Posts for: Shutterbug57
Dec 26, 2017 19:35:08 #
OK, so I find myself at the odd end of the thread here. I like the throw-back look of Tri-X. Different strokes I guess.
Dec 26, 2017 07:54:20 #
flipflopman wrote:
Would like feedback on teleconverters, trying to decide if I want to purchase one or purchase new telephoto lens, I use a Tamaron AF 70-300 1:4-5.6 now, any help would be welcome
Don’t forget that you will lose a stop of light on a 1.4TC an 2 stops on a 2.0 TC. You are already at f/4-f/5.6, so a pretty slow lens. A 1.4 TC would make this a f/5.6-f/8 lens and a 2.0 TC would make it a f/8-f/11 lens.
Dec 26, 2017 07:31:06 #
First off, this is not a film is better than digital, or digital is better than film thread. This thread assumes that both have their place and attempts to look at the point of intersection between them. Secondly, this thread is dealing with B&W imaging.
It seems that film makers are trying to compete with digital - on digital’s terms. Films like T-Max seem to be trying to give film an ultra-smooth grain to achieve the look obtained in a low ISO digital shot. I don’t get it. If I am going to expend the cost and time to shoot film, I want the film to be a player in the image.
I like both film and digital for different reasons. I like film for what it is and the artistic choices it provides. Shooting B&W, I want to see the film, as well as the image. There are reasons to use several films, however, I tend to migrate towards Tri-X and Hp5 as my main B&W films. If I want a grainless B&W image, I will just shoot it in digital as it is cheaper, faster & less messy.
Who is the target audience for these low-grain films? Is it photographers that started in digital and want to try film, but are uncomfortable with grain because they see it as the analog version of noise - and therefore it must be stomped out? Is it the business solution for what to do with excess capacity - only makes sense if there is a market. Are there film shooters that just want a smooth image but don’t want to go digital? Are film makers trying to provide a smooth continuum from grainy films, like Tri-X to the more transparent background of digital and films like T-Max are the answer?
I am interested in your thoughts. To what question are films like T-Max the answer?
It seems that film makers are trying to compete with digital - on digital’s terms. Films like T-Max seem to be trying to give film an ultra-smooth grain to achieve the look obtained in a low ISO digital shot. I don’t get it. If I am going to expend the cost and time to shoot film, I want the film to be a player in the image.
I like both film and digital for different reasons. I like film for what it is and the artistic choices it provides. Shooting B&W, I want to see the film, as well as the image. There are reasons to use several films, however, I tend to migrate towards Tri-X and Hp5 as my main B&W films. If I want a grainless B&W image, I will just shoot it in digital as it is cheaper, faster & less messy.
Who is the target audience for these low-grain films? Is it photographers that started in digital and want to try film, but are uncomfortable with grain because they see it as the analog version of noise - and therefore it must be stomped out? Is it the business solution for what to do with excess capacity - only makes sense if there is a market. Are there film shooters that just want a smooth image but don’t want to go digital? Are film makers trying to provide a smooth continuum from grainy films, like Tri-X to the more transparent background of digital and films like T-Max are the answer?
I am interested in your thoughts. To what question are films like T-Max the answer?
Dec 25, 2017 10:08:08 #
johnp47 wrote:
SD cards are so inexpensive that I always use a new one. This was the used card serves as another backup.
That depends on the camera, it’s buffer and your shooting style. Some are pretty spendy.
Dec 25, 2017 06:37:41 #
Silverman wrote:
Well, that is good for Ken, but I myself, after having downloaded my images to my computer, "Format" my SDHC card "IN CAMERA".
Now a days, how many people actually "FILL" their memory cards? 16gb, 32gb, 64gb, etc. So much memory!!
Now a days, how many people actually "FILL" their memory cards? 16gb, 32gb, 64gb, etc. So much memory!!
If you shoot weddings, sports, political protests or other events, you will likely carry multiple cards because you are filling them. The cards are getting bigger, but so are our files.
Dec 24, 2017 23:13:36 #
I just picked up a NIB Nikon battery grip for my N90s. Merry Christmas to me!!! :)
Merry Christmas to all here on UHH too!!!
Merry Christmas to all here on UHH too!!!
Dec 24, 2017 21:07:37 #
Dec 24, 2017 17:21:22 #
StaneeRae wrote:
This vendor has a free sample of a larger set he sells - http://deeezy.com/free-smoke-toolkit-extra/
Cool, thanks.
Dec 24, 2017 12:30:59 #
BigDaddy wrote:
Nothing wrong with that. In woodworking, we call ... (show quote)
Neanderthals would probably address “Mr. Kilowatt” as “Reddy Kilowatt”. Just sayin.
Dec 23, 2017 22:12:22 #
therwol wrote:
I still have my FTn. It has sentimental value, which is why I hold onto it, but I don't use it. Would you go to war with a fleet of B17s? Do you still watch black and white TV on a 10 inch screen? Time moves on. Technology advances. I say it's mostly for the better. Shooting pictures on an old film camera involves too much time and expense for results that you can easily obtain with a modern camera, and I could never match what I can do with my Nikon DSLR (D810) with my FTn.
The BUFF (B52) is older than all but 1 of my cameras and we still send it to war. The Bone (B1) and Boomerang (B2) are newer, but the BUFF still gets many a call.
Dec 23, 2017 21:41:15 #
OnDSnap wrote:
Are you looking for the smoke Ring Effect usually associated with a cannon going off? know any smokers? Have um blow some smoke rings against a background for you to photograph that's easy to select the smoke, with that and the cannon and a bit of compositing....a pretty safe way to go, well except for the smoker.
If the re-enactment does not work, maybe a cigar smoker will. :)
Dec 23, 2017 21:40:27 #
Manglesphoto wrote:
Any "smoke bombs" have the potential of causing a fire. Your best and safest bet is to add the smoke using Photoshop or other software.
I did this a few years back to a landscape that included a Teepee, it was easy but it was fun and probably kept me from being banned from the area. you could also use the smoke from a cannon being fired at a reenactment.
I did this a few years back to a landscape that included a Teepee, it was easy but it was fun and probably kept me from being banned from the area. you could also use the smoke from a cannon being fired at a reenactment.
Good call on the re-enactment. I will try to find one & I have a friend who, participates in them.
Dec 23, 2017 21:25:44 #
Photocraig wrote:
... But i loved Aperture and Shutter priority ("Convenience" not auto, right?) on my film cameras for landscapes and Sports, and they work the same on my DSLR.
C
C
Well maybe, right up to the point you put a gelded lens on a N90s and have to switch from manual mode to shutter priority to have any control over the aperture. Then shutter priority is the new manual mode.
Dec 23, 2017 13:19:01 #
Regis wrote:
From a 74 year old who has a long history of taking film pictures and digital ones, I prefer the digital photos. The benefits far outweigh the old film cameras.
I don’t see it as a binary choice. I am glad I can choose the format that best fits the situation.
Dec 23, 2017 07:50:35 #
Add wrote:
I still like a J3 Cub!
Gotta love an aircraft that uses a stick and a cork for a gas gauge.