orourke
-
Posts
257 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by orourke
-
-
<p>Happy Nikon Wednesday evreyone. No celebrities or peach pies, but I did harvest these leaves off the glass surface of a still lagoon. Nikon F4, 28-85, Kodak 200.</p><div>
</div>
-
<p>One more from the roll.</p><div></div>
-
<p>Another image, same roll.</p><div></div>
-
<p>Good day all. Fall beckons. It's been a couple of months since I had the chance to get out with a camera on a mission to relax. As luck would have it I just happened to run a roll of Kodak 200 through the old F4 the other day, which hopefuly will fit the fall theme of this wednesday . Nikon F4/ 28-85/ no flash, sun backlit.</p><div></div>
-
<p>Been awhile since I checked in. Stunning shots right out of the gate as usual ! Had the opportunity to catch a little boat racing in Bay City, Michigan over the weekend and I happened to have my F4 with a 75-300 loaded with Kodak 200 in the truck. Wasn't planned but it came together anyway. Dow sponsored boat racing by at over a hundred miles an hour.</p><div></div>
-
<p>I didn't spot this posted anywhere on PN, so I'm submitting it here. Reading the article, I was surprised to learn his most famous photo only netted the photographer the sum of $25 dollars. I have to wonder how much it made for UPI.</p>
-
<p>On a quiet Sunday morning in the fall of 1990 the freighter Jupiter, with a hold full of unleaded gasoline, exploded in flames on the Saginaw River in Bay City, Michigan. A passing ship's wake seperated the lines that were off loading her cargo and a spark on the dock ignited over one million gallons of fuel that was still aboard. One crewmember drowned as he tried to swim for shore, Remarkably, the rest of the crew managed to escape the inferno. I was a few blocks away at the time of the explosion and managed to get to the scene before authorities established an exclusion zone.<br>
Mined last week from an old negative, cropped and tweeked in Fastone.</p><div>
</div> -
<p>Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX07</p><div></div>
-
<p>Hello all. First off, thank you Ann Overland for your comment on my Ducks photo of last week. This week's submission is from the same roll. After taking the shot of the ducks I turned to head back to the truck and found this image had been waiting behind me all along! I liked the way the willows in the background added a bit of drama and depth. Hope it strikes you as well as it did me. Cheers, and happy wednesday!<br>
Nikon F4/75-300af</p><div>
</div> -
<p>Grabbed a shot of ducks roughing it through a light morning fog on a crisp fall morning. Finally unloaded the film and had it processed and scanned this week.</p><div></div>
-
<p>Joe,<br />The first time I noticed the issue was when the camera simply wouldn't fire. Auto focus and everything else was working so I discounted any possibilty of batteries being the problem. I took note that the frame counter was reading 14 and I engaged R1 and R2 to rewind the film, which it did, leaving only the leader from the cassette exposed when I opened the back. I closed the back and the camera fired just fine, so I loaded another roll. After 14 on that roll I noticed the camera still shot but stayed at 14, so I clicked off a couple of blanks while watching the rewind knob for signs the film was advancing. It was, but the counter stayed on 14. It clears and counts up to that point without a hitch, which presents only a minor nuisance, so I've lived with it.<br />The F4 may have it's detractors and I understand the gripes about the weight, but as an eyglass wearer I love the viewfinder. I like the portability of my FE and FE2 but the F4 is far more eyeglass friendly. Small viewfinders are a big reason I haven't purchased a digital slr yet. I've been waiting for the words "reasonable" and "affordable" to influence my buying decision. I almost sprung for a D7000 but the viewfinder size was holding me back and I, like many others, have been waiting to see if Nikon updated the FX format 700. As you know, they just did.<br />It would appear a D800 is poised to attack my savings account but, until then, I'll have to continue to deflect the 'Wow that's a big camera is that digital?" comments from the audience with "No, only the frame counter is, but it stops at 14"</p>
-
<p>Thanks guys !</p>
<p>................/running to Staples for Post It notes</p>
<p>(actually, I could probably just carve notches in the back of the camera for each shot, given the frequency with which I seem to be shooting lately.)</p>
-
<p>This has been nothing more than a mild irritation for me but I figured I'd throw it out there in case someone knows what may be going on. All functions on my F4 work swimmingly except the frame counter. For reasons beyond my ability to troubleshoot, the frame counter stops at 14. The camera continues to fire away for the full 24 or 36, but the frame counter refuses to go the distance. If I'm shooting a whole roll at a time it isn't so much of an issue as when I put it down for a few weeks and use another body. I then go back and I am not sure how many frames are left, if I retired the camera after the 14th frame. Any ideas, insights, or "join the 21st century you bum and go digital" suggestions?<br>
THNX</p>
-
<p>Sorry, no food shot handy, but......... maybe you could instead imagine Karl Malden eating a steaming hot bowl of Rice-a- Roni somewhere on these Streets of San Francisco.</p><div></div>
-
<p>Tim,<br>
I don't have photshop, yet. I'm using Fastone and paint.net for now. Is uprezing the same as resizing up, and then sharpening? If so, is there a difference sharpening that way as opposed to simply sharpening at 1800? I haven't tried resizing up, unless it was a crop that I wanted to make larger for posting. When I clone out dust specs or add 'catch light' to someones eyes I magnify the image as much as I can to work on it, but I wasn't aware I could add apparent (or actual) resolution other than by sharpening or adding contrast.</p>
-
<p>John,</p>
<p>Yes, I'll probably ship some to a pro lab eventually. Since I'm not shooting alot of new stuff right now I've been focusing on working with old negatives to get a feel for digital post. I'm pretty new at this. I'm still in the inventory stage, going through old boxes, selecting negative strips to scan to see if they merit taking them any further. When I assemble enough keepers I'll send them out for more proper achiving. Until then, I'm all about close, fast and cheap.</p>
-
<blockquote>
<p>" I'm guessing an "upsell" has already been settled on. Its called a "premium disc". "</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I'm not complaining but if they continue giving me premium discs at no extra charge they may want to revisit their upsell strategy training.</p>
-
<p>Charles,<br>
Thank you for your input !</p>
-
<p>Tim,<br>
Thanks for the links. I may print the 'how to' post and bring it with me the next time I have negs to scan, being careful to inform them of today's conversation with the other store's photo mangager regarding the potential of voiding their service agreement. What could possibly go wrong?</p>
-
<p>Ok. Today I stopped by the location that has been producing my scans. The machine they have is a Fuji Frontier 340. The employees I worked with the other day were not in so I thought it would be pointless to cover old ground with today's staff.<br>
Then I got online. The scans I've gotten to date have maxed out about 1800 on the long end. From what I was able to glean from the web, the 340 is capable of producing scans over 3000 on the long end as a standard, not "optional" feature.<br>
There is another Walgreens in my area so I called them. I asked if they had the same equipment the other store used and was told yes, all the stores use the same machine. I reviewed my story with the manager of the photo department, who boasted of a 13 year tenure with the company. She informed me that they are not allowed to make any adjustments to the machine or software since doing so would void their service agreement with Fuji.<br>
So, in short, they are using machines that are capable of producing scans of roughly twice the resolution they currently produce, and because of some agreement between corporate and Fuji, they don't.<br>
I doubt that calling corporate will change anything but I'm almost tempted to try. Is it possible that in today's world of retail they are simply ignoring a feature/benefit that has the potential of boosting their profit center in photo? Are they aware there is an opportunity to upsell their customers? Clearly they seem to at least be underutilizing what probably is the most important tool in that department.</p>
-
<p>Thank you Mathew. I appreciate the tip !</p>
-
<p>and the original full frame in jpg reduced to 700 for display.</p><div></div>
-
<p>Sorry the tiff isn't posting but I think you can still open it for comparison. So the question becomes, what is the advantage of having a Tiff file that is almost twice the size of a jpg? Will it make a difference in printing?</p>
-
<p>and the jpg</p><div></div>
Nikon Wednesday 2012: #42
in Nikon
Posted