Bobspez wrote:
In 2003, Kodak produced a very nice, full frame, professional 14MP DSLR that came with a Nikon F-mount. It was called the Kodak DCS Pro 14/n. I bought one used for about $400 on ebay last year. It works fine. It doesn't have video and iso above 400 is noisy, and it doesn't have an lcd live view, but it has a split screen eyepiece viewfinder (like a film camera) and with time exposures it can go down to iso 25. It shoots raw images which PS can read. In sunlight, at iso 60 it takes superior pictures that resemble kodachrome shots. So Kodak was ahead of the curve. The problem may have been that people weren't lining up to pay several thousand dollars for what was a novelty back then, when you could get just as good pics with a Kodak or Nikon film camera and a roll of Kodachrome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodak_DCS_Pro_14n
In 2003, Kodak produced a very nice, full frame, p... (
show quote)
And in 2003 I really wanted one of those 14 MP beasts! Had to settle for a D 100.
Darkroom317 wrote:
Kodak did make lenses. Look on ebay for Kodak Ektar lens. The quality cameras that were branded Kodak were not made by Kodak however but were made in Germany
I stand corrected. I had forgotten about their Ektar lenses for view cameras, enlargers and projectors. And I have no doubt that management made many bonehead moves, that is what all managements do most of the time. None-the-less, there is a great deal of oversimplification here regarding the difficulties in turning giant chemical & film maker Kodak in a totally new direction to manufacture cameras with internally focusing lenses to meet the requirements of the marketplace. And, no matter how successful they could have been with digital cameras, that market would not have replaced heir lost chemical business.
MacroChick wrote:
I had a client asked me which of my photos for their shoot were "high enough quality" for "large" prints.
I explained they all were very high quality and resolution. And explained that they should be fine for any size ordered through my printer, because of buffering and so on.
She responded "I was actually referring to purchasing the images and using our own printer. I have Groupon deals and wouldn't know if the quality is good enough until I attempted to upload them to order. Is there is a way you can test the images, we want to order prints ourselves. I want to know you will refund my Groupon if the images do not look the way I want when I get the prints."
I had a client asked me which of my photos for t... (
show quote)
I take it that you provide the digital files as part of your service. That's fine, but I would note in the contract that they are suitable for posting on-line, only. But in any event, you still own the copyright, unless you specifically surrender it in your contract! When your client asked you to guarantee the files for printing by someone else, you should have explained that it would be illegal for them to print these images.
In the not-too-long-ago days of film, we would occasionally be asked for the negatives, but they were seldom made available. Occasionally someone would offer to shoot and turn over the film, but they were not serious photographers. Today, the client has different expectations, but it is up to you the photographer to educate them. Anger won't help.
CHOLLY wrote:
Kodak not only sold film and chemicals, but cameras too. :(
Yes, Kodak made cameras. Little cheap cameras with simple plastic lenses. Kodak was not an optical company, and the heart of every camera company, Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Hasselblad, et al, has always been their optics! And it required great optics to support the price necessary to put one of their expensive sensors in a camera. The last Nikon/Kodak and Canon/Kodak DSLR had a 14 megapixel sensor that demanded a significant price, which could only be justified with some good glass. Who has entered the digital camera market in a big way? Sony, an electronics company, but only by partnering with one of the great lens makers!
No, Kodak could never have made the transition by changing its chemical equipment over to manufacturing intricate mechanical/electronic cameras with quality lenses. It never had that capability.
tomcat wrote:
The problem with Kodak and the railroad industry is that they lost sight of their Mission Statement. In Kodak's case, their mission was to "capture photographic memories" and not to manufacture film and chemicals. How you do this is where they failed. The factories should have been converted into digital camera manufacturing, lens production, circuit boards production, etc. Kodak had the people, the buildings, the infrastructure---what they didn't have was the vision from their mission statement.
The problem with Kodak and the railroad industry i... (
show quote)
Kodak was too successful! They dominated the photographic film industry, but when I sold some engineered construction to them in the mid 80's, the photo industry was only a small part of their business; they were making the bulk of their money from industrial film and chemicals. And Kodak did not ignore digital, developing digital imaging they sold on both the Nikon and Canon platforms for a number of years, but then Kodak and Nikon both struck out on their own, leaving Kodak no platform on which to market their sensors.
But it was the changes to their core businesses of industrial film and chemistry that changed too quickly and radically for them to make the adjustment. I'm sure executive greed and the corporate profit-every-quarter mentality contributed greatly to their problems, but they did not have time to adjust those core businesses to the new reality. A decade after I had that opportunity to learn about Kodak's Rochester operation, I owned a photographic studio and lab which depended greatly on Kodak's customer service and expertise. They were great to work with! Unfortunately, I too was too invested in chemistry and film, and could not make the adjustments necessary!
Kodak's move to digital might have been successful if they had their own platform to market their sensors, or if the rest of their business hadn't weighed that segment down.
planepics wrote:
Per the instructor's advise, based on what she had read about that particular brand of film, I set the camera to ISO 25.
One of the things we learned shooting negative film (color or B&W) was that it reacted really well to a one stop over exposure! It would do very well with over exposure of even two or three stops, if the printer didn't get upset at the extra time required for each print (a definite consideration when having it printed at a commercial shop that depended on doing volume work). Conversely, negative film does not take to under exposure at all. Moderate over exposure adds information to the latent image while any under exposure starves it of information. Reversal (slide) film, on the other hand, does better with moderate under exposure but cannot tolerate over exposure. (Same reason, but opposite effect due to processing.)
There are several interesting photo facts due to the tolerance of over exposure by negative film: camera manufacturers began biasing their meters to over expose, providing uniformly excellent prints from negative film exposed according to the in camera meters (which I learned the hard way, was very detrimental to shooting slides without compensation); and wedding photographers routinely overpowered their subjects with strobes, depending on their labs to get the most out of their over exposed negatives - it worked!
So, yes, rating the ISO 50 (or ASA, if old enough) film at ISO 25 is exactly the type of compensation we would make to make photos at the films sweet spot. Enjoy.
Many years ago, I realized I didn't "see" in Black & White. I love the work of B&W artists; I read the tomes of Ansel Adams, et al, but it didn't take. When viewing a potential image I could never envision it in black & white - I can't see in Black & White!
Your b&w rendering of the engine is excellent. Again it shows the value of digital. Take the picture normal, and decide when viewing on the monitor whether to make it a monochrome. A. Adams never had that option, but we do! Viva digital.
And nice job luvmypets!
marcomarks wrote:
It's just verification that over-thinking photography and insisting on total control, instead of concentrating more on composition, doesn't always mean a better end result. Your sister-in-law has revealed this. Setting aside ego and letting the camera show you how it's done isn't so hard especially when the result makes you happy and you're visually satisfied completely.
My line of work requires me to use aperture priority and a specific aperture so I'm cranking the ISO around regularly but I know my eyes vary in accuracy from day to day and I trust my auto-focus more than I trust my eyes. It's a precise robot and I'm not. Auto focus doesn't let me down. I also trust the auto-exposure with matrix metering of 1200 points examined in the frame because I know my eyes see exposure differently every day. I look back at edited photos I've done and see differences from week to week and day to day. Auto exposure doesn't let me down either. It's a precise robot and I'm not.
I have the ability to take total control in manual mode, and had to in the days of film cameras because there was no auto anything. I just know that technology is around to help and not hinder so I take advantage of the benefits and spend my efforts mostly on composition. I don't type with a manual typewriter anymore then remove mistakes with a bottle of White Out, so why should I use all manual on my cameras? I don't.
Some people use "shooting full manual" as a guise to seem more knowledgeable, artistic, and competent but then are angry when someone with several decades less experience uses a 5-shot auto-bracketed set of frames created in semi-auto aperture mode, and puts them through Photomatix software to create an eye-popping realistic result that blows away anything they've ever shot in their lives. They want the shooter thrown out of photo competitions to make technologically-advanced methodology go away but it's not going to.
One either keeps up with technological advances while growing and improving, or voluntarily languishes in stagnation with a stove-top coffee pot, a dial phone, a B&W tube TV, a 1974 AMC Ambassador with crank windows, and a manual film camera - or operating a digital camera in manual mode while complaining that they had to pay for technology they don't use.
There... I've stoked the fire, now let's see where the first flames pop out of.
It's just verification that over-thinking photogra... (
show quote)
Many years ago, I was moving from a rangefinder to my first SLR. As it happened someone I saw regularly on weekends was doing exactly the same thing. He bought an all automatic (set the shutter speed and it picked aperture) while I bought an aperture preferred auto WITH the capability to shoot fully manual. As we compared our choices, I stated that the ability to shoot manual was an important consideration in my purchase. "Hmmph!!" He responded. "Do you think you know more than the camera?"
The correct answer was of course, "Yes!" But, that said, like you, I shoot aperture preferred auto 90% of the time. I shoot a lot of people, I'm a retired sports/event/wedding photographer where shooting aperture preferred auto IS the way to go. Often going from sun to shade, and shooting pretty quickly, the "matrix metering" on my Nikons is very dependable and accurate in nearly all conditions, allowing me to concentrate on composition, et al.
The ability to determine all the settings of your instrument, and more importantly, why, is required to become a competent photographer. But to stubbornly insist that you must make all those adjustments manually, means that you are missing some of the other nuances of your art.
redhogbill wrote:
click on "quote reply" so we know whom it is your talking to
I was quite specific referring vgarner's original original question; that was, after all the start of this thread.
Morning Star wrote:
I don't know which response you are referring to as there are several by dsmeltz. However, just over each of the quotes there is a user name and if you scroll back up from that post, you'll find the post from that user.
I felt it was obvious as the dsmeltz quote I referred to was the first one following the opening question.
I really do not feel that it is necessary each and every time, to repeat the opening question in a thread, when replying. That is what the entire thread is supposed to be responding to.
Getting back to gvarner's original question regarding whether some UHH bloggers shouldn't spend more time hitting the books and less time asking dumb questions, I have two questions of my own: 1) do you know who asked the dumb questions dsmeltz put in his response; and 2) why are you upset that there are those who would like you to share your knowledge? Finally, I would remind everyone that "there are no dumb questions"!
the f/stops here wrote:
RAN, great question with a few simple answers. Not much of a problem. The largest image I had prints was 8.5 feet X 15.5 feet and every bit of detail was there. I use Canon, but Nikon can do an equally great job. First and foremost is a true "Macro" lens. I use 50mm & a 100mm macro lenses. Your flash units (2) should contain modeling lights and have polarizing filters on them. I like Alien Bees. Your camera lens needs to have a polarizing filter as well. The filter for the lens should be the best available. I recommend B&W. Camera with 18 megapixels is fine. Good tripod is a necessity as well as a shutter release. Be sure to use "mirror lock-up" for the sharpest results. A few more trick are to be learned but my fingers are getting tired. Best, J. Goffe
RAN, great question with a few simple answers. Not... (
show quote)
If you use polarizing material in front of each light, and a polarizing filter (NOT a Circular Polarizing filter, a linear polarizer) on the lens, and orient the light filters all ninety degrees to the lens filter (Cross Polarization), you will be able to eliminate most of your problems with reflections off the paint surface. The polarizing material is available from several sources, and you will need a filter holder to place the material in front of each light. (B&H has a Universal Filter Holder for about $40.00, sheets of polarizing material from Adoorama for less than $20!) Yeah, this adds complication and a little cost, but for a repetitive project, the results are well worth the effort!
Good luck.
Interesting thread. I have PSP X5, which came with a fairly good book. I'm not terribly proficient as PP isn't much fun for me. But I was happy to read all your comments and discover that I'm not the only photographer not enamored with Photoshop!
I've had three experiences with Best Buy: 1) I bought "What's-Her-Name" a waterproof Olympus Point & Shoot for a trip - pretty Sales Lady & pleasant experience, but I knew what I wanted; 2) I bought a computer advertised on sale but they pulled a bait and switch charging for unwanted unadvertised included software - I objected, and eventually I got the deal I came in for; and 3) my daughter bought an appliance on sale, and when it got to her house, it was used, inoperable, and not what she bought. No, I will not be back to Best Buy!
But, as a guy who spent many pleasant hours browsing in camera stores (and, YES, I bought from the stores I browsed in) I now find myself with only one camera store within reasonable driving distance, and when I tried to buy from them they had insufficient stock, overcharged me and switched me to inferior products. I am afraid that I will be an exclusive B & H customer henceforth!
I value a lens not for its age, but for its picture taking ability! Yes, the carefully crafted lenses from a bygone age are things of beauty to treasure. But I will go into the field with a modern lens that creates great pictures with my shooting methodology.
Ron S hit the mark when he discussed the importance of lighting! Any up to date camera will give you great results if the set up is good. Questions about where you will be taking your photos abound. Indoors or out; how much room; quilts folded, hanging or laid out on the floor? Getting even lighting of all the same quality (color temperature) is paramount. Figure the where out and then you can work on the rest.
Camera? Pick one you like. If you are shooting in cramped quarters, you will need to look at wide angle lenses. Good luck with your business.