curtis_bouvier

<p>please email me at curtisbouvier@gmail.com. thank you</p>

<p>very interesting! i'm about to try Delta 400 for the first time, I'm gonna try ISO 200, 400, 1600 over the next three rolls and see how things look!</p>

<p>16 as in like super 16mm, same as the motion picture film stock?</p>

<p>I found a basic 70-200 with some teleconverters (1.4 and 2.0) work really nice. as long as you have a little bit of resolution to crop into.</p>

<p>I find slides work nicely if you are going to be taking a lot of photos. Its convenient to sort them and see which ones you want to scan / work with. With negatives you kinda have to scan them all to see what you got. And with white balance, its an extra step. Slides just show you like it is. But you can lose your highlights easily with slides, so you have to be careful.<br /><br />To be honest i'd take a few rolls of each.</p>

<p>the website lagged out, admin plz delete these extras below this</p>

<p>I've found 5 min 30 sec does a decent job at 22c. but i dont usually rate higher.</p>

<p>Does anyone ever find that shooting Delta 3200 at a lower ISO cleans up the grain at all? My results tend to be about the same grain in any case, whether 800, 1600, 3200. I kind of figured this the grain would clean up a bit because if you shoot 400 speed film at 1600, the grain becomes a little more noticeable. So far all my tests have been done in XTOL stock.</p>

<p>what do you guys think?</p>

<p>>>>What is the most embarassing photography related thing you've done?<<<</p>

<p>tripped in front of a lot of people lol</p>

<p>Identical monitors usually help with this, do you have the same model and brand?</p>

<p>yea if you have a pen system going, very handy. I use all the time</p>

<p>I'd like to see your results with Tentenal Mike, post them when you have a chance?</p>

<p>Winnipeg regent location has one I believe</p>

<p>Exposing for the shadows should definitely work, negatives have a lot of latitude. </p>

<p>Film for the aesthetic of "Photo". I believe images can be anything visual. But a photo is more specific, although can be an image. What it is rather than what it represents! =]</p>

<p>Looks very nice Pat!</p>

<p>wow ram is so cheap these days lol, I remember paying for 256GB in 1999... anyone remember those prices? =D</p>

<p>Definitely very situational and what you are trying to learn. If it's just the basics of photography I would encourage trial and error, this is a great way to learn.</p>

<p>any possibility in having management monitor her?</p>

<p>Portra 800 can be pushed to 1600 no problem and even 3200 from what I've seen. I can't see why the Fuji wouldn't be able to. I'd love to see some test results! </p>

<p>I would definitely shoot a few test rolls and try some different labs. This should verify if it is at least not the cameras fault.</p>

<p>very interesting =)</p>

<p>I have some albums you can look at that explore many different things aside from skin. I shoot practically every type of film available.<br>

Portra 160 & 400 = http://www.flickr.com/photos/curtisarthur/sets/72157626199229883/<br>

Portra 800 = http://www.flickr.com/photos/curtisarthur/sets/72157632463167423/<br>

Kodak Gold = http://www.flickr.com/photos/curtisarthur/sets/72157628093895218/<br>

I find the kodak gold performs exceptionally well for how much it's worth.</p>

<p>new batteries fixed it. it also said error when booting up, so the other batteries literally just died instantly for no reason, they were cheap toshiba CR123's. and the strange thing is the camera was reading FULL battery when they died.<br /><br />oh well, now i got Ultimate Lithium energizers, 8 of them in the MB-40 grip. should last a bit longer and die out with more notice lol</p>

<p>excellent, I will do that ASAP. i'll keep you guys updated. (we have an MB-40 on the way with ultimate lithium AA batteries) hopefully that makes things a little more reliable.</p>