|
You can get into medium format with a holga and a changing bag for really, really cheap. I would strongly recommend a TLR though. You'll get far better photos with even the crappiest seagull.
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2008 16:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 10:26 |
|
|
Luxmore posted:Not really, no. A light meter might come in handy, like Blambert says, but you can usually get by on educated guesses or by using another camera as a meter. as much as I like to pimp proper light meters, you can definitely use a different camera if you're happy with the results from the internal meter, especially with black and white. If the other camera is a digital SLR, even better - you can see how the photo is going to look!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2008 19:55
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:
yeah, I've found this to be the case as well. You can just sit in a corner and do street photography and since your head is not only looking down, but tracking people's movements in the wrong direction, most people don't ever think you're taking photos. The shutter is also pretty quiet.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2008 01:36
|
|
|
Krispy Kareem posted:I'm planning on just buying a new scanner with a film insert. Sucks, since I already have 3 scanners as it is, but none can do film. Still, for the upfront cost of $200 I'll have a new scanner and all the equipment necessary to develop negatives. And my wife's very happy I won't be turning our bedroom closet into a darkroom. scanners with film inserts basically never work as well as proper film scanners. I believe a large part of this has to do with the focal plane of the scanner. edit: nobody can follow that link, use [url] tags, also just buy a film scanner if you plan to use it only for film. edit2: quote:What about using a flatbed scanner for 35mm slides or negatives? If you need to scan slides for using on the web, then you can use a flatbed, but most flatbed scanners do not have a user-controlled focusing system. The scanner most see through the glass (there is no glass in front of your slide on a dedicated 35mm slide scanner). The actual slide is a few mm higher than the glass plate due to the cardboard or plastic mount. So your slide may not be as crisply in focus as a slide in a slide scanner (where you can focus). what is this fucked around with this message at 14:25 on Jun 4, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2008 14:22
|
|
|
breathstealer posted:Some of us psychos would buy SLRs without meters, you see. Meters are always great to have, but I tend to think of one as more of a convenience and less of a necessity as I use classic cameras more and more. also, you really only need one thing with a meter. It could be a nice lightmeter, or a small digital slr, but it's definitely not necessary on every camera.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2008 12:02
|
|
|
Reichstag posted:Even better, buy the Arista Premium 400, it's Tri-X. that's a good deal
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2008 03:17
|
|
|
Clayton Bigsby posted:Sure, go manual by all means. Nothing against it, but I fail to see the value of touting manual as "serious photography" when most of the time you're just manually doing what the camera was about to do for you. the advantage of shooting manual is that if you have a particular scene, and you get your exposure the way you want it, you can walk around shooting without worrying that the meter is going to get confused, secure in the knowledge that your shots will be consistently lit. the downside is that if the light is not consistent in the scene, you're going to get different exposures.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2008 22:59
|
|
And honestly, I can't remember the last time I needed more than +/- 2EV compensation.
|
find some local place that will do drum scans of your negs. That's really the best you can do.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 2, 2008 18:38
|
|
|
those are all cheap tlrs, but medium format is so much more fun than 35mm so go with the tlrs.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2008 15:55
|
|
|
220 is twice as long, You can take twice as many photos. It won't work in some cameras. It's also somewhat less common. (also, the square format is undeniably better than 645 because it contains exactly the same image as both a portrait and landscape 6x4.5, so you can crop to either with no loss of quality. I like it compositionally. The odd landscape medium format sizes like 6x12 are fairlly uncommon but the definitely have their proponents and uses.) what is this fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Oct 30, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2008 17:57
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
The mamiya is great. Go for it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 17, 2008 03:19
|
|
|
think about DX on an FX body, that's kind of how an full frame lens would be on a medium format body. At best you'd get a circle of light surrounded by black in the middle of the negative. Also the mounts aren't compatible. People do use medium format lenses on 35mm bodies though. Usually they pair them with a tilt-shift adapter to make use of the wider imaging circle (otherwise it's basically wasted). If you want to go film I'd recommend a TLR. Cheap, you can get excellent quality glass if you buy the right model, simple, and medium format is always nice. Plus, square is a great format. Don't worry about fancy things like a meter. Just buy a solid older TLR on eBay, budget the money to have it adjusted professionally so the shutter and everything are rock solid, and use an external light meter (or your D3). Medium format is much more fun than 35mm in my opinion.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2008 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 10:26 |
|
|
Jahoodie posted:Mostly because regular scanners are designed to scan paper, not transparencies. I've seen okay results with a gehetto rig that tapped the negs to the glass, then made a paper box over it to reflect the scanner light back through the negatives. also there are focus issues depending on the scanner and negative holder.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2008 21:05
|
|