Last post on FM for a while, as I take my periodically mandated break from photo-websites and focus on the important stuff.
wfrank wrote:
corposant, love that beach shot.
Thanks - this one's for you, since I know you're looking hard at getting into Hasselblad. The 50mm FLE is a real winner. Here's a couple quasi-archiectural shots:
corposant wrote:
Last post on FM for a while, as I take my periodically mandated break from photo-websites and focus on the important stuff.
Thanks - this one's for you, since I know you're looking hard at getting into Hasselblad. The 50mm FLE is a real winner. Here's a couple quasi-archiectural shots:
Both Portra 160 NC.
How rude, I did not need to see this!
Nah of course not, that is great imagery, super nice details and color! Looking forward to see more from you when you return.
Well, I got my first roll of film back in almost 20 years and I have to say I'm much more pleased than I thought I would be.
I shot both film and digital on a trip to FL and I'm amazed by the fact that the film shots are some of my favorite. The colors and tonality are amazing.
I thought shooting film would be a "fun novelty", but unfortunately I really like the results and have ordered more film.....I can see this getting very pricey and cumbersome.....my wife will not be pleased.
Portra 160, 35mm. Scanned at NCPS (does anyone know a good lab to send to on the East coast?- would love to have it scanned closer)....
(this one if from home, the rest are from FL)
Our Golden, Cadi....
The #2 is more than so, awesome softish but still distinct look to that image (really!). The OOF areas does great with a touch of soft grain. Really like it, make we wanna try color (though I dont have time now).
How did you scan, any particular size/resolution settings?
Here's a few from my Univex Mercury II...very goofy little half frame camera with a rotary shutter. When the lab scans them you get these funny diptychs (the scanner is looking for a 24x36 frame). Shot these on expired Fuji Superia 100. Camera is all manual...no meter, not even a rangefinder . You're just supposed to use the DOF charts and guessing the distance. Works great though...at f8 there's enough DOF it's pretty hard to mess up.
Here's the camera:
The #2 is more than so, awesome softish but still distinct look to that image (really!). The OOF areas does great with a touch of soft grain. Really like it, make we wanna try color (though I dont have time now).
How did you scan, any particular size/resolution settings?
Thanks. I send these off to scan, "high resolution" at NCPS in California.
Now I'm thinking of picking up a scanner (again, the wife will not be pleased ). I don't want to spend a lot though, any recommendations on a decent low price scanner (< $350)? - or would you recommend I just keep sending my film out to get scanned?
Scott Clark wrote:
.. Camera is all manual...no meter, not even a rangefinder . You're just supposed to use the DOF charts and guessing the distance. Works great though...at f8 there's enough DOF it's pretty hard to mess up.
Here's the camera:
.....
Now that's shooting in Manual mode ! Some nice images there.
michael49 wrote:
Now that's shooting in Manual mode ! Some nice images there.
Thanks . I love shooting weird old cameras. I spent all summer shooting cameras that either never had a meter or cameras with a broken one, so I got pretty good at shooing Sunny 16. Works great for most outdoor photography. Gets kind of dicey in deep wooded cover or indoors though . Film is fun .
ken.vs.ryu wrote:
nice half frame shots. so you don't use that rangefinder accessory? it would help my rollei 35.
Thanks! The first time I took the camera out, I brought that pocket rangefinder (I have a few of them). I have a couple that will shoe mount, but because of where it's at on the Mercury, they won't fit. It does make focusing more accurate, but there's a lot of times I just want to bring a very minimal kit. The Mercury has very complete DOF charts on it, and because of the small format DOF is deeper at any given aperture than a regular 35mm...beyond f5.6 you only have to be "pretty close" with guessing the distance (which I'm pretty good at anyway). It's kind of the ultimate snapshooter at f8... The camera didn't work when I first got it, but I cleaned and lubed it and now it runs like a top. The focusing helix was a pain to lube, and it was almost frozen solid. The shutter in it is actually *far* more accurate than most leaf shutters. It's adapted from a movie camera (which Univex also made). It works by having a two part rotating disk...moving one half over the other covers the "window" that the exposure is made through. Higher "speeds" are made by making the window smaller. It only has to rotate at one speed, but will give equivalent shutter speeds up to 1/1000th of a second. They had to make it a half frame though...a disk big enough to cover a full frame would be the size of a dinner plate. It's also got the most comprehensive sunny 16 calculator on the back I've ever seen... Weird camera, but surprisingly functional and fun to shoot.
Very nice Richard. What about them is hard to match up?
Michael, some very nice shots in those half frames. Looks like an interesting experience.
wfrank, you mentioned the bleak color in my last set. That was something I was trying to fix, but the expired film+bad scanning (i.e. me) was a bit hard to fix.
@Zalmy: I think it's as much trying to get the digital images from the ZA to look vaguely similar to the Mamiya 645 film images. But if you look simply at the glass, I guess the ZA is much cooler, and renders the OOF much smoother. Luckily I shot some scenes side-by-side, so I think I can get the digitals looking similar enough (we'd be able to spot the differences of course, but they'll be close enough I think).
zalmyb wrote:
Oh! for some reason I thought you were shooting a ZI (film 35mm rangefinder) alongside a Mamiya 7... Maybe I should actually read the posts here.
I've never really mixed film and digital so I never had to deal with matching colors and such. Probably not much fun,
Well, hey, if you want to get me a new rangefinder go ahead . I'm quite happy with my hi-matic in that area, only wish it went over iso800..
And no, I've not either, so certainly a "new challenge". You see, this was the first time using the Mamiya 645 on a real session (previously just run a test roll through). Perhaps if I had more confidence in it/myself, I could have done the whole thing with it. But I think I'd really need another back or two... Only one right now. Or to change film quicker. Or both. So it was used to supplement the day, with the goal being to test it in a real situation and see how I thought it would fair as the main camera one day (for portraits, not weddings).
I'm confused as the way to go though. Part of me thinks the scans are poor. Part of me thinks I can't consistently focus the 80/1.9 on the afd2 screen... Thinks I should get the 80/2.8 AF and be done. But then again, there are a couple of images where I think the 80/1.9 works great and gives me what I was after. But then still too many OOF ones :-(. Confusing times... One thing I definitely have learnt: this is a portrait combo, not wedding. I just don't think I have the composure to switch from my slrs to this setup in "the heat" of a wedding. And yes, I'm aware a Contax 80/2 AF would have made life much simpler...
. You're just supposed to use the DOF charts and guessing the distance. Works great though...at f8 there's enough DOF it's pretty hard to mess up.
. I love shooting weird old cameras. I spent all summer shooting cameras that either never had a meter or cameras with a broken one, so I got pretty good at shooing Sunny 16. Works great for most outdoor photography. Gets kind of dicey in deep wooded cover or indoors though .jpg)
