iosif_astrukov

<p>What is causing this reciprocity exposure problem/compensation?<br> Is it that the light catalyse chemical reaction on the emulsion and the reaction actually stops at certain time? <br> And how they fix this problem in the other films?</p>

<p>I trust my eyes on evaluating :)<br> It's pretty obvious this time - I am not talking about some minor variations<br> And scanning… it's another issue <br> The best results I have up to the moment is from Nikon Coolscan, but I never had the chance to try drum </p>

<p>Thank you <br> Here is the digital shot - made with Nikon D90 + AF Nikkor-Micro 60mm + POL filter <br> <img src="http://thumbs.dreamstime.com/x/acorns-two-natural-close-up-43577393.jpg" alt="" /><br> I used exactly the same gear, but with film body<br> the background is quite dark on Velvia 50, you could hardly see the wood, and also the acorns<br> on the Kodak VS film, I used before, the image is close to the digital one, of course better for me - but as you said - it is a matter of what you like or don't in colours and etc.<br> I always make bracketing so I can see the exposure difference<br> as the sheets say that the range is a little wider for the Velvia, than the problem seems to be in the processing… or the film - I don't see any other explanation, although they processed 2 rolls of Velvia at the same time, and the other one is very good (thanks God it was the important one)</p>

<p>I just took some Velvia 50 from processing and comparing a similar shot that I took some weeks ago with my last Kodak Ektachrome VS I see a major difference in the dynamic range<br> of course in the colours too <br> Is it possible that Kodak had a better DR or could it be from the processing also<br> Honestly back in the years I have had many Velvia 50 which seemed a little underexposed but I always thought it is because of the processing<br> I also remember some opinions I have read that the exact ISO is 40 not 50 for the Velvia 50</p> <p> </p>

<p>Thank you <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=4303235">Andrew</a> :)<br> I am aware of everything you said - I have tried old Nikkors on f55 before :) I was hoping that it could have CPU as it is still in production :) <br> It could be used in fully manual mode which is also fun<br> I just came across a review and I loved the image that this Nikkor creates :)<br> Best wishes</p>

<p>Thank you :)<br> it's very interesting that there is a company (or people) who put CPU into old Nikkors… I didn't know that<br> I was wondering if I would have metering with an old and small body like F55 - but obviously I won't <br> Still this lens is very tempting… </p>

<p>I mean the one that is still in production…</p>

<p>AF Nikkor 24mm 2.8/D is very, very good lens - one of my favourites - if it's wide enough for you I am sure you won't regret (appr. 35mm on DX)</p>

<p>Nikon Df /as many of the recent Nikon bodies/ have quiet mode:</p> <p><img src="http://imgsv.imaging.nikon.com/lineup/dslr/df/img/features04/img_03.jpg" alt="" /></p> <p>for the settings - the menus are similar, as far as I know there is no option to transfer settings, the only thing you can put in your camera are some color profiles - simulating films - they worked on D90, but I don't know for the new bodies:</p> <p><a href="https://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon_d300_users/discuss/72157615997229801/">https://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon_d300_users/discuss/72157615997229801/ </a></p>

<p>this is right if you shoot small quantity - </p> <blockquote> <p>Film is cheap. The 20+ historic / classic bodies and lenses I have plus a few years worth of film and processing (at the rate I shoot) are less expensive than ONE top digital camera.</p> </blockquote> <p> <br> but as <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=17200">David Henderson</a> mention above - for industrial kind of work it's much more expensive and hardworking - true<br> <br> but at the end - it's what you want to achieve...</p>

<p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=2346076">Chris Nielsen</a> - they buy the chemistry for E-6 and films /mainly Agfa recently because it's the cheapest slide film/ from the German site macodirect.de <br> so there is shipping added +profit and they wait for I think 4 films to develop at once<br> take in mind that our salaries here are… about 4-500 euros average for a month<br> do they use machine lab somewhere still? before they developed it on a Kodak machine lab here - now they use small bath tube with several dozes… Jobo I think... recently two films were spoiled - the temperature device were out of order… but when they fixed it the quality is amazing</p>

<p>I still do...<br /> In my country/city there are 2 or 3 places to develop E-6 once a week and the cost is about 12lv which is about 6 euro for 35mm roll<br /> When I started /around 2004/ they developed it on a machine and the cost was half this price<br /> Adding the price of the film the cost is… about 15 euros which is… expensive<br /> But still it's worthy… the image, the colours, the feeling...<br /> After Ektachrome VS is gone /I have only two more/ I think I will use mainly Velvia 50 and sometimes Velvia 100</p> <p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=7608463">Bryce Lee</a> - we are all like the last mohikans… </p> <p><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=8263392">Mark Crown</a> - my personal advice is DON'T sell the MF lenses you have! you could buy one day a FX body and use all of them - like the new Nikon Df - and get great digital results on a full frame… take in mind that Nikon is getting more and more digital FX bodies </p>

<p>Right, 10x :)</p> <p>I found some writings on the subject and a nice video - <p>I wanted to know the principles - how things work</p> <p>For the specific setup I described - there are several options… the high ISO is not always the best one… I thought of an option to change the set - so that I could use less flash power - kind of 1/8… but still you need to set the sync speed to 1/200 as you are saying…<br> but as the studio flashes have more power in a single short fire impulse - this is the easiest and best way to do it - in general<br> thanks to all</p>

<p>Thank you <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=17942">Ellis Vener</a> <br> So… basically the power of the flashes is formed by the duration that it fires - longer duration = more power<br> if I understood correctly… both for the portable flashes and the studio ones</p> <p>Actually… I didn't know that when the shutter speed exceeds the top one - 1/200 - the flash is firing several times - right? </p>

<p>Hi<br> I am looking for some resources about the intervals of the impulse of the different lighting flashes and how is the connection with the voltage and the intensity?</p> <p>For example - the intensity is formed with a long interval of impulse or the interval stays the same - but the lightning bulb flashes differently?</p> <p>My question is provoked by this situation: <br> When I was shooting a falling fruit in water, when I was shooting with single flash, it freezes perfectly even in 1/400 <br> But when I used second flash /for the background/ the fruit was blurred and I had to sync at more than 1/2000 and still wash't ok every time<br> In this case I used portable flashes - Nikon SB 900 & 700, and I don't know if it is a matter of how they sync - through the Nikon CLS, maybe they don't sync exactly on the same moment and I get kind of double exposure, or the problem is that the two flashes combine and I get longer interval of light… one of the flashes was on maximum power 1/1 <br> So if somebody know a resource about how these things are connected I will be thankful :) I also don't know if there are major differences from the portable flashes and studio flashes - do they work on the same principles of controlling the power of the impulse?</p>

<p>How do you think?<br> As Velvia 50 was brought back once...</p>