Manual Focus Nikon Glass
/forum/topic/929565/2937

1       2       3              2937      
2938
       2939              5886       5887       end

leighton w
Registered: Nov 12, 2010
Total Posts: 12616
Country: United States

rattymouse wrote:
In no way do I project my needs or habits onto anyone. This is all a very personal decision, for everyone.

leighton w wrote:
Oh, I didn't think that for one minute. I was simply saying what I found freeing in photography. In fact, I have the utmost respect for you and other film shooters that keep that era alive. I think it's great that you and others share your work with film, it certainly has a look all it's own. And one I very much enjoy looking at.

rattymouse wrote:
Yeah, that's another unexpected side benefit, a connection to a bygone era. We are seriously in danger of losing part of our photographic heritage if Fuji and Kodak cease making film. Hopefully Ilford will hang on longer, but the future for Kodak and Fuji is not at all certain. I want to make images with silver halide film while it is still available.

Now is the golden age to be shooting film. The cameras are dirt cheap, and made waaay better than anything today. I could throw my Nikon FM2 down a flight of stairs and I bet it would still work. The camera is a tank. Incredibly wonderful holding that metal camera. Mine took a big hit from the previous owner, with a nice dent on one side. My Fuji GA645 was a $1600 camera back before digital. I bought it in mint condition for $400. What an absolute bargain. A roll of Kodak or Fuji color film costs $2 still for the general purpose films. The pro films are a bit more. Only slide film is very expensive. Sadly those days seem to be coming to a close. Medium format slides are just stunningly beautiful to look at. There is no digital equivalent there.


I know what you mean about the build quality. I had the F3 and to this day it remains my favorite camera to hold and operate. I made the mistake though of buying the motor drive, it was so cool, but man did THAT burn up a roll.



Andre Labonte
Registered: Dec 21, 2005
Total Posts: 15578
Country: United States

Regarding Film and it going to the wayside: Is that not the way of things? Look at the golden age of sail, chariots, or any other human technology. Something "more efficient" (notice I did not say 'better') comes along and people move to that and the old technology is supplanted with only a few practitioners who keep it alive for nostalgic reasons.

Except for the reducing number of available films and processing centers, I can see where it is the "Golden Age" of film ... at least for a short time longer.



pburke
Registered: Oct 08, 2010
Total Posts: 3003
Country: United States

rattymouse wrote:
Awesome two shots of a Mclaren Peter. Best car livery EVER.



thanks - the red and orange of these cars is very difficult to get right in post - it's so saturated, you have to back off the exposure quite a pit, or you blow out detail in these areas.

600mm f/4 with TC-16A again, ISO400







There was an old Indycar in the same color scheme, but it only ran one lap. Old cars do have a lot of issues - this one didn't run for very long either:







The detail in these images at full 960mm is stunning, well beyond anything I ever saw on a film scan taken with similar lenses in the 90s. A D600 sensor is so ridiculously ahead of slide film, I can see the lint on the sock of the driver where he has the toe cut off the shoe. I don't miss film any longer.

Sometimes you nail a shot and you immediately see in camera RAW that this one is a winner. So far I think this is the sharpest shot I took in that corner:







100% crop shows what I am talking about - tape and stone chips on the mirror, wrinkles in face, every detail of the helmet, it's all there:







designdog
Registered: Oct 05, 2004
Total Posts: 227
Country: United States

Time to give a little back to this forum.

I have a copy of the Thom Hogan Complete Guide to the D700 (DVD and printed To Go manual) as well as the Nikon D700 book by David Busch. All are in as new condition. Since I now have a D800, and the respective editions for that camera, I certainly don't need these.

So I offer this at no charge to anyone here. Just estimate the shipping costs, paypal me, and I will box them up and send them to you. Be realistic, as the book is big and heavy.

First come, to my PM, first served...



pburke
Registered: Oct 08, 2010
Total Posts: 3003
Country: United States

rattymouse wrote: That [to me] is what film photography is all about, being in the moment. I take the shot, and it's done. No chimping, no checking, no reshooting. For me, digital photography became a way to lose the moment. Always chimping after a shot, always shooting more than necessary, coming back from a day's shoot with hundreds of photographs, filling up hard drive after hard drive with tens of thousands of images.


I resemble that remark (except for the chimping - no time for that, I am still shooting). Thing is, there were hundreds of images in my life while shooting film when I failed in that moment, and found out a week later that I should have taken another one. Not sure what's so bad about avoiding that. It's the difference between a poorly exposed or motion blurred failed photo and having a good image. I'm not attached to film, probably because I spent thousands of dollars a year on it even when I tried to conserve it (due to cost). I'm also not attached to the process of taking photos on film or digital - I'm a 'whatever works' guy and use whatever tools are available to me in a given situation (if I can afford it). The end result is what I am after, not some special experience while pushing that shutter button.

Also, I have tens of thousands of film scans filling my hard drive, and I wished I had more time to scan the rest of them, but a lot are on c41 negs and it's a lot of work. I shot c41 negs because I simply couldn't afford to shoot slides in that volume, and scans of negs were acceptable at the time. Now I pay the price that I can't even see the images unless I spend hours and hours with the film strip holder in the scanner (slides go in a stack feeder and I walk away). Maybe when I retire, I'll finally get through this pile of then historic footage.

Perhaps I'm just too pragmatic about the process of taking pictures. Even in the film days, I figured shoot as much as you can, because you won't get a second chance after the race is over. I really see nothing wrong with taking a lot of images. The hard part is to edit out the good stuff, but I'd rather do that after I shoot and make sure I do indeed get the good stuff. If I was conserving disk space, I certainly wouldn't have taken the white car shot above - it never was interesting in its real racing life, and it's not the prettiest of race cars, but I do get my kicks out of having recorded an image that is technically near perfect, and that after having been away from this type of shooting for a dozen years.

Now, when I shoot other subjects, it is much more of a one shot one image thing, with very little technical challenge. I chimp only to see a histogram at best, since I don't have handheld light meter.







pburke
Registered: Oct 08, 2010
Total Posts: 3003
Country: United States

rattymouse wrote:


Since shooting film, I have bought TWO cameras. My Fuji GA645 and Nikon FM2. Total price, $600. I'm two years into this with the GA645 and have no itch to move on. At all. The cost of these manual focus lenses are just hilarious compared to my other lenses. My Canon 85 L alone cost more than my 4 AIS lenses!! Same thing with my Nikkor 24mm f/1.4 lens.



there are clearly different perspectives on this, and that's because of how we use our cameras. Back in my film days, I used to shoot $600 of film in a single weekend, making film and processing my most expensive photographic expense each year. Now that digital is finally as good and better than film, I actually see a D600 as a money saving camera, and it costs the same as my EOS-1n bodies used to cost!

I stopped taking pictures between 2001 and 2008 because a) high quality digital was expensive, and more importantly b) it wasn't as good as film. Now digital is better and cheaper. Shooting film for me will be a nostalgic experience from here on, similar to firing up your old fossil fuel car for a spin around town will be in 20 years or so.



pburke
Registered: Oct 08, 2010
Total Posts: 3003
Country: United States

leighton w wrote:
I know what you mean about the build quality. I had the F3 and to this day it remains my favorite camera to hold and operate. I made the mistake though of buying the motor drive, it was so cool, but man did THAT burn up a roll.


I bought the motor for it, too... and for a while I was considering to buy this little attachment:







Zichar
Registered: May 13, 2009
Total Posts: 3759
Country: Singapore

Now I'm scouring the internet looking for neopan 400 and provia 400x
Envious of your brick, RM

>>

I also just realised the 135mm AIS I had my eye on got sold, bleah
Was gathering courage to click the Buy Now button, and today I reached the required level
Life.



Oosty
Registered: Mar 09, 2009
Total Posts: 4209
Country: South Africa

Peter, thanks for the explanation on the TC.

I'm in awe of your ability to plough through so many images in PP. Since I tend not to delete the duds I'd need a Cray computer to handle all the pics if I shot like that.

I'd also be more worried about the camera catching fire than being concerned about oil

Really great images of the McLaren Marlboroughs too.



pburke
Registered: Oct 08, 2010
Total Posts: 3003
Country: United States

jhinkey wrote:
If you need some more 16/3.5 space warping here's a few more from last week . . .


I love the Walla Walla. On my first road trip through Washington in the 80s we drove through that place, and we couldn't stop laughing about the name of it. Definitely a very memorable name for a place



pburke
Registered: Oct 08, 2010
Total Posts: 3003
Country: United States

Three more detail shots of the 1975 McLaren - these all with the 105mm f/2.5

f/5.6 1/320s ISO 100







f/5.6 1/400s ISO 100







f/2.5 1/640s ISO 100









Lieutenant Z
Registered: Nov 21, 2010
Total Posts: 3777
Country: France

Thanks all for comments on my cemetery pics.

Another one with the 28/2.8 ais :



mp356
Registered: May 31, 2009
Total Posts: 5639
Country: United States

Lieutenant Z wrote:
Thanks all for comments on my cemetery pics.

Another one with the 28/2.8 ais :




Very nice image with a lovely background.



leighton w
Registered: Nov 12, 2010
Total Posts: 12616
Country: United States

Oosty wrote:
Peter, thanks for the explanation on the TC.

I'm in awe of your ability to plough through so many images in PP. Since I tend not to delete the duds I'd need a Cray computer to handle all the pics if I shot like that.



You know Peter, images aren't like wine, they don't improve with age.



mp356
Registered: May 31, 2009
Total Posts: 5639
Country: United States

DTOB wrote:
Another from the Marine Museum:




Very nice Dylan. Big perspective difference this lens gives between FX and DX.



leighton w
Registered: Nov 12, 2010
Total Posts: 12616
Country: United States

Lieutenant Z wrote:
Thanks all for comments on my cemetery pics.

Another one with the 28/2.8 ais :


Nice, I don't believe I've ever seen bokeh come out of this lens such as this. Now tell us, did you accentuate it in post?



mp356
Registered: May 31, 2009
Total Posts: 5639
Country: United States

jhinkey wrote:
If you need some more 16/3.5 space warping here's a few more from last week . . .



Very nice John. I like the Walla Walla.



mp356
Registered: May 31, 2009
Total Posts: 5639
Country: United States

Thank you Ray, Leighton, and Curtis for the comments. Yes Leighton, I do have an affinity for Williamsburg.



pburke
Registered: Oct 08, 2010
Total Posts: 3003
Country: United States

leighton w wrote:
Lieutenant Z wrote:
Thanks all for comments on my cemetery pics.

Another one with the 28/2.8 ais :


Nice, I don't believe I've ever seen bokeh come out of this lens such as this. Now tell us, did you accentuate it in post?


If that was created by the lens alone, I am buying one...



DTOB
Registered: Oct 07, 2010
Total Posts: 1359
Country: Canada

I'm pretty sure it has been accentuated.

You can tell by looking at the 90 degree angles in the cross. They should be blurred just as much as the upper and lower portions.



1       2       3              2937      
2938
       2939              5886       5887       end