Ugly Hedgehog - Photography
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Check out Advice from the Pros section of our forum.
Posts for: elee950021
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 59 next>>
Jun 23, 2024 16:43:24   #

Excellent work! The black and white landscape image has reduced contrast with the sky looking good, much less grain/noise. And good detail in the foreground!

Be well! Ed
Go to
Jun 23, 2024 13:40:47   #
[quote=lamiaceae]I recently shot some cassettes of Ilford FP4+ film in four different vintage 35mm SLRs I have. I have not shot film in years and more or less only have been using my four Pentax DSLRs and Fujifilm X100T mirrorless rangefinder. I am less happy with my film results than I had expected.

I used yellow filters over the lenses and so set my Gossen Luna-Pro Meter to ISO/ASA 64.
I had my film processed and scanned by Fromex Labs in Long Beach, CA.
I converted the supplied scan TIFF files to DNG files for safer keeping (as raws).
The scans seem way too grainy (noisy) and too harsh (contrasty).
I am used to using Kodak Plus-X film but I have used FP4+ before years ago and found it to be similar to PX. But back then I was developing and printing it myself.

This exercise revealed some issues with my cameras that had not been used in years! One has a defective film advance (ratchet gears) and the other has an intermittent curtain bounce. The other two cameras seem fine. My concerns here are with the negatives.

Should I retry scanning them myself (I have a high-end Epson Scanner)? Use a different Lab? Did I even focus correctly (seems like an odd question, but my final images seem too soft)? Any ideas or suggestions?[quote]


Very often when we shoot film, we forget how grainy film really was or is, compared to today's digital results. Yes, I've used and processed tens of thousands of rolls of Kodak, Ilford, Fuji and other brands, always custom processed in the OEM's recommended "soup!" I retired after 40 years from my custom photolab business here in NYC's "Photo District" in 2008. Nowadays, with far less film being processed, your lab could have used a general less-than-ideal film developer or one, overly replenished. These are some factors which might show apparent increased graininess of your negatives. Overexposed or over developed film could be another problem as older mechanical camera shutters could become faster or slower than marked speeds. I agree Ilford FP4+ should be nearly grainless. Newer films such as ILford's Delta series have improved their results by introducing improved "T-grain (Kodak)" or similar products. Back in the day, we developed film (depending on the subject) to be on the "thin" side by cutting back 10% developing time or slight decrease of agitation intervals, so more-heavily exposed subject areas wouldn't be so dense and show more graininess.

Your images look fine! Most film graininess is apparent in the medium and darker grey tones such as the sky. Highlights and deep shadows (approaching black) never show much graininess. Today's latest software should take care of any graininess (noise). Another idea might be scanning at a higher dpi for larger files that need less magnification. Or use a finer-grain film. How do your negatives look? Similar to the results when you were getting when you were doing your own?

One other thing. I buy older vintage lenses to use and compare them to the latest Nikkors and EL's and do notice that in some cases, they are less contrasty and less sharp than the current crop of digital lenses.

For general knowledge, I would ask your lab to describe their processing and also ask for other suggestions to minimize graininess. Also inquire about their scanning methods. Do they use different resolutions and price according? Despite what other Hoggers say, I don't particularly care for scanning 35mm negs on a flat-bed scanner for various reasons. I prefer using my dedicated Nikon 4000 dpi scanner or using my Nikon 36 MP D810 to shoot negatives or transparencies. There is another Hogger who's experienced and has provided a "white paper" on scanning and digitizing film negatives and transparencies. His name escapes me now but search for him here.

Be well! Ed
Go to
Jun 23, 2024 12:26:10   #
Artcameraman wrote:
Think this may have something to do with John Belushi... I've been walking by this structure for several years and finally decided to capture it.

"1941" is the title of a 1979 movie comedy directed by Steven Spielberg starring John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd and others including Toshiro Mifune about the Los Angeles panic after the attack on Pearl Harbor in December 1941!

The movie got mixed reviews.

Be well! Ed
Go to
Check out Sports Photography section of our forum.
Jun 23, 2024 12:15:05   #
Jerry et al!!

Perhaps if we just let Mother Nature kill the invading aliens with our disease germs, viruses, bacteria and microbes!

It happened once in H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds novel; maybe in real life!

Be well! Ed
Go to
Jun 22, 2024 13:12:13   #
Silversleuth wrote:
For looking up old websites, newscasts, movies, tv shows, radio broadcasts and hundreds of thousands of books, take a look at Internet It’s completely free. They store tens of petabites of data. It’s a very deep rabbit hole to poke around in.

It's basically the same site and rabbit hole that Jerry mentioned with a variation of its URL. It provides histories of over 866 billion web pages!

Be well! Ed
Go to
Jun 22, 2024 13:04:23   #
jerryc41 wrote:
If you don't know about - take a look. This organization save pictures of websites from the past. You can see what a particular site looked like at a point in the past.

If you're familiar with this site, maybe you can answer a question. Let's say I look up a website from a decade ago. The whole thing will display the way it looked back then. Is there some way that I can save that on my computer? I know I can save the link and look it up again, but it may not always be available.
If you don't know about - take a l... (show quote)

Jerry et al!

I'm familiar with the name "Wayback Machine" for this URL. What happens is that a calendar appears with the website that you are looking for and you'll see various vertical lines showing the various dates the site has captured. Unfortunately, some websites are older and disappeared well before the establishment and page captures of this site.

After bringing up a webpage or any webpage for that matter, I'll use an extension called "Go Full Page,"
a screen capture Chrome extension app that will copy the whole page regardless of length in a .pdf or .png file.
Very useful as I've been using it for quite a while. The price is right and the developer claims not to use your data!
The software has over 8 million users! I also use the built-in Win 10 screen capture tool for smaller screen captures of images and text!

Be well! Ed
Go to
Jun 9, 2024 11:36:46   #
Longlens24 wrote:
My black ball heads, tripods, quick-release clamps, L-plates all show tiny scratches nicks, etc. from lots of use, and would look better (especially to new clients)if the shiny aluminum metal they are made from was less obvious. I called RRS and was told to use a black marking pen(not a gear solution)> My rust oleum gloss/semi-gloss oil paints don't match the original low luster anodized black surfaces, but I have seen used gear that has been almost invisibly touched up, so there must be some paint that looks good and appears similar to the original finish. I was unable to find any photo part suppliers, other than Manfrotto (which does sell parts, but not paint). Maybe someone knows of a paint and where to buy it that will mask these scratches/nicks. There is no local repair place where I can ask the worker where to buy stuff. Any ideas!?
My black ball heads, tripods, quick-release clamps... (show quote)

Longlens 24!

Markers such as Sharpies rub off as the ink does not sink into the surface. Been there, done that! I now use one of my matte paints that's left over from my plastic modeling days. The paint comes in small quantities, maybe a half-ounce or so from any hobby shop or online. In lieu of "hobby paint" look for women's nail polish with a matte finish at any drug or department store. Don't buy an expensive one! Ask a makeup clerk.

Be well! Ed

Go to
Check out Infrared Photography section of our forum.
Jun 3, 2024 10:14:55   #
Very nice images! With the pose and attire, Olivia looks younger in images 1 & 6 while in the others Olivia looks more sophisticated and mature. Just my 2 cents! Well done!

Be well! Ed
Go to
Jun 2, 2024 13:29:12   #
Ront53 wrote:
A few years back I placed a large print on Gloss paper and put it in a glass frame. The picture seemed to have ripples caused by the glass. I was advised to use a different paper which I did and it turned out to be perfect. At this time, I cannot remember which type of paper I was told to use. Any help would be appreciated.

As some other Hoggers have asked: did you use a mat to keep the print from touching the glass? Otherwise, I would suggest a heavier and thicker printing paper. Large prints have been known to buckle in the center of a print especially with relatively narrow mat borders!

Suggestions of other top brands are here:

I have tried and used most of all the brands mentioned and even some "lesser" ones as well. My favorite brand is Hahnemühle but I also have stocks of Epson, Canon, Carson, MOAB as well! It all depends on the prints' purpose.

Back in the day, film images were printed on single-weight and double-weight papers. We all know of single-weight "glossies" used for "quick and dirty" prints. Double-weight papers were used for "fine art" and archival prints. I forgot who but one paper producer even had a triple weight paper! Along came medium-weight Resin-Coated printing papers which were water resistant and allowed processing in minutes!

Inkjet prints now be printed on various weights and thicknesses and some even emulate bartya double-weight papers of yesterday.

My experience dates back to the earliest Epson printers and I knew then that their quality and convenience would eventually kill C-prints and Canon copies!

Be well! Ed
Go to
May 22, 2024 12:00:23   #

A very nice piece of postal history! Philately and Numismatics are also favorite avocations of mine!

Be well! Ed
Go to
May 22, 2024 11:50:47   #
luvmypets wrote:
Let me start by saying I have 3. A Nikon D7000, a D750 and a D810. There was/is nothing wrong with the D7000 but I wanted a full frame so I debated the D750 and the D810. I had decided on the 810 but a situation arose that took a chunk of my cash so I purchased the D750. I love that camera and still use it. The desire for the D810 never went away so when I was able I purchased a refurbished one. I love it, too and use the 750 and 810 pretty equally. The D7000 sits in a case unused. There are some things I don't get rid of.

So now I'm having a G.A.S. attack for the D850. Why, I ask myself. The 750 and 810 do everything I need and lately I haven't been taking any photos so why invest in something that may do a lot of sitting.

Onto my questions to those of you that have multiple cameras. Why do you have more than one or 2? Do you use all of them? Will you purchase more and why or why not?

I know some will wonder why I don't jump on the mirrorless train but I don't want to start over with having to buy new lenses in addition to a new camera. Yes, I know there is a converter but I think that is handicapping the advanced features of mirrorless. Plus, I think that there are a few things that still need improving such as battery life and the fact that there is nothing covering the sensor making dust spots more of an issue.

Thanks for your insight. I appreciate your time to answer my questions. Dodie
Let me start by saying I have 3. A Nikon D7000, a... (show quote)


I have multiple cameras for a variety of reasons! I retired from my 40-year NYC photo studio and custom lab business in 2008. Back then, we always bought two of everything in terms of equipment, well, almost everything as backup as we couldn't afford to be unable to carry on our business if something broke! Time is money!

After retiring and carrying on my love of fashion, portrait and fine figure art, I shoot weekly and have over a thousand model shoots and over 1M images since 2005 when I first bought a digital Nikon D50 camera. Through the years I have managed to buy multiple cameras, both Nikon and Canon as well as others that interest me such as medium format Mamiyas and digital backs. I purchased mostly Nikon cameras: D50, D70, D80, D200, D300, D3, D3S, D3X, D700, D7100, D800, D750 and D810! Canons include 1Ds, 1Ds Mk2, 1Ds Mk3 and a 5D Mk2. I also have over 30 Nikon and Canon prime and zoom lenses as well!

By having two bodies of each model, besides having a backup body, I can shoot with one camera while resting the second body. After the D700s and D800s bodies, I stopped buying them new at full retail prices:
both the D700 and D800 bodies were $2995! I got smart and bought the D3, D3S, D3X, D750s and D810s at 28% of OEM list ($800 and less) and would buy what I call "Brand-Used," excellent-conditioned bodies with low shutter counts!

Currently, I'm using two D750s and two D810s! I didn't buy the D850 for the following reasons:
A. For me, a built-in flash is a necessity, I shoot using it as fill with a modifier.
B. I don't need 45 MPs! I currently shoot with the D810s at 1.2X crop RAW with files around 21 MP.
C. I have tons of CF and SD cards which are cheap, unlike the expensive XQD cards of the D850.
D. The D850 requires EN-EL15a batteries while the D7100, D800 and D810 uses the EN-EL15.
E. The D850 body new is still $2200 while a refurb is $1900. Still too rich for my needs!

For the hell of it, I also bought two "brand-used" Nikon Z5 bodies and two FTZ adapters. After having used them for over a year (20K shots), they're fine but I gravitate back to my D810s!

Be well! Ed
Go to
Check out Street Photography section of our forum.
May 15, 2024 11:52:23   #
DirtFarmer wrote:
I like Awesome Duplicate Finder...

I second this suggestion! I've been using this program on all my computers for years and the price is right!
This software searches individual folders and any contained subfolders. I keep my images in specific folders and don't need a program to organize them as they are not in any non-image folder, scattered all over my hard drives.

See here:
or here:

If you want more info, see:

Be well! Ed
Go to
May 14, 2024 10:33:57   #
jerryc41 wrote:
When we moved here in 1966, the town dump accepted anything - for free. I'd drive in and throw stuff down the hill. That's all changed. I need a $50 annual permit, and it costs $6.00 for each bag of garbage. Many things are not permitted, and there is a hefty charge for tires and other large items. No construction debris is allowed.

The(re) is a place run by the county that accepts electronics, but they have a list of about fifty items that they do not accept, including microwaves. I have three old microwaves that I have to get rid of. I can bring "toxic waste" there, paint but not motor oil, four times a year. If I want to do that, I have to make an appointment, and the amount I can bring is limited. Naturally, there is a "fee."

I think this helps to explain why we see so much junk dumped on the side of the road. My town doesn't provide garbage pickup, but there are three expensive companies that offer that service. I recycle and go to the dump. I'm going to offer the three microwaves for free on
When we moved here in 1966, the town dump accepted... (show quote)

Jerry et al!

At least here in NYC, for our tax dollars, the city Sanitation Department picks up properly sorted garbage three times a week with one of those pickups that include recyclables but electronics are supposed to be recycled but not by the city. Once in a while, the city schedules an electronics and computer recycling day in a local park! However, not everyone gets the word and I see stuff such as printers, large tvs and monitors as well as stripped desktop computer cases in the street along with garbage and recycling bags.

But we've been bringing our electronics to a local Salvation Army store which they happily accept. Other vendors such as Best Buy accept electronics. From Google:

"At any Best Buy store, you can recycle up to three items per household per day for free (check here for state-specific info, and different limitations on TVs, computer monitors and laptops)."

Be well! Ed
Go to
May 4, 2024 09:06:55   #
jerryc41 wrote:
That's the heading of an ad in today's newspaper. I didn't read it, but I can imagine.

1. Rob a bank.
2. Embezzle from your employer.
3. Blackmail a rich person.
4. Start a Ponzi scheme.
5. Print your own money.
6. Insider trading on the stock market.
7. (Your suggestion), but remember that referring to pol... will get this sent to The Attic.


Similar to the old saying for trading in the stock market: To make a million $ in the stock market, start with 2 million dollars!"

"To retire with $500K, start with 1 million $!"

Be well! Ed
Go to
Apr 22, 2024 10:15:02   #
Lisa28173 wrote:
I purchased a used Flash and am in need of a manual. Hesitate about using one website, They want your card for a "free trial". Any suggestions for acquiring a manual for a Shanny SN600SC

You have the manual as another Hogger provided a link but if you use a search engine with the inquiry: "Who makes Shanny SN600SC speedlite?" you'll get a number of "Hits" with links to websites such as DPReview (I use Freespoke for my search engine and there are 13 differing links on the first page! Plenty of reviews and discussions. It seems that this strobe is 9 years old according to one site and there's even a sales page with its original price on another. A link to a sales page:

I have never heard of that brand and figure it's basically a rebadge made by another OEM with a different name but one discussion says certain components are differing and unusual. Some sites say it's a decent strobe unit.
Hope these links help to provide background on this item.

Be well! Ed
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 59 next>>
Check out Video for DSLR and Point and Shoot Cameras section of our forum.
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.