|
Shot some Delta 3200 at an event, developed it at 6400, and pushed further in LR by about 2 stops, so I guess making it 25600? Listening by alkanphel, on Flickr Rest of the set is here: http://flic.kr/s/aHsjC2z4k9
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 01:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 13:31 |
|
|
atomicthumbs posted:What's a good digital incident light meter I can find for $100 or less used? Is there one that cheap that has good low-light capability and can also do spot metering? I think I got my Minolta IIIf for $100, and it's great.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 03:13
|
|
|
How is a look like this achieved? Simply overexposed? Or is it done in post?
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 12:44
|
|
|
internetdrink posted:How is a look like this achieved? Simply overexposed? Or is it done in post? This doesn't look overexposed or at least not by much. I think it's mostly a combination of the cloudy weather (directionless uniform light) and a bit of post. Too much sharpening, too from what I can see.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 13:03
|
|
|
internetdrink posted:How is a look like this achieved? Simply overexposed? Or is it done in post? I think you have to be Asian or maybe just be in Asia. Every drat 400H or Portra 400 from Japan, Korea, or Hong Kong looks like this and I've never seen anyone able to say definitively how to get that look.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 15:47
|
|
|
internetdrink posted:How is a look like this achieved? Simply overexposed? Or is it done in post? To me it looks like color negative film overexposed by a stop or two, plus flat, even, overcast sun.
|
|
#
?
Sep 12, 2012 16:26
|
|
|
Question regarding film scans - I have an old Epson CX7800 which is kind of a pain to deal with. I had been using it to scan b&w since I was developing it, but I am planning on shooting color for a while and will be taking it somewhere. Do any of you know of retail places that offer high res scans? I have read that some people get them from Target but at mine I have only gotten small jpegs on cd in the past. That said, I never asked if they can do larger (and I do trust the guy there do would prefer to go there to begin with). Are there any other places I should look at? There is a local camera place as well but I think the developing and scanning cost roughly 15 bucks and the owner could not give me the exact size of the scan, only that they were jpeg and "large enough to work with". I'm sure the quality is there but I would prefer it to not be jpeg for that price (unless that is standard, this is new to me so I don't know)
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 17:31
|
|
|
rio posted:Question regarding film scans - I have an old Epson CX7800 which is kind of a pain to deal with. I had been using it to scan b&w since I was developing it, but I am planning on shooting color for a while and will be taking it somewhere. Unless you're only shooting one or two rolls of film, buy a V500 and don't look back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 17:39
|
|
|
If you only shoot 35mm a dedicated film scanner like a Plustek (7400,7600,8100, etc) will show more detail than a Epson V750 for V500 money. V500 is probably a good overall suggestion because it also does MF but if you have no intention of getting into MF also consider a dedicated film scanner if quality is the most important. For less than V500 money you may be able to find a used Minolta Dimage III or IV that will definitely show more detail.
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 17:58
|
|
|
Yes, if you don't plan on shooting anything bigger than 35mm a dedicated scanner is far superior. It also just so happens that I will most likely have a Minolta IV for sale very soon...
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice guys - I am slowly putting aside some cash for a dedicated film scanner (baby + low summer income and all), so maybe I'll just not worry about finding a place that scans for now and do it myself when I yet one. Also, I would totally be interested in that Minolta when you end up selling it Reichstag!
|
|
#
?
Sep 13, 2012 18:27
|
|
|
I think I may have posted this or a different version before, but can you guys tell me if I was successful in cloning out all of the dark splotches in the sky? Does it look like there are nice, even gradients in the sky in the top right and on the left side as well? I've been staring at it for too long, can't tell if my eyes are playing tricks on me. #2 by spf3million, on Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 08:52
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:I think I may have posted this or a different version before, but can you guys tell me if I was successful in cloning out all of the dark splotches in the sky? Does it look like there are nice, even gradients in the sky in the top right and on the left side as well? I've been staring at it for too long, can't tell if my eyes are playing tricks on me. It looks like there's a sharp transition in the sky coming off of the tip of the spire, otherwise I think it looks good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
That transition is from the light hitting the building. It belongs there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 17:46
|
|
|
Just to clarify, I can see the shadow down the middle/left. I originally had a bunch of darker blotches in the top right and top left sky areas, maybe smudges on the negative or something? They'd appear and disappear depending on the angle I tilted the monitor. Apparently they're not obvious anymore, so mission accomplished. Thanks.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 17:57
|
|
|
It still looks mottled, almost like leopard-print shadows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 18:45
|
|
|
I hate you
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 18:47
|
|
|
My ME Super is being a crabby crabcake again is refusing to release it's shutter. Does someone have an link to the guide that was posted in one of these camera threads. (I couldn't find it in the Pentax ME Superthread)
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
Probably http://www.kyphoto.com/classics/pentaxmeproblems.html , and that's a good idea to stick it in the other thread.
|
|
#
?
Sep 14, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
This is my latest color pic scanned with the cheap Opticfilm 8100. Film is (super cheap) Fuji C200. Not much in the way of post processing other than removing the occasional scratch. Right after sunset colors were already vanishing but it still looks great IMO.  Balloon burner at dusk di maxmars70, su Flickr
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2012 15:31
|
|
|
Anyone shot Pro Image 100? It looks like there's a healthy dose of post in this shot, but I'm in love with that look. The stuff seems to be pretty drat cheap ebay.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 16:53
|
|
|
Will using a polarizing filter with black and white film do anything for me?
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 17:08
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Will using a polarizing filter with black and white film do anything for me? it will make your skies darker and your reflections less reflecty
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 17:10
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Will using a polarizing filter with black and white film do anything for me? Personally the way I use a polarizing filter is as a sky or reflection-cut filter. It still cuts the light the same way for B+W film. It'll more or less like using a yellow filter except it'll cut reflections too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
Personally I would pick a yellow (or red for MAXXimum contrast!!) filter over a polarizer for b&w shots. But that's just from persona experience. I've never been 100% happy with my skies when I use a polarizer, but that could just me being terrible 
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 18:20
|
|
|
Thanks guys, I want it primarily for color film, but didn't know. I think I'm going to buy this one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/11278-REG/B_W_65062138_67mm_Linear_Polarizer.html Is it worth an extra $20 for multicoating? EDIT: I googled (don't know why I asked before doing that) and evidently it's use in tropical areas so moisture doesn't get between the glass pieces. eggsovereasy fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 20:07
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Thanks guys, I want it primarily for color film, but didn't know. You probably want a circular, not a linear polarizer (matters in case you ever want to use it on an AF lens). Also, it looks like you misspelled "Marumi Super DHG" while you were searching, try this: http://www.amazon.com/Marumi-67mm-Super-Filter-Japan/dp/B003QSG6SS Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 20:21 on Sep 19, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:You probably want a circular, not a linear polarizer (matters in case you ever want to use it on an AF lens). Also, it looks like you misspelled "Marumi Super DHG" while you were searching, try this: Is that better than B+W? Looks like normal price is stupid high, but sometimes amazon posts crazy list prices so I don't know how realistic that $250 is.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
eggsovereasy posted:Is that better than B+W? Looks like normal price is stupid high, but sometimes amazon posts crazy list prices so I don't know how realistic that $250 is. Yeah, it tied with B+W's nicest filter. The linear polarizers are cheaper than the C-Pols because they're simpler, meaning for an equivalent filter B+W is much more expensive. The list price is unrealistic but the Super DHG is by far the best polarizer for the money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 21:56
|
|
|
Just letting you know that my Marumi is awesome and you shouldn't spend more on anything that's not an upgrade anyway.
|
|
#
?
Sep 19, 2012 22:13
|
|
|
Just wondering if anyone has traded in gear at KEH, was their  offer reasonable? Did they quibble over the rating?I'm looking to offload some older Pentax digital gear and hopefully get enough cash for it to pay for a Bessa R.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 00:20
|
|
|
It's not even rating, they just give you really, really low offers. The only reason to sell to keh is if you have no patience, though, for my sake, I hope people keep doing it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 00:26
|
|
|
Thanks to KEH by BGN branded film back was exactly that - a bargain for what I got. Same with the MF kit I got last year. KEH is great for buyers, so-so for sellers.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 02:02
|
|
|
Compared to most stores which are bad for both (which is fair enough since they have to deal with customers rubbing their grubby hands all over everything).
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
Why the hell did I go with WalMart to develop my negatives? Dropped them off on the 6th of this month. They didn't get sent out until the 11th (I didn't know they sent out their c41). Still not done yet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 02:38
|
|
|
dakana posted:Why the hell did I go with WalMart to develop my negatives? Dropped them off on the 6th of this month. They didn't get sent out until the 11th (I didn't know they sent out their c41). Still not done yet. On a related note: never pay for minilab scans, ever. They're so bad I can't believe they use them to make prints.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
Well I might try my luck with ebay then, just a couple of zoom lenses and a k100d super body, which KEH offered around $300 for the lot in EX condition, I'll see if I can do better.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 05:42
|
|
|
Yeah, I think KEH offered me like $40 or $50 for my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 Macro in EX+ condition. I mean that was like insultingly low. I'd almost rather they said "Sorry we don't want it".
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 06:46
|
|
|
Is there a way to add EXIF data to an image? It's not super important or anything, but I wouldn't mind adding camera info to film shots I've scanned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 06:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 13:31 |
|
|
aliencowboy posted:Is there a way to add EXIF data to an image? It's not super important or anything, but I wouldn't mind adding camera info to film shots I've scanned. Sure. If you're using Photoshop, go to File -> File Info and that should let you add what you want. Lightroom probably has the same feature but I'm between reinstalling it so I can't verify. edit: Oh huh weird, I guess it doesn't let you edit the Camera Info. That's odd, I could have sworn it let me do that before. Some rudimentary googling reveals http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/ might be a good solution, though it's not really an elegant GUI as far as I can tell. some kinda jackal fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Sep 20, 2012 |
|
#
?
Sep 20, 2012 07:03
|
|