The thing may be a royal pain to focus accurately, but it can actually outresolve the 43mm.
+1. The 150 is an outstanding lens, straight from wide-open.
Most of the perceived focusing issue is uncertainty till the results show up. A view-finder magnifier would be nice. My actual hit-rate is very high, which builds confidence to shoot away and not fret about it.
KatieInTexas wrote:
Mike, what did you shoot your 3200 at? Do you like it? I tried one roll (in the Mamiya 7) and actually liked it...
another polaroid from me, this time with a hot light (ISO 3200 is something I'm not used to)
There are a lot of opinions on how to rate high-speed films. Honestly, I almost always shoot it at box speed, or maybe a third of a stop below. I think if you meter well and have a scene with sufficient contrast and luminosity, I don't feel like there's a need to overexpose. In terms of comparisons, I would say that TMZ is a more exacting film, whereas Delta has more character.
I took a field trip to a rocky beach that's very popular with surfers - because there are huge waves. Unfortunately, there was too much contrast for digital, and I was a bit at a disadvantage because I had a half a roll of Velvia in my camera. Conditions got generally better as the sun started to set. I figure I'll start with the worst pictures first.
Good to know. The roll I shot happened to come with the camera, and I shot it in a dark room with extreme lighting (and through a door to the outside) and rated it at 1200. In fact, I think I sent you some of those shots when we did the lens exchange. I liked the tones from that film ...
corposant wrote:
There are a lot of opinions on how to rate high-speed films. Honestly, I almost always shoot it at box speed, or maybe a third of a stop below. I think if you meter well and have a scene with sufficient contrast and luminosity, I don't feel like there's a need to overexpose. In terms of comparisons, I would say that TMZ is a more exacting film, whereas Delta has more character.
kidtexas wrote:
I can only imagine how annoying working with files that large must be.
how to secure wipe a hard drive by ezwal, on Flickr
It tests your patience, for sure. But there are also perks. Editing, in some ways, is much easier because you are able to get in so tight. Things like masking are made easier, though it does take time. Like everything it's a tradeoff. For now I would definitely rather have the 8x10 for almost everything. Carrying, photographing, developing, editing....The tradeoffs, for me, make it worth it.
The other night I went out to the Capitol to try some compositions. It took me over 1.5 hours to get 2 exposures . I had my longest lens, the bellows extended 30 some inches, and as much movement as my 8x10 C1 could muster. Not the results I expected but I was able to execute the movements somewhat well which was a first. 30+ inch bellows extension and only 1 tripod for exposures of 1m 45s = no good .
alkanphel wrote:
corposant: Thanks! I never even got to try Neopan 400 in 120 my friends using it for 35mm love it. Nice shots btw, especially loving the ones where you broke the rule of thirds!
Zaitz: Fantastic photo! Love the bold colors and all that detail in the fore and back ground.
Thanks. I want to try some test prints simulating a large print to compare to my scans.
corposant: the colors are the opposite of what I'd expect! Maybe it's just the change in light temperature.
Zaitz wrote:
It tests your patience, for sure. But there are also perks. Editing, in some ways, is much easier because you are able to get in so tight. Things like masking are made easier, though it does take time. Like everything it's a tradeoff. For now I would definitely rather have the 8x10 for almost everything. Carrying, photographing, developing, editing....The tradeoffs, for me, make it worth it.
Makes sense. I was mostly thinking of the strain on the computer. I do all my editing on a laptop (with external screen). I'd finally have to invest in some fast external drives if I was working on files that large.
I really am tempted to get into 4x5. Not sure how I'll work out the developing and scanning though.
Interesting. How about a switch back to Fuji? I found a good vantage point where I could catch some surfers. In one of these, they are just dots in the distance.
kidtexas wrote:
Makes sense. I was mostly thinking of the strain on the computer. I do all my editing on a laptop (with external screen). I'd finally have to invest in some fast external drives if I was working on files that large.
I really am tempted to get into 4x5. Not sure how I'll work out the developing and scanning though.
Oh no doubt my PC is screaming while I process them. Mine is getting a bit old - Q6600 2.4ghz, 6gb ram, and a few hard drives. Nothing great especially not my HDs. I don't use 64bit CS5 which hurts me big time. It has run out of ram on a few occassions even when trying to save! For this file I split it into multiple pieces and would do edits on them individually and then merge them back together. Adjustment layers made that easy.
I'd encourage you to try 4x5 ! I have mine for sale too. Great little field camera. On Ebay now though. The HP Combiplan daylight tank makes developing black and white (and even color) easy at your house. No dark room needed. I load my film next to my PC at night now. Taped off all the little lights. Have even loaded it during the day in my bathroom without taping off the edges of the door.
Scanners can be had cheap! Check craiglist countrywide for deals. My 4990 was $85 shipped! Can do up to 8x10 film quite well.
kidtexas wrote:
Bunch of nice shots on Portra guys! I still miss Kodachrome though.
I was never a fan of K64! I was thinking about posting a few of the Portra 400 shots in the Landscape forum, but unless it's a long exposure or a sunset/sunrise, it's not Landscape Forum material.
After I got another couple rolls of beach shots back, I think I should lay off shooting there for a while. Thankfully I have a trip to the Salton Sea and Death Valley coming up soon, so it's getting close to the time where I need to figure out what I am taking. Aside from my Mamiya 7, I was thinking about renting a GSW690III, so I could shoot one in B&W and one in color. I went from thinking about taking a variety of 35mm film, to just taking low-speed film, to maybe just not taking 35mm at all. I have been getting better and better at using my NEX, and generally I am using my Ikon when I need to be shooting at eye-level (which is for candids/street shooting). I hate to betray the 35mm, but I am searching for reasons why I should take it in this situation.
I always liked K64. Then again, I have boxes of slides of my childhood, so I 'identify' with the look.
I'd love to go to the Salton Sea and Death Valley. Should be a fun trip. Maybe some day. The M7 sounds like the perfect camera for a trip like that. If you don't think you'll use 35mm, leave it. Rent a panoramic camera instead
my friends using it for 35mm love it. Nice shots btw, especially loving the ones where you broke the rule of thirds!
