timothy_gray

<p>Les,<br>

Your comments towards me were pretty harsh. You need to lighten up, bud. You appear to have some unresolved anger management issues. Maybe switch to decaf, eh?<br>

Tim</p>

<p><strong>THE OTHER GUY</strong> yet again...<br>

Les,<br>

I meant 35mm digital, not film. I shoot film, plenty of it. I should have made that clear from the get go, my bad.</p>

<p><strong>THE OTHER GUY</strong> again...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Everyone screws up and most of regularly despite best efforts, so truly digital has some advantages. Digital is much more like shooting negatives than shooting slides in that regards.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Oh yeah, I agree with your statement Matt 100%. Not saying digital doesn't have its advantages; it most certainly does. But, regardless whether you're shooting film or digital, you still gotta get the exposure in the ballpark, that's all I was saying.</p>

<p>Oh, and those S5s are pretty sweet. The flesh tones you can get from them blows most anything else in the 35mm realm outta the water. Never seen a 4-stop recovery, but I've worked on botched wedding shots which required 3+...kinda amazing what you can do with Fuji files.</p>

 

<p><strong>THE OTHER GUY</strong> replying again...<br /> How is film <em>more</em> work? You shoot it, develop it, you're done. Unless you scan it. And even if you scan it, it's pretty simple to calibrate a scanner to ensure you get all that Velvia goodness digitized. Heck, they even make Velvia targets specifically for this purpose. Beats twiddling sliders in Lightroom or your editor of choice.</p>

<p>It's only easier to screw up if...<br /> <strong>a)</strong> you don't know what you're doing, or <strong> </strong><br /> <strong>b)</strong> you miscalculate the exposure.</p>

<p>If you're going to shoot film, either make sure your in-camera meter is working correctly or buy a dedicated meter. The only screw ups I've experienced in 15 years have been user error, and that applies to any capture medium. You blow a shot, you blow it.</p>

<p>Tim, I just requested a name change. I didn't think it was possible for two different Photo.net members to have the same forum name. Guess it's the price we have to pay for having the same name, eh? In any event, I'll be happy to refer to myself as THE OTHER GUY until we get this name thing cleared up! ;)</p>

 

<p>Why attempt to re-create the wheel? If you like the look of Velvia, by all means, SHOOT VELVIA.<br>

I'd like to understand the OP's rationale here. Why the need to reproduce a look digitally you can readily attain with film?<br>

It seems to me to be counter-intuitive.</p>

<p>I was at the Indiana State Fair back in August and shot Ektar 100 and Portra 400VC. The Ektar was great, even in open sun, and the Portra VC made for some nice low-light shots around dusk, just as the midway lights started turned on.</p>

<p>Dan,<br>

It seems other have put your mind at ease, which is good to hear. </p>

<p>I also shoot with a K-7, and am a recent convert to Pentax (formerly a Canon guy for 15 years). In my experience, the multi-segment metering mode is fairly accurate, except for low-light and backlit situations. In these two instances, I have found the meter to regularly overexpose by as much as 1-stop. My workaround is to switch to spot metering mode, and use the AE lock to set the exposure. YMMV.</p>

<p>Keep in mind this is not a Pentax-specific issue, but one which affects most if not all built-in meters.</p>

<p>I'd stick with Pentax if I were in a similar situation. I've found it to be a very capable tool for my work.</p>

<p>That "marketing hype" is only as powerful as you let it be.</p>

 

<p>Since someone mentioned OP, check it out on the local newsstand or in your nearest bookstore - you'll see it's chock full of advertisements and articles spouting the "merits" of digital, but, when you look at the photo credits for the front cover and (in some cases) the accompanying photos, you'll notice most are shot using large format film cameras.<br>

That said, It's not the gear, it's the vision. Your time would be better spent researching locations, angles, and the quality of light those locations offer at different times of the year. Then researching the market for your work; likely stock (or microstock), card and calendar publishers, some book and magazine publishers, and if you're lucky, the fine art market.</p>

<p>Sorry, but "Good" and "Cheap" are mutually exclusive when referring to tripods. Cheap ones break (usually when you least expect it) and Good ones cost accordingly. Stick with Manfrotto or Gitzo; everything else is a crapshoot.<br>

Oh, and a cheap ballhead on a sturdy set of legs is just asking for trouble.</p>

<p>Ray, you won't be disappointed by the F6. It's a thing of beauty and a technological marvel. Go for it - you won't regret it. Take a road trip somewhere scenic, bring plenty of Velvia 50 and your tripod, and have fun!<br>

The F6 is the top of the line for 35mm. If the F6 doesn't meet your needs, I second Michael's advice; move up in film size to medium format. My personal recommendation is a Mamiya 7. </p>

<p>Leo has offered the best advice by far:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Turn off your computers and go outside"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It's been two days now since the last response by the OP, in which he pretty much thanked everyone for their advice/opinions and mentioned he'd come to a decision. He's getting the F5.</p>

<p>Let's all move on to the next topic, shall we?</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>Contracts are not blood oaths of honor and loyalty.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wow. That statement is so wrong I don't even know how to respond. Sir, you have quite a bit to learn about the business of photography, and perhaps, business in general. You go on ahead and choose not to honor contracts you have signed and let me know how that works out for ya, ok?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>So you signed an agreement and gave your word to honor that agreement, now you don't want to keep your word and wonder about the legal ramifications if you decide to violate the agreement. I'm not a lawyer and don't know the potential legal consequences but I do have a sense of the ethical consequences of not honoring your word.....IMO it would make you something of a schmuck.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well put, David! How can the OP expect clients to honor their contracts/agreements if he doesn't honor his?</p>

 

<p>Don,<br>

With all due respect, you're barking up the wrong tree here. The 50 f/1.8 Mk II serves the needs of the photo student, amateur on a budget, and/or budget conscious pro who's just starting out. From your original post it would seem you purchased the wrong lens.<br>

If build quality were truly an issue, why on earth did you buy this lens and not the more expensive 50 f/1.4, or hey, go for the gusto and pop for the 50 f/1.2L?</p>

 

<p>Sanjay,</p>

<p>The only film body Canon currently produce is the 1V, but that shouldn't make you think, not for one second, that it signals the end of Canon film bodies. You stated yourself you bought the EOS 3 used form KEH, so why not continue down that path? KEH, B&H, Adorama, Calumet, and many other retailers have a huge selection of used gear, much of it in nearly brand new condition.<br>

<br /> There are plenty of places which repair Canon film bodies (at least in the US). Sure. mechanical bodies are easier to fix by nature, but it comes down to parts availability. Many of the repair companies stockpile parts for the more popular brands/models, so even after the manufacturer stops production of the parts, there's still parts available through various secondhand and wholesale markets.<br /> My advice is to keep on shooting film, and most importantly, have fun!</p>

<p>John, you may call it madness, but I think what you really had was an epiphany.</p>

<p>Welcome back to 6x7 with the RB system. I concur with the others; the 180 is a wonderful piece of glass for portrait work.</p>

<p>So he's an award-winning photographer who wishes to remain anonymous???</p>

<p>I've shot 150k+ frames over the past 5 years with my "crappy" 50mm f/1.8 Mk II and its "lousy" build quality.</p>

<p>It's been dropped in a river, used in a sandstorm, dropped onto rocks, and still keeps going. It won't quit.</p>

<p>If I had to replace it tomorrow I would - with the same lens.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>You don't increase your negative odds by buying used.</p>

<p>Just like vintage furniture, you can easily end up with crap if you don't know what you're looking at/bidding on/buying.</p>

<p>You can end up with a crap lens buying new just as easily as buying used. You increase your negative odds by buying from shady dealers and retailers, or by taking a chance on eBay.</p>

<p>KEH is excellent, never had a problem, and have purchased plenty of used gear (bodies, lenses, and accessories) from them over the years.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>True - the answer is simpler than you think, no PS required. It's communication, and starts with you :)<br>

There were several different looks in the images you referenced. <br>

Discuss the specifics of those images with your client before you click the shutter. Find out which of those images she likes, or what it is about those images - pose, color, treatment, something else?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Michael, to answer your question, I prefer to do the scans myself. </p>

<p>Yes, it is an investment in equipment, time, and resources, but it keeps me in control of the final product. There are certain creative decisions during the scanning process which only I can make. I've used labs in the past, and unless you have a custom scan lab close by, one where you can work side-by-side with the scanner operator, it can be a real hassle.</p>

<p>I use MF film cameras exclusively for both personal work as well as commercial shooting.</p>

<p>I produced some black & white portraits of my wife not too long ago. We had attended the opening of an exhibition of Yousef Karsh's work at the Art Institute of Chicago, and she wanted something similar in terms of lighting and depth.<br>

I rented time at a friend's studio, and used similar lighting techniques to produce the images.<br>

She loved the results and her portraits have helped attract new clients. One of the shots below:</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9932453-lg.jpg" alt="" width="487" height="600" /></p>