michael_h3
-
Posts
9 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by michael_h3
-
-
<p>I'm shooting a few minutes after sunrise-- and the sky is a warm blue. But the metering on my SLR constantly blows it. See my shot and you'll see what I mean. Any suggestions for how to avoid this? Is a graduated neutral density filter the only answer?<br>
<img src="http://www.cactus21.com/camera/Example1.JPG" alt="" /></p>
<p>Also-- look at my second shot-- taken with an inexpensive Canon point & shoot in harsh mid-day sun. Why is an point & shoot "smart" enough to compensate for the contrast?<br>
<img src="http://www.cactus21.com/camera/Example2.JPG" alt="" /></p>
-
<p>This is the recommendation from one scanning enthusiast in a recent Coolscan thread:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>I strongly recommend a FF DSLR over scanning film, but that's just my opinion. I'm sure others will disagree.For what you would pay for a Nikon 5000, you could pick up a great DSLR, <em>AND</em> save yourself lots of time behind the monitor, leaving more time for behind the camera. Not to mention the cost of film and processing.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Forget that a full frame DSLR costs <em>more than double the price</em> of a Super Coolscan 5000 ED here in the USA. I'd like to know those of you who have experience with this would choose a new full frame DSLR or the combo of film and self-scan if you had both options-- and no large collection of old negatives to scan.<br /> <br /> By the way, I photograph just for the sheer joy of it. I already have a decent (albeit aging) D70 and a competent P&S in addition to my F5. One of the reasons I have returned to film is because I am frustrated with the limitations of DSLRs that are not full frame-- and because spending over $2,600 on a full frame DSLR was beyond my means.<br /> <br /> Money may be <strong>one</strong> of the reasons why I <em>started</em> getting back into film. But not the only reason: I've discovered the many creative rewards it has as well. Before I plunge deeper and commit to a scanner, I'm curious about how people who have experience shooting both feel about where to put their gear dollars.</p>
-
<p>Just to clarify: <strong><em>I am not asking where to buy a scanner or what kind to buy</em> </strong> . I am asking those of you who shoot filp and edit in Photoshop <strong>whether you prefer doing your own scanning-- or whether you have found a better system</strong> (such as getting cheap proof scans and then paying for drum scans of your best stuff).<br /> <br /> If I decide to dive into doing my own scanning, my tool of choice would be the Nikon Super Coolscan 5000 ED, (4000 dpi). I know where and how to buy it-- the question is whether it's something that will be genuinely helpful to have.</p>
-
<p>After six years of shooting Nikon DSLRs, I am re-discovering the joys of shooting film. For the type of nature shooting I'm getting into, I'm absolutely amazed at how much better my results are with my trusty F5 and film. Here's my problem: Photoshop is my editing tool of choice. So what's the best and most cost-effective way to get my negs into my Mac?<br /> <br /> The 300 DPI JPEG scans that my local labs do when they process my film are fine for a quick proof: But they are worthless for serious dodge & burn or other editing. In fact, they're significantly worse than anything that comes out of even my 12 MP Canon point & shoot camera. They don't really tell me whether I have the sort of detail I want in a "keeper" shot.<br /> <br /> I could continue getting these lousy proof scans and then paying handsomely for Imacon scans of the keepers (these are TIFFs that end up around 20 MB). But doing this takes significant time and money. I'm looking for a bit of guidance from those of you who love shooting film-- but also love editing, tweakingt, and composing in Photoshop: Have you found it worthwhile to purchase a good scanner (at about the $1,000 level)? <br /> <br /> Or is scanning a job better left to the pros?</p>
-
<p>I usually shoot with my DSLR, but recently re-discovered the sheer joy of shooting film: I've found that film is especially great for the way that I shoot landscapes. I use my trusty old NikonF5, a 20 mm 2.8 AF-D lens, a tripod, and mirror lockup when possible. This combo with my first roll of Reala really blew away what I was getting with my DSLR!<br>
<br /> The question is: <strong>Will I get noticeably better color or some additional advantage using Velvia?</strong> If so, have any of you found that advantage to be worth the extra effort that it takes to process slides? <br /> <br /> I have a good local lab that processes Reala quickly and reasonably (and makes digital proofs). The turnaround on slides would be considerably longer and I know that slide film is considerably less forgiving. I'd put up with both if the results would likely be <em>noticeably</em> better. <br /> <br /> Please let me know what you think-- especially if you've shot plenty of both. Remember, I'm talking about suitability for the very specific conditions of shooting fall foliage landscapes.</p>
-
<p>Thanks! Since compact flash memory is cheap-- and my trusty iPhoto + Photoshop combination handles RAW just fine, I'm going to start shooting RAW to see if it makes a real difference for the types of shooting I do. I also carry a Canon point & shoot in my pocket for those moments when I don't happen to have a DSLR.<br /> <br /> If RAW really helps me do corrections and tweaks more easily, I might just have to upgrade my point & shoot to a new Canon S90-- just because it shoots RAW.</p>
-
<p>When I first got my D70 five years ago, I used to always shoot in RAW (NEF). I soon abandoned this and moved to high res JPEGs as my shooting mode, because:<br /> <br /> • I preferred using iPhoto to Nikon's PicturePerfect software to import and catalog my shots<br /> <br /> • RAW files were slow to work with in 2004<br /> <br /> • I didn't notice a difference in quality when printing, since I never printed larger than 8 X 10-- and I used an online lab that required baseline JPEGs<br>
<br /> Has anything changed in 2009? Is there a compelling reason to shoot RAW files again? I am an amateur who shoots simply for the fun of it. I mostly share my shots with friends on the Web at 72 DPI JPEG-- and occasionally print family memories.</p>
<p>I'm wondering if the technology of 2009 will give me any more of an advantage shooting RAW. Thanks in advance for any insights.</p>
-
<p><strong>I had the <em>exact</em> same dilemma</strong> , and here's what I did: Thanks to my D70 and its auto-ISO, I recently blew some magnificent landscape photo opportunities. The D70 can shoot some truly lousy looking stuff at high ISOs-- and if you're not careful with the menus, it can keep the high ISO settings-- and blow the white balance to boot. <em><strong>If only I had a D90 or a better DSLR</strong> </em> , I thought!<br>
<br /> Then I figured, what the heck-- why not switch to Canon? I started shopping, asking, and researching. Everybody had an opinion. My D70 was fine for portraits, travel memories, and controlled lighting. But I wanted something that would do those things-- plus be more simple and fool-proof in wilderness situations with ever-changing natural light. I wanted gear smart enough to let me concentrate on composition.<em> Instead of buying new gear, here's what I did:</em><br>
<br /> I cleaned up my old trusty F5-- a film legend that can now be had for a fraction of the price of a decent DSLR. I've started shooting Velvia and Reala-- and am working on my technique. Film avoids ISO and white balance issues entirely-- and scans made from my F5/Reala combo look every bit as sharp and colorful as the output from Nikon & Canon's finest full-frame DSLRs. At least on the landscapes and natural scenes that I enjoy shooting.<br>
<br /> I know that I will buy another DSLR body eventually. For now, I think I have found a much more productive way to improve my knowledge and technique. This may not be everybody's cup of tea. But I post it here just to point out that there <em>are</em> alternatives to going on a gear quest.</p>
<p> </p>
How do I avoid overexposing the sky?
in Beginner Questions
Posted