Posts for: Preachdude
Nov 21, 2016 17:56:33 #
burkphoto wrote:
unfollowing this $#!†
Me too! By the way, if I went for medium format, it would not be for the number of megapixels enabling me to make giant prints. I seldom make prints. I may be crazy, but I'm with those who believe that images made with the larger formats have a different "feel" to them, and I suspect it is from the differing depth of field at a given aperture, along with the size of the subject in relation to the image on the sensor. What do you think?
Nov 20, 2016 17:41:12 #
burkphoto wrote:
Nice. I will be watching DPReview for test reports on this one. Fujifilm has done very well with their recent APS-C mirrorless models. They make some great lenses, and are known for dynamite JPEGs featuring Fujifilm film simulations.
I wonder who will buy it? If the price is right, there are some other medium format manufacturers who will be very nervous.
I wonder who will buy it? If the price is right, there are some other medium format manufacturers who will be very nervous.
The Pentax 645Z has the same-size sensor, made by Sony. If the Fujifilm rendition is cheaper than the Pentax, that will make it even more affordable, though still much more than full-frame.
Nov 20, 2016 17:37:41 #
JPL wrote:
For me it depends on what camera I am using. I ha... (show quote)
I'm the same way. When I'm using my P/S camera, I will do HDR images in aperture priority, but I've also used it in superior auto mode. This last spring I rented a Sony RX1r/ii, and I shot all of my HDR landscapes in full manual (aperture, shutter, focus) mode with auto ISO varying exposure two stops both ways. The results were very pleasing.
Nov 15, 2016 07:17:04 #
Sadly, absolutely no one processes Kodachrome anymore. It was unique and difficult to process safely. Sadly, that technology will no become simply a historical footnote. The Kodachrome slides I've scanned are amazing.
Nov 14, 2016 09:12:05 #
planepics wrote:
I'd love to try medium format at some point, but I don't have a darkroom or a negative scanner and I don't know of any place in my area that will develop it. Do you mail it to someone on the coast?
Do an internet search and you'll find lots of develop and scan services. I've used thedarkroom as well as ProDPI and a few others. In most cases, developing turnaround time is 48 hours at most. The other thing to consider is shipping times and costs.
Nov 13, 2016 11:55:53 #
I keep 120 negative film in my freezer and thaw when I have occasioned to shoot on film. I still have a wide-angle pinhole camera that I've enjoyed playing with. Every once in a while I find a classic 6x9 camera on Ebay, buy it, and play with it for a while. When I sell it, I can usually get almost as much as I paid, and sometime more. I have a service develop and scan the film at high resolution, and then I post-process. It makes for a nice diversion.
Nov 12, 2016 09:52:00 #
Peterff wrote:
I had the exact opposite experience with Subaru. I... (show quote)
I agree, extended warranties are a mixed bag. Evidently you did not notice that I said I got my extended warranty from a third party vendor -- in that case it was Universal Underwriters -- not Subaru. During those nearly five years and 100K miles, they honored any and all repairs except for normal maintenance. In the case of cameras, I don't bother with extended warranties because failures after a first year of no problems a extremely rare.
Nov 11, 2016 11:50:54 #
In August of 1953 I was eight years old and went with my family to Yosemite. My parents bought me a Kodak Brownie Hawkeye camera with flash at the General Store. It used 127 film. The next Christmas I was given a developing and printing kit, and I was hooked. During that time my Dad also taught me how to use his Zeiss Contaflex.
Nov 11, 2016 11:45:17 #
alliebess wrote:
I've never purchased an extended warranty for anything - cameras, appliances, cars - and have never had problems which would have called for their use.
When I bought my first Subaru I got a 1/4 percent break on my loan by getting a five-year bumper-to-bumper extended warranty from a third party provider. I took advantage of it at every opportunity that seemed to present itself. I got back far more than what I paid for -- because I took advantage of it. A dealer explained to me that most people don't take advantage of the extended warranty unless it is a "big" item. The insurance companies depend upon people like that, so I got my money's worth and then some!
Oct 31, 2016 16:19:33 #
Carl D wrote:
You won't get the same effect in 35mm as large for... (show quote)
It is "possible" to get a large format digital image with a 4x5 scanning back. While there are medium format backs that have more megapixels, the 4x5 "look" is there. Scanning backs like those made by "Better Light Photography" are terribly slow, so the images must be confined to landscapes and still lifes.
Oct 31, 2016 16:13:16 #
The only way I know of to eliminate shadows entirely is to use a ringlight as your primary source of light.
Oct 3, 2016 13:48:10 #
Mark Bski wrote:
I shoot mostly landscape on a tripod. br br I'v... (show quote)
Back in the 1950s, my first tripod had a pan and tilt head. Over the years, I tried tripods of various heads, sizes, materials. My current tripod, an Amazon Basics Carbon Fiber Travel Tripod, has a ball head, and I can pan it with its own panning lock, I like it. I love being able to pan when shooting landscapes, particularly when I'm planning on stitching a series of shots. This particular tripod has a bonus unadvertised feature. There is a 360-degree scale on the shaft, telling the user how much they are panning. There is no "perfect" tripod, but this one has turned out to be a useful bargain.
Sep 29, 2016 09:04:51 #
I'm considering the purchase of a Sigma DP0 Quattro for landscape photography. I know that the camera is, at best, quirky to work with, but the images I've seen online are spectacular. Everyone says the in-camera j-pegs are crappy, and that post-processing the X3F raw file is time-consuming and/or difficult. The Sigma SPP software is notoriously and painfully slow, so it seems, and it sometimes crashes. When you use Adobe's file conversion to convert to DNG, data is often lost, and images are sometimes distorted. I'd like to hear about actual experiences of UHH folks. What is your post-processing routine?
Sep 29, 2016 08:52:47 #
jimfullwood wrote:
Does anyone have this camera yet and if so give us some feedback please?
I rented one from Lensrentals.com for a church picnic. The results were fantastic. I found the slow-motion video a little hard to use, but the stills were all sharp, with good contrast, bokeh, and depth of field. It is a bit heavy, but I did not find that a hindrance to getting the images desired. In three hours I shot nearly 300 stills and two dozen slow-motion video clips. It was fun and easy to use. It was a great experience for me, and the people of my church really liked the results.
Sep 19, 2016 10:16:17 #
selmslie wrote:
Scanning backs for large format have been around for a while. Progress has been slow. At this point, $15k for a 48 MP (native resolution) image is not tempting. I'm sure that it will get better.
When I scan medium-format film, I can get excellent native resolution, but the "look" of large-format images is simply different than that of the equivalent number of megapixels in full-frame format. The Luminous Landscape website has discussed this on a number of occasions. I would *not* even spend the money to rent a scanning outfit -- let alone buy one -- *simply* to make larger prints. As an alternative, I have considered purchase of a 4x5 camera and a scanner that will scan 4x5 transparencies and negatives. The budge even for that compromise is not currently within my reach.