paul_b._davis1

February 8, 2012

Hi folks--Just wanted to give you an update, and take a few moments to respond to a few suggestions.

I wasn't able to make it to the lab last weekend, so I haven't gotten the film in hand, yet. I'll post scans when I do.

Regarding the salient points of the thread:

<ul>

<li>Film not advancing</li>

<li>Waiting 25 days</li>

<li>Turned in the wrong roll</li>

<li>Metering</li>

<li>Development Time</li>

</ul>

Film not advancing:

I don't think this is an issue in this case. It sounds like there are two contiguous exposed negatives on the roll, which implies that the film advanced twice (36mm x 2 = 72mm), leaving me inclined to believe that it advanced through the whole roll. Also, I've now put three more rolls through the camera and none have shown any issues in this department after development. These facts combined with a normal "feel" on the film advance/rewind that night also leave me with the impression that the failure wasn't mechanical.

Waiting 25 Days:

Makes sense to me. Maybe there's a little bit of image there and they just didn't notice (or it wouldn't have turned out well with a typical contact print).

Turned in the wrong roll:

This is the first roll of P3200 I've ever bought, and I only bought one. (~$9.00 a piece--Yowza)

:)

Metering:

I should have clarified--I was using a handheld spot meter. In both the house and the bar I followed the spot meter's advice plus or minus one stop, depending on the desired effect. In the bar, I metered darkened subjects in the audience like my wife's cheek and my hand. In any case, I'm familiar enough with the theory to know that if a meter tells me 1/500th in a dark bar, I'll know that I metered the wrong thing. I think typical shutter speed in the bar was something like 1/30th, 1/15th and 1/60th, always at f/1.4.

I also took at least a few shots of the fully lit stage, which I would think should have made *some* appearance.

Development Time:

The person who took my film initially thought I was asking for a one stop push, but I explained that Kodak had specific documentation for varying speeds of this film and that they just needed to follow those directions based on whatever developer they're using.

My main concern here is that they didn't follow the directions, or that they used their own formula/scheme for developing the film and ultimately didn't give the roll enough time in the tank.

I wasn't able to get any information about developer or timing, but I'll ask when I pick up this weekend.

Lex: If you were able to get T-Max 400 to push to 6400, surely my T-Max 3200 will push to 6400? :)

Thanks All--I always appreciate the great discussion here.

-PBD

February 4, 2012

I've timed the slower speeds of the shutter with an audio recording and plotting software, and things seem to run at the right speed.

In addition, I've put two rolls of generic 400 kodak color film through the body, and they both came out exactly as expected (at Walgreens).

It's an old camera, so I'd be willing to accept that the timings are not exact, but they're close enough to have produced typical results in other processing scenarios,

-PBD

February 4, 2012

And took it to a reputable processing lab in the Seattle area, along with a few other rolls. I specifically took it to them because I wanted the roll of P3200 to be processed by a professional, to make sure it was 100% right.

I asked for a contact sheet for the P3200, along with developing, and left them with instructions to follow the Kodak directions for 6400 ISO development.

A few days later, the lab calls and says that all but two of the negs turned out completely blank, and they couldn't really tell what was on the remaining two.

What gives? Any ideas?

The lens cap wasn't on, and at least 10 of the shots were taken in lamp-based evening lighting, so there WAS LIGHT in the room when those shots were taken. The rest were shot in a dark nightclub, with a wide open aperture (1.4) and slow shutter speeds. I used a light meter in both cases, and typically over-exposed by a stop in the nightclub. Surely something should have turned out, even if it was dark, mushy blurs.

After exposing the roll, I kept it at room temperature in its original canister and box, for about 25 days before taking it in for processing.

I'm thinking maybe I should have done the processing myself. Do you think they just screwed the pooch on this one and didn't develop it long enough, or did I hang on to the film too long after exposing it, or what?

I'll try to get the negs and post some samples this weekend. :(

-Paul B. Davis

October 7, 2009

Great stuff. That's why I wouldn't buy a used DSLR via eBay.

No, that's why you pay full retail and resell it to me for a fraction of the cost. You're gambling a small risk versus paying pennies on the dollar. And it's only a gamble if the seller won't give your money back, which is unusual. The feedback system works. If it doesn't, you can reverse the charges on your credit card.

This notion that the internet is full of nefarious rip-off artists that damage their equipment in bizzare and exotic ways so they can joyously resell it to you is pretty antiquated. Frankly, it's also a little egotistical.

99% of the sellers out there are just like you and me: They have a camera, and they want to sell it.

The other 1% has bad (or too little) feedback.

-Paul B. Davis

September 23, 2009

Wouldn't the manual camera be the dedicated unit in this scenario?

Something like this?

MF CAM <--PC to Hot Shoe--> ST-E2 ~~~wireless~~~ 580 EX II (M Mode)

(Sorry for the Bad ASCII Art)

-PBD

September 23, 2009

This is probably crazy, but I figured I'd ask, since it could buy me a little bit of flexibility. Oh, and I googled mightily, but was unable to find a clear answer.

The setup:

An old manual camera with a PC cord connection for flash, medium format with M and X Sync

Two 580 EX II's

One ST-E2

Question:

Assuming manual settings are dialed in on the flashes, can I wire the ST-E2 to the old camera with a PC socket to hot shoe adapter and trip the speedlights?

Has anybody actually tried this?

-Paul B. Davis

September 20, 2009

Well, I found a Mamiya RB67 Pro S for a very good deal--The seller made me promise not to disclose the price. My budget, it seems, will need to be spent on something practical, like books or car repairs. Or film...

But I digress. Among other things, the camera kit included a Polaroid back and 2 year expired FP-100C film. It took me about 20 minutes to figure out that the Mamiya mount comes off the back of the camera to be replaced by the Polaroid adapter.

Once I got that sorted out, I wasted three exposures with the dark slide installed.

After I figured THAT out, I took my first picture, and entered a new era:

Wife and Dog, Mamiya RB67 Pro S, 127mm, f/3.8, 1/60th sec.

I don't have a scanner, so I took a picture of the polaroid with my 5D. The pic is tilted slightly vs. the sensor plane of the 5D, so it appears slightly keystone distorted.

I'm not sure what happened with the highlights on my wife's face--The film is definitely expired, but I was definitely metering for the dog and the foliage, so maybe I overdid it?

Anyway, it's got character, and I'm thrilled with it. I can tell this is going to be a lot of fun.

Thoughts and comments appreciated,

-Paul B. Davis

September 17, 2009

Are there any qualitative differences between the Bronica lenses and the Mamiya RB lenses? More or less contrasty, sharp, etc?

I also noticed that the maximum aperture of the Mamiya lenses is slightly smaller than some of the Bronicas (3.6 vs 2.8, iirc). Does anybody miss that extra aperture width?

-Paul B. Davis

September 16, 2009

Always good advice, Frank. Fortunately, I'm all full-frame in my Canon equipment.

Now, Robert has made an interesting point: The Mamiya RB-67 Pro-S does appear to be a very sweet deal for my situation.

Are there any options for shooting 6x6 on this unit? Is it just a matter of using a 6x6 back? The viewfinder would still be 6x7, so I'm not sure how I'd know if my framing was correct.

-PBD

September 16, 2009

I just might do that, but, in the meantime, I might not be able to eBay carefully as I must have a rudimentary film setup by the end of next week, I'd say.

The Bronica (and a lot of other medium format) stuff seems to be readily available, so this has really come down to making a decision and acting on it.

-PBD

September 16, 2009

This is the usual story you've all heard before:

I'm going to school in a few weeks for a yearlong photography certificate at my local university. During the first quarter, we're required to work with film, so I now have to buy a film camera.

I have a fairly extensive collection of professional and semi-pro Canon EF equipment, and it's definitely crossed my mind that I could go out and pick up an EOS-3 or EOS-1v to satisfy the film requirement while maintaining compatibility with my huge investment in flashes, lenses, etc.

I think that this represents an interesting opportunity to branch out, however, and so I've started looking at medium format equipment. I'd say my top end budget is about $700.

I'm most interested in 6x6 and affordability, which has led me to the Bronica SQ-Ai. It seems to be fairly modular, and is billed as a similar experience to a Hasselblad without the cost and some of the long-term reliability.

I've also looked at Yashica TLRs and Mamiya TLRs, but I just don't have enough experience in MF here to make a well educated decision about where to go next.

So, a few questions: 1) What would you do? SQ-Ai, one of the TLRs (any in particular?), or just stick with the Canon stuff? 2) Will my flashes work with MF equipment? Only certain equipment? (I have 580 EX ii's with PC terminals and manual controls). 3) I see a person selling a Nikkor-P 75mm as an SQ-Ai lens, but everything I see online suggests this lens is for an earlier Bronica SLR. Are they cross compatible, or is this person confused?

Thanks so much--I look forward to a great conversation!

April 4, 2009

Hey Bob! :)

It's technically line of sight, but that's not really been my experience indoors. At moderate distances, the signal reflects pretty well and works as a cheap radio alternative (since it's built in).

I can confirm that it works fine with umbrellas and other modifiers that don't completely cover the sensor. Additionally, I'm regularly able to "hide" the flash behind objects and trip it remotely without issue. Of course, I'm doing all this with the ST-E2, which may be more suited to this kind of usage than a flash unit.

Once you're in daylight or a long distance away, I have to agree that the whole system becomes pretty spotty. For an amateur indoors, I'd have to say that it's "decent," but not amazing.

-Paul B. Davis

April 4, 2009

Luuvu: I _really_ don't like to refer people to KR, but the "Full Frame/Cropped Frame" comparisons on this page reflect my experience with the 5D MKI pretty accurately.

Take everything else he says with a sizable grain of salt:

<a href="http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm">http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/full-frame-advantage.htm</a>

-Paul B. Davis

April 4, 2009

Get the 5D MKI. I made the jump to it from the 40D a few months ago and was floored by the improvement in sharpness. I would have dumped the 40D wayyy earlier if I'd realized how big the difference was going to be.

If you're doing portraits and weddings, you really need access to excellent image quality and no-nonsense high-ISO performance, both of which you'll find in abundance with the 5D.

-Paul B. Davis

April 4, 2009

I mean everything I have been hearing is that it is not the equipment but the techniques etc.

This is a myth perpetuated by elitist digital photographers who in turn inherited it from film photographers. From the film perspective, film is film is film. It's all 35mm, it's all cheap, it's printable everywhere, and it works the same in a $25 body as it does in a $1000 body.

The reality of today's situation is far less conservative than that particular mindset. Skill gets you the composition, it gets you the creative element, and it ultimately plays to the difference between "Joe's vacation snapshots" and a higher level of quality work output. Good photographs take skill, creativity and work.

Well lit snapshots of your kid's basketball game merely require an accurate, sensitive camera sensor with decent glass in front of it. The rest is up to you.

Of course I can't justify it to myself or my wife to fork the $2500 on the camera.

Try an original 5D. Since it's full frame, it also features excellent high-ISO performance, and can now be picked up for a pretty good price on the used market. I bought one a few months ago amid worries that I'd just be wanting the 5D MKII, but I honestly haven't thought about upgrading since I saw the image quality it was giving me.

I've actually started worrying about buying another one before the used market dries up.

-Paul B. Davis

April 3, 2009

Mario: I bought a used 5D since I don't have the cash for a brand new MKII. I was really concerned that I was going to regret not saving for the MKII, but after seeing the first shots from my 5D, I've forgotten all about upgrading.

I've not used the MKII, but I'm sure that it's a great body, as well. You should be in good shape after getting either one, especially since your lens collection is already respectable.

-Paul B. Davis

April 3, 2009

I've never been very pleased with using the 420EX for creative stuff--It only works if the master flash is also in ETTL mode (or if you have the ST-E2), and it only fires in ratios of the output decided by ETTL.

That's just not as flexible as being able to dial something in manually and trip it via remote.

-Paul B. Davis

April 3, 2009

Another recommendation for the 24-70 on a 5D (MKI) here--It's a superb combination.

-Paul B. Davis

April 3, 2009

Mario, I'd advise that you try to take a comprehensive look at the benefits of a full frame sensor like versus better glass in front of a cropped sensor.

Cropped sensors limit the width of your perspective, and present a deeper depth of field when compared to equivalent full-frame shots. They offer worse high ISO performance than full-frame, and less fine-detail resolution, as well.

People like to push that old, "it's not the equipment, it's the photographer" maxim, but I really have to say that my work improved immediately after buying my 5d. In terms of image quality, noise performance and "keeper" consistency, it's light years ahead of my 40D.

-Paul B. Davis

April 3, 2009

This is sort of a tough dilemma. I bought a 580EX II a while ago, and then a 420EX shortly after that to get creative. After that, I bought an ST-E2 because I decided that remote firing a $100 flash with a $500 flash was... silly.

Anyway, after buying the second flash, what I immediately discovered was that the "good" flash that I really wanted to move around was always bolted to the top of my camera because it needed to control the lame slave flash. This was annoying.

You're sort of stuck here--If you buy the slave flash, your good flash will be stuck on top of your camera, or at least wired to it, which sort of limits your creative flexibility. On the other hand, if you buy the transmitter, you only have one flash to move around, which sort of limits your flexibility.

In the end, I got a low-light club photography gig where I need two flashes for regular usage with my zoom lenses and the ST-E2 for focus assistance with my prime lens.

The ST-E2's focus assistance, by the way, is a cool little feature that nobody mentions. During focusing, the ST-E2 fires a red focus-assist beam, which helps autofocus immensely when shooting in dark situations.

So... Yeah. I'd get all three? :)

-Paul B. Davis

April 3, 2009

It will need to be fairly general purpose...

Be advised, a 70 mm+ lens is definitely not general purpose. It is a telephoto lens, and will generally compress your perspective to a significant degree, especially on your 20D. It offers no wide angle, doesn't traditionally work for landscapes, and completely cuts you out of the "standard" 50mm perspective.

I would never go on vacation expecting that lens to be on my camera 90% of the time, even if I was shooting street.

Unless you're very unhappy with your Sigma, I'd recommend filling in the lower range with something like the 24-70L or even the 24-105L.

Also, the 70-200 f/4 is still a pretty big lens to be hauling around (See the second picture down):

<a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-70-200mm-f-2.8-L-IS-USM-Lens-Review.aspx</a>

-Paul B. Davis

March 8, 2009

In comparison the 70-200mm in all tests I have looked at out performs the 50mm. It is widely considered one of the best lenses Canon sells.

It is. I own both, and my keeper rate is much higher with the 70-200--The fifty's a fine lens, but the corner detail and vignetting can be atrocious sometimes.

Gordon: Silly question... You weren't actually _on_ the water when this was taken, were you? I can't tell if you're in a boat, or not (but it sort of looks like you might be).

The gentle rocking motion of the water would definitely through a wrench into your sharp night photography plans. :)

-Paul B. Davis

February 21, 2009

I'm not sure how a "usually 1/3" rule of thumb can usefully apply when the flash useful-power drop between a shutter speed of say 1/500 and 1/8000 will change by a factor of 16 ... so "1/3" should really be more like "anywhere down to 1/20 or even less."

Agreed--It's a gross oversimplification. Let's drop it.

...it's not the fact that the tube is firing at 50kHz that causes the power loss - it's the fact that because it has to fire for the entire duration of the curtain travel, only a fraction of the light hits the sensor.

I find it hard to believe that a high-voltage system designed for the sub-millisecond "pop" of a flash tube can maintain normal voltage levels over a sustained burst. I've poked around for a better explanation of the power loss, but I haven't been able to find anything more specific than this, which seems to imply that there is a power reduction:

<a href="http://web.canon.jp/imaging/flashwork/ettl2/high/index.html">http://web.canon.jp/imaging/flashwork/ettl2/high/index.html</a>

The other reason I suspect that there's a power drop involved is the loss of effective range . If something can be illuminated at a maximum of 10 feet with normal power, but only at 5 feet with high-speed power, what is the cause of the loss of range?

Is it really just that there's less exposure time overall (so farther light doesn't register at that speed), or is there truly a loss of power? I don't think we can reliably reach a conclusion based on the evidence that we have here.

-Paul B. Davis

February 20, 2009

You're correct Alec, it's not a fixed ratio, but the rule of thumb that I'm familiar with is "usually 1/3." The canon manual for the 550 EX II says that it's inversely proportional to shutter speed: More speed = less power. That's probably a more reasonable description. :)

The important thing to know about High-Speed Sync, though, is that the power drop is not perceived --It's real. You've accurately described most of the mechanics, but there's a piece of key information missing:

When a modern flash fires, it sends a single pulse of light for a very short period of time. Very short, in this case, means something faster than 1/1000th of a second.

When the shutter is not able to fully open and travels across the medium as a slit (to work at higher shutter speeds), the result of this short pulse of light would be a single, well-exposed band of light at the position the slit was at when the pulse fired.

The solution for this problem is two-fold:

First, declare a maximum speed on the body at which the shutter is fully opened and flash can be used normally. This is called the maximum sync speed, or the X-sync speed. The flash is allowed to operate normally at or below this speed, since the medium is fully and evenly exposed to the world during these timings.

Second, for speeds where the shutter is never fully opened, we fall back on an age old photographer's trick: Make your bulb burn longer. If the bulb is burning for the entire time that the shutter opening traverses the medium, then the medium receives an equal amount of flash from top to bottom.

The trade off with modern flash equipment, though, is that we're no longer working with single use bulbs that are designed for a long burn; we're still using that single-pulse flash that's designed to go off once, and very quickly at that. The workaround then, is to pulse the flash very rapidly (and evenly), for the duration of the shutter movement.

This rapid pulsing means your flash is actually firing 50,000 times a second in High-Speed Sync mode, which ultimately nets out to a loss of overall power in your output.

-Paul B. Davis

February 19, 2009

I second the suggestion for the 40D, instead of the 50D.

And snag it used, you'll get a better deal. The 50D doesn't bring much more to the table than the 40D does, and you're sure to get a better deal on them now that they've been "replaced."

Check around before you jump on the 50D wagon, there are a lot of different opinions, but a lot of people feel like the 50D is a step back from the 40D in terms of high-ISO noise, dynamic range, and fine-detail resolution (and the 40D wasn't all that sharp to begin with...). They're seriously pushing the pixel density threshold, after all. Also, it's entirely possible that none of these things matter for your situation. :)

Additionally, you might consider jumping out of a cropped format into a used 5D. I'm not sure how appropriate that would be for you, since the 5D's AF is not as well geared to sports as the 40D's. It's not bad, but it tends to "hunt" and is a little slower than my 40D.

-Paul B. Davis

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by paul_b._davis1