mark_brown14

<div></div>

Couple of times today I tried to respond to a thread and was told my response had been added to the forum thread, but on

checking I found it hadn't. I tried to resubmit but was told I couldn't submit twice. Seems there's a problem there.

I think you've summed it up pretty well.

Consider a microscopic image capture setup that records directly to a computer monitor. If the quality meets your needs it can be way less expensive than the traditional camera route, as well as being faster and easier to use.

 

As for avoiding the reflection of the lens in the final image, the usual way to minimize it is to shoot through a hole in back fabric and make sure no light falls on the lens or its parts. Tungsten lights help you see where the glare falls, and a system of white and black movable reflectors help control the light so it defines and clarifies your surfaces.

Josh,

 

It may also be worth pointing out that you have to be signed in for the customized view to show. Seems obvious now, but for the longest time I couldn't work out why each time I came back my settings had been lost.

Yes. Just make sure it's truly flexible - the last one I got was so stiff I might as well have been using my thumbs. Guess it's time I took my own advice and got a new one too.

Interesting. I shall follow this one.

'Ecce Ancilla Domini!' (The Annunciation) by Dante Gabriel Rosetti.

<div></div>

Martin,

 

Looks like the photographer also darkened the sky at the printing stage by using the technique known as 'burning in'. This is separate from and additional to the exposure and development manipulation mentioned above. If so, then other parts of the final print could have been burned or dodged as well.

 

While burning and dodging are extremely simple in principle (involving no more than obstructing part of the light beam during enlargement), in the hands of an expert they are capable of rendering considerable refinement and complexity to a print.

 

You can experiment with the technique on any of your 'grey and very bright' negatives at home. You might be surprised at the intensity within them just waiting to be unleashed!

 

Also, check out Bill Brandt if you like the dark, broody look. You don't have to like his work - he's just well-known for having pushed the envelope in that particular direction at one point (and inspiring a generation of young photographers in the process). Oh, and he did miners and mining communities, too.

 

Best of luck.

<div></div>

Reminds me of the entry in the 1968 Focal Press 'Pictorial Cyclopedia of Photography' (my copy 1974) under 'Print quality', a term dismissed by the editors as 'much used by amateurs...' but meaningless to professionals, for whom 'technical perfection is expected as a matter of course'.

 

'The result has been the appearance in the amateur vocaulary of the term print quality which has been invested with a false aura of magic and juju.'

 

They go on to point out that if your darkroom technque fails to provide it (PQ), one of the problems might be 'tobacco smoke blown into the light beam'(!) (Other authorities state that blowing tobacco smoke into the enlarger's light beam can be a useful tool to achieve a softer image.)

 

Has anyone else noticed that the more things change, the more they remain the same?

I never use them. I never use camera straps, either. I'll leave home with the camera body either already attached to a tripod or just loose in a pocket. When I get to the scene of the shooting it comes out of the pocket and remains in my hand until it's done what it's designed to do.

 

On the other hand, I share the gratitude expressed by earlier posters towards OTHER people using them. I recently bought a Japanese TLR which was still pristine after over half a century of use thanks to the beat-up old leather case it came in. A photo showing the contrast between the case and the camera would be instructive, if I could only work out how to upload it for you all to see. (Any help appreciated.)

 

On the other other hand, its appearance is not going to help me take better photos than I can with my Nikon F3, about which the kindest thing that can be said is that it 'shows some brassing'. As in, I wouldn't be surprised if I learned that the previous owner thought camera cases are things you start barbecues with and that F3s are useful to wedge under the wheel of a car to keep it from slipping on gravelly slopes.

 

Bottom line is, they don't work with the way I like to shoot, and they don't contribute to picture quality. But if protecting your gear is important to you, what they can do is truly impressive.

<div></div>

<div></div>

<div></div>

Not methodically. Once I've put film in a camera I'm committed to shooting the whole roll, however long it takes. That

tends to favour cameras that use shorter rolls of film, which explains why my 6X9 box camera with its eight exposures

gets more use than my 6X4.5 box with sixteen exposures per roll. Call it my weakness for instant gratification, but it's the

nearest I've come to shooting digital so far.

I recently bought two Takumar K-mount lenses for $15 the lot. The 28mm just needed the front element retaining ring tightened to stop the rattling but the 80-200 had what looked like dog vomit over the rear element. I hosed it down and did a little fiddly stuff with Q-Tips and now they look fine. Did I do wrong? Should I ask for my money back? Because until I read that piece I thought I'd scored a couple of gems.

<div></div>

JDM: Are you being irreverent again?

 

I have one working 625 I found in a Konica Auto S at a garage sale years ago, and it will continue to do service in my various classics until it finally pegs out. That is, if it ever does peg out - the meter in the Auto S is permanently on, and has no cover to protect it, and yet the battery still reads at full strength. Beats me. Were they known for their long life?

Legal ramifications of ripping off Hallmark? That's easy: it's illegal.

 

It's like saying, how can you copyright a photograph when any fool can press a shutter button.

My S2 and Spotmatic are my expensive cameras. I paid double figures for some of them. :o)

 

Seriously, no. I wouldn't buy a camera I couldn't use.

whats the best kind of filter to use when shooting black and white to create the most contrast.

 

Paul,

As has been suggested above, it depends. Unfortunately, information on the variables involved was not easy to come by

in the photographic books and magazines I consulted when I was learning on my own, and consequently I had the same

frustrations you're experiencing now. Recommendations like 'open up a stop or two' were too vague to be of any real use.

And I was confused as to why applying the factor stamped on the side of the filter itself sometimes gave good results and

sometimes didn't. I wasn't until I discovered the excellent teaching books of Ansel Adams that I was finally able to get

predictably good results with filters for black-and-white film. I'd recommend them for you, too.

 

To answer your question, red and green can probably wring the most contrast out of the right scene. But, as I say, it

depends. The shot of boats against a darkened sky in my portfolio was taken with a red filter. However, the couple looking

in the window of the bridal shop also had a red filter over the lens - accidentally, as it was a grab shot and I just happened

to have the filter on from an earlier shot. Fortunately, there's no excessive contrast caused by the red filter in that one as

there was very little colour in the scene for the filter to act on.

 

Good luck, and keep at it!

Differences to focus on between R2/3/4:

 

If you want a 35mm lens you'd be better off with the R2 or R4, as the R3 viewfinder only goes as wide as 50mm. Other considerations include different viewfinder magnification, framelines, etc, part of which is personal preference and part of which may have a bearing on how you see your system expanding in the future.

Excellent idea.