Posts: wj cody | Ugly Hedgehog

Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum

Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰

Posts for: wj cody

Page: <<prev 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 208 next>>

Nov 14, 2017 13:38:20 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

Hasselblad(sp?)

jackinkc wrote:

I use a 503CW. I prefer my old Rollei f/2.8D, with Schneider lens.

interesting, in re: the 2.8 with the schneider lens. i've used both the planar and schneider and have found both to be equally excellent. i stuck with the schneider because most other users had the planars and i liked being "different"!!! so much for contrariness!

Go to

Nov 14, 2017 13:29:27 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

What's with soft focus for Women?

Architect1776 wrote:

Wrong comment for this forum. Here real photos are derided and bashed mercilessly with rude and disgusting comments. They can't handle real people photos as they really are. Only the "perfect" people are accepted here.

well, darn! there i go again!!!

Go to

Nov 10, 2017 10:01:09 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

Going Incognito ... do you suppose there'd be much market for a name-brand-less camera?

graybeard wrote:

Nothing like waving the hammer and sickle. One thing hasn't changed.... all the people that died there are still dead.

yup, including the 2+ million vietnamese. the sad fact of the matter, was we put ourselves in the middle of a civil war. the british, in our civil war, were smart enough not to do that, even though they preferred the condfederacy.

Go to

Nov 10, 2017 09:47:41 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

What's with soft focus for Women?

Jaackil wrote:

I have been reviewing other photographers "Senior Portraits" to prepare for and get ideas for shooting my sons Senior Portrait. Every single portrait of a woman is very soft in the face. Personally I don't think it looks very good. But why? I understand teens have blemishes but with the level of pp software today they are easy to take care of without softening the whole face. Do portrait photographers think this is flattering? Asking seriously about this not commenting facetiously.

the historical significance for this stems from portrait photography, when the artists commissioned by the the nobility for their portrait understood the need to portray their subjects in the most flattering way. the pathetic upshot of this was the centerfolds of playboy magazines. usually shot with a 5x4 or 8x10 view camera and then "sprayed" to eliminate any wrinkle or flaw in the skin. we used to, as a laugh, try and find a skin pore in the subject photographed.

i am a firm believer in photographing my subjects as they are. all human beings are different, as reflected in their faces, based on their life experiences. i have no time for "glamour" or "soft core porn". this is fantasy photography and degrades the human subject.

Go to

Nov 10, 2017 09:36:49 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

Hasselblad(sp?)

joenardella wrote:

Anybody out there use Hasselblad cameras?

i use hasselblad cameras and their appropriate lenses, among other film cameras.
no one builds a better camera than the hasselblad 500 series.

Go to

Nov 5, 2017 13:18:20 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

New cheap 4x5 format film camera.

rmalarz wrote:

I've seen 'real' 4x5 cameras going for about that on line. I've never been inspired to 'invest' in a kickstarter project. There is no guarantee that they will be successful, or be around long enough to provide service if needed.
--Bob

yup, a nice graphic 5x4 can be had with lens on ebay for around that price.

Go to

Nov 5, 2017 13:13:06 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

Going Incognito ... do you suppose there'd be much market for a name-brand-less camera?

Chris T wrote:

A recent post made reference to the fact some people not only change straps to something anonymous right after they get a new camera, but, even go so far as to black out the brand name on the prism (or other locale) - to avoid having it ripped off. Does this make sense to you? ... Would you do it, if this was a concern to you?

i use black electrician's tape when needing to draw as little attention to my camera as possible.

Go to

Nov 5, 2017 13:11:55 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

Photography Books You Would Recommend

lrn2bgd wrote:

I am interested in books that have meant something... (show quote)

David Vestal - The Craft of Photography. worth looking for.

Go to

Nov 5, 2017 13:10:40 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

Why would you want a ISO = 64?

GalaxyCat wrote:

I may be wrong, but the Nikon D850 can operate at an ISO = 64. When would you want to go lower than 100?
If it is less sensitive to light, then you can have a slower shutter speed, but I have trouble holding the camera without moving.

for the same reason i want film with iso/asa of 25

Go to

Oct 18, 2017 09:59:26 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

How can cameras be improved in the future?

JPL wrote:

Cameras are getting better in most ways. Focusing is fast and accurate, resolution is high, low light capabilities are good, etc.
How can cameras be improved in the future? Can we find some new functions for cameras or is future development only about lowering the price?

What do you think or wish for?

it's not the cameras which need improving.

Go to

Oct 10, 2017 08:00:45 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

What is it? Leica/Leitz

Dziadzi wrote:

Thanks, Cody! Here are my ebay postings for those 2 items:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/182805697114?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1558.l2649

http://www.ebay.com/itm/172904029765?ssPageName=STRK:MESELX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1558.l2649

lovely! and you are making money to boot! good for you!

i'm looking your nikon lenses up to see the lense hood which partners them. as for the others, i really do not know.
will get back with you asap.
cody

Go to

Oct 10, 2017 07:57:38 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

What happened to photography?

an interesting aside, from the usual, why don't we see your photographs garbage is the latest info in the digital imaging trade magazine. it seems wedding photographers are switching back to film, as the results are superior to digital when printed. ho hum. nothing like the "new" technology.

Go to

Oct 4, 2017 12:06:35 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

What happened to photography?

tdekany wrote:

I can find zero photos from you on this site, but more importantly, you may want to check out some of TheDman’s pictures. You may have been pressing the shutter for 59 years, but I have a feeling that you could learn a thing or two from him.

i learned enough from Mr. Adams, in his dark room, to last a thousand years. also, digital is unable to produce the pure black which film provides. in the attempt to get there this is why god made the leica monochrom. and it is close, but still no cigar.

Go to

Oct 4, 2017 11:31:50 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

In-Body Stabilization vs. In-Lens Stabilization - which is better?

rehess wrote:

I got better images from Pentax ME SE SLR I purchased in 1979 than I did from Canon QL-19 rangefinder I purchased in 1973, and the ones I mentioned above http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-487544-8.html#8217967 were done with an SLR as I mentioned then.

i was thinking of the leica m cameras and the mamiya 6 and 7 rangefinder cameras. those produced negatives and transparencies superior to hasselblad. once again, distance from rear element of lens to film plane will do it every time!

Go to

Oct 4, 2017 11:29:45 #

(Main Photography Discussion)

What happened to photography?

Darkroom317 wrote:

With digital technology even more can be done in t... (show quote)

this explains why so very few digital users ever make prints.

Go to

Page: <<prev 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ... 208 next>>

Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections

UglyHedgehog.com - Forum