Wouter Willemse

The differences between C1 and C1 Express are quite big, but it really depends whether it matters for your needs/wants. Express misses several tools, like the advanced colour editor and a number of the layer options (the key ones are listed on this page Capture One Sony - Free Image Editing Software for Sony Cameras). Especially the healing tools and layer-based editing are awfully nice. As a starting point, I prefer how C1 interpretes a raw file, but for sure Adobe's raw tool can achieve pretty much the same thing. I do agree with the above post that it makes sense to focus on one package; not only does it make workflow easier, but also improves the odds of learning a piece of software really well, rather than spreading the attention. My personal choice is C1 with Affinity Photo - I've got C1 on a perpetual license, and the upgrade costs are still slightly below the annual subscription costs (though they went up for v12, so the gap is small). Since Affinity is a perpetual (and low cost) license too, this combination is actually about the same cost as the Adobe subscription (in Europe), and can be cheaper if you skip an upgrade. I don't think either choice is inherently better or worse, it comes down to preference and I just prefer the User Interface (and the level of customisation it allows) of CaptureOne by a lot, and the results I can get out of my Nikon files leaves me very pleased.

This last version works better for me all in all. Maybe a bit more conventional as a photo, but it draws more attention to the actual landscape which is a good thing IMO.

Positively ages since I had something produced with a Nikon to contribute on a wednesday.... D810, AF-S 58mm f/1.4G

I've got the F3 with the standard viewfinder (non-HP), and it's positively huge; that said, the viewfinder in the FM2 is not a lot smaller, also bright enough and the read-out for speed/aperture is a whole lot nicer. Not a LCD, but easier to read, especially in low light. Overall, I like the FM2 better. For lenses - agree with the above, but in my set, the 50 f/1.2 AiS does beat the 50mm f/2 I have for sharpness at f/2 (at f/1.2 and 1.4 it's a completely different animal). It's not a cheap lens, though, so bang for buck I'd also go for the 50 f/2. I dearly love the 35mm f/1.4 AiS Ben mentioned - but it is a speciality lens which is impressively sharp by f/4 and f/5.6, but below that it's more a character lens. The Zeiss 35mm f/2 mentioned in that same post would be my choice for a more all-round choice. In fact, one is on my way :-) Another option -budget allowing - would be a Leica R. Viewfinders on mine aren't bad (not as large as the F3, but bright and large enough), read-out in the viewfinder is clear and the lenses are great. The Summicron-R 50mm doesn't need to cost a great deal, and it's about as good as 50mm lenses get. The Summicron-R 35mm also won't disappoint, but it's normally a lot more expensive.

That, frankly, is up to you. Digital doesn't make you shoot more, but the idea that you do not pay per shot may make you shoot more. But that's not the camera's decision. And there is also an upside to it: a less cautious way of shooting may make you experiment more and try things that you'd otherwise avoid, which may lead to unexpected nice results. Shooting more isn't necessarily bad, and may open up new creative options you didn't consider before. With regards to the confirmation dot with AiS lenses - I find it a bit hit-and-miss, so I don't use it much. Of course the issues are far more clear with wide apertures. Another problem is that ground glasses in DSLRs are optimised for f/2.8 more or less (if you mount a 1.4 lens, and use DoF preview, you will hardly see any change in brightness below f/2.8). So also visually it's not ideal to nail critical focus. But certainly not undoable - at least for myself, I'm fine with the standard viewfinders in my D700 and D810 (but my eyesight is fine).

I don't use X-TOL, so I cannot answer for those. Another note: tap water I have is good quality; in areas with poor water quality the below answers may not apply. 1. In general, in a patterson tank, I stick to 300ml per roll of 35mm film. I tend to use all developers as one-shot, so I prepare 300ml of that solution. Stop, fixer and wash I re-use, so I have that ready in 1L bottles, prepared with the recommended dilutions for each (i.e. the fixer I use is 1+5, so 1 part fixer with 5 parts water to create 1L, for simplicity sake I use 150ml fixer, 750ml water to create 900ml solution). For preparing the wash, I use distilled water. 3. Wash with distilled water in between chemicals - no. It's not strictly necessary to rinse with water between chemicals anyway. 5. Any video on youtube explaining the process will do; the process as such (which steps, in which order) does not change based on the chemical used. Of course, development times do change (bookmark this page: Massive Dev Chart) One thing I'd recommend is getting a empty (disposable) roll of film for practising in daylight with loading the reel.

Well, to go with the theme then.... I think I shared this before, but not sure. Shot end of 2016 or beginning 2017. Delta 3200 @ 6400, HC110 dil. A. Nikon FM2n with a AiS 35mm f/1.4

Not so sure, I believe we come from the same part of the world, and somehow if I see my childhood photos, there is awfully little snow. But the impact of the memories of those times there was a lot of snow and a longer period of frost is pretty profound.... Either way - I love snow photos! Thanks both :-)

There is a difference between a catalog and the actual structure used on the hard disk (folder/filename etc.). You can import everything into the Lightroom catalog without moving files around, and when importing new images using lightroom, you can select where to place the files, so you can keep your system. You can also import selected folders, as you need/want. And in lightroom itself, rather than showing the default 'catalog' view, you can also browse your folder structure. So, it's not a dream, and the info you received isn't accurate. A competing product, CaptureOne, has a nicer option for your wishes called 'Sessions' which does pretty much what you describe, and alongside it has a catalog like LR has. But C1 is a bit more expensive and its User interface may not be to the taste of all (though the same can be said about Lightroom). It is not unlikely though you will find quickly that a catalog is a lot more flexible since it allows you to sort/filter on a much wider number of aspects, and combine filters (which a folder structure cannot ever do). Frankly, I've yet to see a filing structure that beats having a catalog, so I would certainly try out the catalog functions and see how it can actually provide a more flexible and robust approach.

I've bought all my R lenses from eBay or similar (6 so far) - none of them suffers haze or anything like it. So clearly there are also plenty good quality R-lenses out there; buyer beware is valid always with 2nd hand purchases online, and of course this is no exception. But I never felt I had to be more cautious than I needed to be with Nikkor lenses. To explain my niggle with the R7 metering mode: in manual mode, the R7 can only do spot (selective) metering, in aperture priority you get a selection between spot and integral. On the R6, you can simply choose the metering mode itself (of course, that body is 100% manual anyway). My experience is that the integral metering is pretty good and reliable, so I find it annoying I cannot use it in manual mode on the R7.

I’ve got a R7 and it’s a good camera, slightly heavier than it looks. Personally I much favour the R6 though; marginally smaller and lighter and I don’t quite like that the metering mode is linked to the PASM selection on the R7. It’s a small thing and might not bug others, though. The R lenses can be excellent and are generally a lot cheaper than M- lenses, though some do cost a lot still. Out of the lenses I own, I would rate most of them as excellent, and even those with a lesser reputation (24 f/2.8 and 180 f/4) are still very good performers. I know most here prefer the SL and SL2, and they are worth considering no doubt. I find them too large and heavy though. That build quality comes at a price. That said, the R6 and R7/do not feel special in any way to me. It’s all about the lenses.

Ages since I had anything to post here.... too little time, and when there was time, the weather wasn't the most cooperative.... but last weekend, finally managed to finish 2 rolls which were sitting in cameras for way, way too long anyway. Both yielded nothing particular, but then again, both were more 'educational' to me: the first time I used Fomapan 400 (if the result below is as can be expected, I'll stick to stocking HP5) and first time not pushing Delta 3200 like a maniac (I like it better pushed by a lot, then again trying in daylight maybe wasn't too fair).... Nikkormat FT, 50mm f/2, Delta 3200 @ ISO1600 in HC110 dil. B. Kiev-2, Helios-103, Fomapan 400 in HC110 dil. H.

This doesn't matter - a FX lens will work perfectly fine on a DX body, so if the focal length is right for you, the AF-S 50mm f/1.8G could be an excellent choice.

Considering the budget, the original EOS 6D can certainly be found within budget, and 2nd hand light used 5D Mk. 2 and 3 probably as well. Sure the D750 is a great option (and definitely the Nikon I'd recommend - consider 2nd hand here as well), I wonder about the rationale of changing brands. Apart from 'muscle memory' for the Canons (which helps getting up and running in no time), you may still have Canon lenses which may actually free up some budget for other things too. With switching brands, the grass is always greener somewhere else. The differences between similar specified cameras from the same era are getting so small, that switching brands seldomly makes sense. The only serious argument I can think of is availability of specific lenses. But 24-70 f/2.8 and 50 f/1.4 are readily available for both brands, so there is little gain there too.

Well, Ruslan, don't you think it's a bit assuming that none of us know Ennio Morricone's work is an "absolute relevation"? He's hardly a little known figure, both in Europe or the US. So perhaps it's not so much of a revelation at all.

My reasoning was more that the AF-S 35mm f/1.8G (FX) also isn't cheap. In fact, often more expensive than the 24-85VR. While I'm happy with my 24-120, if the 24-85VR had already been widely available when I got that lens, I would probably have opted for the 24-85 instead. I have the 28-80 f/3.3-5.6G, and it's not a great lens. Not even on a D700. Ugly colour rendering, most of all. But as a temporary stop-gap, it's a thought indeed - can be found utterly cheap in abundance.

The presence of no ability to zoom could also add to the level of complexity. Most people coming from more entry-level cameras (be it P&S, be it DSLRs or mirrorless) are used to the "standard zoom". Being restricted to a single focal length could also be a nuisance if you're not used to that - and that will hurt the learning curve more. So, the advice for the 24-85VR is in my view so far the most sensible one - it's not very large nor very heavy and covers a very useful range of focal lengths. If you really want to go with a prime, frankly recommending between a 28mm, 35mm or 50mm is pretty hard without knowing what kind of images will be captured, and what one finds to feel like "right". Personally the 28mm focal length perspective to me just doesn't work, and both 35 and 50 are my most used focal lengths, where the images from 50mm tend more towards particulars/more intimate scenes. I'm not of the school that claims 35 and 50 are too close, and find it two distinct different focal lengths yielding different images often. But that's the whole issue: that's just me, and my perceptions. Others love 28mm, others may see no use whatsoever for 50mm, etc.etc. It's a personal choice all in all. Which again makes me lean towards the 24-85VR. Let her find out for herself what works for her and what not. The learning curve in being able to zoom isn't steep, especially not compared to the various AF modes on a D700 ;-) [edit] of course if the new 35 would be for yourself: if you're fine with the weight of a 24-70mm f/2.8, then the weight of the Sigma Art lenses may be less of a factor.... The consensus is that you'll be hard pressed to find something better than that 35 f/1.4 (or at least it performs excellently at what most people want, personally I wouldn't want one, but that's another discussion again)

FM2. If one insists on a number 2, I'll take a second FM2. My F3 seems to have some sort of electronics issue as it consumes batteries way faster than it should; just the effect of aging electronics, which is why I tend to favour mechanical film cameras (with proper care). For similar reasons, I'm not very interested in a FE2, and the FM3a is simply way overpriced. The FM2 for me ticks all the right boxes, and mine sees regular use, though I mainly use another brand SLRs for film.

For me if there is an analogy between music and photography, it is about composition. In a more literal sense: Shapes can resemble melodies, repetition creates rhythms. Less literal: music just as photos can be dense or very lean, and the effect in what that communicates is quite similar in my mind; colour also jumps to mind as a sense of musical timbres of different instruments. Composition also in the sense that both need a sense of scale, order/chaos to shape the message. The Beethoven example mentioned above is really a strong one: lately spent a lot of listening to the last string quartets, and they make fine examples. While obviously the way it is created, and the way we perceive it is quite different, I think there are some underlying instinct reactions to images and sound that are very similar. None of this would be exclusive to photography - it would apply in my view to all visual arts. My attempts to play an instrument are even worse than my attempts to operate a camera, but music has always been part of my life. So somehow there is always some music on my mind, and very frequently music comes to my mind when seeing an image, or observing some scene. The connections can be a matter of mood, or lyrics, or shapes (like the photo above) evoking specific references. While I never really attempted to make images based on a musical inspiration, I've done the reverse with a series of photos (not intentionally made as a series either) where each one made me think of songs, and grouped those, titled after the song and adding a fragment of the lyrics I found most applicable. It was just for personal gratification, but it worked for me, as the combination of hearing the song in my head made the image stronger, and the image made me hear the song. But there is a strong personal component in that, so whether that would also worked as something to 'share', not too sure. Another example that just sprung to my mind - a song that to me does nothing but create images, is Radiohead's "Exit Music (for a film)". It's maybe more cinematic than a still image, but somehow it condenses just fine into a still image as well.

I'm a happy CaptureOne user. I know it's more expensive then some other options, but I love the quality it can deliver, and the way it works. The latter is very much a personal preference, but for me a tool has to work in ways I like. Lightroom just doesn't work for me (and I tried in multiple stages of its life - it's very competent, the UI just doesn't suit me personally), just like DxO's Optic Pro never 'clicked'. C1 has a bit of a learning curve, then any of these programs do if you want to get the best out of them. Its UI can be customised very much to your own taste to make it suit your way of working. In terms of the quality of conversions - you will find comparisons all over the place. In my opinion, the starting point of C1 (let's say the "default render") is better than what Adobe pulls out of the same file. But with a bit of editing, I think both packages are capable of very similar if not identical results. The deciding factor would be more the effort(s) involved in getting there. Organising - it is certainly there. I think LR does it better, and the way the catalog works in C1 is a bit austere, but it does do all essentials (keywords, managing metadata and filtering on those). In the years I have used C1, I have had need for their support a couple of times, and the experience with them is definitely positive. Quick responses, and genuinely helpful and to the point. Since I decided to go with C1, I never bothered with ON1, so no opinion on that. CaptureOne 12 was just released; it's early days (upgraded only 2 days ago) but so far I very much like what I see. It seems faster, the UI has gotten better and the new masking tools seem very nice. All in all, I feel version 12 will turn out a very solid release. Pricey, but to me worth it. I'd recommend downloading the trial and try for yourself, since a lot of this is just opinion, and whoever tells me that LR is better may well be right for his/her needs (but be wrong for my needs). In the new version, there is better support for round-tripping to external applications, but no idea if it works with NIK. As a former Capture NX2 user (and I really liked that program!), I've also always been on the look-out for control-point-like functionality. While not identical, in C1 (since version 9 or 10), there is an option to make a layer mask based on a colour range fairly easy. It's a bit hidden, and for some reason they never promoted it heavily, but it works just fine. Once that layer mask is available, you can user nearly all tools on that layer, so it allows a way of working pretty similar in result to the U-points. Maybe not as instantly simple, but it works.

Well, that nicely contradicts the original post, doesn't it? Apparently it is possible to make a good film photo still look good on a screen. There is a skill to scanning, and there is skill to postprocessing. In these "pure chemical process above all" kind of posts, somehow the impression is always raised about ham-fisted over the top photoshop editing. While most of the time, done well, you won't even notice. Yes, the scan of that Ansel Adams image will have seen a level of post-processing. Funny enough, none of that detracts from its qualities. So that "heavily digitally modified"... it's all about skill. In the very same way a print done by Ansel Adams himself will make many of us look bad printers... because darkroom work takes skill in the exact same way that a digital workflow takes skill.

Shadow, you're right in knowing the south of the Netherlands better than the north....That is because the south is a whole lot nicer than the North :) But maybe, just maybe, I am biassed.... (I was born near Breda) With the pre-amble that I have not yet been able to watch the video, It is again probably my bias, but when I read things like this, I get the idea that whoever expressed it, seems to adhere the idea there is one single objective reality to be perceived, and in my view, that is highly debatable. Is it artistic ambitions that influece the documentary photographers, which would mean an intentional search for the differing point of view, or is it the fact they're normal humans, burdened with normal preconceptions, opinions, ideas and cultural background? Is any of us capable of seeing a reality as it is, which is identical to others that do not share our cultural background, ideas, religion, ...., etc.? I know my opinion is as debatable, so I'm not saying whatever is said in the video (which I'll watch later) is wrong in any way. To go back on the OP, for me the key point about philosophy is asking yourself and each other these kinds of questions. The train of thought that follows is the reward, not any conclusion you may or may not reach. In its better days, this forum did a good job of that.

Kodak ColorPlus 200. Don't like it much, but it's cheap.

I get your point, and for the shutterspeed wheel, I agree (no experience with Leica M's, but on my R's it works just fine as does it on other SLRs). My point with wheels was more for the additional functionalities the op specified like "JPEG style". Taking 'classic' designs like the Nikon FM2 or Pentaxes of similar vintage, beyond the shutter speed dial, how much more can you place on the top plate? A camera is a tool. Ergonomics are key to make sure that using the tool and being able to operate it quickly is easy and comfortable. You clearly have other objectives in a camera than I do, but a camera with poor ergonomics is one I'd never buy, and never would recommend others to buy.

I would not buy that camera. It would become a clunky, overly large and cumbersome camera with too many knobs and wheels (unlike what you imply in your post, there will actually be plenty if you go through your list), and too little ease of use (checking the setting of a wheel is not quick nor easy, or you end up with a very crowded viewfinder to display all info which also sucks). And you will not be able to build that camera for 700 dollars, let alone sell it at that price. Given its niche appeal, probably add a zero to its price to be anywhere near a realistic estimate. As above, abouit $5000 sounds a lot closer. If I'd want a camera like you describe... well, I actually already have several, they just take film instead. Which is fine with me, since I take photos to actually have results at the end, so I do develop my film.....Seriously, if you don't particularly care about the results you get, and want a camera that is unreliable enough to give a lot of potential serendipity, why bother with a decent viewfinder, manual control and things like raw? Why not go for a holga or similar, or a smartphone and shoot from the hip?