Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: Darkroom317
Page: <<prev 1 ... 143 144 145 146 147 148 next>>
Feb 21, 2013 08:31:05   #
Do not let your aspect ratio control your composition. You should crop in accordance with your final composition. Don't worry about the aspect ratio of that final print, it can be whatever it needs to be. Cropping to reach a certain aspect ratio is just silly. I crop for my composition both in the darkroom and in Photoshop
Go to
Feb 21, 2013 08:25:03   #
The Impossible Project makes bw instant film as well. They bought up one of the Polaroid factories and have been reverse engineering the film.

http://the-impossible-project.com/
Go to
Feb 20, 2013 23:23:47   #
Lean against a wall perhaps
Go to
Feb 20, 2013 23:22:22   #
charles brown wrote:
For all of us old folks who were around many years ago you might remember that canon came out with a mirrorless camera in the late 80s I think. Didn't do well and didn't last long but I think this time around mirrorless cameras will be a success. They will surely eat into the DSLR market but will give point and shot folks an alternative. And must admit the retro look of the OM-d sure pulls at the heart strings.


What? Mirroless cameras were once the standard, as in every rangefinder used by many of the greatest photographers.
Go to
Feb 20, 2013 11:21:37   #
If it is b&w then develop it yourself
Go to
Feb 19, 2013 22:10:27   #
billybaseball wrote:
js15063 wrote:
I had a photo printed today and it had snow in it. The snow had a purplish cast to it. Is that because of the built in light meter in the camera? I shot it in raw and just opened it and saved it as a jpg. Did nothing else to it. I watched a video that was posted in this thread and it was stated that show sometimes fools the in camera light meter. Was just wondering why the purplish tint.


I think that is more of a white balance issue. The camera assumes the white snow is 18% grey and that throws stuff off. Just an amateur, so not sure if I'm correct on that but that is what I believe. Exposure is light and dark, a purple tint is from something else. IMHO
quote=js15063 I had a photo printed today and it ... (show quote)


Actually that refers to an exposure problem. Thus creating the need for the zone system
Go to
Feb 19, 2013 19:03:24   #
Then wet print
Go to
Feb 19, 2013 13:54:53   #
Seriously just use your Leica, it will give you far better results than the small digital cameras. Film is not that difficult to find.

http://www.freestylephoto.biz/c402-Black-and-White-Film-35mm

See how easy that is
Go to
Feb 19, 2013 08:52:02   #
You can give the Leica to me if you really don't want it. :)
Go to
Feb 19, 2013 08:49:43   #
Annie_Girl wrote:
rpavich wrote:
Annie_Girl wrote:
in camera meters have come a long way and to dismiss them as "winging it" does come off as talking down to people. I only use my light meter when I am in my studio to figure out lighting ratios because the in camera meter can't help with that. But if you know your camera and how to read your in camera meter you really are not "winging it" when it comes to meeting for your exposure. I know i am not fiddling with settings, I set my iso, then my desired aperture and then adjust my meter for my shutter for proper exposure. takes me actually less time than it would to use my light meter and set my camera.
in camera meters have come a long way and to dismi... (show quote)



Again...it's not a put down...don't take it that way. I know people who have set their exposures for 40 years and are VERY fast...so it's not a put down.

But frankly...here on the hog...just count the number of threads about how bad exposures come out and nobody can figure out how to fix them...and then look at what's posted as good and you'll see what I'm getting at.

Sure...there are those who've got TONS of experience and never make a bad exposure...my hat's off to them...
quote=Annie_Girl in camera meters have come a lon... (show quote)


well this site is it's own beast. It bills itself as a place to learn but I think it has turned into more of a place to show off some badly composed and equally bad exposed images and get kiddos for "amazing work".

I do wish there was an advantaged forum or a forum for those that wanted true and honest feedback, I would share more of my work if there was. as it is I know I would learn very little from "wall worthy", "great job" and "wow"
quote=rpavich quote=Annie_Girl in camera meters ... (show quote)



This is the current state of most "photography." I am an art student who is getting a BFA in photography. Nothing is worse in critique than silence. When I post in photography groups I belong to, they generally ignore my post. However, someone can post a badly composed, badly exposed, banal photograph that lacks pretty much everything for a good photograph and gets all sorts of praise. The reason being as another person stated, I do not belong to their clique.
Go to
Feb 18, 2013 09:04:09   #
My main camera does not have a meter, so yes. I have an Sekonic incident meter I use for street work and a Pentax spot meter I use for slower more intensive work.
Go to
Feb 17, 2013 21:47:01   #
Believe me, it doesn't look as good as the real thing. We do them in our alternative process class at university
Go to
Feb 15, 2013 15:51:37   #
LGilbert wrote:
miamithom wrote:
One still has to lay out a bunch of money to equal film resolution


That's not true. Again, 35mm sized, finest grain film is about 2500 grains/inch or about 9-10M pixels for the 35mm (current full frame) format. Most cheap point and shoots have more resolution than that. Every modern DSLR, regardless of price, has significantly more resolution.

Once digital cameras surpassed film in resolution, the transition from film to digital usage was almost over night. Digital continues to increase in absolute resolution and pixels/dollar every year. What was professional level five years ago and priced out of reach of average photogs, has been surpassed today by easily affordable mass consumer cameras with even better performance.

If you want to use film, use it for its inherent qualities (smooth, wide dynamic range and that 'film' look). Forget about the resolution argument as it is a moot point. Many film users scan the negatives/slides with high resolution scanners such that they can avail themselves of repeatable photo processing capabilities not available in a darkroom setting thus getting the best of both worlds.
quote=miamithom One still has to lay out a bunch ... (show quote)


I've heard 18-20 mp for 35mm slide but it certainly is not a mute point for medium format or large format.
Go to
Feb 13, 2013 21:48:18   #
Darkroom317 wrote:
jimmya wrote:
pj81156 wrote:
A few days ago I asked for observations on a problem. I found my digital slr too daunting and was thinking about returning to film.

Well, you uhh members overwhelmed me. A very, very high percentage of you really gave me great advise and perspectives, delivered in pleasant and helpful terms. Sometimes you were very funny. And, there are more film fans than I expected. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Just a few of you did a lot of writing to prove how clever you are. Only one person was downright rude.

I also learned that a lot of you are older, like me.

I have made an imaging capturing decision, largely because of your input. I won't bother you with that decision. That's not important. What is important is how uhhs rally to be helpful. Again, thank you. And, now, I have to go order some film!
A few days ago I asked for observations on a probl... (show quote)


To me there's lots to consider about either.

Film cameras, I used them only because that's all we had then, were very bare bones. You figure out the f/stop, shutter speed, focus and fire. Digital slr cameras can be used just the same way if you've a mind to.

The major problem with film, of course, is the cost. Using my Canon I go out and find say a bird shot. I'll rattle off 50-frames and keep one. In film that would cost who knows how much today. Digital, delete 49 and go on with zero cost - full frame or not... to me it makes little difference except in the cost of buying the gear whether is full or crop sensor as long as I'm happy with my results.

I'm assuming that "bare bones" means none of the cheesy modes we find on some digital cameras today. I for one never use them, they're basically a marketing ploy to make people think that if they use those modes they're somehow going to come up with amazing photos. We, as photographers pro and advance amateur, know that's not true and try to tell young folks that. But, as with anything else, they have to live it to learn it.

I guess it's a matter of preference. Film is good. Digital is good. It all depends on whether you have the skill to operate both camera and lens.
Same with film cameras - having that skill is essential to good results.

Good luck, have fun and regardless of the media - enjoy!
quote=pj81156 A few days ago I asked for observat... (show quote)


Yes, film costs more if you are talking about 35mm. However, if you talking about medium format, film is cheaper, especially b&w if you process the film yourself. I for one do not feel like paying $20,000-$60,000 for the same quality that I can get from a $500 camera.
quote=jimmya quote=pj81156 A few days ago I aske... (show quote)
Go to
Feb 13, 2013 21:47:55   #
jimmya wrote:
pj81156 wrote:
A few days ago I asked for observations on a problem. I found my digital slr too daunting and was thinking about returning to film.

Well, you uhh members overwhelmed me. A very, very high percentage of you really gave me great advise and perspectives, delivered in pleasant and helpful terms. Sometimes you were very funny. And, there are more film fans than I expected. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Just a few of you did a lot of writing to prove how clever you are. Only one person was downright rude.

I also learned that a lot of you are older, like me.

I have made an imaging capturing decision, largely because of your input. I won't bother you with that decision. That's not important. What is important is how uhhs rally to be helpful. Again, thank you. And, now, I have to go order some film!
A few days ago I asked for observations on a probl... (show quote)


To me there's lots to consider about either.

Film cameras, I used them only because that's all we had then, were very bare bones. You figure out the f/stop, shutter speed, focus and fire. Digital slr cameras can be used just the same way if you've a mind to.

The major problem with film, of course, is the cost. Using my Canon I go out and find say a bird shot. I'll rattle off 50-frames and keep one. In film that would cost who knows how much today. Digital, delete 49 and go on with zero cost - full frame or not... to me it makes little difference except in the cost of buying the gear whether is full or crop sensor as long as I'm happy with my results.

I'm assuming that "bare bones" means none of the cheesy modes we find on some digital cameras today. I for one never use them, they're basically a marketing ploy to make people think that if they use those modes they're somehow going to come up with amazing photos. We, as photographers pro and advance amateur, know that's not true and try to tell young folks that. But, as with anything else, they have to live it to learn it.

I guess it's a matter of preference. Film is good. Digital is good. It all depends on whether you have the skill to operate both camera and lens.
Same with film cameras - having that skill is essential to good results.

Good luck, have fun and regardless of the media - enjoy!
quote=pj81156 A few days ago I asked for observat... (show quote)


Yes, film costs more if you are talking about 35mm. However, if you talking about medium format film is cheaper, especially b&w if you process the film yourself. I for one do not feel like paying $20,000-$60,000 for the same quality that I can get from a $500 camera.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 ... 143 144 145 146 147 148 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.