Jump to content

newmurph

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    204

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by newmurph

  1. newmurph
    They are roughly 4-5 MB at 3089x2048
  2. newmurph
    Yes, I did order mounting.
  3. newmurph
    I think you're right. They said it could be from underexposure or the scanning, but check out the other images I posted. I don't think that's underexposure unless the scanner thinks every dark area is underexposed.
  4. newmurph
    They said it could happen because of underexposed photos OR something in the scanning process. The roll has images that are average and overexposed. None are so underexposed that they are completely washed out but the grid pattern still appears in the darker areas of the photos. I know it's slide film film with very little latitude and there's always a battle between exposing for highlights or shadows, but this is just ridiculous. I have other shots of the same plant where the petals are completely white and overexposed yet the shadows still have the grid. I've also had enhanced scans done on other slide film's and haven't seen this.
  5. newmurph
    TheDarkroom.com uploaded my batch of enhanced scans today. I checked them out, and like 90% set of just my Ektachrome scans have this grid pattern all over the image. I have a set of Ultramax 400 and Ektar 100 enchanced scans from the same order that are totally fine. What in god's name happened to my Ektachrome?
  6. newmurph

    newmurph posted a gallery image in Uncategorized

  7. newmurph
    100% sure. The sound the VR makes is a high pitched sound like you would hear from a TV. Its just a tone. This sound is clearly gears grinding away at work trying to autofocus. It is the same sound as regular autofocusing, but I am in manual. Something is happening where the camera is trying to move the gears, but it can't because it is in manual.
  8. newmurph
    Does anyone know what could be wrong here? Today my 55-200mm lens was switched to manual focusing, but when the the shutter release was pressed, it started to try and auto-focus. The focus ring wasn't moving, but I could hear the camera trying to autofocus. Could this be the lens or the D5100 body itself? Recently I have also been getting more shutter release errors as well, though mostly in live view and in low light settings with the camera. Does anyone here have any experience with these two possibly related problems? I guess with a 5 year old camera, these problems might not be so unexpected...
  9. newmurph
    <p>Thank you! Its an Android, but wait, theres more! I forgot one small detail. When I said "transfered to my phone" I meant uploaded to Flickr, viewed mobily from Flickr on my phone, and downloaded from Flickr. Both the download and the Flickr link looked the same. THEN, I viewed this post on my phone, and the photo has marginal amounts of banding compared to what came from Flickr, so I transfered the photo via USB to phone and it was about the same.</p> <p>So, I'm thinking Flickr is compressing the images too much, resulting in this banding I'm seeing, and the Android's AMOLED screen also can't correctly display colors, adding to the problem. There is still a little gradienting banding (?) on my PC monitor in the upper left of the photo, but I think in the future that could be solved by increasing my exposure.</p>
  10. newmurph

    July 19 storm

    newmurph posted a gallery image in Uncategorized

    July 19 storm
    Exposure Date: 2016:07:19 23:11:41; Make: NIKON CORPORATION; Model: NIKON D5100; ExposureTime: 6/1 s; FNumber: f/4; ISOSpeedRatings: 200; ExposureProgram: Manual; ExposureBiasValue: 0/6; MeteringMode: Pattern; Flash: Flash did not fire; FocalLength: 24 mm; FocalLengthIn35mmFilm: 36 mm; Software: Adobe Photoshop CC 2015.5 (Windows);
  11. newmurph
    <p>I transfered this image to my phone today to see how it would look on a mobile device and I noticed a lot of color banding. Some clouds have a green or maroon hue to them, but I can only just make it out on my monitor and wouldn't have noticed if I hadn't put it on my phone in the first place. </p> <p>Can anyone else see what I see?</p> <p>Is it just the way the AMOLED screen displays color on a smartphone, or is there something wrong with my photo? Perhaps it could have used more exposure? This is a processed image about .5 of an EV lower than the original.</p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18263194-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="993" /></p><div></div>
  12. newmurph

    test-2

    newmurph posted a gallery image in Uncategorized

    test-2
  13. newmurph

    test

    newmurph posted a gallery image in Uncategorized

    test
  14. newmurph
    <p>Les,<br /> Are you talking about a second row on the top or bottom, or shooting verticaslly AND horizontally?</p> <p>Patrick,<br /> This is true, but I'm wondering if shooting wide and horizontally is making the storm look further away than it really was.</p> <p>Everyone,</p> <p>The scene doesn't have a lot of contrast and it is also dimly lit. Would I polishing a turd here to try and lighten the shadows and lower the overall exposure to make the details in the clouds clearer?</p> <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18249828-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="553" /></p><div></div>
  15. newmurph
    <p>I'm finding that when I make panorams, in this case storm clouds being the subject, the storms looks massive and really high above me, but when I actually stitch the panorama together, the image looks too flat and the clouds look too distant. How can I retain the real life perspective?<br> This image is comprised of 13 horizontal images shot at 18mm. Is this why the storm looks so far away and small compared to what I saw in real life? Would shooting more verticle images at longer focal length help retain the sense of size?<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18249820-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1500" height="750" /></p><div></div>
  16. newmurph
    <p>I'm actually really excited with this mistake. I had thought I could remove the filter, and in the future have it record both IR and visible, but I guess that is the very first step!</p> <p>Are you saying the extra glass from the IR pass through filter would correct the focus problems? That would explain why my Nikon A to Pentax K adapter is correcting this issue. I guess because the Pentax lens I am using with it is calibrated for IR and the extra glass is helping bring that spectrum into focus? With that combo, I can focus more toward infity than the Nikon lenses can. Haven't truly tested it though.</p> <p>I'm wondering if there are hot mirrors and IR filters I could could attach to the front of the lens to switch between just visible and just IR and still retain normal "fast" shutter speeds...I don't want to keep using the Hoya just for pure IR. For long exposures, it would still be great, but the point was to eliminate those.</p>
  17. newmurph
    <p>So I decided to follow the intructions I found here <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/29011053">http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/29011053</a> instead of spending an arm and a leg with LifePixel because I've always wanted an infrared camera that didn't need long exposures. Removed the infrared blocking filter, assembled the sensor, soldered, and finished it.</p> <p>I have since been reading that part of what LifePixel does is install a infrared passing filter in place of the blocking filter. I seemed to have missed this somehow. Never the less, the photos I've been taking look by all means IR, but when I place my own Hoya IR filtter, they look wholly different but still infrared. For instance, when taking pictures of my computer monitor with the Hoya filter on, the room appear infrared, and the monitor appeared red. Without the Hoya filter, the room still looks infrared, but the computer monitor seems to retain most of its normal (visible) color.</p> <p>My question is: what exactly did I do to my camera? What IR wavelength is it recording? Is it now shooting a hybrid of visible and infrared light?</p>
  18. newmurph

    Untitled

    newmurph posted a gallery image in Uncategorized

    Untitled
  19. newmurph
    Under Exposed?
  20. newmurph
    <p>Cory,<br> If automated scanners are trying to pull out detail from the shadows, resulting in the washed out look, does this mean that if I overexposed enough, the scanner would do the opposite, thinking it is done exposing when really it could get brighter? It sounds like they work counterintuitively...</p>
  21. newmurph
    <p>Craig,<br> <br /> Do you know of any mail in labs that will develop, scan, and print EXACTLY what is on the negative?</p> <p>Good thing I'm currently on my first ever roll of Velvia 100.<br> <br /> So, unlike a digital camera, if I underexpose, I get a washed out image as opposed to just a dark image like a digital camera? Does this have something to do with how film handles highlights and overexposure better than a digital (so I've been told)? Now that I think about it, I'm not sure I've ever OVER exposed a film shot...</p> <p> </p>
  22. newmurph
    <p>Hmm.</p> <p>Why is it not as punchy as this shot taken with Superia 400 (I think...or Portra)?<br> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18047478-md.jpg" alt="" width="451" height="680" /> </p>
  23. newmurph
    <p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18047454-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="451" /><br /> I'm trying to figure out what happened here. This shot is Ektar 100 from a Canon AE-Program, developed by theDarkroom.com. It was shot one 1 f-stop below the center weighted meter's recommended exposure. I am still fairly new to 35mm film, so please forgive my ignorance. Why are the trees so faded, and the cloud overexposed?</p> <p>Unless I made a typo in my notes, this shot should be -1 EV and should be much darker with more contrast, and the trees should be more like silhouettes. The clouds should also not look as overexposed as they are, unless I did in fact overexpose when I thought I underexposed.<br> All the other images seem to have proper exposure, with the exception of 4 more sky shots like this, all of which have the faded look.<br> Is it possible that the person developing this shot thought it was too dark and overexposed it? Was it not developed long enough? Side question: what can I do about negatives that have been under or overdeveloped?</p> <p>Thank you all.</p>
  24. newmurph

    paint

    newmurph posted a gallery image in Uncategorized

    paint
    Exposure Date: 2015:02:10 23:49:03; Make: SAMSUNG; Model: SPH-L710; ExposureTime: 1/30 s; FNumber: f/2; ISOSpeedRatings: 1600; ExposureProgram: Aperture priority; ExposureBiasValue: 0/10; MeteringMode: Average; Flash: Flash did not fire; FocalLength: 3 mm; Software: L710VPUDNJ2; ExifGpsLatitude: 48 49 48 48; ExifGpsLatitudeRef: R98;
  25. newmurph

    1002208762

    newmurph posted a gallery image in Uncategorized

    1002208762
×
×
  • Create New...