RWR wrote:
The Contaflex 126 camera has a focal plane shutter, so this is a complete lens. I could not find the flange-to-focal plane distance for the camera, but since the 126 format is about 28 x 28mm, it may be possible to adapt the lenses for use on a DX format digital camera. I doubt infinity focus can be achieved, but even so the 135 f/4.0 Tele Tessar may not be too bad for close-ups.
I often see comments about adapting lenses in which the author dismisses a lens adapter to a Nikon camera just because the adapted lens will not focus at infinity. So this commenter is more insightful in understanding not only the mechanics but especially utility short of infinity focus.
Well, this Zeiss is a 135mm. On full-frame cameras, it is "too long for a really good portrait lens." See Nikon's lens sales manual, not dated but I est. about 1987. The potential is to use this Zeiss lens for people candids, spotlit stage shows, some sports, and more but probably not so much for available-light shooting, all w/o pushing to infinity.
I just looked into this and found out it is a very attractive product.
A one-degree or even five-degree measuring angle in digital from Sekonic is quite costly; I've been in touch with Sekonic because my 308S Sekonic meter has a fifty-degree measuring angle.
Sekonic answered all my questions except about narrow incident (not reflected) measurement. I infer that their narrow measuring angle does not work for narrow-angle incident metrics.
The manual for this analog Pentax Spotmeter V is here: http://www.photo-manuals.com/manual/pentax/light-meter/spotmeter-v
I used an Adobe CC app to search the text of the manual, since the download is an image, not text.
The manual indicates this is a reflected type meter. Not the answer to my own prayers but it should be quite valuable indeed for general photography with high dynamic range.
Useful data point. Thanks.
There is a use for it.
Invite people worldwide to add software enhancements that have no impact on performance. For example, count the number of times a switch is changed, but do not report the total.
The use would be to set a new world record for Guinness' book -- the machine with the most useless features.
I will be in charge of all this and sell laudatory certificates to each contributor of a unique useless feature.
Not arguing here; photo-site size is a hot topic.
You imply that smaller photo sites is the trend. I don't doubt that. But, which "new" cameras? D7100 is less new than the D810 but the D810 sensor has a larger pixel pitch.
What's the threshold for photo-site size that minimizes jaggies enough? I'm guessing you think the D7100-D7200 size is enough but the D810 size is not.
Is photo-site density relevant to jaggies? Correlated with size and jaggies?
A rather useful remark: "You shoot RAW only because you think you can do a better job of post-processing than your camera will do by itself. "
In my case, RAW is the valid starting point for learning to do what I mean (DWIM) in post.
pecohen wrote:
If you don't want to post-process an image yourself then just set your camera to produce JPEG. The camera will then do the post-processing however it is programmed to do it and that will almost certainly include some sharpening. If you set the exposure, white balance and focus right then it will, in all likelihood look pretty good. The post-processing firmware is designed for the purpose of making the photo look good to a typical human and generally it does a fairly adequate job.
If you decide to work with RAW, just understand that it is RAW - it is delivered to you without any post-processing; it probably will not look as good as a post-processed image. You shoot RAW only because you think you can do a better job of post-processing than your camera will do by itself. If you have good photo editing tools and are fairly competent at using them then it is a good bet, but there are no guarantees.
If you don't want to post-process an image yoursel... (
show quote)
SteveR wrote:
I might mention that both Carmel and Monterey are on the other side of Monterey Bay from Santa Cruz, so you might have to a bit further....just around the bay, but it would be well worth the drive. As far as paying the entrance fee to the 17 mile road, they will have somebody at the entrance there to collect it. Since it's a private road it would not be covered by your National Parks Pass.
The locals avoid the fee for entering 17-Mile Drive by telling the gate guard they are going to meet a realtor. Of course I would never suggest anyone do this...
koalaroo wrote:
Thanks. Sounds good. Whether we'll go further south than say Monteray I'm not sure. We only have two weeks and intend going to Lake Tahoe/Reno, then north east to maybe Eureka and down the coast. Jude.
I see you are going to the Monterey Peninsula. For landscape photos, pass Carmel Valley road. The next ten miles southward are the most beautiful seaside views between Oregon and Mexico and by a long shot. California impressionist painters and even my late dog knew this is THE place. http://kargesfineart.blogspot.com/2010/09/william-ritschel.html
koalaroo wrote:
I've had really good advice re. Smoky Mountains, now I'd like some advice on California. We pick up a little Escape campervan from 247 Beach St. Fisherman's Wharf. We want to head to Santa Cruz for the first night of our two week trip. This is daunting for us coming from Australia, though we have driven around South West USA 3 years ago. (My husband drives, not me...no way, I'm the navigator.) I'm thinking if we drive out of Beach St. to Bay St., to Marina Bvd., to Mason St., to Lincoln Bvd. Onto Geary St., then to Ocean Beach and follow coast. That way we don't have to take any left turns lol.. Would this be an easy enough drive? We'll be picking up the van at lunchtime on a Thursday.
I keep reading that the coast road down past Pacifica is hair-raising. How hair-raising? We'd like to go that way to see the coastline and especially Mavericks (famous surf break). Any ideas on good reasonably priced campgrounds near Santa Cruz? I'd appreciate any tips. Jude.
I've had really good advice re. Smoky Mountains, n... (
show quote)
A new tunnel makes this dramatic drive easy enough, mates. Drive at the speed limit, no more. Avoid driving at dusk (deer) and at night (visibility). Start two hours earlier than you've planned, to access better lunches.
Check Mavericks. Then, eat lunch in the nearby Princeton harbor at Barbara's (local fish), or in Half Moon Bay at the Ritz Carlton in the moderately affordable Conservatory (the view, beach access, seascape photo opportunities, including from the world's most beautiful parking lot), or at the Three Amigos taqueria (go native), according to your interests.
Visit the unknown Harbor Seal colony (telephoto lens, super telephoto lens) and walk the adjacent beach at Cowell Beach, a state park 1/2 mile south of last stoplight out of Half Moon Bay. Parking is a 1/3 mile hike to-from the beach).
Turn left for one mile at Pescadero and briefly visit this pioneer town (photo opportunity). Eat a slice of home-made pie at Duarte's restaurant.
Have breakfast at Gail's in S.C.
The surprise ending gave me a chuckle. Thanks.
Seeing the light-hearted French affect of Ramelli reminds me of a drama that unfurled in the early seventies in French Canada:
French Canadian activists were powerfully insisting that pilots speak French in the air around Montreal's airport. Don't recall if there actually was a strike.
The matter was instantly defused when one French-Canadian pilot remarked, "I'd no more speak French in the cockpit than I'd speak English in the bedroom."
I could not find the original French from Le Devoir online; if any Canadian hogs can help, it would be delicious, I'm sure.
Hi, from nearby Half Moon Bay.
Feathering? Yes indeed, but
what is feathering?Answer (~8 minutes): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUaIUubgLcM
But here is the world's shortest feathering tutorial:
To remove reflections, from the glass, maybe move the key light in your case slightly leftward and also slightly upward.
The feathered light on your subject should be softer after these changes, coming as it shall rather more from edges of your key light source.
Toying with such feathering can produce multiple desirable effects. For example, according to taste, you could maybe:
-Try shifting the lighting emphasis for your subject, to more above the torso, to the face, by increasing still more the upward tilt of the key light
-Try filling in with a reflector on the right; were you to adjust the reflector so that most of the reflector's light bouncing onto your subject came from an edge of the reflector you would be feathering this bounced fill light
-Take notice of how any feathering affects your background; look to separate subject from background As you feather about, consider using a lens hood or other flag when moving a light or reflector toward your camera.
To understand why you have glare in the submitted image, see Chapter 3 of Hunter, Biver, and Fuqua.
To understand your opportunities around polarization, read beyond Chapter 3.
[quote=oldtigger]
PHOTOBILL71 wrote:
...I've been working on in photo shoots folks on how to keep the reflection of lights out of the persons glasses..../quote]
sometimes feathering the light will help
This image has good depth.
Does Focus App help this?
bodacious wrote:
Interesting but I will stick with Sig or almost any American made toy, ya the 9mm is a toy if don't start with at least 40 I will not put my butt on the line for it. Too old fashioned maybe but 9mm have not proven to be that positive on stopping a threat.
" the 9mm is a toy" ?
Maybe 9mm hollow-point for inside the house.