|
Fragrag posted:That clears things up a bit. Is it any different with DSLRs? Because when I preview the aperture, I can see the shutter closed, which means it's in front of the mirror. Or am I starting to confuse stuff? You're even using the right terms! When you preview the aperture, you're doing just that. The aperture blades are closing up inside the lens to let in less light. You're confusing the aperture in the lens with the shutter that covers up the film/sensor.
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 18:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
Rontalvos posted:You're even using the right terms! When you preview the aperture, you're doing just that. The aperture blades are closing up inside the lens to let in less light. You're confusing the aperture in the lens with the shutter that covers up the film/sensor. I feel mightily stupid now then. >_< You'd think I know this stuff after working a year with cameras.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 20:21
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:That clears things up a bit. Is it any different with DSLRs? Because when I preview the aperture, I can see the shutter closed, which means it's in front of the mirror. Or am I starting to confuse stuff? That thing you see close IS the aperture. edit:We answer 3 times because we care. Don't mistreat your silver salts. dunno fucked around with this message at 03:10 on Oct 31, 2008 |
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 20:22
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:That clears things up a bit. Is it any different with DSLRs? Because when I preview the aperture, I can see the shutter closed, which means it's in front of the mirror. Or am I starting to confuse stuff? that's not the shutter, that's the aperture. oops, a page behind. In any case, the shutter can be thought of as a curtain that is raised and dropped, it's more of a line. This isn't really technically how it works, but thinking about it like this can help you better distinguish it from the aperture and the entry and exit pupils of the lens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 21:55
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:That clears things up a bit. Is it any different with DSLRs? Because when I preview the aperture, I can see the shutter closed, which means it's in front of the mirror. Or am I starting to confuse stuff? Yes the aperture is in the lens, so you can see the affect of opening/closing it through the viewfinder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 23:02
|
|
|
everyone but the first post on this page is a dumbass.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 23:03
|
|
|
e: i am smart edit for content: Velvia 100f is pretty swell.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 23:07
|
|
|
johnasavoia posted:everyone but the first post on this page is a dumbass.  Ok, to repeat my question with the Zeiss Ikon Contina L. To me, it seemed the aperture was stuck. No matter how much I fiddled around with it, the aperture wouldn't open it. Granted, I didn't try taking any pictures with it because it was only on display, but the aperture is something I (a dumbass) would presume to be open at least a bit at all times, wouldn't it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 23:21
|
|
|
Fragrag posted:
The Contina has a leaf shutter. It looks a little bit like an aperture, but the aperture is usually behind the shutter in these cameras. If you look in through the lens you'll just see the blades of the leaf shutter, which only move when you take a photo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 30, 2008 23:43
|
|
|
Does anyone know of a site that shows examples of the different film types? I'd like to experiment with film as I think it has a look that digital can't replicate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2008 08:55
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Does anyone know of a site that shows examples of the different film types? I'd like to experiment with film as I think it has a look that digital can't replicate. Search flickr for tags (ie: I want to find Velvia 50 shots that have been crossprocessed, I would search for "Velvia+50+Cross+Xprocess+xpro")
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2008 09:32
|
|
|
Snaily posted:Cleaning, lubing and adjusting your own cheap finds: yes or no? I hate to self-quote, but I think I got lost in the deluge of shutter != aperture posts. I'm imagining camera service is basically disassembly in a clean spot, lube wherever service books says and reassembly without getting your private parts caught in the bayonet mount. Am I terribly naive?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2008 09:47
|
|
|
Snaily posted:I hate to self-quote, but I think I got lost in the deluge of shutter != aperture posts. I'm imagining camera service is basically disassembly in a clean spot, lube wherever service books says and reassembly without getting your private parts caught in the bayonet mount. Am I terribly naive? It's a big pain in the butt. I've done it a few times but frankly for the money you're probably better off paying someone. Stuck aperture blades are hard to manage, tiny little springs are impossible to get positioned properly, timing of shutter speeds is hard to calibrate, basically the whole thing is far more like fixing mechanical watches than any other modern hardware.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2008 13:15
|
|
|
Haggins posted:Does anyone know of a site that shows examples of the different film types? I'd like to experiment with film as I think it has a look that digital can't replicate. http://pbase.com/cameras From there you can go to various manufacturers, then their products to see results from them, it includes films, cameras and lenses. It's pretty good.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2008 14:53
|
|
|
I'm thinking about buying VueScan. Is it worthwhile? Right now I have an Epson V500 and the images I am getting out of it with the Epson software look like crap. I tried to scan some 120 Velvia and the colors straight out of the scanner look awful and they seem very unsharp. Does VueScan have film profiles that can automate a lot of this? I'd rather not have to mess with each image in photoshop to make it look like Velvia.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2008 15:54
|
|
|
I use VueScan and it works perfectly for me, but I have custom profiles for my scanner.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2008 19:55
|
|
|
Should it matter if I scan to tiff files? Would I have more flexibility scanning a raw?
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2008 08:34
|
|
|
porcellus posted:Should it matter if I scan to tiff files? Would I have more flexibility scanning a raw? My guess is that tiff is just fine. Raw files benefit from the extra data generated by the camera when you take the picture. Whereas scanning a print into raw would, to me, be the same as converting a jpeg to raw. There is likely no benefit to raw in this case.
|
|
#
?
Nov 5, 2008 20:21
|
|
|
I was hoping you'd say that, I really hate the fact that I can't preview NEF files. Edit: 
porcellus fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Nov 6, 2008 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2008 01:31
|
|
|
porcellus posted:I was hoping you'd say that, I really hate the fact that I can't preview NEF files. Native support for all RAW formats on Mac OS X. Preview, everything. No additional software or install required. I'm also sure there's some extension you can download for windows. Last time we had this discussion all the microsoft fans linked to it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2008 01:57
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:My guess is that tiff is just fine. Raw files benefit from the extra data generated by the camera when you take the picture. Whereas scanning a print into raw would, to me, be the same as converting a jpeg to raw. I disagree, the scanner has an imaging sensor and if the colors are off you can remix them in raw to a greater degree.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2008 01:57
|
|
|
friendship waffle posted:Native support for all RAW formats on Mac OS X. Preview, everything. No additional software or install required. There is an official Microsoft one, but you need an officially registered copy of windows last time I checked. The way it handles RAW and color profiling make me pretty sure my next box will be a MAC.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2008 02:07
|
|
|
I got this today: and am super excited about it. Already working through my first roll of black and white with it, seems to be in perfect working order despite some wear and tear on the outside.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2008 04:21
|
|
|
TLR's are the poo poo, congrats on that. Post some scans of your shots if you can!
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2008 04:42
|
|
|
I LOVE shooting film and was so happy to find a school that taught with 4x5 view camera and had complete wetrooms. Tho these days I'm working on HDR panorama's which are huge timesinks, I love to get out and shoot film to balance things out... Here;s a shot I took at the end of summer that I just scanned last week. Nikon N75 w/ Fuji Velvia 50asa shot at 80asa @ 1/60th second @ f/11 35mm Slide reversal film scanned with a Nikon film scanner at 4000dpi This pic is all about light and color(saturation), and just screams when projected! Sn0wMan fucked around with this message at 06:59 on Nov 6, 2008 |
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2008 06:39
|
|
|
w_hat posted:I disagree, the scanner has an imaging sensor and if the colors are off you can remix them in raw to a greater degree. The flexibility of raw files comes from all the data available when the picture was taken being retained. The print is just like a jpeg. There will never be any more data available than currently exists in that print, because when the film was exposed, any other available data was cast aside by virtue of the film. Scanning it into raw would be analogous to converting a jpeg to raw, you can't just invent extra information that just isn't there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2008 09:05
|
|
|
Rontalvos posted:The flexibility of raw files comes from all the data available when the picture was taken being retained. The print is just like a jpeg. There will never be any more data available than currently exists in that print, because when the film was exposed, any other available data was cast aside by virtue of the film. I meant that while yes, you're stuck with the picture, you can correct for any color casts the scanner perceives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 6, 2008 23:29
|
|
|
I recently inherited a Nikon FM that my dad bought in 1977. I have no idea what I am doing with it, but I manage to have fun anyway. A few months ago I dragged it to devil's playground on Pikes Peak to take some pictures of the hillclimb: Here was my least awful image of the day:  I was overexposing poo poo all day because I had been incorrectly lead to beleive that the built-in light meter would read low. Apparently it only does that when the battery is low, which I had just changed. Pretty sure I used offbrand film, and had it developed at a walgreens. If I can ever find the time, I can't wait to get back into film.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2008 02:52
|
|
|
w_hat posted:I meant that while yes, you're stuck with the picture, you can correct for any color casts the scanner perceives. You can do that no matter what file format he scans it in. You can do that with any image file out there. Scanning in no way affects this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2008 10:11
|
|
|
So I developed some Kodak 320 TXP in 120 format this morning and did my usual diafine dance but an hour or so into drying I noticed that the emulsion side is sort of sticky. Is this a sign of under-fixing? A feature of Tri-X Pan? Random?
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2008 19:23
|
|
|
In my little experience in the matter, Tmax 120 has like a chemical something or other that turns the prewash a strong purple, and I forget the what/reason besides the advice just to wash it really well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2008 21:56
|
|
|
Jahoodie posted:In my little experience in the matter, Tmax 120 has like a chemical something or other that turns the prewash a strong purple, and I forget the what/reason besides the advice just to wash it really well. That's the antihalation layer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 7, 2008 23:42
|
|
|
Not the most awesome vintage find or anything, but picked up a Rebel 2000 with a 28-80 3.5-5.6 for $10 at a garage sale this morning. I've already got an Elan, but this is lighter/smaller, so it'll make the perfect beater to drop in my backpack and cart around casually (even though it's practically mint). I saw a cool little Pentax with a 50mm prime at another one, but it had been really neglected and the shutter was jammed. I'll have to spend more Saturday mornings trawling suburbia for cameras, I seems like most people have no idea what they're selling. Now, if only I could fine a cheap 35mm prime...
Pompous Rhombus fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Nov 8, 2008 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2008 19:00
|
|
|
I just started shooting film on a serious amateur/semi-pro basis. Shot the following on Fujicolor Superia 100 @ 80, Nikon F5 with a 35mm f/2 manual AI lens. Scanned with a Nikon Coolscan 5000. Straight scan, no color correction, just a minor tweak in brightness. Still working out the bugs with the scanner and my technique.  
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2008 05:35
|
|
|
From my new Nokton 50 1.5: (Arista Premium/Tri-X in Diafine)
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2008 05:17
|
|
|
On the advice of a local street photography guru I shot some 400 speed color film at 250(developed at box speed by CVS) and holy poo poo, dynamic range for days, even in the contrastiest of shots, shadows are open and I can pull detail out of every single highlight, every single shot has near infinite highlight detail, I know film is miles ahead of digital in this regard, but this is beyond anything I had seen. Film was Fuji Press 400, but I'm sure it would work for anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2008 05:37
|
|
|
hey cool thread idea - yeah, film rules. when I was working on my undergrad photography thesis, I wanted to make the brightest, boldest, most colorful images, so I ended up shooting the final product on medium format Kodak high-saturation / high-contrast color slide film ISO 100. it was awesome getting those transparencies back from the lab, and I felt like a god loading those shotgun shells of color into my Bronica film back take a look  Click here for the full 727x729 image. you can see the rest of the images in the FOOD series on my website http://www.djhanus.com/ sprintel langsley fucked around with this message at 02:40 on Nov 12, 2008 |
|
#
?
Nov 11, 2008 06:59
|
|
|
johnasavoia posted:On the advice of a local street photography guru I shot some 400 speed color film at 250(developed at box speed by CVS) and holy poo poo, dynamic range for days, even in the contrastiest of shots, shadows are open and I can pull detail out of every single highlight, every single shot has near infinite highlight detail, I know film is miles ahead of digital in this regard, but this is beyond anything I had seen. Film was Fuji Press 400, but I'm sure it would work for anything. That sounds cool, do you have any scanned that you could share? How come you don't lose the highlights to overexposure?
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2008 13:52
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:From my new Nokton 50 1.5: Hey, I just realized you post on RangefinderForum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2008 14:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 17:45 |
|
|
Pompous Rhombus posted:That sounds cool, do you have any scanned that you could share? How come you don't lose the highlights to overexposure? Film takes overexposure much much better than digital does, at the expense of shadows not being as malleable as digital can be sometimes, so by giving it all that extra light, you get well exposed shadows, and more than enough highlight information. Heres one straight from the scan, only inverted, taken around 2pm with the strongest contrastiest light we got that day.  and here is with -2.5EV in lightroom  From the whole roll I shot like this, not a single shot didn't have all the highlights intact.
|
|
#
?
Nov 12, 2008 16:52
|
|