Wouter Willemse

Maybe not in this case.... Well, my guess of what is going wrong here: the lens is the AF-D 50mm f/1.8 and the aperture is not set to the smallest (f/22 on this lens). U1 and U2 settings have the option to use the aperture ring enabled, but the other modes do not. Else, A and M mode should both also work just fine. So, put the aperture ring on f/22, and all should be dandy. Do a camera reset afterwards all the same, so that all settings are default, making the user manual a lot easier to follow. Of course, this is full of assumptions, but not unlikely. The key info to know is the exact model 50mm, but in short, if it has an aperture ring, the above scenario will work.

Part of me keeps wanting a Nikon 58mm f/1.4G and finds the 105 f/1..4E also worthy of dreams. Then I go out with the gear I already own, and find it doesn't leave me wanting at all, and I can't justify to myself spending the money on those lenses. Dreaming is nice, but ultimately I'm more interested in getting the best out of what I do own, rather than spending more and more.

HP5 and Rodinal aren't a great match in my view (and that is an understatement); much too grainy and also not a aesthetically pleasing grain. Rodinal with Tri-X400 for example is also quite grainy, but I like its look a lot better. So you're right in going with a different developer. As HP5 in HC110 can look terrific, D76 should be fine (since it's very similar to HC110). If you find powder developers are awkward because they don't keep as long, consider HC110 since the syrup lasts a long time. As for the drying marks - indeed worth trying with a bit more of the wetting agent (and prepare with distilled/deminaralised water instead of tap). You can reuse it easily for a while, so the additional cost of the water doesn't need to be a bottleneck for that.

Interior Basilica Paleocristiana San Pietro, Siracusa (IT), 4th century BC

Both Fomapan 100 in Pyrocat HD, Leica R6 with Summicron-R 35mm and/or 50mm.

Just to underline William's point: being a total amateur, I also shot several weddings (solo), as a gift for some friends. The resulting photos were not great, and looking back now sometimes I also feel pretty bad for not having been more aware of my limits. Yet, I never heard a complaint either - the photos show the most important loved ones, moments of a memorable day, and offer a set of memories of a day they did enjoy. Which seems to have fitted the expectation - most people just want to something to aid those sweet memories, they're not expecting art. William is very right that as photographers we have completely different expectations from a photo than the couple and their relatives. Also: if I look at the photos of the last wedding compared to the first I did, some of the experiences trickled through. So, quitting immediately might be premature too. I think you should realise this was a first time, and not draw immediately conclusions. It is hard work, and the real pros have my respect for keeping their cool in the pressure cooker. I've learnt a lot during those shoots, but most of all my shortcomings and that I lack certain human skills that are very much needed for the job. So not because the quality of the photos, but rather because difficulties in managing people (getting decent poses etc.), and because of not feeling at ease to go around at a party taking photos of people, I found this isn't a career option I should ever consider. Experience can and will cover for a lot of mistakes you may have made this time. If you feel you basically have the right human qualities and the desire to do more event work, it may be worth sticking in there, but maybe as an unpaid second shooter for some time.

For what it's worth, I've always left the film spindle attached until I'm done loading the film onto the reel (so cutting it off is more or less the last action). I don't think this is necessarily causing what you see here, though of course you need to be gentle to avoid scratching the film with the scissors somehow. The stripes below the plant look like scratches to me - can have many causes. Drying marks in my experience usually are more blurred, not as clear defined as these. Scanner issue is also a possibility.

Off-topic-ish, since I severly doubt it is the cause of what you see here, but: it is a waste of chemicals. There is no issue with loading the empty reel on top, and then using enough chemicals for the one reel that is loaded (so 300ml, instead of 600ml). As for loading up the film, getting the roll out of the canister is a lot easier in my view. For the actual problem: I'd take Alan's word as his knowledge runs very deep. Another possibility which I wouldn't exclude (based on the single image anyway) is a scanner issue - any option to scan for yourself to verify whether the issue is really present on the negative?

For the Canonet QL17, if you search without GIII, you will find the older models. There should be 2: one with a 45mm lens, one with 40mm. The latter is practically identical to the GIII, except for that GIII badge, and the price - they're usually a lot cheaper. I quite like mine; mine isn't as pretty as JDM's black one, but the same model in silver. While I agree getting a Russian rangefinder is certainly an option, I'm actually not sold on whether they're cheaper in case you find rangefinder focussing is not for you. The fixed lens rangefinders mentioned keep their value very well, so reselling shouldn't be too hard. While the Russian rangefinders are much more variable in quality, so they're simply a bit more of a gamble.

Same 85mm f/1.8G recommended in the OP's other thread: Looking for entry level DSLR for portraits Lensbaby products are great fun, but as speciality lenses to get particular effects. They're not really alternatives to lenses from the more traditional manufacterers like Tamron, Sigma or Nikon.

As above, I'd also advice to consider the Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8G - it is a higher price bracket, but in my view, it is more flattering for portraits than a 50mm. That said, I would always get the 'kitlens'(18-55 3.5-5.6) with your camera. When bought in a bundle, the lens is practically free, and it is a lens with a very useful range and always comes in handy for allround use. They're maybe not the best lenses you'll ever see, but they are very good value.

Sorry, but nowhere did I blame this forum as such. Nor do I try to tell anyone to stop contributing. I just state that for me, this forum has run its course. Note that I have been a very frequent contributor to this forum for years, and have seen both the good and bad of this forum. And caused some of that good and bad (well hopefully some good, for sure some bad). Now, if all of a sudden a new rush of members jumps in to revive this forum, it can only be better for this site for sure as it will only widen its appeal. Just don't expect me to come along, and maybe that's all just for the better too. Unless the words in support of this forum remain limited to this thread, though, I fear that Michael's conclusion in the first post will turn out completely justified. That all said, a bit on Monty Python makes everything better.

I don't have these two R lenses, but a fair number of others; when used with slide film, I see very little differences in colour rendering and they're mostly nice contrasty lenses. I wouldn't worry about "inconsistency" between them, really, especially since they're basically from the same era.

While Sandy is right that it just takes people contributing to revive a forum (be it the Street forum, be it this one), sometimes it's also OK to admit things ran their course. For me personally, this forum sure did. The "life support" thread referenced makes abundantly clear why.

The XA yes (continuous film strips); my reference was for the cheaper XE model. For what it's worth, I have a CoolScan V on loan, and compared slide film and B&W negative scans to my Reflecta Scanner. The Nikon is only slightly better (mainly in shadow areas, there is a touch more detail), and sure the build quality of the Nikon feels more solid. But I can get 2 Reflectas for the price of one second-hand Nikon. So, to me getting a Nikon just makes too little sense.

Much noticeable difference in look ... compared to what? It would also probably help to understand on what camera you want to use them; if it's a 4/3rd or crop sensor, you may "suffer" less from less performance in the corners or vignetting, for example.

Online photo editing to me is a perfect example when native applications beat web applications, by a long mile. GIMP has its quirks, and I cannot warm up to its interface at all. For a completely free editor, on Windows, my choice would be Paint.NET. Functionality-wise it's close to the GIMP, and its UI is somewhat more conventional. For slightly more frequent use, I would bite the bullet, and get Affinity Photo. It's not very expensive, and in terms of functionality runs very close to Photoshop (while being cheaper than PS Elements). To me, easily worth its money.

I have the predecessor of the XE, in its European disguise (Reflecta ProScan 7200), and have been using it for well over 3 years now. It works fine for me, and so far has proven reliable. I'm using it with VueScan (bought it without Silverfast - better value indeed). Like the Plusteks, it is manual forwarding, so you need to stay with the scanner as it cannot do batch-scans. It's a bit tedious, but while scanning you can use your PC/Mac for other tasks as well, so it's not necessarily lost time :-)

You can still buy rangefinders today. You can still buy medium format. You can buy film cameras, including 4*5, and get the film to use them. So why do people continue to assume the (D)SLR must go the way of the dodo? Sure, it will become more of a niche market than it is today (and today it is still a bigger market than mirrorless!), but there is no reason why we should stop seeing DSLRs. And both Canon and Nikon, having vast installed base of users, are in my view the less likely to make a swift and complete move away from DSLRs - there is nothing to gain for either of them with making such a move, and a lot to lose.

To echo the others: sure you can, and yes, scanning has a learning curve and can be a tedious job. Good flatbed scanners capable of scanning negatives are fine for medium format and larger. I would not recommend them for 35mm though, if you expect a decent-sized print from the scanned file. The default name for 35mm scanners seem to be Nikon, and sure they're very good, but also costly and only available 2nd hand. I'm using a (much cheaper and available new) Reflecta scanner, which nearly matches the Nikons in the quality of the files it can deliver. Another brand is Plustek - if you read the forums here, there will be a lot of negative opinions on them from people who never used either brand. They don't match the Nikons, but for the money, they do deliver, no matter what nay-sayers claim. For medium format, I use a Canoscan 9000, but the Epsons are probably better - the Canon is a lot cheaper, but cannot do larger than MF. For printing, if you do it yourself with a good quality printer, you will find there is a wide choice of paper for inkjets, and they do make a lot of difference - it drives up the price though, to the point where often having prints made can actually be cheaper. A fun option can be to re-print scanned negatives on a much larger size to use for contact print processes. So sure a "hybrid" workflow is different, and not less work, but it does also open new options, and that can be new fun to explore too.

Had some time off about a week ago, and finally was able to put a decent amount of time into shooting a couple of photos. Of course as a result, the spare time afterwards was quickly filled with developing and scanning the outcome.... Yashica D, Ilford FP4 in Pyrocat HDC Leica R6, Summicron-R 35mm, Ilford FP4 in Pyrocat HDC The weather was a bit on and off unfortunately.... Canonet QL17, Fomapan 100 in Pyrocat HDC

If you're just getting started with film, and you're not yet developing film yourself, I'd keep things very simple: - For colour, a simple cheap colour film (Kodak ColorPlus 200, Fuji C200) - For B&W, Ilford XP2 DO consider that the first few rolls may not be brilliant, so I wouldn't spend extra money on better films (like Ektar 100 or slide film) until you're comfortable using the camera and have been able to verify that it indeed is in good working order.

How about trying this solution: Camera Raw reset to original | Adobe Community I don't have the latest version PSE, but on my stone age version, ACR always have given the ability to reset all edits back to the defaults. Labelling something a bug simply because it works different from what you expect, is silly. You may not like how it works, but it sure isn't a bug by any stretch of imagination, and probably most users will prefer the way it works. So the title of this thread is vastly misleading.

As part of the new version 11.3 update of Capture One, there are now dedicated versions for Fuji cameras (just like already existed for Sony): Capture One Fujifilm - Free Image Editing Software for Fujifilm Cameras. Probably the biggest surprise is that C1 now supports a non-Phase One medium format camera as well (the GFX 50S). The express version seems a nice way to get your feet wet for free, some of the nicer features are missing but it'll give a good impression of what kind of quality and workflow to expect. Unfortunately, the prices to upgrade from Express to Pro aren't super competitive - though with the options introduced in versions 10 and 11, I do find I can do nearly everything in C1, and hardly ever have to resort to a pixel editor, so the time and effort saved makes it worth it to me. Anyway, for Fuji and Sony owners, a nice free way to get an idea of this piece of software.

It has been ages I had some time to shoot, and as a result for quite a while had nothing new to share.... well, this week finally finished a roll and now fresh from the scanner.... Werra 3 (50mm Tessar) Fuji Acros 100 in Pyrocat HD