henrik_lauridsen

<p>You can surely do without Lightroom, but IMO once you have bought your first decent lens, no investment will pay of as good as a copy of LR.</p>

<p>Thank you for your input. As Wouter pointed out, I am probably well covered, so I will opt for a single drive. I read the backblaze statistics as well, and decided to stick with Western Digital. Hitachi (HGST these days) does look even better, but the are also the most expensive option.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

My primary data disk (that holds my photos and lightroom catalogue) failed yesterday. The partition table was lost, the drive showed up as RAW, but I was able to recover all the files. I have online backup through Crashplan, so I was never that worried, but it got me thinking what to do when replacing the faulty drive.<br>

The drive is a data drive, and as mentiond, online backup is performed. Would I be better of with a single HDD, or should I invest in two, so that I can set-up a RAID 1 (mirroring) and have fault tolerance? Or, to put it differently, will a RAID 1 be overkill, considering that I have online backup as well, and have a NAS where I can also do local back-ups to? <br>

If I go for a RAID set-up, I will get a couple of Western Digital Red HDDs. For the single drive set-up I am considering a large (3 or 4 Tb) WD Green instead. How well does the WD Green work with Lightroom? </p>

 

<p>I second that. Posts full of insight, and always ready with helpful advise should you get stuck.</p>

<p>Money laundering?</p>

<p>+1 on Lightroom. With the current prices, it is IMO by far the most cost effective addition to your toolbox as a photographer, including new lenses, cameras etc.</p>

<p>This might be useful - http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/</p>

<p>My Flickr stats have never been very impressive, but still, I was a bit surprised to see that the most popular photo, in terms of views, was a shot done in Berlin, using Kodachrome 64 in a Canon EOS 600 with a nifty fifty.<br>

<a title="Berlin Wall art - Trabi by Necator, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2537/3797839889_a8ae998e09.jpg" alt="Berlin Wall art - Trabi" width="500" height="335" /></a><br>

And, the second most popular shot was done with the same camera, but this time with Ektar 100:<br>

<a title="Auto Union DKW 1000 by Necator, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2593/3803815196_0cb4d919f9.jpg" alt="Auto Union DKW 1000" width="500" height="340" /></a><br>

(frames added in post processing, and looking back, they would probably be better off without it).<br>

How are your MFC shots doing on Flickr?</p>

<p>Primes mainly on my EOS 3, but come to think of it, I should use my 70-200 f/4L on it a lot more than I do.</p>

<p>Another vote for the Canon EOS 3, the best camera body I have ever used. But than again, my dslr is a humble 400D.</p>

<p>I have the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 without IS as well, and it is a great lens. Sure, FTM focus would have been nice, but I do not find the autofocus particular slow (it is a bit noisy though). From 17 to approx 24 mm, there is noticeable barrel distortion, but programs like Lightroom 3 will sort that out nicely. </p>

<p>For me, it depends on the type of film. With slide film, I would normally only crop the image, and perhaps remove obvious dust or scratch marks. I mean, what is the point of using e.g. Velvia, if you change the colour saturation afterwards? Come to think of it, my Kodachrome slides always required a fair bit of post processing, to make the scanned result look like the slide itself.<br>

With B&W negative film, which I use 90% of the time in my classic cameras, I try to limit PP to what would have been possible in the darkroom. In other words, cropping, adjusting contrast and exposure, plus perhaps a bit of unsharp mask. I generally try to avoid the noise reduction sliders in Lightroom, as I see no point in removing grain from the shot (then I might as well have used my dslr).</p>

<p>As stated by others, there are so many options for a sturdy 35mm camera, with a 50mm lens. I have not myself had the pleasure of working with old Nikons, but would like to some time. Right now thought, they seem to be a bit pricy, compared to other available options.<br /><br />In the cheaper end, while still both sturdy and good, you could consider one of the many camera bodies with an M42 mount. Pentax Spotmatic, Yashica TL-Electro etc springs to mind. Plus, you will have a lot of different lenses to choose from. The 50mm f/1.4 Takumar is supposed to be excellent, and in the other end of the price spectrum, you could try to get your hands on a Helios 44-2 (58mm f/2). It has a very distinct, swirling bokeh/background blur, which, according to taste, can be either annoying or used creatively.</p>

<p>I recall advertisements for the Kodak Disc. Unless memory fails me, the main selling points was the high frame rate, compared to other consumer cameras of the time, as well as the fact that it was very flat :-)<br>

My first camera was a Fuji 110 format (can't remember the exact model). As long as you stuck to 9 * 13 cm paper copies, it was not bad at all.</p>

 

<p>Rick, thank you for a nice post, with some excellent photos. Once again, reading a post in this forum has made me want a lens I never knew existed :-)</p>

<p>I found myself in a similar situation last year, being an avid amateur as well. First of all, if at all possible, scout all the locations before wedding. If the ceremony is in a church, check with church officials on their rules regarding photography. Check where you are allowed to stand and take photos.<br>

Also, remember that you can only be in one place at a time. I managed to get a bunch of good shots of the B&G walking down the aisle after the ceremony, but missed most of the cheering crowd outside the church door, as I was stuck behind the B&G.<br>

So, get as much facts about the venues as possible, and talk with the B&G about what they consider essential shots, and what they can live without.</p>

<p>Thank you all for your comments. I have shown the pictures to my parents, and they say the clothes and bicycles looks early 50s to them. Perhaps the owner of the camera switched to a more modern camera, a 35mm SLR perhaps? That could be a reason why he forgot all about that last roll.<br>

I am not sure about the brother/sister theory - they are holding hands, which points more to a couple than siblings.</p>

<p>You are just getting started, so I would go for the 550D. I have a 400D, and there is nothing wrong with the build quality of if. Sure, my EOS 3 is sturdier, but the 400D is quite robust.<br>

By going for a cheaper body, you will also be able buy better lenses sooner.</p>

 

<p>Last (outermost frame) - Fogging is massive, and there was a hole in the film, as well as the backing paper (which looked a bit burnt).<br>

<a title="Found film - Summer holiday? by Necator, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2288/5755688593_d7f1f2a43e.jpg" alt="Found film - Summer holiday?" width="500" height="329" /></a></p>

 

<p>This is the second to last frame, and now it is evident that time has taken its toll on the film. But still, the photo is pretty clear. My dad told me the car in the background might be a pre-war Hillman.<br>

<a title="Found film - Bikes by Necator, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5068/5755695541_f928546ca6.jpg" alt="Found film - Bikes" width="500" height="335" /></a></p>

<p>Another one, this one could very well be from the Copenhagen Central train station. It is a bit out of focus, probably blurred from camera shake.</p>

<p><a title="Found film - departure by Necator, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2778/5755713573_6950733948.jpg" alt="Found film - departure" width="500" height="370" /></a><br>

I have shot a roll of Fomapan 100 with the camera recently, and I had the same blur on all but one of the shots.</p>

<p>I could not find any development times for Ilford HP3, so after a suggestion on apug.org, I sent a question to Ilford. They responded within an hour, with a nice email, suggesting 12 minutes in stock D-76 (I had mentioned in my query, that I had Rodinal, D-76 and Xtol at my disposal).<br>

I have never been more careful developing a film, than with this one. On top of that, the film was very curly, and quite difficult to get on the reel. I finally managed to get it on, and got it developed.<br>

The first exposure on the roll, and the one that has been closest to the center of the takeup spool, was the one that looked best.<br>

<a title="Found film - going for a honeymoon? by Necator, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3457/5756270930_a2f36f2b60.jpg" alt="Found film - going for a honeymoon?" width="321" height="500" /></a><br>

To me, it looks like this early 50's couple are getting ready for their honeymoon, but I am just guessing. Considering that the film has been exposed for 50+ years before development, I think the result is rather amazing.</p>

<p>Got another classic camera as a gift. This time, an old Agfa Box Spezial. Reasonably well in shape, considering the age (introduced in 1931). Plus, it came in the original leather case, and with a Danish manual. It must have been kept dry, as there was only a hint of mouldy smell, and the lens was clean. Inside was another nice bonus - a roll of exposed Ilford HP3.<br>

<a title="Agfa Box Spezial by Necator, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5184/5759100933_6a25235c41.jpg" alt="Agfa Box Spezial" width="333" height="500" /></a><br>

<strong>Camera and the exposed roll of HP3</strong><br>

The camera is very simple to operate. Two shutter speeds (1/30 and bulb), 3 apertures (f/11, f/16 and f/22) and 3 focus distances (fern, nah & portrait). It has two waist level style viewfinders, so that you can do both portrait and landscape exposures. 8 exposures on one roll of 120 film.</p>

<p>Very nice, there is just so much depth in the shot, especially when viewed in the large version. Thanks for sharing.</p>

<p>A 50mm lens with a max aperture of f/6, you sure don't see that every day :-)</p>