Posts for: Carl D
Sep 22, 2016 17:54:09 #
Sep 21, 2016 16:11:21 #
As a parting post I would like apologize for my condescending and snobbish attitude if that's how you viewed it, not how it was meant though. I will no longer make any posts to any subjects, since all of you consider me some sort of idiot.
Good luck making posts to various subjects.
Carl D.
Good luck making posts to various subjects.
Carl D.
Sep 21, 2016 14:17:52 #
Desert Gecko wrote:
He upgraded from crop to full frame. Kinda makes your comment look foolish, doesn't it?
Nope! Still electronic wizardry and more $$$.
Sep 21, 2016 12:49:34 #
Kuzano wrote:
Nah! I'm matching and in some cases increasing my ... (show quote)
No digital going to beat that! Great photo and only Velvia can give you that kind of color.
Sep 21, 2016 10:32:01 #
wj cody wrote:
schneiders ane rodenstock are industry standard. i've a number of them. for the 120mm wide i think the schneider can't be beat. i also use a number of fuji w series lenses and i find those excellent also.
glad you are continuing to use large format. oddly enough, referencing my previous post, i prefer my 5x7, as it affords me a larger "canvas" for composition. but that's just me. nothing beats a contact print from either format, that is for sure!
glad you are continuing to use large format. oddly enough, referencing my previous post, i prefer my 5x7, as it affords me a larger "canvas" for composition. but that's just me. nothing beats a contact print from either format, that is for sure!
I have tried Fugi's as well and it's a good lense. The one I haven't tried is a Nikkor and you don't see much of them. Do you have any experience with them?
Sep 21, 2016 10:25:40 #
Sep 21, 2016 10:15:42 #
Sep 21, 2016 09:55:12 #
wj cody wrote:
hah! Carl - so the gauntlet has been thrown down. ... (show quote)
I use Schneider and Rodenstock lenses.
Sep 21, 2016 09:51:14 #
I see several of you are great at calling me names, but can't stand it when I use a generic label for a certain type of photographers of which I did not single out a single person. How bias is that?
Sep 20, 2016 19:42:31 #
mwsilvers wrote:
Well that explains a lot!!! Now I understand your point of you. Besides anything else, your keeper rate is not very good, and your attitude towards sports shooting is amateurish at best. Perhaps you're the one who is not a real photographer.
Your absolutely right about my amateurish attitude towards sports photography, be cause I couldn't care less about it, and thats my keeper rate for sports only. My normal keeper rate is somewhere 25 or better out of 36. A lot of the time it's over 30, just depends on what I'm doing. I shoot LF mostly and most of the time I only shoot 4-6 shots per day.
Sep 20, 2016 18:54:21 #
Film has a quality that digital can never achieve and when it comes to B+W you can't beat it. The Nikon F100 is the top dog of the film cameras IMO. Built like a tank and easy to use with some of the modern dslr offerings. Learn to develop your own film and then scan it. No darkroom needed. The best of both worlds, the richness of film and the convenience of Photoshop for PP.
Sep 20, 2016 18:34:07 #
cjc2 wrote:
Well Carl, according to your standards, I must be one of them. I'd be happy to compare my keepers from any action sporting event to yours! Personally, I find my 64Gb and 128Gb XQD cards way more than adequate to cover a game with my D5. How about you?
With my Nikon F100 I get 4.5 fps and usually get a keeper out of that burst. Out of a 36 exposure roll I get 10-12 roughly. I don't usually shoot sports but when I do I watch the game and anticipate their moves. One bat hitting a ball is as good as another, same goes for the rest of the sports. That's the way I see it.
Sep 20, 2016 18:14:01 #
Sep 20, 2016 18:05:32 #
Sep 20, 2016 17:55:55 #