|
First day of Spring and for some reason it's snowing in NJ. I think I'm gonna head out and shoot some Tri-X, but I'm not sure if I should trust the meter on my Nikon F100 in the snow. I know that snow can be deceiving since it's so much brighter than it looks to the naked eye. Any suggestions?
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2009 13:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 31, 2024 20:58 |
|
|
pwn posted:Your meter wants to expose for 13% gray. Bring a digital along to help nail exposure before setting your film camera. Well, it seems that within this short time, the sun came out and melted all of the snow. But thanks for the info, I'll remember it for the future. It must take quite a bit of experience to try to do it without a digital camera as a backup. It's beyond me, that's for sure. I'm most interested in how people were able to go out and take decent pictures before the invention of light meters and having to shoot fully manual without anything giving a starting point. j883376 fucked around with this message at 14:28 on Mar 20, 2009 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2009 14:24
|
|
|
pwn posted:Definitely more time-consuming. It forces you to understand the rules of exposure and, in the case of older gear without modern conveniences, the zone system. Digital camera or not, though, your images aren't going to be as good as they can be until you learn this. Digital just makes those initial stages much easier, faster and relatively cheaper to learn. I understand the concepts; Larger aperture, more light, etc. But I would never be able to walk out on a sunny day with 200 ISO film and set myself an aperture and shutter speed without a point of reference. I really don't think there's any way to be able to do that without a lot of trial and error. I did most of my learning on my dad's D70. Then he gave me his old N2020 to use. After using that, I decided to buy my own F100 and use his old lenses. Gotta love Nikon F-mount interoperability.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2009 14:35
|
|
|
pwn posted:edit: Interested in dumping the D70? I'd love to replace my D40. :X It's not mine to dump.  My dad still actively uses it. Unless he switches to something newer, I doubt it's going anywhere.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2009 15:17
|
|
|
Okay, I need help figuring out if the lab I sent these to ruined some of my pictures or if I'm to blame. I went to a park with my girlfriend and brought along my Nikon F100 and 2 rolls of slightly old Kodak 400 (Not sure which line of film it was). I sent them off to York Photo and about 70% of my prints look beautiful, but the other 30% or so look terribly yellow. I'm thinking of a few possible problems. 1. Crappy scanning 2. My camera's white balance hosed up and they didn't color correct 3. They hosed up the color correction I have no way to know, until the prints come back to me in the mail whether it was just the scanner or not. The pictures I received online to follow. Pretty berries:  Terribly yellowed platform:  Now, the berries picture was taken at my house, but I've ruled out that there's any connection to location because I also have a picture I took at my house that has the same yellowing problem, so it has nothing to do with the actual location I was shooting at.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2009 16:44
|
|
|
TokenBrit posted:They both look like poor quality auto curves/auto levels adjustments, so probably the scanner. I was thinking the problem could be the age of the film, but most of the pictures look beautiful, so it wouldn't make sense that there are only certain frames that are bad. I'm also thinking that the prints have a 99% chance of being made from the scans since most places, at least the ones I have experience with, all use the same equipment that they print digital photos with. Most places don't make print by hand. Also, ignore my comment about the white balance. I had a brain fart and I was thinking digital.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2009 16:51
|
|
|
Rednik posted:Finally got around to scanning some negs that I took with my F100. The dust removal feature on the Epson V700 blows. F100  What film are you using?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2009 23:38
|
|
|
HPL posted:You mean you sent them to the regular printing service the same as a colour photo? And in what particular ways were they bad? I'm fairly sure that going anywhere that they print color will work just fine. The way they work is that they scan the negatives and then just print them out. All automated, they just pop them in the machine and it does all the work. It's not like it does anything with chemistry, so it shouldn't ruin your negatives since they're only being scanned. I wouldn't recommend a pharmacy or anything though mostly just because they tend not to care about people's pictures, so they do a crappy job. And of course you run the risk of them being careless and scratching a negative.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2009 23:31
|
|
|
Kaerf posted:Both. My room doubles as my darkroom, but my school has a full fledged darkroom that I make use of occasionally. Going into a room with no windows is also good for this. For example, my bathroom at school has no windows on it, so if I were to develop in there, I could just go sit in the shower with the lights off and have no risk of ruining the film.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2009 23:33
|
|
|
Okay guys, follow up to my post about the scans I got. Seems their scanner was hosed up or something. I quickly thumbed through a couple of the pictures I knew were problematic and they seem to look fine in print. I think I'm going to write them a quick letter and let them know I'm somewhat disappointed in the scan quality. I don't plan to get too angry though just because I had a coupon for free online scans. Free just shouldn't mean poor quality.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2009 20:10
|
|
|
dorkasaurus_rex posted:Where and how can I get Kodachrome developed? Dwayne's Photo is, I believe, the only place left on the planet that still develops Kodachrome. It's in Parson, Kansas. http://www.dwaynesphoto.com/
|
|
#
¿
Apr 10, 2009 23:59
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:http://motion.kodak.com/US/en/motion/Hub/PixelGrain/pixelgrain.htm That was awesome. First one was a little slow, but the other two were great
|
|
#
¿
Apr 18, 2009 01:24
|
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:God damnit, how many cameras do you have now? This wouldn't be possible unless another, somebody else's camera was used because it would be all - 1.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2009 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 31, 2024 20:58 |
|
|
CanuckBassist posted:Well I just want to see his film cameras. It seems like he has collected a number of them in a very short time. I was kidding 
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2009 05:58
|
|