Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: wj cody
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 208 next>>
Jan 24, 2018 00:42:29   #
kymarto wrote:
Only for you and others with your subject-centric focus.


you betcha!!
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:41:54   #
10MPlayer wrote:
Isn't this the third thread this week about analog vs. digital? Get over it. The world has moved on and digital is 1000 times better, cheaper, and easier to use than film. If you like film it's still out there and even making a small comeback, I hear. Go for it.


i would not know about your characterisation of film or analogue. however vinyl records now outsell digital and i've been using film in formats from 35mm to 8x10 for the last 60 years. and i seem to continue to be in the same world as everyone else.
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:39:24   #
Rongnongno wrote:
That is likely the sanest answer but who wants to be sane when most of us are approaching senility????


not remembering what i had for breakfast, every morning is a new experience!
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:37:54   #
Peterff wrote:
I'm sure there are digital techniques now, but my mother did a few photographs back in the 1950s. She used a very fine brush and what I assume were a specialized set of translucent dyes.

I may even have one somewhere, hope I have, but finding it could be tricky.

Mr. Google came up with this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hand-colouring_of_photographs


yup, Marshall oil colours were the industry standard in your dusty old days. and a retouching machine.
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:35:58   #
Metpin777 wrote:
Anybody use a macro lens for Portraits? Heard maybe they have great detail and sharpness, in my sights is the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8L IS USM Macro Lens , shooting with 80D, yes I realize focal length is different on crop sensor, FF next investment, opinions please and thank you


the 60mm micro nikkor on a full frame body is an excellent focal length and being a "flat field" optic can produce stunning results - good luck!
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:33:59   #
Chris T wrote:
This one's open ... you can include any manufacturer - past or present. Just trying to get an accurate assessment from everybody who's used them (or, still is ....)


Nikon F with non metered pentaprism
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:30:28   #
rmalarz wrote:
For serious street photography, I rely on my Leica IIIf with a 35mm lens. I don't have to focus. I don't actually have to look through the viewfinder either.
--Bob


and with the 35mm summicron, you never have to own another lens!
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:29:04   #
graybeard wrote:
My senility shows again. All I see in lens reviews is "quality of bokeh" (or alternate spelling). It means background. But background is just that, background. Bokah is something special. In fact, it seems to have overtaken foreground, or subject of the photo, and it no longer matters what is central and in focus, what matters is Bokah!! In fact many old lenses that were sitting on shelves collecting dust have found new life because it has been discovered they have great Bokah! The lens itself was completely unaware of this fact most of its life but now it has been elevated in value from virtual nothing to ever increasing amounts. (BTW, I have a Pentagon 50mm F1.8 who the experts say has fantastic Bokah! Wanna buy it for a thousand bucks)? So photography has gone all the way from focusing on the subject and blurring or just ignoring the background, to ignoring what is in focus and getting orgasmic over the Bokah! So what am I missing here? Feel free to insult me, I have a thick skin.
My senility shows again. All I see in lens reviews... (show quote)


i am only interested in the photograph of my subject(s). the background, whatever it is, can take care of itself. this bokeh argument is a red herring.
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:27:11   #
DaveyDitzer wrote:
I am considering expanding my FF lens arsenal with this lens - Nikon 300mm f/4E PF ED VR AF-S. I would appreciate comments and experience from UHH members who have and used this lens. My camera body is a Nikon Df. Thanks in advance.


this is one tack sharp lens and my "go to" 300mm while my 300mm f2.8 stays at home 90% of the time.
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:24:40   #
true and this can include mount washington at neg 90 degrees - with a nikon f as it has no battery.
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:21:01   #
Rongnongno wrote:
Who the hell knows so what is it with all the threads about the future of cameras, manufacturers and the like?

Beside, all the 'debate' participants in those threads will be dead or dying if I understand UHH demographics, me included, I hope.

In the mean time? Enjoy the non sense and the mayhem.

Oh, by the way, what is best? The N? The C?

Enjoy flogging the horse, it is long dead and if it moves, it is not because it is reanimated by your posts but because it is turning in his grave wondering when it will stop being savaged time and time again. Oh, I saw a nostril fly off the other day... Debate was about what to take in a trip.

One more thing (riiiiiiiight)... raw or JPG? How about SOOC or PP?

Finally, can someone please tell me what is a photographer?

Who the hell knows so what is it with all the thre... (show quote)


the same thing that happened in the last 20 years. people will use what works for them.
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:18:39   #
rehess wrote:
I used film for forty years, so like you I am most comfortable fixing ISO first. However, as cameras become increasingly capable at higher ISO values, I am becoming more comfortable with what Pentax calls "TAv" mode - I set aperture to get DOF I want, I set shutter speed to stop motion, and then camera sets ISO to get proper exposure. My next camera purchase will get me a camera which handles higher ISO values gracefully.


i use the lowest asa/iso i can get away with on my subjects.
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:13:41   #
Al Freeedman wrote:
Please note that the Kodak Retina 111 was not a SLR it was a rangefinder 25 MM camera.

Had a great lens, and small enough to fit in your pocket when folded

Captain Al


yes, a really nice german made rangefinder for kodak
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:11:18   #
Chris T wrote:
What?

No pic, WJ?


oh, that means i gotta go through my 35mm negative files - hey, you know, i just might do that. and then post the little dickens
Go to
Jan 24, 2018 00:10:04   #
Chris T wrote:
I sure hope you re-covered, afterwards, WJ ... and got some good fiberglass insulation, in, up there ....


well, i'll tell you - have to be a little bit stupid to go the way i did, but every time i print a 5x7 negative, well, it all seems worth it.
Go to
Page: <<prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 208 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.