Posts for: Shutterbug57
Jan 17, 2019 07:07:41 #
I have the 55-200 paired with my X-T2 & 18-55 as a travel kit. My experience with the lens, and the kit as a whole, has been outstanding. The lens provides sharp, well balanced images that are easily blown up to 13x19 (my printer’s max). The lens provides basically the same IQ at its available settings as my fixed aperture 2.8 zooms on my D500 (Tamron 24-70/2.8 G2 & Nikkor 80-200/2.8), but, as the variable aperture notes, it is not as fast at all settings and slowest at its longest setting.
IMHO, Fuji has done a great job of providing very high IQ while truncating the aperture options. Many marques do not offer high IQ on their limited aperture lenses. I suspect you will be quite pleased with your new lens.
IMHO, Fuji has done a great job of providing very high IQ while truncating the aperture options. Many marques do not offer high IQ on their limited aperture lenses. I suspect you will be quite pleased with your new lens.
Jan 17, 2019 06:43:27 #
R.G. wrote:
In the quote that you're referring to, one of the key words is "reliably". I would be sceptical of anybody claiming a high level of reliability in all situations when it came to estimating exposures visually. I'd be inclined to think that either they were exaggerating or their definition of an acceptable exposure was very... shall we say, accommodating.
I dunno, Adams managed to get Moonrise Over Hernandez right sans meter. I would be loathe to challenge him had he made such an assertion.
Jan 17, 2019 02:11:44 #
Following up on the satirical “Adding Auto ISO Is Still Manual” thread, can someone point me to the reciprocity failure charts for Nikon, Canon, Sony & Fuji digital cameras?
Jan 16, 2019 14:07:21 #
R.G. wrote:
So what? Put another way - "It isn't manual ... (show quote)
Dude - shoot however you want, if it works for you great. THBS, redefining commonly-accepted terms does not facilitate discussion. If you are not setting aperture, shutter speed and ISO, with no mechanism for the camera to change any of the three, you aren’t in manual mode. You may be in a mode that works for you and lets you best Adams, Bresson, Stieglitz, et. al., but it is not manual if the camera can change any of the exposure triangle components independently of the photographer.
Jan 16, 2019 10:13:33 #
So, is driving down the road in a self-driving car fully manual? You can override the car's decisions. Just asking.
Jan 15, 2019 17:02:19 #
BigDaddy wrote:
Before digital, 100% of pictures taken were printed, it was the only method to view them.
You must be a young one. Most of us older folk would remember sitting through interminable slide shows from our neighbors vacations. There was another way to show pictures that did not include printing.
Jan 13, 2019 10:48:43 #
ggab wrote:
"In general, the sales tax is a transaction t... (show quote)
All that says is if you don’t pay the tax at the time of the sale, you are still on the hook. The Ohio state return has a section to deal with this.
Jan 13, 2019 09:45:32 #
MarciaES wrote:
I got this lens about a year ago for a trip to Alaska. I checked it out at Midwest Photo first in Columbus and they had it for $649 + tax. I then got it on Amazon for $649 + no tax and free shipping. Absolutely love the lens (in fact it's on my camera now).
Folks like you are the first to complain when their LCS goes out of business. You realize that you are legally liable for paying the sales tax on your tax return? Also, the Ohio department of taxation monitors sites like this to catch tax dodgers.
Jan 12, 2019 23:37:21 #
This video explains the exposure triangle and the secondary aspect of each leg very well. It’s free and worth half an hour.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LUtlZ3sahz8
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LUtlZ3sahz8
Jan 12, 2019 20:18:09 #
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
Personally, I would not recommend using film that ... (show quote)
You may be right, but for 100 free sheets of film, I figure it is worth shooting a few to see what I get. I agree that I would not do this for a paying gig or something important, but if the film proves to be OK, then I have not problem shooting it for personal projects. My next step is to take it out an shoot it and fresh HP5+ at the same time & settings (adjusted for the ISO difference) to see how it compares.
Jan 12, 2019 08:23:08 #
Bipod wrote:
Sorry I'm late to the party. I'm wondering if y... (show quote)
Thanks for the info. I presoaked the film, but I usually do that anyway, so normal workflow.
Here is the sheet that was in the box. The box notes a 1988 expiration date. The sheet states ISO 320 on pg. 1 and the time table is on pg. 2.
After spending some time on the light table and reversing the shots with my iPad, 7.5 minutes worked the best at metered exposure. I will note that the washing time recommended on the sheet is longer than that on the Mass Dev chart. I used my normal 10 min and noted that corner where the drips fall off was a bit sticky. For production shots, not just test shots, I will extend the wash to 20 min.
Jan 12, 2019 05:25:06 #
Latsok wrote:
Photojournalism vs art. A photograph does not have to be an exact rendition of real-life replication unless used in a photojournalistic context. In any other situation, photography is an art and should represent the artists' (photographers) interpretation of what they want to showcase.
But, somebody will probably find an argument with this as well. C'est la vie!
But, somebody will probably find an argument with this as well. C'est la vie!
I think this fairly sums up the case. The pictorialism versus realism “discussion” has been going on for +/- a century, maybe longer. We aren’t going to solve it here, but it is entertaining. A lot of it comes down to how you view a picture - is it an image or a photograph?
At the local club, we have a guy that produces stunning images. All parts of these images started out in a camera, but, in most cases, they are composites that have had much work done on the parts to integrate the image. These most often REPRESENT everyday life scenes, but, as presented, never happened - they do not depict reality. Most folks at the club like his work and rate it highly and, when asked, he willingly discusses what he did to create the image. In fact, the first question folks ask is - was that the real sky in the original shot? Most often it was not. He works hard on his images from capture through PP.
Then there are folks who have the skills in PS to do as the chap above does, but their vision is to present real life events (things that actually happened) as pleasingly as possible, but who don’t drop in components from other shots. In between these two are the focus stackers, HDR users, compositors, etc, that capture multiple shots of the same subject with the express intent of presenting what their eye saw, but the camera could not record in a single shot. Which of the above groups are right - all of them, unless they are representing their shot as something it is not (not the case in my examples).
Styles are suited to uses. If you are in a setting where realism is expected, PJ for instance, making changes to your image, beyond cropping and light levels, may be frowned upon or even a terminable offense. In a more open setting, pretty much anything goes, although, as in one noted pic, putting the moon in front of the clouds may cause even the artistic crowd to murmur - although they will still shell out big bucks for the image, so cudos to the artist.
Jan 11, 2019 21:52:41 #
duane klipping wrote:
SOOC to me is a snapshot with no real vision. SOOC would only be a raw file untouched by processing flat and dull.
You obviously never shot Fuji 50 Velvia.
Jan 11, 2019 21:44:57 #
Ok, so I took a look at the shots. We have 2 sets of 3 shots at:
F/11 & 1/500
F/11 & 1/250
Each set has 1 each processed at 5.5, 6.5 & 7.5 minutes. I am going to have to put them on a light table because, when just holding them up to the light, they all look fine and there is not much difference between them. I may need to do contact prints at the same exposure to see how much difference there is. Bottom line is that they look like good negatives.
F/11 & 1/500
F/11 & 1/250
Each set has 1 each processed at 5.5, 6.5 & 7.5 minutes. I am going to have to put them on a light table because, when just holding them up to the light, they all look fine and there is not much difference between them. I may need to do contact prints at the same exposure to see how much difference there is. Bottom line is that they look like good negatives.
Jan 11, 2019 16:05:13 #
newsguygeorge wrote:
Those are a very long way from South Texas. A totally separate trip. Google maps is your friend to assess some of those distances.
I can't add to the suggestions in the San Antonio-Rockport areas for birding. Folks covered those bases pretty well. I also recommend Corpus/South Padre. Since you're birding, you may want to consider a long lens and some friends run Corpus Christi Camera and they rent lenses.
https://cctxcamera.com/
I can't add to the suggestions in the San Antonio-Rockport areas for birding. Folks covered those bases pretty well. I also recommend Corpus/South Padre. Since you're birding, you may want to consider a long lens and some friends run Corpus Christi Camera and they rent lenses.
https://cctxcamera.com/
OP says he has 3 days to go where he wants. Big Bend is an easy side trip with that time. If he is a astronomy buff, McDonald Observatory is well worth the side trip as well. As far as being in south Texas, Big Bend is about as far south as San Antonio. I have done this trip and would gladly do it again. It was well worth it, however, my tolerance for driving/riding may be higher than yours. I did this on a 14 day trip and day 1 was Cincinnati to Ft. Worth and the last day was Denver to Cincinnati. Shooting over to Big Bend for a 3 day excursion is not a big deal.