angie_nelson

<p>Thank you, Lex, I'll try that now.</p><div></div>

<p>Lex, I'd have to create a new image for the modified one, which is more work than I'm willing to do at the moment, so I just up-sampled from 600 to 680 pixels (width), but I still don't see it showing up at the bottom of the thread. </p>

<p>Thanks for your advice! I assume the Tri-X can be pushed and that's why you're recommending it? I had some Ilford Delta 100 in there (expired 2007, to give you some idea!) so I'll check camera function by shooting the rest of it and see what develops, if anything. I can't remember if there was a clicking feeling at the end of the winding process or not. I get, wind, click, click, then (the manual advance crank) locks for the next shot. It's probably the mirror resetting, but I wonder if it's too loud and there's definitely a harshness to it. Should maybe have it looked at.<br> It's the Pro but not TL. Had some fun re-identifying it last night. </p>

<p>Hello, Mike! Thanks for the welcome! Sorry to be confusing, but I finally unearthed my equipment (carefully preserved, but untouched for years now) and my camera turns out to be a Mamiya 645. I guess the 45 was the only part that stuck in my mind and became 4x5, but it's actually 4.5x6 (120/220 film). </p> <p>From 1991 through 1996 I only ever used my Vivitar 35mm with no automatic anything. It forced me to think creatively, but I didn't do any self-processing until around 1999. Thank heavens for college darkrooms, because I'm not sure how I would set up a home darkroom, and certainly with less awesome equipment. Oddly, I never took even one photography class anywhere ever. I mostly figured it out from books and experimentation, and later, the internet.</p> <p>Do you have any advice for what kind of film I should use for Mamiya 645? I used to use Portra, but I don't see it as VC anymore. Should I stick to color -> Portra, and b&w -> Ilford? Or is there something you like better? Thanks!</p>

<p>Thank you, I didn't know a lot of that. I had resized things to 600 pixels thinking I didn't want to push any other size requirement (as in, how many kb) to a limit. I suppose I should re-load those to 1500 pixels and try a direct upload. </p> <p>Though... I'm not clear on how to upload directly.. If I click "insert image" in the "contribute a response" editor, it just gives me a space for a URL. Maybe direct upload is only on certain forums or only for subscribers? I'm not sure.</p> <p>When I inserted the url for the photo.net web page that has my picture, it gave a graphic with an X, indicating a broken link. I was trying to do "the obvious" but it didn't work as I thought it would. :)</p>

<p>I think the content is very good and like it. I looked at it today and noticed this though:"Pr-planning and snapping the image as it enters your DOF can also be a useful tool. Also there are times where the DOF dose not matter at all" There might be too many "also" words too close together. And, it seems like that should be "Pre-planning" and "does." (Aperture article) So I also think some editing (not for content, for spelling, punctuation) is called for. </p> <p>I like the tone of the articles, in one place you mention "Timelord technology" and it made me laugh. I'm self-taught and I learned by instinct exactly like you described in the Aperture article. Half of the time I didn't know what I was doing, only that it worked. It took me years to learn the iso-aperture-shutter speed connection, but now I play with it all the time. When I read articles, I often think, that's too basic, tell people what they need to know. You don't need to be doing math to know that you can get different effects with the same light if you mess with it enough. Reliable effects, even.</p> <p>When I read your articles, I didn't think it was too basic or dumbed down. Thank you for that. Also you didn't "just parrot" the same info over and over. Sometimes I think those online articles are written by people who never take pictures, they just rephrase what is available on another website. Thank you for that too! :) </p>

<p>I uploaded a couple of photos from the past year. The rest are in "deep freeze" either on backups, or film. I'm not sure why it doesn't show up in the thread, maybe there's a setting I need to set?</p> <p>For my family, I specialize in making people with rosacea look like they have perfect skin, and coming up with setups that make people look younger, thinner, etc. than they might look if I didn't take extra time, but without using software distortions to the shapes, rather, finding the right angles and light.</p> <p>Anyway, here's one of the uploads:<br /> <a href="/photo/17853843">http://www.photo.net/photo/17853843</a><br> How come adding the image as an image doesn't work?</p>

<p>Hi David, welcome! I'm also from NC, but R/D area. I'm a hobbyist and I had a laugh at the line "chasing children hoping for a great smile" in your bio on your site. 20 years ago, I was a photographer's assistant and remember scanning many dance floors for one of those "grandchild riding on grandpa's shoes" moments. Your photos are very nice, and show how you take time to capture the right moment and a good skin tone. Great work!</p>

<p>Welcome Andy! <br> To me f-stops are more of a depth of field thing, but I have observed that smaller f-stops cause less light to pass through, and therefore affects the shutter speed. My general rule of thumb is to lengthen the shutter speed only if focusing area is very limited. Though I do some bracketing with still life. In sport photos or anything that captures motion, I haven't played with anything but F-22, or very close. There are a lot of interdependencies between ISO, f-stop and shutter speed, some of the decisions come down to your preference because with a manual camera, you can find many settings that work well for a given picture, then the question is, which do you prefer? That preference can only come with time and instinct. </p> <p>For basic information about this you might try: <a href="http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cameras-photography/tips/how-to-know-what-f-stop-to-use1.htm">http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/cameras-photography/tips/how-to-know-what-f-stop-to-use1.htm</a></p> <p>When I was using a light meter every day, I would often take the results as a suggestion and opt for something else because I wanted a specific effect such as a more limited depth of field (smaller f-stop) or an overexposure (longer shutter speed) especially when adding a hazy glow on portraits, for example. </p>

<p>Welcome Omer, very nice photographs, thank you for sharing them!</p>

<p>Hello Dragos, welcome! Is your name Romanian? Mine isn't because of marriage, but I am. Your photos are beautiful, thank you so much for sharing.</p>

<p>So here I am, I tried to kill my photo addiction with a point and shoot, but after 6 years away from "real photography" and the pain of printing on multifunction printers, or those print stations in stores, I'm back. </p> <p>I recently bought a Canon Pixma Pro-100 Printer for photos and am working on finding the best settings for it. I'm considering buying a full Canon system (any full-frame Canon camera), except maybe the lenses, but it seems way more expensive than I can afford atm. My instincts tell me to go for optics and large CMOS but if I'm going wrong there, let me know.</p> <p>About 10 years ago, I bought a professional's film gear (A 4x5 and some lenses, also various accessories) when he moved on to digital. There are definite advantages in my mind to using film. I love the randomness and the physical interaction of it, it feels more like art. I could stick with that gear until I can afford something digital, but I don't think I'll ever stop using it. Even with film, my workflow often included scanning the print and making further prints with my printer. </p> <p>The trick I use for scanning/reprinting is to print the original as large as will fit on the scanner glass, then choose the largest file size I can get. Doing it this way, I can reprint from film without going back to the darkroom. I actually don't like to scan negatives unless I'm archiving. Another trick is to resist the temptation to use "enhancements" though I might use Levels and Unsharp Mask carefully.</p> <p>Many years ago (over 20), I was a photographer's assistant (weddings, portraits) and I became aware that this hobby could easily turn into a business. I made some inroads with that about 10 years ago, but I sometimes had no answer when people demanded higher megapixels than I had, in order to let me photograph their product or museum items or whatever. I'm certainly not going to abandon my camera every few years because "customers demand it" that's silly. Their reasons for demanding something have to be better than "more megapixels" for me to take action.</p> <p>I'll probably lurk most of the time, since I need to remember all the details that time forgot, so to speak. I haven't even decided to buy a new camera, I'll probably get back into film for a while until I can find something affordable in a full-frame. I'm not sure if I will stay with Canon or if Nikon will work just as well with my Pixma. I'm superstitious that using the same printer as camera will work better somehow, but I haven't made a study of it yet. Also, I'm not even sure what the options are for 4x5 film anymore. Maybe I'll find some answers to help me make these decisions here. </p> <p>Thanks for reading all that! :)</p> <p> </p>