Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Home | Photography Digest | Active Topics | Newest Pictures | Search | Login | Register | Help
Posts for: wj cody
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 208 next>>
Feb 7, 2018 12:34:18   #
gvarner wrote:
Our photo club did something like this for our monthly review of photos that would go up to the regional contest for judging. We all used to judge to pick our five submissions. Now only three out of ten "trained" club judges get to do the review and make the pick. We can do our own review while they do theirs but our input doesn't count. I dropped out because their process became too exclusive, too focused on competition.


i find myself in total agreement with you. the titles of "mentor" or "expert" are arbitrary. one only has to look at the Avedon/Penn controversies during their lives and post mortem in re: their work. this will be a fairly useless thread, as i doubt any of the above will be able to assist someone who uses 5x7 glass plates and prints in platinum. or am i supposed to start a thread for only those who use this process, and exclude everyone else?
 
Feb 4, 2018 11:22:44   #
geodowns wrote:
Let's open another can of worms to rant on. Way back for 50+ years the only camera I had was a Nikon Ftn, all manual everything. You had to know your stuff, you had to be quick, focus, click... with no previews of your shot to look at. You had a box of filters for every occasions, than you were at the mercy of the lab to do a good job or do it yourself, print it yourself, fix it yourself. Now even a $5000 camera can point and shot. Times have change. I feel like an old fighter pilot with all the glory story's in the past. Young wepersnapers don't have a clue what its like to really be good with the old stuff. Really missing that old Ftn, but someone really wanted it, so I sold it all. Now armed with digital for 15 years, the old cockpits where all analog, mechanical. Now the new cockpits are glass, computers etc. Camera have gone the same route. They take.... I mean capture (sorry) scenes better then the eye can see. Point...&... Shoot. That was easy. Do some creative photoshop and voila, better than the real thing. OK I'll let someone pick this thing apart now. And I still like B17s better than Tanks.
Let's open another can of worms to rant on. Way ba... (show quote)


i would like to get this "stuck in the past" bs out of the way with regard to film use. this is the same as saying anyone who uses a digital image capturing device has no idea of the basics of available light and available dark.

so, both digital and film are currently used by commercial and fine art photographers - women and men - who have studied and applied themselves to the structures and theories of image making. this is why they are so good. and that's about 3% of the people on this forum. the rest are snapshooters who what everything "easier".
Feb 4, 2018 11:17:06   #
Rich1939 wrote:
I no longer use film but "back in the day" I always wanted as fine a grain as I could get. If there was no apparent grain in the final print, I was a happy man.
For what it's worth, when I owned a camera store, Acufine developer was a steady mover, as was Panatomic X film


could not agree with you more.
Feb 4, 2018 11:15:12   #
Tom Daniels wrote:
I will wrap this up with every camera I saw when i started in my twenties came with a 50mm lens.
Most never bought another lens. That was the camera setup. And it wasn't called kit lens.


nor were the 50mm lenses built like kit lenses. the 50mm lenses were what Canon and Nikon based their systems on, and were the best the could make.
Feb 4, 2018 11:11:45   #
ejones0310 wrote:
When I started out with my first SLR, I shot Panatomic X for most photos, and Kodachrome ASA 25 for color. I figured those two would last forever.

What a difference 50 years makes.


panatomic x was my favorite go film. however i never liked kodachrome, but preferred ektachrome. probably the only person in the United States that did!
Feb 4, 2018 11:06:43   #
James Slick wrote:
Or Pentax.


sigh, i have used any one of a number of differing digital bodies, when circumstances have so demanded. including the k1 pentaxes, nikon df and sony bodies, the latter i do not particularly care for.

now as far as arrogance is concerned. my varied camera bodies (film) and lenses have been used and over the decades and have given me the results required and sometimes well above that. therefore, i see no reason to own the latest, best or whatever you choose to call it, as far as systems in digital or film are concerned.

it is not a matter of arrogance. it is a matter of what unfailingly works, time after time. i have spent 60 years working on my craft, not on equipment acquisition. there are no shortcuts.
 
Feb 4, 2018 10:57:48   #
clint f. wrote:
Film..... What a concept. You can buy a nice enough film camera for less than a tank of gas at KEH or wherever. Experiment, go out on a limb. Three books that will help; The Camera, The Negative and The Print. Written by Ansel Adams. Perhaps you’ve heard of him.


those and David Vestal's "The Craft of Photography" are my bibles. i probably have Ansel's memorised.
Feb 4, 2018 10:55:44   #
GoofyNewfie wrote:
Only stating what I have read.
One was a quote by a Hassleblad rep.
Several sources say the H1 body and shutters are made by Hasselblad and the lenses and viewfinders by Fuji.
Both are great companies with a great reputation, though Hasselblad has a special marque, like Leica.
Have you played with a Fujiroid?
Just curious if you can detect a quality difference.
Haven't used a 'blad myself since about '2000, when we surplused ours.

Fujiblad
Fujiroid...
What else are they going to make?
Only stating what I have read. br One was a quote ... (show quote)


oddly enough, i did get to play with 2 of the fuji/hasselblad iterations. the fuji tx-1 is the hasselblad x-pan. the fuji variant used a titanium body cladding which held up much better than did the hasselblad.

the fuji variant of the h1 body was the gx645, again, body cladding is titanium and altogether the exact same camera as the HD1 and succeeding variants. got to play with one of those and had a great time with it.

and of course the fuji interchangeable lens rangefinders. nobody's copy, and a great camera series.
Feb 4, 2018 10:43:24   #
Chris T wrote:
Really, Therwol ? .... I'd not heard that, before ... about the FA being prone to failure ....

Oh, I think you're right, there, Therwol ... both the F and the F2 ... were probably the very best mechanical SLRs ever made ... had 'em both ...



certainly the best by Nikon. but...ah, here we go. let us not forget the the Canon F1 series of bodies in their 3 iterations. they never sold like the Nikons, but that was because most U.S. Canon users were happy with their AE1 programs. also Canon was not thought of a a professional, or conflict system. and that's to bad. as a Nikon user i can still attest to the Canon f1's capabilities. have one on my desk and what's not to love. used it in the xxy# balkans.
Feb 4, 2018 10:33:49   #
Chris T wrote:
Yes, I know, WJ - a changing bag is a must-have ... 5x7 in the winter, huh?

A tradition?


yes, sort of. now living in illinois, the topography of the middle part of the state is not very interesting. so i tend to go farther south around cape girardeau for my winter photos, unless a commission interferes. i love using the 5x7 tropical camera in the winter. it's really a joy to use. a great advantage, for me, is i can use glass plates with it. really neat.
Feb 4, 2018 10:29:17   #
Rongnongno wrote:
I received this PM.

I found the answer funny and after consulting with the poster I am echoing it here, with my initial response (for full disclosure)



You will not be pilloried. Post it. Those that are unhappy? Screw them.

Post it or I will Quoting as (UHH-XYZ) - I was told I could use the correct pseudo.


thanks much for your assistance with this.
cody
 
Feb 4, 2018 10:28:03   #
Chris T wrote:
Lots of talk, lately, about film coming back ... and so many have also indicated they miss Kodachrome. But, Ektachrome is still around ... so who here still soups it?


hell, yes - as easy as souping black and white negatives. however, one caveat - colour printing at home can be a frustrating exercise. all pros and associates i know send their transparencies out to be printed.
Feb 4, 2018 10:26:27   #
PGHphoto wrote:
When I did darkroom work, I often processed and printed from transparencies or slides. Because of the expense of large scale, high quality, digital prints at the commercial labs (when larger than poster) I am thinking of trying to use a high definition digital projector instead of an enlarger to do the exposure and do the darkroom processing of the large print. The size of the enlarger needed is also a consideration since I am able to get a wider spread at shorter distance with a projector. Using the projector would allow post processing to be used and a final product delivered with much higher effectiveness rather than burning/dodging and spot color corrections during paper exposure. Since in PP software, it is also often possible to flip the color to negative, should probably also be able to print on regular paper for printing negatives.

Not sure of a couple of things though - color balance of the projector using various high intensity bulbs and color calibration for the photopapers. I think I could set up a color profile in lightroom and refine it with trial and error but still don't remember enough about the paper requiring a specific K value.

Has anyone tried to use a projector to replace an enlarger in the darkroom ?
When I did darkroom work, I often processed and pr... (show quote)


no - i use a zone VI enlarger for my 5x7 negatives and a beseler 23cII for all other formats.
Feb 4, 2018 10:22:31   #
Bullfrog Bill wrote:
We are headed for Botswana and S. Africa in Oct.-Nov. for 3 weeks. I have a D 850 and a Nikon 70-200 f2.8 with a Nikon 2X telconverter. I am considering renting a nikon 80-400 4.5-5.6. The weight is about the same and filter size are both 77mm. The reviews seem to agree that in the 300-400mm range the 80-400 is soft. The 2x converter brings the f2.8 to 5.6 which is where I would be with the 70-400. Which would you prefer?


i would not use anything beyond 150-200mm in africa. not needed.
Feb 4, 2018 10:21:41   #
Peter Franck wrote:
Is there a Nikon Macro lens that is the BEST?


the 200 f4 seems to be the choice of most macro photographers. and that is due to its focal length. all other things being equal, any one of them will do an excellent job.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 208 next>>
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2018 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.