unlearny

<p>I would like to see a B&W version, focused on something at the closest range, off-center with a single light source, and fix me a tuna salad sandwich while you're at it, I'm starving.<br>

Was the Jupiter made by Kiev or Fed? The Early Kievs cameras were made from confiscated equipment and staff from Zeiss, I wonder how old Kiev lenses stack up to newer ones? <br>

I hear a lot about Fed, did they confiscate Leica machinery, too? </p>

<p>That's lovely. I like the low light, and how it still articulates the various textures of unpainted metal. <br>

Before coming to this forum I bought a DP1 and a lensmate assembly, but it is too far from the subject. I had to crop 60% of the photo out.<br>

Before I could finish bashing my brains out with further modifications, we moved to a new apartment and the DP1 dematerialized! I have no qualms with owning more than one camera, but seeing that there was already a DP1 in hiding, I wasn't sure if a DP2 was the right choice or not. I did learn that the DP1 is less than ideal for macro, because it's lens is more of a landscape affair. I was disturbed also to discover weird pixelation at 100%, that I really didn't expect. I was using sigma pro software, then, but It also left me wondering if a large sensor that hasn't really been fully optimized isn't the same as a small sensor that has had millions of collective hours of tweaking by giant competing companies.<br>

I know that my ignorance is showing, but I found it strange that I could get such great outdoor shots, that could be viewed at X2 w/out noticeable pixelation, and my nickels had little red green blue dots all over it... WAIT! I know what you are going to say... light. I needed more light to fully engage the sensor.<br>

Well here is what I think I should do, while looking for my DP1, I stumbled upon a canon 100mm macro lens that my brother got me several years ago along with an EOS that he later confiscated, citing disuse. I had a much more demanding job at the time, and spent all my free time counting backwards from 1000 to keep me from quitting. This seems like a miracle discovery, so I think I will buy a Canon Body, and go from there.<br>

What is a good full frame Canon with moderate pricing (less than the 5D Mark II)?<br>

Michael... your suggestion is what I want to try for the upcoming show... on maybe 3 sculptures. That may be nice, using different cameras, lighting scenarios for various works. It also gives me an opportunity to learn a new skill alongside the first new skill of DP... uh oh... one new skill too many? perhaps. I have to agree about the expense of the learning curve. I'd best find somebody to execute Michael's instructions, who could actually make it work. I would hate to end up, a day before the show, handing a 150 poorly shot slides to the folks at Greenberg Editions and saying, "Make these look good." <br>

Canon full frame SLR, for now, hire out the Large Format Analogue - to - hi-res print technique for 1 or 2.<br>

Thank you all, again... I will post on here as I progress.<br>

-Andy</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks! What is your opinion on (lowering my voice and looking side to side) the Sigma DP1-2? Remember my Bigger Bang Buck scenario? Obviously any 10 megapixel image will look good at 30X30, or at least that's what math tells me, but what about 60X60!? <br>

What about an LX3 or something easier? <br>

Canon has an EOS 5D I think it's called, full frame sensor, 22 megapixels... 2500ish dollars. That is probably the largest scale-wise and I could get funky if you will with a 100-150mm macro lens. Or is Sony Alpha A850 (I know I am getting all these model names mixed up) better at 24 megapixels?<br>

So Mike, I guess what I am asking is this; due to my very specific needs, do you think a mid range DSLR is a better bet than a high-end fixed lens? Also, from my research I see how megapixels can be misleading, but when your main concern is large scale, should I be using those numbers for guidance?<br>

Thanks again. I have done tons of research, but sometimes I think, "Why not buy an inexpensive analog medium or large format camera and just scan the negative? Won't that get me to billboard size?" Of course, I would be way more likely to give up along the way, but you see the pickle I am in, the technology is just shy of affordable and available. Here's another sculpture, I didn't take these pics by the way, after these were done I began to think about constructing mini-galleries, dollhouse floors and walls, as a set for the pictures.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9729517@N04/3959556099/sizes/o/</p>

<p>Thanks! What is your opinion on (lowering my voice and looking side to side) the Sigma DP1-2? Remember my Bigger Bang Buck scenario? Obviously any 10 megapixel image will look good at 30X30, or at least that's what math tells me, but what about 60X60!? <br>

What about an LX3 or something easier? <br>

Canon has an EOS 5D I think it's called, full frame sensor, 22 megapixels... 2500ish dollars. That is probably the largest scale-wise and I could get funky if you will with a 100-150mm macro lens. Or is Sony Alpha A850 (I know I am getting all these model names mixed up) better at 24 megapixels?<br>

So Mike, I guess what I am asking is this; due to my very specific needs, do you think a mid range DSLR is a better bet than a high-end fixed lens? Also, from my research I see how megapixels can be misleading, but when your main concern is large scale, should I be using those numbers for guidance?<br>

Thanks again. I have done tons of research, but sometimes I think, "Why not buy an inexpensive analog medium or large format camera and just scan the negative? Won't that get me to billboard size?" Of course, I would be way more likely to give up along the way, but you see the pickle I am in, the technology is just shy of affordable and available. Here's another sculpture, I didn't take these pics by the way, after these were done I began to think about constructing mini-galleries, dollhouse floors and walls, as a set for the pictures.<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/9729517@N04/3959556099/sizes/o/</p>

<div></div>

<p>Hi everybody! I just joined Photo.net, and thought I would lead with a question that has been haunting me for a while.<br>

<strong>Background</strong><br>

I make very small sculptures which I then take a digital photograph and enlarge to produce a glossy 8.5X11 print, and sometimes a 13X19 print. The print is presented along with the sculpture, as a sort of static magnification of the original object. My old Point and Shoot was a breeze to use, Macro being the only things it did really well. I would simply make the little tulip icon appear, and off to the races I would go. Now, however I need guidance and megapixels beyond what a digital P&S appears to provide, so that I may faithfully enlarge to A3 (13'X19") and far beyond. <br>

For a special gallery show last year I rented a camera and hired a photographer which allowed me to produce a beautiful 30"X30" print, but it was so expensive, it basically made that scenario a deal breaker for future shows. Also, I knew the subject and the desired effect better than the photographer, and ended up with a mere approximation of what I wanted. The high production costs and lack of artistic control I experienced convinced me to learn whatever I need to learn and buy what I need to buy, in order to produce my own high quality, large scale digital prints to accompany the miniature sculptures.<br>

I have an opportunity to show my work with 20-30 sculptures with matching prints (sometimes diptychs and triptychs) of varying size. I can essentially switch out the sculptures by hand once I have created a "Studio Space" from 2 500 Watt Tungsten Lamps and a wood slab against the wall, I could even do it out on my balcony, as I get great sunlight all day and I only have to keep 5 square inches particle-free.<br>

Some Details.<br>

<strong>My sculptures range from under an inch high in size, going up to about 4 inches high, approximately the same as a medium sized insect or small piece of jewelry.</strong><br>

<strong>The body of any given sculpture can be thinner than a millimeter or thick as an inch.</strong><br>

<strong>They are metal, with complex textures and colors, and a lot of complex dimensions that I need to capture.</strong><br>

<strong>The larger I can make the print, the more importance it lends to the diminutive original, so the biggest bang 4 the buck should be entered into the equation.</strong><br>

<strong>My photography "skill" level = low. I know iso makes things noisy, light is preferred, my tabletop tripod gets a lot of use.</strong><br>

<strong>My Software skill level = Serviceable Photoshop familiarity.</strong><br>

<strong>Budget = I can't afford an M9 with a 50mm macro attachment, if that even existed, but a mid range DSLR is do-able, but I am scared of all those buttons that I do not understand (where is the little tulip icon?) and I don't know what type of lens I would need.</strong><br>

Probably I should have started with a simple hello before cutting to the ellaborate description of my problem, but I have been thinking about it for so long, I decided to take my problem to the mean streets of Photo.net, and see if anyone has any ideas for me.<br>

Thanks in advance... <br>

Andy<br>

<strong><br /></strong></p><div></div>