brian_e

original post: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001xpa<p>

 

 

reprinted:<p>

 

Wee, slippery, curly, difficult beastie,<br>

O, what a panic's in my breastie<br>

As I fumble in the dark<br>

Juggling wi' an invisible reel<br>

Will my leader hit the mark?<br>

Or will I fail in my feel?<p>

 

I'm truly sorry my thick fingers<br>

Leave upon you prints and ringers<br>

And as the reel drops in the tank<br>

I shudder in worried compulsion <br>

Images locked away, as in a bank<br>

What happens next to my emulsion?<p>

 

I doubt myself, as I meter my beaker<br>

Could any person by any meeker?<br>

I fret and flail with formulation<br>

English, US, milli-liter<br>

Developer first? Such trepidation!<br>

In I pour - an accurate meter?<p>

 

Thy wee clockface, I set it thrice!<br>

With nervous fingers, cold as ice<br>

Mantra muttering, every minute, ten<br>

I agitate, with technique unproven<br>

A tap on the sink, is that right? i ken<br>

I set down the tank, it sits, unmovin'<p>

 

My minds eye sees gelatin wastin'<br>

D-76, the images it hastens<br>

As Kronos indicates an imminent stop<br>

Panic-stricken, I watch the clock<br>

To the sink, I trip and hop<br>

I pour the chemical out of my crock<p>

 

That wee bit o' chemistry, ounces only<br>

Poured out, but now my negative's lonely<br>

It's time to cease, desist developing<br>

The beaker once more beckoning<br>

I fill it carefully, my brow crinkling<br>

Until it's reached the correct reckoning<p>

 

But negative, thou hast no voice<br>

It's up to me to make the choice<br>

What chemicals? When? and How?<br>

To shake, to pour, to empty out<br>

Again, sweat stains my brow<br>

My ignorance, technique doth flout<p>

 

And now, the steps, they accelerate<br>

And in my head, doubts still prate<br>

For Burns said the "schemes o' mice an' men"<br>

"Gang aft a-gley"<br>

"An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain"<br>

"For promised joy"<p>

 

But now it's time for final rinse<br>

But my image still, to be viewed hence<br>

Unbidden, I anticipate, with glee<br>

The image I attempt to rear<br>

"An' forward, tho' I canna see,"<br>

"I guess an' fear!"<p>

[rant]

 

I'll never understand why people are so caustic sometimes. Good lord, the guy is asking to learn, what's wrong with that? Agreed, technique is important, but he didn't ask you to tell him to fix his technique, he asked for Photoshop tips.

 

Everyone doesn't have natural knack for thinking up new things to do with Photoshop as a tool. What is the harm in sharing? It's not like someone that can't think up creative ways to use Photoshop is going to threaten your business model - it's just someone that wants to have fun and learn.

 

[/rant]

Justin -

 

I suggest you go out and buy the 50/1.8 lens. It's cheap (~$80 iirc) and you should immediately be able to see a difference between the sharpness vs the 75-300.

 

Then spend a month doing nothing but taking photos with the 50mm. It's good practice and by using a prime, you can concentrate on simple composition without having to think about focal length.

 

Stick with those two lenses until you decide how you feel about photography as a hobby. If you feel yourself being limited by focal length, then you can make the decision to invest more money in lenses.

 

Next on your list after the 50/1.8 would probably be the 28-105 or maybe 28-135IS.

 

That should keep you set for kit - at least for the first year.

gah. reading from the top down. there's already a thread here:

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00652E&unified_p=1

There's an article on wsj.com about it. Essentially Kodak says they are focusing on digital, including a line of printers.

 

Specifics mentioned included exiting the slide carousel business and reducing the types of film sold under the kodak brand.

I love mine. The real selling points for me (vs the 2.8) ending up being the weight (I believe it was about half the weight) and the price (i believe it was about half the price). Fits nicely in a bag. It's large, but the 2.8 is huge. Optical quality is amazing. Can't speak to the AF issue.

I have used a standard sized B+W polarizer on this lens without any vignetting (see an example <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1078169">here</a>). <p>

 

I have also used a standard cokin P holder (see <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1188490">here</a>). <p>

 

Yup, that night I hacksawed the P holder down to one slot.

Interesting - I've had the exact same experience, and when it first happened to me, I ended the day frustrated and disappointed in myself. I think the downside of preconceiving is that it locks you in to a certain thing you're "looking" for.

 

But if you can balance this with staying open to new possibilities, as you have, I tend to believe that this is a very valuable skill, even if you get skunked. While it won't help you much with landscape photography, think of the other applications - studio, portrait, etc.

 

In fact, I have a page on my desk filled with sketchs of some macro stuff I want to try (just as soon as I get some damned time!) - and all of those images came from my head. In fact, I find when I'm doing studio-type work, that it is better for me to think ahead of time. I think this also helps in continue to develop one's skill at the craft, the mechanics of lighting, exposure, DOF, etc.

 

I also think letting go in the moment and "feeling" your way through is very important. Some of my best landscape shots have come from exploring new angles, trying different things, just trying to soak in the "spirit" of the place I'm trying to express and avoiding conscious, deterministic thought. I've developed (and am developing) a kind of a - well, not a trance, but a blank state of mind - a state of mind that turns off the analytical side and as I walk around, I just put myself in scanning mode and wait for something to catch my attention.

 

At the end of the day, this is not my living, so for me, photography is more about what it gives my soul. To that end, I find that it's more about the process than the result (and I'm sure the pros would agree after looking at my photos - heh), and while it's frustrating to get skunked or not get that shot that's in your mind, now it just inspires me to go out again and look for it somewhere else.

My ECF is fine as well. No antireflective coating, but I've used it with my clip-on sunglasses over my prescription glasses w/no probs.

Get the 70-200/f4. Now.

 

What you get for the price is amazing. I had the EF100-300 and was never happy. Thought about getting the 70-200/2.8 IS but couldn't justify the price or weight. If you get the 70-200, you will never sell it. The only better buy that I've found is the 50/1.8 II.

luminouslandscape.com has a bunch of stuff on this. But the publisher is a very pro-digital person. However, he does have plenty of examples to help you make a decision.

Peter - I'd say it depends upon your quality standards. You could probably get ok prints that way - so if it's enlarging family snapshots, you'd probably be ok (given you shop around for a decent flatbad).

 

Realize that digital workflow can be very challenging. If you don't have your system calibrated (scanner, monitor, printer) predictable results can be tough. The digital darkroom is, IMO, not for those unwilling to spend some time learning the howtos and whyfors. Email me if you want me to expand.

Well I'm not lucky enough to have a 10D, but I'll take a guess - higher jpeg compression setting (quality) on Portrait mode?

Yes.

 

Do I get my Little Debbies now?

Not familiar with the model, but I would expect that varying the voltage would vary the output voltage of the light sensor, thereby throwing your in-camera meter reading off. I'm thinking that you could calibrate yourself - ie, if the meter says EV6, then you know it's EV5, but I'm not sure if the response is linear.

 

If you don't get an answer here, why don't you get the 1.5v, a handheld light meter, a roll of Tri-X and conduct your own tests?

With one normal size filter I do not get vignetting on my 28-135, and with two stacked, I do get slight vignetting at 28mm. I wouldn't pay the extra for slim filters unless you plan on stacking filters often, and I can't imagine the need for that unless you're talking grad + polarizer or multiple grads.

whoops on the pdf! didn't realize it cut off some things. how about this (should have done it in the first place):

 

<p>

[<em>Sorry, but legal reasons required removal of this article. The WSJ specifically state that items from their subscription website may NOT be reproduced without written permission and I am given to understand they are quite serious about following up on anyone who does so. You can summarize but you can't just reproduce the whole article - Bob Atkins</em>]

St Paddy's Day 2003 in Chicago<div></div>

check out the book "coming into focus" by Barnier. All the poop's in there.

I don't get wide open vignetting either - but with a cokin stock filter holder, I do get dark edges (as can be seen <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1188490">here)</a>. I'd agree with the comment about checking your filter depth etc. I do NOT get dark corners with a B+W polarizer (standard, not slim), so one filter will not do it.<p>

 

As regards the 20 vs 24, I checked out both in-store before going with the 20mm. Why? 1) 20mm felt better build-quality-wise; 2) I seem to recall the 24mm is micrometer, not USM; 3) that extra 4mm makes a difference if you're going for the extreme wide-angle distortion effect.<p>

 

As an illustration of the perspective effect, <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1078169">this photo </a> was taken with the 20mm from one angle, while <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1082093">this photo</a> was taken with the 20mm from a slightly different angle.

 

<p>ps. i did trim down the cokin p holder to the last notch and was able to eliminate the vignetting.

<i>(with NG I notice quite often that sharpness seems to be secondary to image impact)</i><p>How true!

the manager

chicago

The folks above are correct. From the Kodak TechPan tech data available at kodak.com:

 

"You can vary the contrast of Kodak Technical Pan film by modifying development. The wide range of contrast levels..."

 

Page 2 shows that by varying development chems and methods, you can obtain a contrast index from .5 to 2.5 (!).

 

I can verify this from personal experience. I've shot techpan in high contrast lighting, developed in technidol. Buttery smooth grain and a smooth contrast neg.

 

You can learn a lot by Reading TFM.

Banners and the rest, no issue. But please BRING BACK THE UNDERLINES!

 

It does make it functionally easier to navigate. I'm one that is for constant unrelenting improvement (it's one of the things I do at work), but this is a case where change for change's sake is a very bad thing.

 

Perhaps this redesign proposal could have been circulated for comment before executing?

 

Please Brian et al, BRING BACK THE UNDERLINES!