michael_barnes5

<p>Overexposure is not the end of the world. I oftentimes overexpose C41 deliberately.<br /><br />Portra 160: 4-5 stops overexposed<br /><a href=" /><br />Ektar 100: 4-5 stops overexposed<br /><a href="

<p>OK so for two years I've been using an Epson 4490 and but I recently lost my 35mm film holders when I moved (d'oh!). So instead of buying a new set of 35mm film holders (~$25, ebay), I thought that I should just add a 35mm dedicated scanner. I scan most of my negatives for <strong>web viewing </strong>and wet print my very best. I'm content with the 120 image quality but the 35mm image quality leaves me wanting a bit more.<br /><br />In a scanner, I value optical performance and price over speed. I'm looking for value, so I don't intend on paying top dollar for a very small gain. Most agree that competent dedicated film scanners are better than top-end flatbeds and so I think that a plain Plustek should be fine.<br /><br />From what I gather, the 7400 and 7600i offer the same optical performance but the latter has dust removal. I'm not interested in dust removal because it doesn't work with B&W film (from what I've read), and I don't mind cleaning the dust myself. I have no idea what the advantages the newer models (8100 and 8200i) are.<br /><br />1. From the current lineup, I think that I'd opt for a 7400 but I honestly don't really know the differences too well. Is there a performance/speed difference among the four? On the website they appear very similar.<br /><br />2. What about the older models? I see that they have 7200, 7200i, 7300, and 7500i. I read that the fundamental difference between the older and the newer series is just the light source (LED vs Cold Cathode) and hence speed. Well the price difference doesn't seem to be that much so I'd probably opt for a newer model anyways but this is something that I'd like to know. I believe that this is the fundamental difference between the Epson 4490/4990 and V500/V700...if it isn't, then that is besides the point haha.<br /><br />3. Does anyone recommend a Nikon/Minolta/other scanner <em>for the money</em>? I haven't searched too hard but I'd imagine Nikon's to be the best but costliest solution. I'm not willing to pay more than $500 for a 35mm-only dedicated scanner; I'd prefer to spend less. </p>

<p>Thanks, i don't shoot that much color but part of the reason is the costs (which is why I'm looking into home development). I tried C41 but i just love the E6 colors too much and so I'd rather just shoot less color...<br /><br />I shoot B&W fairly often and so I don't worry about the chemistry going bad because I use Rodinal or D76 which gets used up every 1-2 months. I do not know much about E6 chemistry but I heard that it goes bad fast and that this also depends on contamination and so using it all at once makes sense. I was thinking of just getting 1L kits (for 8-12 rolls) and just processing them all at once or within a short interval of time for maximum consistency. I shoot ~2-4 rolls a month and I don't really want to hoard up my color film for too long so maybe I'm better off going with the Arista 1L kits?</p>

 

<p>Don't get me wrong, I know lens speed isn't everything. I only brought it into the discussion because it was mentioned. I have heard of some legendary speed demons, but never one from Bronica. I'm not really looking for another camra per se but if an interesting one is brought into discussion, then I'd like to know more.<br /><br />About the Pentax. I was aware of the WLF option but it just seemed to be more of a prism camera to me. On the tripod it might matter less but the only reason for me getting one is for the 105mm f2.4 but I never felt compelled into getting one because I am qutie happy with my 80mm f2.8. There are a few cameras here and there that I may want, but when it comes down to it, I don't think anything can really top my Rolleiflex (<strong>for me, </strong>ofcourse). This is partly why I considered my SL66 purchase impulsive. <br>

13 images! cool. I had no idea that not all heads would allow for the full 8 degrees of tilt--thanks for the suggestion.</p>

 

<p>I have never developed color film but with the rising costs of getting them developed, I'm thinking of taking a stab at home development.<br /><br />Well the Arista chemistry seems not too expensive, but has anyone had any experience with it?<a href="http://www.freestylephoto.biz/11861-Arista-Rapid-E6-Slide-Developing-Kit-1-Quart"><br /><br />http://www.freestylephoto.biz/11861-Arista-Rapid-E6-Slide-Developing-Kit-1-Quart<br /><br /></a>Tetenal seems like a popular alternative, but the 1L version costs twice as much as the Arista. The price difference between the Tetenal 1L vs 5L is silly too ($67 vs $100). I've never done this at all and so I would feel less comfortable dropping $67/$100 on chemistry when I can spend less.</p>

<p>Impulsive is the correct word, but maybe it was compulsive too :)<br /><br />Anyways, I'm wondering about the fast/affordable lenses. Speed is not my only criteria but it is attractive... <br /><br />Does the Bronica S2/EC systems have fast normals?<br />I had a P6, but I hated it because camera felt too flimsy and I didn't like using it at all. <br />I have thought about a Pentax 67 but I prefer waist-level compositions and the 1:1 aspect ratio. <br />I have thought about the Norita 66 but not too seriously because I feel more comfortable with box-camera designs...I may look more into the Norita because an 80mm f2 sounds fun. A Norita 66 may be a camera that I would purchase on impulse too haha.<br /><br />I don't mean to go off on a tangent because as I'd rather have an SL66/500cm over a Norita but if I were to get another SLR then it would probably be a Norita because of the 80mm f2 lens alone.</p>

<p>Not entirely compulsive as I've been toying the idea of getting this camera or a Hasselblad for some months. Well I woke up yesterday, saw an outfit on keh.com, and made my purchase. It comes in about a week and I'm kind of anxious to hear some experiences on this camera.<br /><br />-Handling (vs Blad). From what I hear this camera isn't so great handheld but then neither is the blad. Is this camera any "worse" than a Hasselblad in this sense? I will primarily use this camera for portraits and maybe on a tripod (I prefer handheld and so I would probably do both) but is the fundamental difference only the weight? For my purposes it seems that the weight would be an advantage for handheld. How is the MLU, easy to use, right? How about the slow shutter speeds, from your user experience (compared to say an Hblad). With a 500cm it seems that 1/125 is generally agreeable to be a safe shutter speed but some people to down to 1/60th and ofcourse some even further but anything slower is chancy. Is a Rolleiflex any better or worse? Well, I'd get a feel after a few rolls but I'm just wondering what others think because I can't really get a feel for this and an Hasselblad at the same time unless I purchase both.<br /><br />-Bellows and close focusing. I have to compensate for exposure when focusing closely, right? I haven't had a bellows camera...well I had a Mamiya C220 a long time ago and I think you were supposed to compensate but I don't quite remember. If you reverse the lens, then do you get a different field of view? I read somewhere that it is 1.5x magnified. <br /><br />-Focusing screen. How is the standard focus screen: split-image or matte? (I forgot to call keh.com). This isn't THAT big of a deal but I prefer a plain matte. Any ideas in where to upgrade if it isn't a split-image? Like Maxwel, Beattie, or something? <br /><br />-Anything crucial that I should absolutely avoid doing so that I don't ruin this camera? I'll go over the manual but sometimes there are extra precautions that you should take with some cameras so that you do not ruin them.<br /><br />Well, I think that is about it. I can't wait to play with my new-to-me Rolleiflex! </p>

<p>So after shooting for sometime I wanted to display my work and so I created a cargo collective (portfolio website) as my "website" but then since I kept updating it, a blog made more sense.<br /><br />After going through wordpress and blogspot I've pretty much settled with tumblr as a photo blog but then the thought of a static website seemed a little redundant since I don't sell prints or services.<br /><br />Any thoughts, opinions, and advice?<br /><br />For my specific case: I've been shooting for almost a year and have done 20-25 portraits because that is my primary interest. I have some landscape, street, and other genres of photography but I wouldn't really display them outside of flickr or forum galleries because I don't put much effort there. They are more snapshots, I'd say. My blog is only portraits and my flickr is random. <br /><br />I'm just trying to figure out how to effectively display my work over the internet. Too many websites/social networks seems very redundant.</p>

<p>Sorry I was unclear so I'm going to elaborate because it was late and I was very vague in describing my motivation and intentions for artificial lighting. <br /><br />I shoot available light portraits with my Rolleiflex and film. I like using available light because it is natural and simple, but I might need something supplementary, just for fill and so I thought about a shoe-mounted flash on a flash bracket. My use for artificial lighting is not for key and hence I figured that the source of lighting would be less important. I don't like the idea of packing studio lights, but I don't want to waste my time and money with the more convenient shoe-mounted flash either if the lighting is poor. I'm going to play with reflectors first, but I am unsure if that will be enough and so I am reading up in my options.<br /><br /></p>

<p>I shoot available light but I've been thinking about using artificial lighting for fill. Now I like the idea of hotshoe flashes because of convenience.<br /><br />Is this a good idea or a waste? I know that soft light usually comes from large sources and hence an umbrella or softbox or something like that might be "better" but something on camera is just so much easier.<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>They aren't mint and I don't care about cosmetic condition, but I just don't find it is necessary to take such an expensive camera with me everywhere i want to shoot. Like if I'm in not the best neighborhoods, hostile environments, or in bars and such. I actually have a Nikon F system that I use for those purposes but I want to get rid of it because it is too large/bulky and not good in low-light.<br /><br />I see your point though and every other camera would fall short. I would perhaps get a lesser expensive lens and stick it on my M2 and perhaps look for a backup. I got my M2 for $400 in great mechanical condition but so-so cosmetics, so I know that "relatively" inexpensive vintage M's are out there. I see a couple of banged up M's for $400-$500 from time to time. It might be worth it to pay a little more.<br /><br /></p>

<p>I want a complimentary RF to use when I don't want to carry an expensive camera and to kind of "throw around". One that I wouldn't worry about losing, breaking, getting stolen, and things like that. My main camera is an M2/M3 with 35mm Summaron/50mm Summicron and so I'm happy using those when I'm out shooting, but I want a lesser expensive compliment. I use a Rollei 35 too which is a sweet camera but limiting. I want at the minimum f2.8 and f2.0 and the ability to focus in a compact package. Budget is ~ $500 or less.<br /><br />The Leica/Minolta CL + Rokkor/Summicron seem to be the most logical choices, but the Hexar AF is an excellent candidate and maybe even the Bessa R2. My preference is MF but I would go AF for the Hexar. I actually owned th Hexar AF but I sold it because I got my Summaron and felt no need for a large bodied AF camera...but now my thoughts are different. I would go wtih the Hexar AF again but I feel that the CL might be a slightly better user as it is all mechanical (I don't need a meter) and it has more useable shutter speeds. <br /><br />So between the three cameras/lenses I am going to assume that the lenses and cameras are both good-enough and useable-enough for my interest. My concern is honestly in the build and durability. I like solid cameras. <br /><br />I'm not that heavy of a user but the Hexar seemed pretty durable to me. I worry that the CL or R2 might feel "dinky" in comparison but I am not sure as I have never handled either. Neither of the CL or R2 are known for being on par with M cameras and that concerns me, a little..as silly as it may sound.<br /><br />It's really a tossup between the Hexar AF and the CL for me and the Bessa is just the wild card (and the Nokton, maybe) but I would perhaps prefer something larger-bodied. All these cameras have pros and cons but fundamentally I think that they would get the job done.<br /><br />How would you rate the build and durability between these cameras? Is the CL a comfortable user or does it feel too small and crammed?</p>

<p>Thanks for the many advice, suggestions, and personal messages. I now feel that I know what steps that need to be taken and the plethora of resources out there. I attended a club once but I left becaus the community was not for me...it was mostly landscape orientated (Berkeley Camera Club) and I can perhaps find one that is more fitting. I'm unsure about pro workshops but a community college course perhaps to hone and learn the technical aspects behind photography. <br /><br />It is just that i've mostly been shooting and sometimes even machine gunning through photoshoots. I've liked the results but that doesn't mean that I can't do better. I don't know what better is. I need a community, an actual person, to point out my weaknesses--those that I can't identify. May I ask, is the critique section here usually very slow? I submitted one but no response...I'm wondering if there are other forums that are more active in this regard? I do realize that this alone is not enough and so I am examining images more carefully (which I do often) and reading about the photographers that I admire to understand their work. <br /><br />I do have some specific technical questions but I will address that in a more appropriate forum.<br /><br />Thanks for all the advice so far!</p>

<p>I'm a hobbyist, but I love portraits. I'm not an artist by profession and I am outside the art scene. I feel that I can not go very far without guidance....maybe I should submit some photos in the critique section? Or just keep shooting?<br /><br />Haha sorry, I feel like I am having an art crisis. I feel lost because I only receive positive feedback from my family and friends but they are of course my family and friends.</p>

<p>Thanks, I will consider that. Part of me feels that photo websites and self-portraits don't mix and so I will consider instead using one of my favorite images or drawings.</p>

<p>Thanks Jeff,<br /><br />I updated it not too long ago and made sure that no model appears more than once. I might look deeper into my flickr to try to get more diversity and/or just change it the more I shoot.<br /><br /></p>

<p><a href="http://michaelsergiobarnes.com/">http://michaelsergiobarnes.com/</a><br /><br />I'm a hobbyist and so I'm not selling services or prints and hence that stuff is omitted.</p>

<p>Sorry for being unclear with the 2 account thing. Well I actually redesigned the entire thing and mde it one account.<br /><br />I also changed the horizontal scrolling to vertical.</p>

<p>I have two questions:<br /> Here is a website that I have created,<br /><br /><a href="http://cargocollective.com/michaelsergiobarnes">http://cargocollective.com/michaelsergiobarnes</a><br /> <br /> I am 90 percent content with this. I just got to clean up the images (post processing, and dust) , adjusting the sizing/spacing, and fine tune some other misc things like the me section and whatnot. It links it to my other account <a href="http://cargocollective.com/rolleiportraits">too</a>.<br /><br />1. Any thoughts/suggestions/advice? I like it to be minimal/clean/simple. I'm only interested in critiques on the website layout, not the image quality/artistic merit, and etc.<br /> <br /> Now, I have a dilemma. I need to upgrade <em>both</em> accounts because I want to use a custom url for the first (michaelsergiobarnes) and I want more space/projects for the second (rolleiportraits). I don't mind upgrading the second account at all but paying for the first account seems like almost a waste to me (since I only want to use the url). I wanted to know if there any other good websites to look into before pulling the trigger. I tried wordpress but it was just too bloggy for me and I feel that my first account integrates well with my second account: easy to navigate (for me atleast). <br /><br />2. Any suggestions/advice? I'm mostly considering the upgrade or just learning wordpress.</p>

<p>sorry? I'm not sure what else to comment on...</p>

<p>Leica Elmarits: I believe that they are all large aside from the non-asph versions, correct? <br>

Leica Hektor and Summaron: I had the impression that they are collector pieces too.<br /><br />I'm leaning on the Canon and Skopars at the moment, maybe if I find a good deal. The skopars seem not too easy to find but I haven't searched very hard. No clue on the canon's. I know winogrand used a canon though (f2.8 version, I think). Between the f2.8 and f3.5 versions, is the f3.5 usually considered to be the better lens? I'd realistically use this stopped down mostly. </p>

<p>I'm looking for a 28mm lens. I have this focal length for my SLR BUT it is too difficult for me to focus, it is not that good optically IMO, and it is too large. I want to sell it and my SLR system to b honest.<br>

<br /> I prefer lenses that are small, sharp, close-focusing (0.7m) and excellent for b&w (low contrast). I don't mind flare and I prefer chrome/silver lenses cosmetically (not a deal breaker though). I'm uncertain on my budget but I'd pay more $$$ if it is worthwhile...no more than $1k but preferably less. I may not be able to hit all this but I'd like to see my options.<br>

<br /> I'm not so sure about the reputation of the Leica but it seems that they don't make one that "matches" my lineup (35mm f2.8 Summaron, 50mm f2.0 DR Summicron, 90mm f2.8 Elmarit)<br>

<br /> Any thoughts on lenses that fit this criteria? As you can see I'm giving up speed since you can't have fast + small + affordable.</p>

<p>Thanks. It sounds that the GH2 solely for video advantages is not for me. Down to the PM1 and GX1 really.<br /><br />About the EVF: I don't know, maybe I'll warm up to them but seeing the world digitally, just seems wrong to me. I much prefer using my clear and bright optical viewfinders than even to 35mm SLR's. I don't mind external viewfinders with my rangefinders either. Maybe i'll end up giving an EVF a try, not sure.<br /><br />About the IBIS: I'm beginning to reconsider the usefulness of this because I read that it makes images unsharp when IBIS isn't needed. I think the analogy is flawed though, I'd imagine it would be comparable to the presence of cupholders but that isn't really important. This feature isn't that big of a deal to me.<br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>I'm not going to be using film lenses; I'd much rather stick with native M43 lenses. <br>

What I'm trying to understand is why is the GH2 so great for video? I'm trying to understand if the benefits of this thing is useful for me. <br>

<br>

I'm not that interested in an EVF because I have film cameras for stills. The reason why I want a digital camera is for very casual shooting and a camera that someone else can pick up and use. </p>

<p>maybe...but how does the video differ in these cameras? The GH2 is supposedly the best but why? How does the aperture and focus differ?</p>