spent creating an action, I'd like to see the line-item invoice on that. Don't get me wrong I like Photoshop, its a fantastic tool. If you have less than 100 pictures it works great. When you have 1000+ shots from a single event photoshop starts to bog down. Shooting sports I can come home with 1000+ shots. Its that 'spray and pray' workflow that digital promotes and I know wedding photogs that do the same thing. Its one of the main reasons I am turning to film. To get better shots as opposed to more. To slow down, be more patient, and know when I trip the shutter, I have a great shot!

just drop me an email before you do I know some good trails in the hills. Not much for photography, at least not the high end scenic shots, but some tough off roading. My favorite is to drive up a running stream bed during spring run off. Water flooding everywhere, no doors, and its snowing! Its happened 2 years in a row now, in mid/late june. But then I have all the toys you should add to a jeep too and they come in VERY handy!

Actually that is my website, or both names are mine... long story, but Chris was my given name at birth, Andrew was my adopted name. It is what it is. I need to work on my website, ugh!

 

You sound like me and you're not far away from me, I'm just south of you in Colorado, Denver metro area, and the same fondness for nature and 4 wheeling! I'll have to find a shot of my jeep in the mud. My problems have always been lack of patience and that's what Medium format and film are helping me with and I really appreciate it. For film its a direct cost associated with each shutter press. Imagine a Large Format 8x10, each piece of film costs $25. You don't want to push that button prematurely.

 

It also helps to look and open up your eyes. I see more, not because the viewfinder is brighter, but by slowing down I start to see and work on the composition. Thats something I think is important just as important as NOT following the rules and creating your own look or style. It can be learned with discipline with digital but I never made it. I recall this past fall on the CU Football field during a game, 15 Canon 1D mk??? cameras all zipping through 8.5 or 10.3 fps and it almost felt like bootcamp! There I was with my little 20D just squeaking by but happy to be there!

 

Those two shots I marked out as high key, they have a unique style all their own and they stand apart from say the typical high key shots such as the one I posted here.

 

I keep reminding myself, There are no rules, just guidelines I can chose to follow or toss out the window. With digital it only costs a few cents to recharge the battery, with film, I truly believe I can appreciate the aspects of digital more so I play with film. I'm more constrained by ISO, I have to think about what I'm trying for rather than just shoot and chimp or tie the camera to a monitor, which is a good tool/feature to use in the studio and allows the models to see things just as easily.

 

Here we go, a shot of my jeep, I think that's me driving too! Hey, how'd I take a pic of me driving?

I haven't made the transition to LF yet, still enjoying MF, but I totally get this. I couldn't articulate why I think/feel film is better, but then as has been stated, most people think or feel that digital is better right now. Who am I to correct them? I'm happy learning with film vs digital. Oddly enough I found a LF 4x5 calumet online locally for $100, I may get it but it has no lens - decisions decisions.

I've heard that technique and it does work. The benefit of shooting MF film is mainly the size and patience I'm supposedly learning! HA! It does make me look twice through the view finder. Unfortunately I've spent the last 2 years shooting Ice hockey and not models so its tough to make the change back. I love working with models, its challenging. Everything else is pretty much a wait for it and shoot experience and I don't have the patience for the sun, moon, and trees to do their thing! Hockey is seasonal and getting the credentials is tough each year.

 

Don't get me wrong I love shooting nature and I love nature, I live in a good place for it too, in Colorado. I just lack the patience to really wait things out. I went to shoot some stuff in the mountains and clouds and haze drove me off. I didn't want to wait 2 hours for it to improve. I'm lazy I guess. If I had to take a mule up like W.H. Jackson, I'd probably be more patient huh?

 

Your comments strike an interesting thought - remember, this is art and there is no wrong, its all subjective. What one person likes 10 others might dislike and it doesn't matter. I'm my own worst critic too, something I think we all have in common besides photography, and I'm stunned when people want my photos. I'm like 'its not very good!' and they're like 'are you kidding?' I'm getting used to it, but slowly!

1) Read - read a lot about posing, lighting, etc. The link Steve provided looks like a good start and I'll probably read it too. I get books at the book store a lot and read up. You want to read about a lot of stuff, from basic photography, exposure, lighting, processing (adobe photoshop), and presentation. Business books are good too, how to promote yourself, market yourself, define your business image and get your name out there.

 

2) practice - you have a camera and a lens and you can start. Family and friends work very well but they won't be experienced in front of the camera. Some will be downright uncomfortable, that's good experience too making people comfortable.

 

Many modeling websites and forums advertise TFCD sessions and seminars, I know here in Colorado a lot of photogs use Craigslist to generate TFCD sessions too. TFCD is good for practice (after reading all that fun stuff!) and also begin networking. Getting to know local models and make-up artists is crucial for paying jobs. Knowing who's reliable, who you can call in a crunch, etc. TFCD stands for Trade for CD, used to be trade for print, but digital has pushed it to a CD. While I don't/won't share all shots, some are unusable, I tend to create 2 folders, one for internet sized images and one for full sized full quality images. Depending on the shoot it could be 40-50 images or 500 images. All depends on what I'm trying for and what the model wants.

 

I have a simple TFCD contract that shares the rights between myself and the model for TFCD images for self promotion purposes only. There are a lot of sample legal docs online and tons of information about them, consider something to protect yourself as well as your models.

 

I would also look to upgrade your lens. I'm not familiar with Nikon's 75-300 but canon has a 75-300 and its a decent consumer lens, but not something you can shoot a wedding with. Inexpensive prime lenses can get you started, something as simple as a 50mm or 85mm lens should produce sharp, crisp shots that will make your customers happy. Look for fast lenses, f/1.4 to f/2.8. Anything slower (f/4, f/5.6) will suffer in dark lighting. Personally I am moving away from zoom lenses and trying more prime lenses (single focal length as opposed to a range) for sharp images. A longer lens (75mm, 135mm, etc) can produce flattering results as opposed to a short 50mm lens. Again, read, read, read and practice!

This is purely a suggestion but it is working for me, one of the reasons why I am not practicing with models at the moment...

 

I am migrating or experimenting with Medium Format and film. Coming from a digital perspective makes it fun and interesting and the costs are a fraction of what they once were. However the benefits I am gaining/learning from Medium Format are to slow down and pay attention. Not only to what I see through the view finder but to the settings.

 

A lot of times I'll think I'm ready to snap a shot and forget the dark slide is still in. That reminds me to double check my settings before I shoot, Aperture, Shutter speed, lighting, composition, etc. I try to roll through each item and really think about what it will mean, what its doing. The format has really slowed me down and I like it.

 

Plus, pulling out the film afterwards is nothing like digital, especially if I develop my own BW film. The results on MF film have stopped me in my tracks more than digital. Digital has its place and I'd love a MF digital back, but I plan on shooting MF film for some time, mainly because the affordable MF digital backs aren't as large as a 6x7 negative.

 

I will continue to shoot both, but after learning/reading that a significant amount of fashion/model/glamour work is shot with MF gear and a lot still shot on film, I decided to check it out. For me if the customer wants film or digital I can suit their needs now. And I'm getting closer to being able to practice with some models soon!

 

High key works well when you get an even washout of the background AND the highlights on the model. I'll see if I can post a shot/example here, its a couple of years old but may illustrate somewhat.

 

This was shot on a Canon 20D f/9 1/125 @ ISO 100 using 2 large softboxes and a canon 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens. Everyone thought I was nuts and too 'long' for the room at the seminar. A 3rd light was used to wash out the background. This isn't exactly high-key, but it isn't completely blown highlights either. Just another thought.

I'll try but I don't consider myself experienced enough to be criticizing.

 

First the high key photos, I'm not a huge fan of high key shots, I get the concept, its easier to hide or remove blemishes. Your two high key shots are beyond high key and into complete highlight washout. My opinion is that a good high key photo shouldn't have so many blown highlights, but I've already admitted I'm not a huge fan of high key so what do I know?

 

The first image of Corey is nicely framed and the one eye shows a good solid catchlight. Blur turns the shot romantic and interesting as well. More blur would help to draw the eye to her face, there is some distraction behind her though.

 

The next image I like is Jamie in red hair, eyes open. The eyes shut didn't appeal to me. Again excellent catch lights in the eyes and good framing. It looks like you have a reflector on her right side (your left), a second light to fill or perhaps a hair light might improve on the picture as a whole.

 

Overall very nice, I'd watch the harsh lighting personally, but I need to start practicing more myself.

C

Like everyone else suggests it varies. Granted mine was a 20D, but I had 2 of the 1750MA batteries and I would leave the thing 'on' (hockey stick) for weeks, take it out and shoot. I loved that camera! It was always ready and having 2 batteries made it simple to shoot almost every day.

 

How many shots? There were times when I got over 800 images on a single battery shooting ice hockey. BUT I disabled the LCD in the menu and while I was using an IS lens, I would also turn that off from time to time, IS doesn't help at 1/500 really. Now that I have a 1D MK II, I shot over 1000 pictures on a single charge at the WCHA Frozen Four this year and could have shot more, maybe close to 1200... But that's a different camera.

 

So there are things you can do to improve battery longevity. Don't chimp or look at the shots you just took, turn off the LCD review, etc. I've found canon's stated pictures per charge to be low, but I don't buy after market or NON-Canon batteries or accessories, too many horror stories.

I found a small time outfit out of Minnesota called perfect posters, www.perfectposters.com. At the time they were substantially less than everyone for a 16x20 @ $8 and change for a 16x20, most places were asking $20. I still use them but I don't think they use epson paper, I believe its all HP lightjets and kodak paper. I still use them and love the results. The nice thing is that they accept custom sizes so stitched landscapes are easier to print using them.

Good luck

I'm doing things backwards here, I started digital and am now moving into film. Medium Format to be sure. I believe that 35mm film is mostly dead, replaced by the speed and quality of digital. Shooting digital myself (canon 1d mkII) for 5+ years now and having several canon bodies and some good glass, I find I missed a lot from the film years.

 

I don't believe digital can accurately produce black/white as good as film/silver. So I am setting up a darkroom, getting all the gear I need for dirt cheap/next to free in some cases. Learning the ropes. I've developed several rolls of b/w film and am getting the hang of spooling the film right and timings etc. Its like a giant chemistry set! Weeee.

 

Also, looking into Medium Format Digital, I don't think the size is the same, most are 48mm x 36mm? That seems to be 1/2 of 6x7 and I just get goosebumps when I pull some 6x7 film out. I can't even comprehend 6x12! EEEK!

 

I still shoot digital where necessary and at times I'll shoot both side by side. Today I was shooting film and digital of the same thing. The digital is like a polaroid, the film more permanent. I'll shoot digital to meter and gauge my composition, then switch to film if I like things. Film helps me to slow down too, digital is too quick, too result focused and not really process focused.

 

I enjoy and learn from both!<div></div>

I'm in agreement with the Ben and Michael, but I like some ideas and may 'copy' them for my website like the calendar idea but again if you're not busy it looks empty. Here are my thoughts.

 

I'm not a big fan of Flash based websites, I find them slow to load and difficult to navigate at times. Yours is pretty straight forward other than the load times. Playing music, especially for a business website. Someone mentioned myspace'ish and that rings true for the music.

 

I have a theory that websites that take time loading or start up music tend to get closed or unlooked at faster than any other website. I think the average web user's attention span is less than 15 seconds.

 

The rotating front page overall is pretty cool, but the speed is too fast, slow it down and let your visitors see the pictures. I really like how the other images are blurry until they come into the shot.

 

Text - someone mentioned verbiage, and yes there is a lot of it. Perhaps adding a page for philosophy that other photographers can read or a link to a weblog might be more appropriate for opinions about digital vs film, etc. I completely agree with you about film vs digital, but the client may want or require a digital workflow. I do not limit myself to either one and try to see each as tools. The customer is always right, so I can shoot either MF film or Digital. (and I LOVE MF Film!)

 

Read up on Dan Heller, he's got some fantastic ideas on selling yourself on the internet. Currently I use printroom as a secondary 'sales' site but I'm not happy with it overall. The printroom service and quality is fine, its that I lose control of the overall process. Plus it limits me to just selling prints, if I want to license an image or other conditional sale, having my own website sales is important to me. Creating the workflow/process is more difficult and I"m still working some of that out.

 

Overall You've got a good start and I like a lot of the components. Good luck

A

Something to consider since this is your first foray into dSLR you may go through a few lenses until you settle on ones that you like. I did. When I got into dSLRs the Digital Rebel(300d), I got the kit lens and eventually a 70-300. Both lenses were fine until I bought a 70-200 f/2.8 IS L. I hated those lenses after that. The L lenses were just sharper, cleaner, worked silently and fast. I was hooked on L glass from that moment on and began swapping all my glass out as well as body. I upgraded to a 20D first then added a 24-70L and 300 L, both at f/2.8. If you plan on shooting at dusk, or even pre-dawn, you'll need fast glass or suffer at higher ISO values and noise.

 

You'll find that your original choices may not fit your goals as you grow and learn. L Glass is nice and I prefer shooting that to say non-L glass zoom lenses. I'm learning from shooting my 300mm that it is far sharper than either the 24-70 or 70-200. I'd love to pick up the 85mm to compliment my collection and move more towards primes.

 

As I move in to Medium Format photography now my goal is almost entirely for prime lenses. The sharpness of even inexpensive prime enses can be phenomenal. Zoom's are a nice compromise to carrying 4+ lenses but I'm finding out that I'm not willing to make the compromise any more.

 

Yes glass is expensive, if I were starting all over again (using bhphoto.com for pricing)

 

canon XTI $550

50mm 1.4 $325

85mm 1.8 $355

 

total $1230

 

This leaves some for a 70-200 f/4 L, not a full $600 but you can save up for it maybe in 6 months. Or you could get the 50mm 1.8 for less than $100. 50mm is a good solid lens, either 1.4 or 1.8. The 1.4 will let more light in of course but costs more. The 85mm, also a good solid fast lens. While not being zoom lenses or L glass, both should be relatively sharp, solid glass that doesn't weigh you down much.

 

Just something else to consider as you build out your setup. Good luck!

A

Interesting, as far as 'geeking out', I don't believe mac users really want to add more drives to their system or anything else. This is a fundamental difference between the two schools. Mac users just want to USE their computer. Windows, and more appropriately, Linux users enjoy adding just about everything to their computer and chasing driver incompatibilities etc. to some of us its 'Fun' or used to be.

 

As far as Mac having a better graphics package, even as a Mac user I have to disagree, this is where geeking out has its advantages, a geek can go drop $500+ on a video card. Yet that same geek will say the system cost less than a mac, yeah sure.

 

As for memory management both systems are complete opposites. Windows consumes all of your memory and defines 'virtual' memory in conjunction with physical memory and parcels both out evenly. Why? Because windows wants to be in control of memory and parcel it out on request. It will let you start as many programs as possible, swapping each memory-resident application to disk. Microsoft claims this is a performance benefit. Disk is slower than ram by a significant margin and therefore not a performance benefit. A multitasking benefit sure, but not performance. There is also risk involved from crashes.

 

OS X is layered on top of a custom BSD (Berkley Systems Design) unix kernel. Unix handles memory somewhat different though the terminology is the same. Unix does not consume your memory, combine it with virtual memory, and parcel it out like windows. Unix tracks both virtual memory and physical memory usage. When you start an application, such as PS, a malloc call is issued requesting so much memory. The application doesn't care what kind, virtual or physical, just the quantity. On unix, usually that is physical memory until there isn't any available. When physical memory is 'oversubscribed', say you launch too many applications, then unix will page out some data in memory to the disk by page size. You can watch this with IOSTAT and other tools.

 

IMO - Windows controls your system memory and essentially 'lies' to applications to allow you to do what you want. This can lead to OS crashes when there just isn't any more memory, physical or virtual, I suspect it contributes to blue screen/death messages when something runs away and just consumes your memory, but its only a suspicion. OS X is more like UNIX, it manages memory rather than controls it and parcel it out.

 

Ultimately Neither system is 'Better' than the other, each performs acceptably well. The users interaction with the system, the way its laid out and operates WITH the user are more important than memory management, graphics packages, or cost. If you're comfortable with XP and windows it might behoove you to stick with windows. If you are curious, I strongly recommend you inquire about a Mac. I'm happy I converted to the 'dark-side'. I don't worry about windows issues any more.

 

Nikon users say their's is better than Canon, Hassleblad is better than Mamiya or Pentax, Ford drivers say they have a better car than Chevy. This is all branding from the marketing/sales departments of the various companies and they gush over it, it means they have die-hard customers willing to spread their brand for them at no cost, better advertising can't be bought. Ignore it all and buy the product that fits you, not what everyone else says to buy.

<p>I have had the opportunity to use dozen's of operating systems due to my line of work, testing technology for corporate IT. I've tried the unixes from IBM, Sun, and HP, I've used windows, Linux, and now OSX. I'm settling on OSX for now.</p>

 

<p>A few years ago, just before the swap-out to Intel processors, I picked up a nice G5 20" mac for under $1000. I was curious more than anything else, and to be honest, Vista and its over zealous approach to digital content management was threatening. I don't want my OS telling me I can't edit my own pictures. While that hasn't come into play yet and was probably just a scare tactic, it worked. I now use Mac and OSX for almost everything except coding which I do on linux. I keep a simple XP box around for the occasional game but I don't use it for anything else. I got tired of having to re-program my preferences into XP every time I booted it, from desktop settings and more. </p>

 

<p>The Mac just does what I want it to. I don't have to fight my computer to get work done, that's what really turns me off from the PC these days. For $400-$800 you can get an entry level PC. There have been some studies and I"ll try to put some links below, that show that a comparable PC with similar hardware as a Mac, cost about the same. In some cases even less. Its the budget/barebones systems that really flaw the statistics and people love to throw those at you. When you start looking and name brand, such as HP, Dell, Lenovo, etc, and compare identical systems you find out that Mac is competitive. Apple doesn't seem to want to compete on the $400 bottom of the barrel market, even a mac Mini will set you back $599 and you still need monitor, keyboard, and mouse.</p>

 

<p>The issue with Mac is that there are really only a handful of choices and they seem expensive to start with. If you find a comparable PC, same processor, same memory, same hardware, on paper it'll add up to close to the same cost. eMachines is not going to compete with apple, they don't want to, they want the walmart shoppers, not someone serious about photo editing or some other task they need the computer for.</p>

 

<p>Ultimately though it doesn't matter about the cost, performance, or which one. What really matters is your peace of mind. Do you enjoy using the system? Does it work for you? (if you're fighting the OS then the answer is no). Both systems will do what you need them to do, but be careful with crossover upgrades. Phase one for example won't do a crossover upgrade, they want you to purchase a whole new license. That drove me to other tools like photo mechanic and lightroom both of which I like a lot. That's phase one's loss and a poor marketing decision that many companies make. Now that I'm into Medium Format, when I go looking for a digital back, the phase one experience will drive me away from their products. (can phase one say oops we lost a $45k sale due to a $99 product rule enforcement?)</p>

 

<a href=http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&taxonomyName=macintosh_os&articleId=9023959&taxonomyId=123&intsrc=kc_feat>PC World comparison</a>

<p></p>

<a href=http://www.macworld.com/article/59565/2007/08/costanalysis.html>Mac World comparison/followup</a>

I'm learning myself that to get your subjects relaxed and to trust you you need to engage them in conversation. Doesn't matter what, but talk to them about anything, describe your goals, intentions, why do you want this particular shot or why you want a specific look. Talking helps your subject to relax. Its very difficult being in front of the camera, especially if you are unused to it. Imagine having several large strobe lights, people milling about, its very intimidating.

 

Personally I would use the 85mm f/1.8 or a telephoto. I use my 70-200 for fashion/portraiture a lot. The longer focal distances tend to flatter the subject more. Prime lenses also provide a sharper image, 85mm is a good start and with f/1.8 you'll achieve a nice blurred background. I would also aim for black and white as the final result. Shoot color/raw and import into photoshop or PS-Elements and look at the 3 color channels independently, red, green, blue. Pick the one you like. That with the brick background Mark suggested could make a very powerful photo. Early morning light might be better, or perhaps a cloudy day where the natural light is diffuse enough and doesn't cause any serious shadows. Other neat things you can do would be to hand-tint in photoshop the robe or gloves while the rest of the image remains black/white.

 

Remember to chat, get some shots of her laughing, crying, being serious. This is a serious cause after all and an emotional one for the victims, ask her to describe how she felt when she found out. Think about your end result, not the competition, but the image you want to create. Will it be black and white? Color? Dramatic? Fun? Try several lenses too. Set up your shoot like you're planning an event. In the morning we'll do this, later we'll do this, we'll finish up like so.

 

Good luck!

<p>I was in your position actually, I purchased a Mamiya RB67 Pro-S locally last fall and as Erie claims, you pull the negative out and its stunning. I think I actually said something close to his quote, maybe more profanity though.</p>

 

<p>What I have learned with all systems is that any new 'thing' camera, GPS, car, computer, phone, there is a usability factor as important as cost and results. If I'm not comfortable using it I won't. If at all possible, find a used camera store and hold the different styles, push the buttons, see how they work and if you understand each switch and buttons function, do your fingers reach the buttons? When your looking through the viewfinder? Can you remember how to set the aperture? shutter speed? etc...</p>

 

<p>The RB67 I purchased is an great camera and I love the results. But the camera itself isn't working <i>with</i> me. A lot of MF is tripod mounted because of the bulkiness of the camera. The negatives were awesome, but the camera itself didn't work well with me. Its an awesome camera but bulky. So I found and bought a Mamiya 645 AFD, more automatic, more bells and whistles, smaller negative (6x4.5cm) and I love it. It fits in my hands. </p>

 

<p>I'm selling the RB and looking to pick up something more like a Pentax67 because a lot of people recommend them and they appear comfortable to hold in the hand. I'll have the bells and whistles on the 645 and the huge negatives on the pentax67. There are many other options from several vendors including Hassleblad, Mamiya, Pentax, and others. The various model numbers and variations are confusing but the end result, huge negatives is worth the patience and education that comes with medium format.</p>

 

<p>Good luck and welcome to medium format - I'm happy I converted!</p>

I find myself agreeing with Darryn though I thought Mike's reply was a bit tongue-in-cheek sarcastic. I could be wrong.

 

That being said I had the opportunity to work some sporting events this past year and it was quite hilarious to see rows and rows of photographers with Brand New Canon 1D MKIII firing at 10 frames a second - literally sounded like machine gun fire.

 

Shooting ice hockey for a local AHL team I found my shots were as good but I feel that I know the game of hockey more than some photographer that's just in it for the paycheck, has never touched the ice except for post game photos, and doesn't really care who wins or loses. Playing ice hockey, I understand how the game flows more so than a spectator.

 

IMO a good photographer will know, regardless of digital or film, that the shot was a good one or not. On my digital I turn off the review to save on power but I don't need that to know. Plus the screen is too small to see any detail.

 

Good luck and happy shooting!

I would concur with the other responses. I personally don't feel that brand is all that

important as aesthetics are. How it feels in your hands, etc. I have an RB67 with 2 lenses

I'm trying to sell right now because it just doesn't 'fit' right for me. I love the 6x7

negatives, the richness, etc.

 

I picked up a Mamiya 645AFD short term and am interested in the pentax 67 as well. I like

to hand hold as opposed to tripod and the RB67 is HUGE.

 

Digital has its place, the workflow is much faster etc. But the intangible connections we

create to the film cameras is amazing. The first time I pulled the negatives out of the

developing tank I was hooked. Sold my 20D (still have my 1D/II) and got the 645 just

today. I'm really happy so far, but I still have to pull that film out and develop it. I'm really

looking forward to developing that 1st roll of film both as a test for the camera as well as

the excitement.

 

Good luck and welcome to the Dark Side!

I've shot exclusively digital for the past 7+ years maybe longer, film eluded me. This last

fall I bought a Mamiya RB67 and last week a Mamiya 645AFD. I'm hooked on medium

format and even the film aspect now. I want to shoot more and more. If I can I would like

to trade my RB67 for a Pentax 67. I don't know much about the different brands, as far as

I can tell each has its advantages and disadvantages. What took me a while is just learning

what all the different model identifiers mean. That's the main reason I stuck with Mamiya

when I bought the 645. Each brand seems to have some complex models that are closely

similar yet quite different. Research each brand and various models to find one with the

features you might be interested in.