zaitz, thanks for the explanation, that helps a lot.
so there's really not much sense in me pushing/pulling to create contrast as i can always do that in post after the fact. the only reason would be if i had to shoot a roll over/under to get the necessary shutter speeds, but if i have various films on me i can avoid that by just being prepared.
side note: why is portra 800 so expensive? bought a roll of that and of tri x yesterday, and the portra is like 3x the price.
goosemang wrote:
zaitz, thanks for the explanation, that helps a lot.
so there's really not much sense in me pushing/pulling to create contrast as i can always do that in post after the fact. the only reason would be if i had to shoot a roll over/under to get the necessary shutter speeds, but if i have various films on me i can avoid that by just being prepared.
side note: why is portra 800 so expensive? bought a roll of that and of tri x yesterday, and the portra is like 3x the price.
Zaits and all the other guys have explained it brilliantly... one thing to remember with negative film is the following:
- You shoot to have detail in the shadows (Try not to underexpose). The highlights will fall where they will...
- You develop your film to render the highlights (and if you could gauge the contrast conditions on which the roll was taken, then you can tell the lab to do +/- 1 or even 2). Your shadows are already determined by how you shot the film (if you underexposed/overexposed it).
Once you have nailed this, then you can start doing more alchemy and modifying the way you develop..
If in doubt, then better to overexpose..
On the other hand, transparencies are just the opposite and behave just like your dslr. If you are shooting velvia and such, you have to be careful not to overexpose too much or else you lost it... Slide film, I would leave it for after you have shot quite a few rolls and get the hang of your new camera, metering and such... Also, slides look BEAUTIFUL under a light table... nothings beats it, IMO...
Please excuse my ignorance, but, what would I use the Rollei rollei 4.5 x 6 120 film back vs the 6X6? I understand that the 6X6 is longer, and more coverage, so I guess the 4.5 x 6 would just be a spare, or used when wanting to shoot smaller areas?? hmmm, i guess just having the ability to use either one is just enough to know! now as soon as my film gets here it is off to learn again i go!
The primary reason for using the 645 back instead of the 6x6 back is simply if you like the aspect ratio. Not everyone likes square. If someone only wants to shoot 645, then a smaller camera would make more sense, but having the option is nice.
a.RodriguezPix wrote:
Please excuse my ignorance, but, what would I use the Rollei rollei 4.5 x 6 120 film back vs the 6X6? I understand that the 6X6 is longer, and more coverage, so I guess the 4.5 x 6 would just be a spare, or used when wanting to shoot smaller areas?? hmmm, i guess just having the ability to use either one is just enough to know! now as soon as my film gets here it is off to learn again i go!
Hi Americo.
Basically it is an aesthetic choice. Will your image look better as a square or as a rectangle?
If you use a rectangle 6x4.5 then you will get more pictures per roll
carstenw wrote:
The primary reason for using the 645 back instead of the 6x6 back is simply if you like the aspect ratio. Not everyone likes square. If someone only wants to shoot 645, then a smaller camera would make more sense, but having the option is nice.
Thank you Carsten, it helps my mind out whilst I await my film's arrival, that, and the damned feeling of wanting to sell my 4.5x6 back to further fund film, however, I really would hate to part with these, and plus, who am I to separate such a great family! I am however trying to sell the case, yet, that kinda hurts my sentimental heart as well!
What technique do you need? Exposing? Focusing? Staying still enough for sharp photos?
The most important thing in photography is always the idea. You could do a lot worse than just choosing a project based on something you find interesting, and sticking with it for a while, building up a body of work and studying the work of masters, honing your skills. My first project was cemeteries. I just love the old ones with broken stones and plants everywhere. I also love technical detail, like locomotives, old aeroplanes, machines and so on. Or portraits. Document you circle of friends. Learn how to use angle and lighting to make nice portraits. And so on.
carstenw wrote:
What technique do you need? Exposing? Focusing? Staying still enough for sharp photos?
The most important thing in photography is always the idea. You could do a lot worse than just choosing a project based on something you find interesting, and sticking with it for a while, building up a body of work and studying the work of masters, honing your skills. My first project was cemeteries. I just love the old ones with broken stones and plants everywhere. I also love technical detail, like locomotives, old aeroplanes, machines and so on. Or portraits. Document you circle of friends. Learn how to use angle and lighting to make nice portraits. And so on....Show more →
It takes some getting used to, not shooting at any given time like with these photo's i shot using the old Nikon D700! Sure, I can still achieve results, but, i just need to take it slow, and use my film wisely!
Yes, film costs per frame, so just shooting like with digital gets expensive. But being too conservative leads to missed opportunities and a slow learning curve. Somewhere in the middle there is a happy compromise.
Personally, I don't find that I enjoy using film in a walk-about manner. I am too conscious of everything I do. I much prefer project-oriented thinking where I am working towards something.
What about shooting people with the 6008 for a while. One of your goals is to get your musical cousins to let you shoot them, right? In that case you want to be ready so that you get worthwhile results.
carstenw wrote:
Yes, film costs per frame, so just shooting like with digital gets expensive. But being too conservative leads to missed opportunities and a slow learning curve. Somewhere in the middle there is a happy compromise.
Personally, I don't find that I enjoy using film in a walk-about manner. I am too conscious of everything I do. I much prefer project-oriented thinking where I am working towards something.
What about shooting people with the 6008 for a while. One of your goals is to get your musical cousins to let you shoot them, right? In that case you want to be ready so that you get worthwhile results....Show more →
I do have that in mind everyday of course, and I really want to produce decent results, or better, preferably better! My friends wedding anniversary is today, and I am seriously thinking about offering to photograph them! It would be coool if I could ask them to dress in the traditional Indian attire too! I offered to shoot my brother in law and his family, but unfortunately they all have influenza, and with my daughter not to long off chemo, I cannot take any chances! Thanks for the correspondence Carsten, as I wait for my film to come! I do need to buy in bulk though!! I like the Polaroids as well, even if it seems kind of a waste, to use it on this massive camera!
I am incredibly sorry to hear about your daughter, that must be so hard to cope with. I have a little daughter myself (4), and I cannot imagine what I would feel if something would happen to her.
I don't think Polaroids are a waste, but filling up the area would sure be nice, and they are a bit expensive.
carstenw wrote:
I am incredibly sorry to hear about your daughter, that must be so hard to cope with. I have a little daughter myself (4), and I cannot imagine what I would feel if something would happen to her.
I don't think Polaroids are a waste, but filling up the area would sure be nice, and they are a bit expensive.
Thank you very much Carsten, I am ever grateful! My girl is now 17, she turned 17 in the hospital, sadly, but thank God she is home, and in the process of recovering! The whole thing happened so fast, so sudden, that we had no time to even act! She had a cancerous tumor that grew to over 10 pounds rapidly, in less than a month! Everything went fast, doctors removed it all, and fragments of her fallopian tube, and some uterus, but she will have the ability to conceive, if she wants, but of course the best part is, she survived, and is doing very well, thank God!! She does suffer from sleepless nights, and basically PTSD, but we are a strong family, and have much support! It's crazy, but, she is alive! I lost my father to cancer, he was 56 years old,so this really made me freaking scared! UGH!
can the image be viwed once the photo is taken when using Professional Color Slide (Transparency) Film, or will it need to be processed still?? vs Color Negative
carstenw wrote:
All film needs processing to bring up the image and remove the light sensitivity. Polaroid has the development right inside the photo.
Well Carsten, I finally asked my wife, simply, because she is the smart one, and she said basically the same thing, and despite the crushing blow to my already shattered ego, I think I understood it then, and even more so now, I just can't get where the idea of mine came from! The only idea my wife had, stems from when her brother was in the Navy, and sent her a 35mm film camera! I showed her my ruined film, and she said, yeah that's what it looks like before it gets sent to the lab silly, ahhh, I love that crazy woman, what she sees in me, only God knows. Thank you again, for having the ability to answer my insane question once more, but do not despair, many more will follow!
vs Color Negative
Thank you again, for having the ability to answer my insane question once more, but do not despair, many more will follow!
