gregory_imler

Ah, forgot about the RBL setting. I think that worked in combination with the body set to the multi-exposure M...the mirror flipped up. Might introduce some shake, but then using the advance lever to lower the mirror will stop the exposure.

Thanks, Joe. I have the manual and was looking through it and couldn't really see this issue come up. I believe it could be because the control between the body and shutter (in the lens) is electronic and not mechanical like the RB, and with no electrical contact with the pinhole cap, can't figure out what the body needs to be set to for the mirror to flip up. I'm pressing the shutter release and nothing happens. And the electrical override setting for the shutter is fixed to 1/400, which is too fast for pinhole work.

Hello, I recently picked up a Mamiya RZ pinhole cap and have hit a problem trying to use and want to know if anyone has any experience using one on an RZ body. I guessed that attaching the cap to the body and setting the shutter to B would at least make the mirror flip up and then advancing the lever would lower it when the time for exposure had elapsed. When I tried this nothing happened, so wondering if I'm doing this operation correctly or if something else needs to be set on the body in some way. If anyone has any insights greatly appreciated. Also wondering if it's a situation where the mirror is locked up and the dark slide is removed and replaced to control exposure. Thanks!

Thanks for the replies. Apologies for not being more clear that there were links attached and that they were going to examples in color. +1 Was mostly curious seeing as how I'd also read that he does his own printing. Thought it would be something interesting to try as my printing is limited to black and white film and not color. Have tried out a few things on scans that involve putting a color fill over the image and adjusting the blend mode and masking it in/out in different areas of the file -- but was wondering if there was a printing process for tones like this as I've always found that extremely rewarding. Thanks!

Hello! I was wondering if anyone here can shed some insight on how a particular color toning in a print is achieved. I've been noticing the work of a British photographer named Jamie Hawkesworth and in researching him have found that he shoots almost exclusively film, from what I can find. Many of his images have a warm, orange/brownish tone to them. I feel like something like this is easy to achieve in PS with a color overlay and a blend mode, but seeing as he seems to work primarily with film, is this the result of a printing process or a filter when exposing? Wondering if it could be something like an 85c filter or perhaps an orange filter that could be stronger than the 85 but less pronounced than an orange 16. Thanks! https://theredlist.com/media/.cache/database/photography/women/mode-mode-mode/jamie-hawkesworth/1468679918-016-jamie-hawkesworth-theredlist.jpg Rianne van Rompaey by Jamie Hawkesworth for Alexander McQueen F/W 17/18 | The Fashionography Jamie Hawkesworth for T Magazine Natalie Westling by Jamie Hawkesworth for T Magazine October 2016 | The Fashionography

Used a small key chain light last night that I was able to put just inside the camera body with the bellows extended out fully. After a few minutes to adjust to the darkness, I did end up seeing at least three pinhole leaks at some of the corner points in the bellows. Something about how crisp the circle was made me think it was something else other than a light leak. Thanks for the insight!

Thanks, John. I'll try some shots with sun or direct reflection in them and see if that aggravates the issue. Looking back at the rest of this pack, no other shots dealt with that sitaution so I'll experimen.

Hi all, was curious if anyone has ever seen a similar occurrence as the one in these images taken with FP100c on a Polaroid Land Camera. It's a modification that removed the original 114mm lens with a Tominon 127 f4.7 with the Copal press shutter. This circle of light only occurs in the last couple of images in the pack, and I don't see any light leaks otherwise. Is this possibly an issue with how the film was loaded? Thanks in advance!

<p>Thanks for responses. Based on others' assessments agreeing with Steven it looks like it's a combination of underexposing on her face as well as a poor scan ... although maybe not "poor" as much as just limited. And thanks, Tim, very helpful to see the closeup of another backlit image. Ivo, thanks for your input as well. I had been operating under what you stated about the Portra line being tolerant toward under/over exposure and having low grain. I realize my own errors caused situations that exacerbated the grain, so was mostly posting to get an idea of how much my own error and the scan quality were impacting things. I currently have an Epson 4490 that I had some success with a few years ago scanning medium format negatives. Haven't tried it with 135, but seeing as incorporating film into our workflow will become more regular, investing in a newer scanner will be something to look into.</p>

<p>Thanks, John. That was one image I showed the lab as an example, and when we zoomed in they told me was film grain. I realize the film will have some just as a natural quality, but I wasn't buying their assessment.</p>

<p>It was metered using the G1's center-weighted metering for the model's face (filling most of the frame) and then locking that exposure. I used a Peak Loupe on a Pro Slim light panel to look at the negatives, which is where it seemed that the actual processing of the negatives was OK, i.e., shots in focus and with a decent amount of detail. I realize there are limitations in what I can and can't present here for everyone's analysis, so I apologize if this thread was a bit futile. I was simply expecting a bit more from what was advertised as a "high res" scan with a professional color negative film. I'll be the first to admit that some shots were not in focus due to my own error and inexperience with the G1 and that whole system. That said, I posted because I was curious to see if there were initial reactions from others who had experience both with this film and having it scanned. If not or if it all is error on my part, I would absolutely accept that and use it as a consideration on how to improve in the future. I'm not sure if it is helpful, but I can post a few images of a roll of Kodak Gold 200 scanned at low resolution from a test roll from a different lab.</p>

<p>I'm saying unusable files based on what appear to me to be poor scans. The lab told me what I was seeing was film grain. To me it looks like poor scan quality and introduced artifacts. Given my lack of experience with Portra 400, yet seeing sharp negatives, I'm posing a question asking if this level of quality seems acceptable to people who have more experience using both Portra 400 and having color negative film scanned. If, to a person with more experience, this looks like what you should expect from Portra 400 and a scan that isn't a TIFF or highly controlled, then I would accept that. In my experience with other 400 films, this does not look like natural film grain.</p>

<p>Les, I was only saying I expected more than this based on the fact that the negatives are sharp and yet the scans aren't and seem to have introduced artifacts despite being advertised as "high res." The closeup was actually one of the best examples of their scans. I've shot Tri-X, Tmax, HP5 and Delta 400 in the past but have developed it myself in a variety of developers from Ilford brand to HC-110(B) and Rodinal. So, while not color films obviously, I'm not unaware of the qualities of an ISO 400 film. If your assertion is that I did expect too much if I was hoping for more usable files, perhaps you could expand on what I should have expected rather than just reasserting that, yes, I have limited experience. I was trying Portra 400 based on Kodak's recommendations as a fine-grain, true 400 ISO film, and as I've mentioned, I've gotten better scans that are only 1mb from a local drug store of Kodak Gold 200. This was, in fact, done with a Noritsu HS-1800. And so it sounds like a lack of quality such as is seen in these examples should be expected given a "typical over sharpening"?</p>

<p>Good point about the lighting inviting more grain, Stephen. I have looked at the negatives and this was one example that was sharp. This is another example, without backlighting. In this example, I was at f11 and focus had locked on her right eye (camera left) in the negative and it's sharp. You can see fine detail in her eyelashes and eye lids. </p><div></div>

<p>And this is a zoom in of the same image.</p><div></div>

<p>Hi all, I have recently begun doing more film work, and this was a first attempt after several years with C-41 processing and scanning from a local lab. The film was Portra 400 with no pushing or pulling on a Contax G1 with the 90mm 2.8. Admittedly, there was some user error on several shots as I got used to the system, so not every image was in perfect focus. However, after looking at the negatives, several were very sharp and right where the G1 had locked focus. I had asked the lab to include their "high-res" scans, which are listed as a jpeg at 2048x3072, yielding a file size of about 4~4.5mb. I realize this isn't a TIFF, but still was hoping to do some basic retouching (blemishes, etc). When I got the files back, I was actually shocked at the poor quality. Technically the specifications meet their "high res" description, yet the quality of the imagery and file itself looks horrible. Zooming in even slightly revealed that even basic retouching wouldn't be possible given the low quality of the file. I went back to the lab and asked them for a rescan, but they refused, looking at the file specs and saying that they were, in fact high res ... even pointing out that they had scanned them mistakenly at a higher resolution than what they normally would. I told them that while the specifications might meet that criteria, the quality of the scan itself is not acceptable. They looked again and told me that I was just seeing film grain. I have limited experience with Portra 400, yet I find it hard to believe that what I'm seeing is grain. It looks, to me, like digital artifacts. I honestly feel like I've had better scanning results from a local drug store and their 550K Kodak photo CD. The example I've included is one in which it was clearly sharp in the negative. So my question is, bad scan or developing or just bad technique on my part? Thanks!</p><div></div>

<p>Hello, just received a BG-E6 that I purchased used from BH. It was listed as Ex condition, but the shutter and dial aren't functioning when attached to a 5DmkII body. Wondering if cleaning the contacts on the grip and inside the battery compartment are worth attempting or if it might be best to just return it. Thanks in advance for the opinions!</p>

<p>Thanks, Kerry. I think Orlando was speaking about the 5D original's screen ... which is horrible. And I currently only have full-frame bodies so not worried about the crop/full conversions :)<br> Actually had a beauty shoot today and came up against that conflicted situation I mentioned where the 70-200 looks great, but it's almost embarrassing showing mua's the work on the back of the 5D with its greenish-tinted, small screen. Almost thinking the 85 on a 6D would be better because, even if not tethered, everyone involved could see the image more accurately and the higher resolution would make tight crops possible. The 5D's 13mp start to show limitations if someone wants a tight face crop of a shot that was shot wider originally.</p>

<p>Thanks for the replies. I had the 70-200 f4 but sold it toward the 2.8 after shooting a wedding. It was definitely sharp and had great IQ, but I found the extra stop of the 2.8 allowed me to keep my shutter speed higher--and i've been consistently impressed by its own IQ. I didn't get a whole lot benefit from the IS in those fast situations, and definitely not the 3 or so stops as claimed by Canon. I do a lot of fashion and headshots, and for that the 85 has been relatively ideal. Though when it's a beauty assignment the compression of the 135-200 range can look fantastic. But then again, those studio situations bring up the issue of shooting tethered, as MUAs often like to be able to see detail to fix any issues on the spot. </p>

<p>Thanks, Gil! That's the problem ha! The 70-200 is great, but then I hear that the 6D is fantastic too. So the choice I'm weighing is trade in the 70-200 toward a great body and pair that with my 85, which I do love and will require being more mobile (and won't have the same great compression as racking out all the way to 200), or stay with the great lens but deal with the annoyances of a body like the 5D, ie, the screen, lack of tethering support for Lightroom & lower resolution.</p>

<p>Thanks, Colin. Yeah, the auction route would probably yield a better price than a trade in; a local shop near me gives higher values on the gear if you use the trade-in toward gear in their inventory ... something I'm sure a lot of stores do. They've told me that they're very interested in the 70-200 and the 5D body as they don't have a lot of good used inventory at the moment (the whole setup is in excellent+ condition), so thinking of going in and negotiating as they've said they want the used items and it'll take one 6D body off their hands while they still have others in their inventory.</p>

<p>Thanks Robin, yeah, don't have a lot of disposable income to outright upgrade and have loved the 70-200. My main body is a 5DmkII and I have a 50mm, the 40mm and a 24-70 on that ... as well as the 85, which I actually do like a lot. </p>

<p>Hello! I'm thinking about upgrading some equipment and was hoping to get some opinions from the group. I currently have a 5D body with a 70-200 2.8L (the oldest model without IS), and I'm thinking about trading that whole setup in toward a new 6D body and pairing that with my 85 1.8. The 5D has served me well, but it's limitations, like its inability to shoot tethered into Lightroom and the display, are starting to become irritations. <br> Thanks!</p>

<p>Hello all, I'm trying to get better at training my eye to recognize different focal lengths. I find that I'm getting better at identifying images that were shot with wide-angle lenses -- the perspective distortion is easy to recognize -- but I'm still having a hard time with "normal" to telephoto ranges. I'm experimenting on my own with subjects and my new 85mm to build up my visual experience, as well as with a friend's 70-200 when it's available. I'm finding that I'm still having a hard time identifying the nuances of compression with telephoto lenses. I really like the look of images as seen in the following links. My guess would be something like a 135 f/2 maybe around f4 or even wider for the first shot and an 85 for the second? I really like the separation and just curious what others think as I continue experimenting. Thanks!<br> http://ink361.com/app/users/ig-104925015/billykiddstudio/photos/ig-821803741597418285_104925015<br> http://ink361.com/app/users/ig-104925015/billykiddstudio/photos/ig-821751874758656723_104925015</p>