Stick with question of, Best 35mm. SLR film camera. Film, your choice. Name brand, and model regardless is no more than a dark box with controlls for shutter. Keep this in mind, because there is no other diffrrence in what has been mentioned thusfar.Because of Branding lies the difference yet not mentioned, the optics. Film will be the same, a dark box is a dark box. However, this is untrue when optics is considered. The only difference in the completion needed for the tool needed for a serious photo. The difference, a class recognized world over during the heyday of film was Carl Zeiss optics. The main reason later I chose Hasselblad as my medium format system. As for camera of choice ... Contax RTSIII.. A camera of magnitude, built like a tank, solid, bold, and comfortable regardless of its massive size and weight, because the results said it all. To let it be known, with proper adapters, c/y mount Zeiss optics can be used with Canon DSLR's of today.
I bought the Nikon D300, Nikon D810, Nikon D500, when? Anywhere between 12 and 18 mouths after it's introduction. Price came down and received the vertical grip for free. To wait is my option. I enjoy the upgrade of the long wait of the Nikon D500, only questioned why not having this in full frame? Within months ..... Nikon D850. I will buy, but when the option of the vertical grip. As all other purchases, I am pleased. For now, with the collection I possess will do just fine as I Learn the full potential of the Nikon D500, preparing me for The Nikon D850.
Most resent cameras bought has been canon 6D, and Nikon D810. When purchased I received a free battery by Watson, so no need at this time for extra battery. However, I have bought extra batteries thru eBay from Hong Kong that were Nikon brand (same as that came with camera), half the price here in the States. Something you might look into as to buying other than third party; buying original brand.
Getting published, being chosen, no need to say more; is sufficient proof you did not do good, but excellent in final result of being a recognizable photographer. No one can say different, the proof is in the pictures. Congratulations. Something I need to work on. Perhaps a goal for 2016. Again.. Congratulations!
One can have their photo to have the appearance of the designated film as ISO increases so does grainulation. Different film have different characteristics with grain, contrasting, and other noticeable factors. Try the different films, iso; and you too will see the differences. Experiment, experiment, experiment!
Film. Regardless where film is processed, negatives will result as to be return to you regardless of prints or cd is given. If not, this would be put to the question of their where abouts. During the infancy of digital photography, I did my own digital transfer by means using a film scanner. Cameras started with sensor less than 6Mp,, so by scanning, it produced better than any digital camera could possibly produce quality wise as well as file size. By scanning, file size exceeded 107 Mp. The only problem would be film granulation. With the advancement with digital cameras this problem is resolved. Early days with digital was enlargement of pixels. A comfortably scanner ran about $2000.00. Minolta, Nikon, and Canon made good film scanners. Near the end of film cameras production, some retained your camera settings; however you had to keep up with what roll the information pertain to. With color film, exposure and sharpness is not so forgiving. Best sharpness is by: use of tripod, down on apreture, low ISO. I prefered ISO of 25. Reala and Provia are my favorites. From time to time I would have Walmart developed my film only and scan them myself. Experimental means will be your best teacher. One experiment for me was taking two shots, scan, with PS blend the two. For learning purposes I leave an example. This was taken with 300/4 zeiss (c/y), Contax RTS III. Mexico City.
Interesting. After buying, what would be the resale value? If Hasselblad or third party would produce a full 56x56 digital back for Hasselblad "V" system, having perhaps pixels (let's say the size of pixels in a Nikon's D4s), would shine the market. Since this medium fodmat area is about 3.6296 times the area of 24x36; this would make this a 58 Mp back. Sounds low? Not at all. It's not sensor size that matters, but the size of pixels in the sensor. The count of pixels is based on the size of pixel times the area of the sensor. For me, Hasselblad has let me down. Spending more than $15,000 for its system, only collecting dust for a system, that can be easily brought back to life.
Dirty lens? Never allow them to get dirty, however, they do get dusty. Use of microfiber towels, and plain water (damp). Only once, having a Minolta 50/1.4 lens, original owner, bought early 70's, began having fungus. I disassemble to clean completely and as of today like new. Many sizes to choose from as well as colors. They are washable, (seperately ), and lint free. Most I have, been purchased at Walmart or Target. Since this is your question, you can also find a assortment at this site: www.microfiberwholesale.com/microfiber-towels/
Never bought here, but does look like one of interest.
Somewhere located in owner manual, or do a search; you can find recommended memory card for the camera of your choice. Personally, I buy either Sandisk or Lexar. Generally their top dog. That does not mean highest GB capacity card, but highest in transfer rate. With cameras increase in pixel count and faster processors, this is much more needed. Yes, you will pay more. With the change of concept in buying reasoning forget about the cost, but how you bennifit. Like for example: Film days the cost was the following: Film, developing process, and small prints. An easy $12 - $18.00 total cost for every 36 exposure. That comes to $180.00 for 360 pictures. That's a final cost, good, bad ,missed shots. With a great memory card, able to use, reuse over and over; many thousands of photos can be stored, transferred to any medium for long term storage. Unlike film, no worries when it comes to discoloring. Regardless paying more, you get more. With this in mind ...... It's a bargain. This is my prospective on why I pay that extra, cause my photos matter. It's a matter of, do you care about your photos?
Tinusbum: You did great!
When the use of bellows, extention tubes, reverse rings are used....... that's macro. Like the second picture, due to it's sharpness. Any farm community having lots of cows, horses ect. equals flies. Plenty here in Big Country. Returning from 5 day cruise out of Miami, forgetting about a pineapple being left out on kitchen counter, hundreds if not more than a thousand flies swarmed that area. The smallest creature yet, I've photographed, The annoying fruit fly. Never had any idea of what they look like due to their minute in size. The lens being used was about a inch from the subject. The rim is that of a 10 Oz . drinking bottle containing apple vinegar to entice this little one. Using the lighting from the kitchen window. Using photoshop for the final results for presentation. Comments are welcome. :thumbup: :thumbup:
THE ANNOYING FRUIT FLY
Ever wonder what a fruit fly looks like?
Great team. Like to see a retake, with putting time, and though into the whole picture. It'll be a WOW! Shot for sure. Like also composition. Good, ready to be made into....... WOW!
Sampling: Taken in restaurant, window light, 180/2.8 lens. Background taken out and background replaced with final results. Non studio photo. Motive: To appear as if it was. Comments are welcome.
Thanks for sharing
Beautiful! You must have a great garden as your shots prove worthy. Here in west Texas it can get hot. Past four years has been very dry until this year. Plenty of rain as if things are trying to catch up. Growing cantaloupes this year, as seem to be doing well. Thanks for sharing.
Never used mirrors for directional light source, although thought about it. There will always be critics, as we can at times give greater thoughs from them. I like the second one. We can all learn by sharing, thank you for sharing with a different means of lighting regardless of critics. My latest plant engagement was quickly taking a few shots of the progress of my cantaloupes garden. Cloudy sky after a shower, natural lighting. Comments are welcome.
Karl Shuffler wrote:
My camera is a product made with the combinations ... (
The camera makes the image you took. You make the photograph you have printed.