Farkle-Mpls

OK. It says to post in HTML if a web link is used but it destroyed my formatting.

Here is the link again:

http://web.me.com/follstad/Thailand_2008/Riding_elephants%21.html#16

Thanks.

Folks,

Some lively debate about whether or not this photo was metered correctly:

http://web.me.com/follstad/Thailand_2008/Riding_elephants%21.html#16

The white of the paper on the easel is bright and the back of the elephant is almost black. I understand peoples' comments about being

overall too dark, but when I see the bright paper, I have to wonder. It looks like both extremes of light and dark are represented here. If I

had brighten it up, the paper would've washed out ... (true?)

What are your opinions?

The film was Provia 100F shot with a Canon F1N. Just a haze filter was used.

(... and yes, the elephant is actually painting.)

Thanks!

I shot Provia 100F on a trip to Thailand last month and was very pleased with it. I used to shoot the older Velvia but the

Caucasian skin tones were terrible. The 100F had almost the BLING of Velvia but managed people-shots very well.

Most (90%) of these shots are scanned slides from Provia 100F:

http://web.me.com/follstad/Thailand_2008/Riding_elephants%21.html

Sue,

I shot Canon film for many years and "stuck my toe" in the digital Canon world with a PowerShot Pro1 (circa 2004) P &

S. I was probably Canon's top end point-and-shoot at the time and it had a very nice lens. Because of my experience

with digital photography, two years later I upgraded to a 40D and a nice Tokina lens. I kept the PS Pro1.

To be honest, I still shoot the Pro1 a lot. It is compact and I can keep it in the glovebox of my car, which I cannot do

with the 40D. The attached lens is good for 90% of the photos I need to take. Its small size makes it comfortable to

shoot in social situations where a larger DSLR might scare people off. (It's tiny built-in flash is limited in reach, though.)

You mention you like to travel light. The G9/G10 are excellent cameras for a person on-the-go. They can do 95% of the

features you would buy a DSLR for, if you can live with the single attached lens. Maybe, like me, you want to start with

the smaller G-series camera and upgrade to a DSLR in a year or two when you discover whether or not you really need

the functionality (speed, control and removable lens) and can live with the bulk.

A final thought, even if you buy a G-series camera now and only use it for a year or two and sell it later, you'll lose some

money on the sale BUT the DSLR you can buy at THAT time will probably be worth the extra money. Bear in mind

Canon seems to be upgrading the 30D/40D/50D line every 10-15 months. The 60D will be out by then at today's 50D

prices, if the pattern holds.

Best of luck with your decision!

When I traveled a few months ago, a sign on the scanner for checked luggage did indeed LOUDLY proclaim "not safe for

photographic film" ... However, I had put my film in a lead-lined film bag, ON TOP of everything packed in the suitcase

so, if some security guy saw the big black blotch on his x-ray machine and pulled my bag, I was less likely to piss him

off by making him dig for the offending x-ray-blocking bag. I have never fogged any film and the bag is x-rayed often. Recently, I put

my Canon F1N in the bag too since it still had film in it (I pulled the lens and capped the body). Everything was fine and

I did protect the lead bag a bit more in that case (put some clothes over it).

The comment regarding gamma rays concerns me because I had never heard of that before and I doubt conventional

lead-lined film bags would protect your film from that level of radiation. Might want to do some checking up on that.

All,

Thank you for your thoughtful replies. I'll clean the one I have -- get rid of several years of accumulation of dust -- and

perhaps upgrade the lens to a Buhl. I'll keep my eyes open for a good condition Ektagraphic too.

My slides are vacation "snaps" and I do like to project them for fun (I scan them first so I have digital backups). I have

the Kodak carousel system at work now and did an "old fashioned" slide show for a few of my technical colleagues.

One of them, 24 years young, hadn't heard of slides before ... but that of course, is a different thread ...

Thanks again.

Folks,

I'm back to shooting slides and I have a Kodak carousel slide projector. A knowledgeable friend suggested that maybe I should look at a

better quality projector/lens combo. I scoured eBay and Craigslist and see some recurring names, like Pradolux with Leica lenses (that

sounds nice!). Cost is certainly an issue and a used projector would be fine. Service-ability would be an important consideration as the

higher end ones are probably costly to repair and parts may not be readily available. I would value your advise and experiences.

Thank you.

OK ... this is a bit embarrassing but what got me started this morning on my Vivitar zoom research was an earlier post to

THIS forum regarding the 28-90mm! I just saw it in the postings and it reminded me where I had started! Sorry for the

seeming redundancy of this ... YET ... I'd still like your thoughts on the diff between the 28-90mm and the 28-85mm.

I've seen both zooms listed as Vivitar Series 1 lenses with lots of praise for the -90 variant. I'm curious about the -

85mm though ...

Thoughts, experiences, sample photos would be appreciated.

Thanks!

Hi folks,

I've spent the last three hours Googling various aspects of Vivitar zooms -- motivated by some pretty strong positive comments regarding

the third gen 70-210mm F2.8-4.0 zoom. I was so motivated by what I read that I got one off of a BUY IT NOW on eBay today and it

should arrive this week. I verified via serial # and photo it was a 3G.

In the process of my research, another Vivitar zoom: 28-90mm was repeatedly and favorably mentioned. I also heard of a Kiron-sourced

28-85mm/F2.8-3.8, which came highly recommended and also came in Series 1 guise. If I were to buy one of those two lenses (28-90 or

28-85), which should I get and what is the difference between them?

Anyone have any images taken with either of these lenses they could post a link to?

Thanks much!

When people look at my F1N -- and it's hard to disguise the age with "LA 1984" emblazoned on it -- I tell them it still

takes better pictures then many digitals (less true nowadays) or, the more truthful answer, my wife won't let me spend

money on modern (EOS) lenses so I have to buy MF lenses on eBay and keep using the older bodies.

I like Mark's comment to the effect that they were used for professional photography 20 years ago. What has really

changed?

On Thursday, I got back from two weeks in Thailand. I brought the F1N and five rolls of Provia 100F. I had a ball

shooting slides and enjoy the ritual of getting the slides processed and looking at them under a loupe -- they look 3D!

Too bad my scanner doesn't do them justice.

For me, who has a 40D as well, I had to THINK a lot more as I was using the F1N ... the metering is not as forgiving so I

had to override Aperture priority often. I also had to get back into the swing of pre-focusing and hyperfocal again. Digital is nice for many

things but I realize that I also sacrifice keeping sharp on some photo theory and

practices when I rely on the automation to do so much for me. (Gads ... I had to use warming and cooling filters again!)

Since I just got my slides back yesterday, I'm going to indulge myself and post a couple here (if I can figure out the process). One is of a

panhandler (I paid her for the opportunity to shoot the picture -- love the color!) and the other is of the bridge over the Kwai river (and yes, it

still stands!)

Carl<div></div>

Hi all,

I gave my 40D a miss to pull my F1N out of mothballs for a recent trip to Thailand. Felt nice to have the solid weight of that older camera

around my neck, even though the folks with "Canon digital" inscribed on their camera strap looked at me with a weird and sympathetic

glance.

Anyway, I set my camera to Aperture priority and let the F1N calculate shutter speed. Many times during my day of shooting, the shutter

speed it highlighted on the needle in the viewfinder was BETWEEN established set speeds. For instance, my selection of F4 for aperture

made the camera's electronics stick the needle smack between 1/60s and 1/125s. My question: is this camera's electronics and shutter

capable of firing a 1/90s shutter (average of the surrounding values) or does it pick one or the other "established" shutter speeds (in this

case, 1/60s or 1/125s)?

Thank you!

Carl

Hello.

I have an FD 28mm/2.8 lens in otherwise good condition which is acting rather strangely. The F-stop as indicated on the band on the lens

body is consistently 0.5 stops lower than the aperture indicated in the viewfinder of my F-1N. This lens normally will allow F-stops between

2.8 and 22 to be selected. I can readily move the band around the lens, selecting F-stops in all ranges, including "A". I tested this lens on

my second F-1N body and the problem persists. Also, other lenses don't exhibit this behavior.

I'm not sure how long this has been happening but I had posted earlier that I thought my F-1N light meter was out-of-calibration because

my photos were all overexposed by 0.5 - 1.0 stops. I was shooting this lens at the time of my exposure tests.

I've never seen this before. Ideas? Is this a common problem?

Thank you!

Thanks Edward. Again, your technical commentary makes overall sense (thankfully I have a strong math background) but

there are specific aspects of your reply I will need to research in greater detail, since I find this topic rather interesting. Do

you have a good online or book source which explains characteristic curves, their interpretation and ultimate impact on the

mechanics of photography? (For instance, I find your correlation between the log10 scale of exposure to f/stop very

interesting -- I'm always very interested in taking the defined and measurable elements of the physical medium and relating

it back to light/shutter/fstop settings.)

Everyone (especially Thomas) ... thanks for an amazing amount of technical detail. I understand enough of the

concepts put forth to make meaningful decisions about what speed to shoot my print film at (and why it may be a good

idea to override the "box ASA" to make it appear slower to the camera to force 1/2 stop overexposure). I agree that

bracketing is a good idea, particularly since this is a bit of experimentation for me and that buys some security.

Ilia: Thanks for mentioning an interesting topic. For completeness sake, I'll see if I can find a good explanation of Dynamic Range and

Exposure Latitude as well. I've heard mention of them on several forums and it's worth me spending some time getting familiar with the

concepts.

Again ... thank you!

Thanks Mark. I was compelled to do more digging and found this useful site:

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/canonf1n/metering/screens/allscreens.htm

which described in detail all the focusing screens available for the New F-1. I probably want a "PE" screen instead of

an "AE" which I will look for on eBay (any suggestions for other sources?)

Thanks again for all the helpful commentary.

Thank you for your replies. I have to admit never realizing the basic premise that slides, as a projected medium, needed

to be higher contrast than prints. Duh. Well, being self-taught (as most of us probably are), there are holes in my

knowledge big enough to drive a truck through.

A natural extension to my original question would be this: if print film has such great latitude, does that imply -- on a film

that could tolerate +3/-3 EV -- I can shoot a few frames +3 stops, the next few -2 stops, etc, have it processed as if it

were neither pushed nor pulled and expect the prints of all the images to come out good (implying either the film was

forgiving enough with the original exposure or that the correction was made on the printing step)? That sounds a little too

good to be true and a lot like the "auto ASA" setting on my DSLR.

Thank you.

Hello.

I've recently discovered this forum and ... wow! ... am I learning a lot. Thank you all for providing such a wealth of information. Your

opinions on which films to use and when to use them are valuable as I plan a trip to Thailand in two weeks.

I have what is probably a more basic question (although perhaps not a simple one). I've read a lot commentary stating the fact that print

film is much more forgiving in terms of +/- EV than slide film is (and forgive my lack of "transparency" vs. "reversal" nomenclature -- too

long to type and everyone knows what I mean).

Anyway ... I'm curious WHY there is such difference in the characteristics of the film? Why can't slide film provide me the +3/-3 stops of

exposure latitude which print film seems to allow? Is it the emulsion -- I assume so -- and why is that?

I love the color and contrast of many of the slide films discussed on this forum but I like the "forgiveness" implied by some of the print

films. Insights, explanations?

Thank you!

Psul: I apologize as I neglected to mention the metering setting when I was testing my exposures. The 1v was set to

center weighted metering. I just now pulled the screen out of my F1N and it is labeled as "Canon FN Japan AE". I'll look

up what that means exactly, knowing there are different metering patterns available but I assume it's probably what was

typically sold with the AE Finder FN.

Does that provide any insight?

Thank you!

Thanks for bringing the battery issue up. I too had heard about that issue (exposure metering being off due to battery

voltage differences) so I swapped batteries between my F-1s. The problem did NOT follow the battery so I don't think this

is a battery issue. But it's good to see the discussion which resulted from your post. Perhaps the rumored inaccuracies

were only for the first two models of F-1 bodies (which took the older mercury battery). Thank you for your ideas.

Thanks for your responses. Yes, for now I have adjusted the E.I. to accommodate. Good suggestion to check the

"linearity" of the metering system: I will do that. Does anyone know what causes the meter to go out of calibration?

I noticed it on print film (Kodak 160VS) and it was pretty subtle. The only reason I noticed it at all was because I was

shooting my (1984) F-1 against my EOS 1v to perform some lens quality tests between an FD 2.8 28mm and a Tamron

28-105mm F2.8 EOS zoom (the zoom was closed all the way to 28mm). Identical film and same focal length. I set

both cameras to Av and the F-1 was consistently picking a slower shutter speed. The pictures the 1v took looked better

balanced for light as well. Thus my lens test turned into a light meter test as well.

Incidentally, after scanning the negs, the FD 28mm had better clarity than my "modern" (2001) Tamron zoom. As a

side-bar, I'd be interested in peoples' experiences with Tamron EOS zooms. This was supposed to be a nicer zoom, offering

a constant F2.8 through the entire focal range. Over the past couple years, I've come to the conclusion that it is not a

"really nice" lens, but just an OK one (image clarity is iffy). I bought the lens new and have always taken very good care

of it. I have not tested clarity at different F-stops or zoom ranges but depending on comments from this forum, I may be

compelled to do that.

I appreciate your interpretation of the date code -- thank you! Sept 1981 was a good month: I had just started my senior

year of high school.

Hello.

I just discovered photo.net and this particular forum this evening. Wow ... I have been shooting Canon gear since high school (1977,

following in Dad's footsteps where he started shooting Canon gear when stationed in Korea in the mid 1950s, purchasing it in Seoul).

Anyway, I still collect the lenses and shoot the cameras. When I discovered this forum, 4 hours of my life vanished. What a wealth of

information! Thank you to everyone who contributes and keeps this forum -- and FD cameras and gear! -- alive and being used.

On to my question ...

I was shooting my 1984 F-1 and the photos were coming back consistently overexposed. I grabbed a gray card and tested my other

cameras -- another F1 and a hand held meter included -- and the 1984 F-1 registered 1/2 stop less light then ALL the other devices I

tested. The battery is not the issue as I swapped batteries between the F-1s and the problem didn't "follow" the battery (the battery is new

as well). I used the same lens, if that matters. ASA and shutter speed were all set identically.

The camera was CLA'd about 8 years ago and I'm willing to have that done again.

Is this a common problem? Ideas?

Also, unrelated question but looking at the second F-1 I just bought, the serial # in the film chamber looks like V904R ... could that be

right? It's hard as heck to read but, if it is right, can someone interpret build date for me?

Thank you!

Carl