steve_mareno1

I think what you're seeing Uhooru is how space is compressed using longer focal lengths, which causes the illusion that the object in the background is registering as different sizes at different focal lengths. None of what you're seeing through a camera lens actually looks like it appears to look. Remember, a one lens setup cannot give accurate depth of field or perspective. That's why almost all mammals have two eyes. Also, each lens by each manufacturer is a little different in terms of what it "sees". I found that out tonight as I was making some tests with two 135 lenses to see which one I wanted to keep. I was quite surprised to see what I saw in the viewfinder (and on an SLR, what I saw was what the lens was actually recording). Placing the camera at exactly the same distance from a stationary subject, one lens recorded the subject as being quite a bit further away than the other lens! Has anyone else seen this sort of thing? If it happens in 135mm lenses, it surely happens at other focal lengths, including 50's. All I can guess at is that some lens makers, for example, call a 47mm lens a 50, or the other way 'round as well.

I too tired of endlessly editing photos in Photoshop, scanning my negs, dealing with ^$*#~!! inkjet printers, all that. But digital photos look weird to me compared to film, and generally I don't like digital cameras. My simplification solution was to ditch the digital end of film shooting and print with an enlarger on real photographic paper. Wow, has that made life simpler, and gives me better photos too. If I had to go to digital photography I would give up photography and try something else. Previously, the error in my thinking was that I thought you needed a darkroom and a sink to print wet photos. But you don't. After spending lots of time making our extra bedroom light tight I finally figured this out. All you need is a "dark" room. So now I wait until it's dark and print wherever. The kitchen, the dining room, it don't matter. Duh. The finished prints sit in a tray of water and are walked over to the bathroom to be washed in the tub. Focus problems are easily solved.........just use auto focus cameras.

I guess a lot depends on your negs. For me, I like RC papers and appreciate their ease of use but have been unable to get the deep blacks and white whites of fiber, especially when using Adox MCC 110 fiber, the best paper I have ever used. A lot of people have not ever seen fiber prints. They're used to looking at RC photographs, especially glossy ones.

If the Soligor or Makinon don't work out, then it's back to the Nikon 85 2. More money than I wanted to pay, but after looking at some scans I remember what a good portrait lens it was. The first shot here is the Nikon at 2.8 or 4 (I forgot which), the second shot is a Leica R 90 2.8 Elmarit wide open, and the last shot is the Nikon 85 2 at 2.8. There really isn't much difference.

Thanks for the comparison shots Ben. The Soligor is certainly soft, but the bokeh is promising. The Nikon is sharp, but like many Nikon lenses I have owned, doesn't seem to HAVE any bokeh. The only Nikon lenses I have owned that had good bokeh were the 85 1.4. the 85 2, and the H 50 2 lens, which is too short for portraits but had beautiful IQ and smooth bokeh. My 85 1.8 gave annoying circular thingies in the background more often than not. Maybe some other Nikon lenses have good bokeh.....well, the 80 200 2.8 was fine but I am not inclined to carry another one of those. I tried the 105 2.5 too and didn't like the IQ or bokeh, although everyone else does. On a test I made between a Leica R 90 2.8 Elmarit and a Nikon 85 2, the Nikon was almost indistinguishable from the Leica, which surprised me. Small and light too, but people say there is a lot of sample variation on this lens, and it's a lot pricier than the Soligor and Makinon 135 2.8 lenses. You may have had a soft version on your Soligor. The samples I see online seem sharper, but who knows what people did with them in post.

Thanks everyone for the suggestions, and no, AF is not wanted. I finally decided that the idea of using less than desirable budget lenses and attempting to "fix" them with filters (it sounded dubious, impractical, and very time consuming doing lots of testing with a film camera). Ended up spending $70 tonight for two 135 2,8 lenses that might work. One was the venerable old Soligor 135 2,8, which should give soft shots wide open, and a somewhat unusual Makinon 136 2,8 lens. The Mackinon got rave reviews over at the Pentax forum site for sharpness and creamy bokeh. When they arrive I'll do a shootout to determine the winner and post some samples here afterwards. 135mm is a little long for some people, but it's a focal length that works well for me as long as I have enough distance to get a head shot.

That's my beef w/ the Nikkor 105 2.5 lenses. Too sharp, and not exactly buttery bokeh either, like most Nikon lenses. If I remember correctly, some of the old 135 Vivitar/Sears/Soligor lenses had nice portrait capabilities. That may be my best way to get a good portrait lens for little money, and they can be found in Nikon mount. The soft filters interest me, but I suppose they soften everything, even the center, which may not be optimal. You want a portrait lens to be in the 85 to 135 range to avoid distortion, to have smooth bokeh, and just enough sharpness wide open, but still be able to get the eyes sharp.

I shoot only film, and sold my Leica R 90 2 Summicron. Now I need a budget priced manual focus lens for my Nikon SLR. The 105 2.5 is not to my liking, although a Nikon 85 2 is not too pricey and has delivered good results in the past, but you have to be careful what is in the background or you get a lot of little circular highlights. A lens need not be AI, pre AI, any of that as I can easily make any Nikon F mount work on my camera in AE mode. There aren't a lot of other lenses that will fit the Nikon cameras besides the Nikon lenses (my n8008s does not like the G lenses) or Leica R lenses w/ an adapter, so I'm looking for either third party lenses that are between 85 and 135 and have a Nikon mount, or lens filters that may improve a budget lens into a decent portrait taker. While thinking about this, I wondered whether a soft lens filter could be used to get good portraits with. My experience with soft filters is zero, so if someone can tell me if this is a possible route it would help a lot. Thanks.

The zoo carousel

Side lighting is usually uneven and harsh. Great for a lot of subjects but not usually for portraits. Back lit can be good if you meter correctly, I find a slightly cloudy day to give good results for portraits. Available light is all I ever use, and never a flash of any kind, although there are times when a reflector can help if you absolutely must due to crappy light.I would rather look around for better lighting though. What I always want to avoid is taking too much time setting things up, which will show in your shots :[ Keep it spontaneous and fun.

For the type of shots I saw on your flickr page, you should ditch the entry level DSLR and buy a large format film camera (or at least a medium format camera), along with a sturdy tripod. You need big negatives for that sort of landscape work, especially if you want large prints. Which means you should learn to develop your own film (at least) unless you do a lot of colour work, and preferably learn how to make large darkroom prints as well. The investment in time and materials will be huge, but so will the quality level increase :] Go out and look at some good photography in your area, talk to some of the people, and decide what you like. That will be a good place to start.

You can't get a signed release from a dog, and you don't need to. Dogs are considered property. I don't agree with that and think it's stupid and absurd, but there it is. It's why you can't sue your vet if they botch an operation on your pet for more than the "replacement" value, or about $30 from the pound. If you took photos of someone's property on a shoot and they agreed to take photos as payment in kind, then you're good. Theoretically, anyone can sue anyone for anything, but this looks good to go unless you showed the pet in an inappropriate manner or otherwise made fun of them, but how can you make fun of property? I hate all these ridiculous legalities.

Keep in mind that bellows replacement can be a difficult job on some cameras. If you only have a few pinholes, I would try and patch them up with this product. It's a wonderful way to patch bellows, and it dries quickly and remains very flexible. https://www.amazon.com/PERMATEX-ULTRA-BLACK-GASKET-Manufacturer/dp/B008Y20MXG

I looked at a lot of those properties that are now covered with lava when I first moved to the Big Island back in 1992. The fact that the road that used to lead to them was covered with lava from the previous eruption and was still too hot to stand on for very long made an impression on me! Anyone buying into land that was lava zone 1 was taking a huge risk, but the prices were dirt cheap back then. It's unfortunate, but that's life on an island with two active volcanoes. Even before this happened, the air quality . had gotten so bad in Hilo that we left the island in 2002. You never knew when the vog was going to settle in and stay as long as the wind was low. The Pele thing is just mythology, but this current event was a known geological certainty. Everyone knew it could and probably would happen, but no one knew when.

Strangely, I have never experienced any reliability issues with any of the R cameras I've owned. That includes the R3, R4, R5, R6 and all the Leicaflex models. Don't blame you for not wanting to lug the Leicaflex around on a trip. It's closer to a medium format sized camera than 35mm, but what a wonderful view in the SL's viewfinder. Like a big, uncluttered picture window in your home. My favorite small package for shooting Leica R lenses is to use a tiny Nikon EM or FG in stop down metering mode (they both have AE, so this type of shooting is very quick) with a $20 Chinese lens mount adapter from eBay. For what it's worth, my best travel photos came from using a light, small and cheap Konica C 35 rangefinder camera (which also had AE) with a 38mm fixed lens. The Hexanon glass is sharp, and being able to simply focus and shoot made the whole picture taking experience a lot more fun. I have a 12x18 print on the wall from that camera that is tack sharp.

Try taping up the back and around the lens where it meets the lens mount with black electrical tape and see if the problem disappears.

In order to make my photography hobby more earth friendly, I've switched to using pure rain water for my developer, stop bath and fixer. Of course it doesn't work, but it has saved me a fortune in printing paper, frames, all that stuff.

I love the plastic reels, but as stated, you need to have them completely dry when you load the film. Over time they will build up an invisible layer of developer, photo flo, whatever, and you will need to take a tooth brush and some vinegar and clean them up. You'll know when it's time to clean them.....it usually happens when the film wants to stop going onto the reel about 3/4 through. Most plastic tanks have the fill levels for different formats on their bottom. If you aren't doing stand development, you want to load a 35mm reel onto the top of the 120 reel so that the chemicals don't slam over the film during inversions and cause streaks and worse.

Sometimes discretion is the greater part of valor. Or something. I like to repair things too, but the printed circuits on these cameras scare me away. So all I can offer is I hope you sort it out.......and buying another working AE-1 is not expensive :]

I think that it's because people get a little bored with digital and start playing with things out of that boredom. It's so easy to do crazy stuff in PS, while it doesn't work that way in a darkroom. Us film shooters don't do all that, we're like Jack Webb......just the facts, mam, just the facts.

They sent me an email yesterday stating that they had restored my photos after I and others refused to be extorted w/ their crazy sudden pricing change. They also apologized about holding the photos as ransom until we paid up. I don't trust them, and would never buy a subscription, even at their new low prices. I use imgur now and it works fine (and it's free), but learned my lesson from the photobucket disaster. I very seldom post anything online anymore, which has saved me a lot of time not having to fiddle w/ resizing stuff and loading up files. Wow, Fox "News" had a story that was actually true? That's like one of those blue moon things.

Compare those two shots to this one of the same subject (where they knew I was going to take the shot, and the lighting was indoor fluorescent lighting). Lighting is very important. You really can't beat good outdoor lighting. The two shots above were taken within minutes of each other, but the subject looks completely different due to the light. In the first photo we had soft light from the trees, and the Leica lens shows veiling flare that I find attractive. The second shot has her looking towards the sun. Very bad, and it shows really poor lighting, but I still sorta like it. Sorta.

These are the only techniques I use. 1- Never use a flash. I can't stand flash portraits and always use natural light. Which means you have to be patient and look for the best available light you can find, even if it means changing location. Northerly light is usually reliable, and even dappled shade from trees can be used to your advantage. 2- Always use a Leica lens. For years my benchmark was an R 90 2.8 Elmarit, but I have since upgraded to an Summicron R 90 2. A Canon FD 85 1.8 also does a very good job, and the "beer can" FD 135 2.5 is also excellent. But the Summicron is, well, a Summicron. Magic. 3- Never pose the subject or use a tripod. I like to keep things moving naturally, and posing a model stiffly in front of a camera mounted on a tripod gives stiff results. Talk to people, have them talk to you, and shoot quickly through a few rolls of film. You will see dramatically different results compared to an in studio, on tripod session. When you use a fast lens like a 90 2.0 you have to look closely to see what is in focus, or go w/ 2.8 or 3.5 on some of the shots.

Now I want a Kiev! Great shots. But upon thinking about it, I don't want to have to carry it.

I've never seen any difference in filter brands, whether they be coated, multi coated, or uncoated (I always use a hood). The one thing I do know about the Hoya filters you mentioned is that they can be a bear to clean.