farceur_coince

<p>Sorry, that should read Zorki-<em><strong>S</strong></em>/C - is that any different? Is S/C any better than 4, or vice versa?</p>

<p>Thanks once more.</p>

<p>Hi there,</p>

<p>I'm picking out of these three for my first rangefinder, and have these as an option.</p>

<p>The Zorki-4 comes with the Industar 22 lens, and not the Jupiter (which I've read is better). So in that aspect, I'm not sure.</p>

<p>The Voigtlander Vitomatic IIa comes with a Colour-Skopar 50mm f/2.8 lens; I'm not sure about this one.</p>

<p>The Voitlander Vito CLR - unsure about lens.</p>

<p>Price doesn't matter. They should all be in fairly good condition.</p>

<p>Thanks for your help. :)</p>

<p>Charles, I'm aware that paper is very subjective - but that's the point, I want to know what works for people.<br>

You'll find many people share the same opinions, and a general consensus on things is normally reflected in buyers/viewers.<br>

Thanks David - I don't suppose you're familiar with the difference(s) between the Lustre Duo and the Pearl paper?</p>

<p>I'm in a little bother at the moment, choosing between some papers. Your (personal) experience and advice would be most appreciated! So...<br>

<strong>For Matte (proofing) papers</strong></p>

<ul>

<li>Epson Archival (or Enhanced) Matte paper</li>

<li>Epson Heavyweight Matte paper </li>

<li>Ilford Smooth Heavyweight Matte paper</li>

</ul>

<p>I've listed them above in price order (most expensive to least) though the difference is very small (as in, give or take a few dollars) and anyway, quality is more important. Thoughts?<br>

<strong>For Fine Art (matte) papers</strong></p>

<ul>

<li>Epson Velvet paper</li>

<li>Moab Entrada Natural 300gsm (or Bright, but mostly considering Natural at this stage) paper</li>

<li>Moab Somerset Enhanced Velvet paper</li>

</ul>

<p>Again, listed in price order. Here, though, the Epson Velvet is actually quite a fair bit more pricey. I've heard it's the best, though to be honest I'm not looking for such a heavily-textured paper. Then again, I've also heard that it surpasses the Entrada and the Somerset Velvet in quality even though the Entrada is a smooth (relative) paper? Can someone confirm or reject this idea? I thought the Entrada would be perfect, but apparently the Epson outshines it. I know that the Somerset isn't so good (apparently), but I listed it here in case someone really likes it and has something to say about it.<br>

<strong>For Lustre papers</strong></p>

<ul>

<li>Moab Lasal Photo Lustre paper</li>

<li>Ilford Galerie Smooth Lustre Duo paper</li>

<li>Ilford Galerie Smooth Pearl paper</li>

</ul>

<p>Okay, so this is in price order technically, but the Moab is only in front because of delivery fees (I have to source it elsewhere). I can potentially (unlikely, but still) find a cheaper rate, so it might not matter then. But there's a noticeable difference in price, straight-off, between the Smooth Lustre Duo and the Smooth Pearl papers from Ilford. Isn't Pearl really just Lustre? I don't really need double-sided printing, so if that's it, it doesn't matter. I definitely will use the Pearl for 5x7" prints as that's all I can find (in my area) for 5x7" prints, but for A4 (and maybe even A3+) printing, I'm really trying to decide between these three.<br>

---<br>

Thank you all once again! :)</p>

<p>So you preferred the old one?<br>

I'm not sure what you mean by zippered lid, as I think both the D and non-D models have the quick access zip?</p>

<p><strong>General note</strong>: Would also want to fit at least a 135mm or 100mm macro L in there. Maybe both, but at least one sometimes.</p>

<p>So, it's been bugging me for ages and ages and ages.<br>

It's between these two. I have my reasons for rejecting others, so please, don't bring up any new ones.<br>

<br />Okay: the gear I'd probably fit in these are my light stuff, so that'd be</p>

<ul>

<li>450D (not gripped)</li>

<li>50mm f/1.8 II</li>

<li>17-40mm f/4L</li>

<li>85mm f/1.8 </li>

<li>580 EX II</li>

</ul>

<p>And maybe another, but not really. Sometimes, I don't want to use all, which is why Novas, etc. aren't the most useful. These two both 'collaspe' a tiny bit and are generally a bit loose.<br>

I'm considering the <strong>300 AW and not the D300 AW</strong>, just to clarify.<br>

Size is extremely similar. Not too concerned over waterproof cover, as the Domke is more weather-resistant than the Lowepro when the Lowepro is uncovered and I think I wouldn't be under much rain for very long anyway.<br>

The problem lies here: for my area (Australia) I have to buy these (one a discontinued model, the other from America/Hong Kong) over the net and for either $93 or $160 - both new, Lowepro and Domke respectively.<br>

<br />Just unsure whether the Domke is worth the price! Any help?</p>

<p>I'd actually go with buying him a new computer with a good IPS screen. A calibrator should also be bought.</p>

<p>A laptop is not suitable for photo editing, as viewing angles and general accuracy is not fantastic.</p>

<p>If not a new computer, then a really good IPS screen and a calibrator. Unless he has these things, then... the laptop for on the go work, of course.</p>

<p>I recently dug out my AF35M II... I haven't revisited film for many years, now, so can't really remember how this poses a problem.<br>

The metal bit with the ring that the film passes along, on the side that flips out, is slightly bent.<br>

The picture below should help illustrate it more clearly.</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10791913-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="453" /><br>

<br /> Obviously, a repair would be both impractical and not quite worth it.<br>

I daresay I could use some glue to stick it back... the upper side looks to be about the right amount of height, whereas the bottom one is too bent to the right, perhaps?</p>

<p>Just out of curiosity, are you a professional photog?</p>

<p>It seems not - even if you are, please don't shoot your own wedding. It will end in tears.</p>

<p>Jeff Ascough did report that the 1D4 proved able to handle high ISOs better than the 5D2 - the less pixels and new technology, despite the full frame/1.3x focal length magnification factor.</p>

<p>Obviously well handled, so well done, L. :)</p>

<p>Tried CameraArmor for my bodies, actually, once; just to make sure if it hit, it wouldn't hurt - as much.<br>

Then I returned it and decided it wouldn't be worth the hassle.<br>

But heat over here is a problem, so I never leave anything in the car really.</p>

<p>I wouldn't charge hundreds. Somewhere between 10-30 dollars at most - I'd go or about $20 if you're keen on charging.<br>

Personally, I wouldn't charge until you had gear capable of consistently doing this.</p>

<p>Gotta love WTD. ;)<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/10317375-lg.jpg" alt="" width="600" height="580" /></p>

<p>My last point</p>

<blockquote>

<p>- did you get paid for the blog post, was the blog post to advertise your work, etc? Conflict of advertising: they want to advertise the wedding in their name, and easily the B&G can be recognised and the photographer confused</p>

</blockquote>

<p>was answered by their replying letter. To be honest, the blog has every right to execute the decision to delete your post. The studio can request it, even though it may not be legally supported.<br>

<br /> In all honesty, I side the studio on this one, since the blog was probably dedicated to wedding photographers, and in posting you may have seemed like the photographer for that wedding (thus other photos from the wedding could be confused easily for yours and thus less advertising for them).</p>

<p>Look, in all honesty, not enough is actually known to make a proper judgement on this. Depending on the details, I could side you or the studio.<br>

<br /> For instance:<br>

- did the second photographer mistake the images for their own? (note that it was a second photog and not the primary or at least other photog, so could easily have made the error)<br>

- did the studio have a line(s) in their contract about them being the exclusive photographer? Easily, non-photographers are not fully aware of such things, or if they are, they easily dismiss them as petty things; your friends could easily have made the mistake<br>

- did you get paid for the blog post, was the blog post to advertise your work, etc? Conflict of advertising: they want to advertise the wedding in their name, and easily the B&G can be recognised and the photographer confused<br>

Perhaps the photography studio should have not been so hasty: but without knowing the full details, it's hard to make a decision.</p>

 

<p>It does look good.<br>

Obviously I can't tell for sure, but this and other reviews of pre-prod. models seem to be positive on the ISO handling.<br>

Thinking of selling the 5D MK II's and going for two 1D MK IV's. APS-H... I could live with that.<br>

Honestly, the weather sealing, autofocus and fps (though less of that) makes it really appealing. Not so appealing is the extra $4-6 grand I'll have to fork out.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Lightroom Beta 3 is available for free until April 3... it's a beta version, but completely free and legit.</p>

<p>Try using Taiyo Yuden DVD's/CD's. :)</p>

<p>You can make them pay (with a contract and the law behind you), so the bride threatening not to pay doesn't matter anyway. Can always chase that up.<br>

What you're suggesting... that's why sometimes you have to reject wedding shoots. Pretend you're busy.</p>

<p>Where you are is an important factor... are there normally a lot of blue skies in your area? It sounds stupid, but you aren't always going to get blue skies ('if', that is), then the client isn't going to worry as much.<br>

A lot of photographers nowadays - in particularl; event, wedding and/or portraiture photographers, etc - like overexposing the photos... if you shot in raw, recover as much as you can. If not, lower the exposure, use a bit of burning... but really, it's fine. The 'essence' (not to sound cliche) is there, the expression great.</p>

<p>Sometimes I carry tape... some bars, etc. Never know when it's handy. Even chewed up gum. :P<br>

(Okay, the last one... maybe not, but tape definitely can be handy)</p>

<p>Apologies if it sounded brusque... was a 'by the way' note. :)</p>

<p>Try something like Pro Show Gold.<br>

<br /> For music... no, you can't use music from CD's or iTunes, etc.; nor can you use music that the client provides for you; the only way is to get a licence (actually, licences) or stock music or the client plays music on a CD player while watching.</p>

<p>Sometimes, a meeting to discuss before booking is vital. Talking a bit can give you a basic idea, and if you don't think it'll work out... leaf through your calendar/diary, and just say you're not available. :)</p>