Had a Canon AE-1, and spent alot of money on film. Then got a Canon SureShot, film, and it was a great P&S. But still film. But I got back far less bad pictures. Then I got my first digital, an Epson 480x640 (?). My current cell phone has more megapixels than that one did. Anyway, after the Epson, I never took another film picture, and have grown in digital photography. Still don't have a big honking camera that I want, but the one I do have, I understand, and can take good pictures consistently. That's the key. A good photographer can take good pictures with most any camera, as composition, balance, position, etc, have more of an effect on taking good pictures than the camera itself. As in cutting off heads.
Agreed -- especially if you forgo the Program mode. (But, it also allows you to do better at photographing what *you* want instead of what the camera wants. My previous DSLR -- a Nikon D70 -- had both Program and Auto modes -- and the Auto mode I avoided like the plague. In particular, there were five zones in that which could be used for autofocus, and in Auto mode, it would focus on the zone which had the closest object. *Not* what you want when you want a subject framed by somewhat out-of-focus objects for aesthetic purposes. (I usually kept it locked so the center was the zone used for autofocus and exposure, and if I wanted something a bit off center, I would aim to put that in the center, press the shutter release half way to lock in the focus and exposure settings, then re-frame to what I wanted and complete the exposure.
The Auto mode also would pop up the flash whenever *it* thought that was what was needed. I like to be unobtrusive when photographing people, so I want the flash off most of the time.
Program mode gave me the things which I wanted automatic for quick shots, without imposing other things on me that I did *not* want. It even allowed me to automate the selection of ISO (bumping it up from the default setting as needed) so I could take reasonable shots in lower light levels without flash.
And I could also go to Aperture preferred or Shutter preferred, or pure manual as needed.
There are fancy autofocus modes in the D300s which I have so far avoided. They check all the autofocus zones (a lot more than the five of the D70), and identify a group of them as representing a face (I'd love to see the algorithm used for that), and focus on that. Since I am as likely to photograph objects as faces, I've kept that mode disabled, though I can imagine circumstances where I *might* want to automatically recognize and focus on faces -- but certainly not for general walking around. And if there are multiple faces, how do I know that it will pick the face which *I* care about? :-)
Amen!
And I tend to carry my DSLR whenever out of the house. Usually with the 28-105mm lens on it, a reasonable range for what I normally shoot, plus the excellent macro mode as well.
Reasonable. I just keep a spare of the special battery pack already charged for swapping in if I get close to the bottom (usually only when I'm using the flash a lot -- like documenting the trick-or-treaters. I'm also usually using an external flash unit for that, too -- get the flash high enough above the eye level to reduce redeye, and bounce some off the overhead for more diffuse illumination.
Yes -- I've done a lot of work in the past with extension tubes, bellows, or a combination of the two. But that tends to be left for special situations now -- the Macro mode on the above-mentioned lens is good enough to cover most of my needs. And a slow lens means better depth of field anyway -- which is often what you need/want. When I don't want that, I go to the 50mm f1.4 (if it gives good coverage from where I am) and go to aperture preferred to drop the foreground and background out of focus. (Or -- use a long lens wide open for even more out of focus outside the desired area. An example is my 180 mm f:2.8. (Or if you want weird highlights in the out of focus zone, use a mirror telephoto, like my 500mm f:8 Reflex Nikkor. Highlights well out of focus come up as bright donuts. :-) An interesting effect when you have sky showing between leaves, or glinting sunlight off waves. I've got a number of those from back in my film days, too -- though it wasn't a Nikkor lens, nor a Nikon camera body back then. :-)
Beyond zoom, most of the modern camera can "crop" in the view finder. On my Fuji it's called "enlarging" or "instant zoom" with options at
1.4x and 2x (shows a framing rectangle in the viewfinder). The results can be stunning.
Jon, I shoot at a higher resolution than I need and post process. I used to try to conserve memory by shooting at the resolution I thought would be ok. But too many times I've wanted to crop a frame and found the resulting pixelization ruined what I had.
A good tripod is very handy.
So are fill lights, reflectors, and a piece of Kleenex over the strobe for those ultra close ups. But all that will come when the time is right.
It was only in the last year or so, I learned that the aesthetic quality of those out of focus zones has a name. It's Bokeh.
formatting link
In part from the above linked article:
"Although difficult to quantify, some lenses enhance overall image quality by producing more subjectively pleasing out-of-focus areas. Good bokeh is especially important for large-aperture lenses, macro lenses, and long telephoto lenses because they are typically used with a shallow depth of field. Bokeh is also important for medium telephoto "portrait lenses" (typically 85150 mm on 35 mm format) because in portraiture photography, the photographer typically seeks to obtain a shallow depth of field to achieve an out-of-focus background and make the subject stand out."
I had a nice Kodak 2.5x2.5 Rolleiflex? when I was doing black and white. Quite a nice camera, actually. The Hassleblad was the Nikon of the day in the 2.x" square camera. You just had to use a light meter, and set all the settings, but back then, the negative being 4x the size of a 35mm was nice. Had an old BIG honking Speed Graphic, too. Boy, think of a press person dragging one of those around all day. Like carrying a bowling ball.
If you want to splurge on tripods and ball heads that will outlast several digital cameras, these guys have the 'right stuff':
formatting link
Made in USA (San Luis Obispo), sold all over the globe and very, very nice (silky-smooth ball head action, beautiful finish etc.)
(FWIW, there was a controversy in '08 regarding the owner's personal political contributions to oppose same-sex marriage Prop 8, which I guess might be considered a plus or a minus)
My photographic duties included taking pix of suspected tangos without appearing to have a camera. To do that I learned to estimate exposure setting and distance by eye and a few memorized rules, which turned out to be very useful in other settings such as publicity shots where I could tell where the light was good enough to ask the actor to spare a minute, and industrial photography.
The very knowledgeable German photo shop owner who supplied and advised me was later uncovered as a Soviet spy.
FWIW, I list around 100 items a month on ebay most months--that means about 1500 images, ranging from coins and jewelry to cars and trucks.
On that basis I can say some things with a bit of confidence.
I normally use an 17-85mm zoom lens on a crop sensor DSLR camera--that's equivalent to 25-128mm and is a 5-1 range. The other lens I use regularly is a 100mm macro, equivalent to 150mm. I have lenses ranging from 10mm to 300mm and a more specialized macro that I use from time to time but the 17-85 and the 100 macro are the workhorses.
I seldom use the extreme wide end of the range, but could stand a little longer.
If your camera has a zoom range in the 28-140mm equivalent range and a decent macro function that gives a reasonable amount of working distance at 1:1 equivalent, then optically it should be good enough.
You don't need a lot of megapixels if you're shooting stuff to be advertised online--full screen on a modern monitor is about 2 megapixels, and even a crappy camera you buy today has 10 or more, so don't let that be a particular concern.
The two features that I could not do without at this point are a hot shoe and manual controls for exposure and focus. Autofocus misses too often to be acceptable to me as the primary or only means of focus. I use off-camera flash most of the time (it's pretty much the only way to get a usuable result with a painting under glass for example) and to do that you pretty much need a hot shoe that can hold a radio trigger. With the off-camera flash I need to be able to set the exposure manually--if the camera tries to automate it using off-camera flash I get unpredictable results.
Features that my current camera does not have that I would like include an articulated LCD with live view (makes it easier to shoot in awkward locations) and a video mode.
Plugging my requiremnts into dpreview's search engine I find 18 models. Looking at them in more detail, personally I would go with the Canon G12, because it has all the festures I need, and controls that work pretty much like a professional camera, plus a reputation for outstanding image quality. My second choice would be the Panasonic FZ200, again based on the controls, which are very well thought out and flexible but work differently from what I'm used to--it's actually a more capable camera though. Looking at the Canon SX50HS, the controls seem very cumbersome compared to the other two. The Fuji Finepix HS30EXR is even more cumbersome than the Canon.
The other 18 are just variations of the four I mentioned--either rebadged or older models.
And flash bulbs the size of household 60 watt bulbs.
I have a small collection of cameras...about 5 Speed Graphics, a nice Combat Graphic, a Linnhoff view, Hassies, a handful of Mamiya TLS,
220, 330 and a couple 330Fs and maybe a dozen lenses, etc etc. 3-4 Yashicamats..the usual Stuff Then there are the 35mm, got a couple dozen varioius SLRs, plus the , Nikon S1 and of course, lenses for all of them.
My working cameras are Canon A1s, power drives, lenses to 500mm..the usual. Getting to be time to change the batteries in the smoke detectors and drag out all the cameras and exercise the shutters. Do that once a year and it keeps them working. And the batteries in the A1s (making a note)
Course..Ive been using Olympic digitals for my actual daily work. Its really hard to beat the old Olympic C3000-C5000 cameras and you can pick em up on Ebay for nearly nothing. I snagged a C5000 NOS for $11.25 + $4.25 shipping a couple months ago. Still wrapped and bagged in the box. Got what I believe is a NOS C4000 thats become my daily user. ($19) The C5000 is just too pretty to toss in the truck.
Small but decent LCD screen, and they AV out to any computer if one wants to dedicate one to close ups (1"). I have absolutely NO need for anything over a 5mp camera. Uses Smart Media, which are dirt cheap and Ive got a half dozen readers kicking around
If Im going to need to blow up a photo that big..Ill fire up a 2
1/4x2 1/4 or even a 35mm. If I need to do tricks, bend light and all the fun stuff...Ive got roll film backs for a couple of the Graphics, or the Busch Pressman etc etc. Or dig out the Linhoff 4x5
I keep about 200 rolls of film in the freezer plus cut film, 4x5, 2
1/4 x 3 1/4. Ive got about 40 rolls of 120 infrared and about 80 rolls of Ektacrome 120 as well, plus all the 35mm stuff, which I cant even remember whats in there. Shrug
Shut down my darkroom a few years ago, but I can still develop negatives or slide film and then take them to the Walmart and have em printed for cheaper than I could keep the darkroom filled with Stuff.
But most of my photos are for online storage, Ive got about 100 gigs on Picasa, Ive been a user there since they first went on line and they gave me some extra raw storage for some testing favors and critiquing over the years. Im not a big fan of their Google+ additions btw. Shrug
Gunner
The methodology of the left has always been:
Lie
Repeat the lie as many times as possible
Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
Yep! From Japanese, I think. I skipped it as not really being needed to confuse people here. You'll find it mentioned in the serious photography newsgroups fairly often.
The donut shaped Bokeh is considered by most to be ugly.
The more leaves your iris diaphragm has, the smoother the Bokeh (because the rounder the iris opening). Wide open, they all are the same, because you are up to a truly circular opening.
It is a couple of stops down that you start to get the shape.
Essentially -- it is a projection of the shape of the iris opening onto the sensor/film. You don't get that for the in-focus areas, but the more out of focus the more you get.
Have you ever heard of Waterhouse Stops? They were metal plates slid into the side of the lens -- originally before the iris diaphragm was invented. Those were multiple plates, each with a machined round hole of the right size.
And you still see them in lenses used in process cameras for making halftones, except that the holes are square to aid in producing the shaped dots in halftone images. You'll usually find a set in wood-boxed lenses of various focal lengths for such purposes.
For certain kinds of photography, including architectural, those can be very useful. A view camera is best, but even a 4x5 Press camera (e.g. the Speed Graphic -- what news photographers used to lug around) can be pretty good for the purpose. Things like correcting the perspective distortion when photographing the front of a building -- or the front panel of a piece of electronic gear. The normal instinct is to tilt the camera up to get all of the front of the building in covering the most part of the film. This causes it to taper in towards the top. You can avoid this by backing off and setting the camera perpendicular to the front of the building, and then throwing away the part of the image below the street level. But this wastes resolution. A view camera or a press camera, mounted on a tripod with the film parallel to the front of the building is the start. But then the lens board is slid up to get the whole front on the whole of the film, and this eliminates the distortion. When photographing some things, where you can't place the camera where you want to, you can also slide the lens board sideways to correct for being off to the side.
And another trick, when you *want* something tapering, and want to keep it sharp over the whole length of it, you draw a line perpendicular to the lens (parallel to the lens board), and another one along the surface of what is being photographed, and mark where they cross. Then you tilt the back of the camera (the film holder) so a line along it will cross at the same point, and you will keep the whole of the image sharp in spite of the varying distance.
Both can be done to some extent with a Press camera, but a view camera covers a wider range of adjustments. I have one of each -- both in 4x5 size, though the view cameras are available in amazingly large sizes. I've used an 8x10 one (for making master negatives for printed circuit boards), and I'm pretty sure that they make them at least to
11x14" and maybe to 16x20". (Of course, you can correct perspective distortion from a digital camera with the computer and a good program. However, the sharp through a tilted object is pretty difficult to do with a digital camera and any program. :-)
And I have the flash gun to use those. (But none of the bulbs anymore.)
OD finish?
I was about to ask the size, but I see that it is also a 4x5 reading down towards the end. :-) If it were 8x10, I would be asking if you were willing to part with it, but I've already got a 4x5 view.
The TLRs with interchangeable lenses.
More than I have so far. But quite a few Nikon Fs, and a couple of Nikon N90s bodies converted by Kodak to digital for the AP photographers. And Nikon D70 and D300s. A mix of lenses for these, some of which are only useable (without modification) on the Nikon F itself.
I used to have several Miranda SLRs, but gave them to my Niece when I got enough Nikon gear to cover what I did wit the Mirandas. The Mirandas were a lot quieter than the Nikon Fs. :-)
[ ... ]
Yep -- you know the tricks.
Hmm ... which Ektachrome process? I've got some exposed (and frozen) E4 process 35mm rolls, and can only get the E6 process kits these days -- which is done at a temperature which strips the emulsion off the E4 films.
I've got a coupe of Omega enlargers -- one D series with the Chromega head, and one B2 (2-1/4 square max size), both with autofocus tracks matched to the lenses.
Long live SATA 2 TB drives and docking stations. :-)
Mostly. About 75% is left. A gift from an old friend of mine who was dying from Agent Orange. He carried it for only a short time, before they gave him a Rolliflex. It banged around in his Stuff for years and is mechanically perfect..just not all that pretty.
I had a Toyo 8x10, but couldnt afford film for it. So I swapped it for a pickup truck.
Ayup.
Ive got a lot of "hobby" SLRs, Minolta SRTs..that sort of thing. I taught a photography course for a few years at the local JC and I was gifted with some stuff by students going on to better gear and the like.Swapped, traded, bought stuff surplus at the school auctions when they closed down the program, then reopened it 6 months later.
I liked the Nikon Fs..but they were too expensive for me to buy/swap/trade for until the last few years. Now they are on Ebay for $50. Shrug
Ive got a couple Mirandas. IRRC..a Sensorex and a Sensormat.
formatting link
They do nearly all films. Check em out. I just pawed through the freezer and mine is Highspeed Ektachrome.
Ive got a pair of Omega Ds, B&W only. Ive offered them to just about everyone I could think of, free..and no takers. Now they are sitting out back under a tarp. About another couple years and they will be garbage. Sad to see em get tossed, when I remember how important they were to me..and the hoops I jumped through to score them.. I pulled the lenses and have them in storage, but...shrug.
Ive got a simple AT puter with some 500gig drives in them that is my "server"...raw storage. Ive got an add on card that gives me the ability to stick in up to 7 hard drives + a single DVD drive, so Im doing ok with storage. Ive got at least another 10,000 prints/slides and negatives that I need to go through one of these years. I put some on Picasa over the last year or so.
formatting link
I suspect Im going to be at home a lot this winter and spring as manufacturing collapses in California..so might get out the scanners again and start saving them to media. I scanned a bunch of early photos from the late 1960s through the 1970s..and put em on DVD and sent them to friends of mine who were in the photos. Got some fun comments after they were viewed. Young sharp guys who are now bald and fat....chuckle. You will find a few of them in the link above if you want to browse. Feel free. Ive got some military photos I need to scan, but...shrug...those have memories Im not sure I want to remember all that much. One of these days.
I always preferred B&W over color..so a lot of my stuff is that.
formatting link
And I was always a fan of available light at night.
formatting link
A good meter, a decent self timer and a tripod..and Voila...
Never did like amature photos of me..always found too many flaws..telephone poles growing out of my head and so forth..so did a number of them myself. Never could teach the wife how to frame or the Law of 3rds. So there arent that many of me. Shrug.
Be well
Gunner
The methodology of the left has always been:
Lie
Repeat the lie as many times as possible
Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
Ayup. I used to love doing old buildings. Im kind of an architectural buff and ya needed a hood and an adjustible camera to get the stuff square and straight. One of the reasons I never liked doing with 35 mm or even 120, though I had a Pressman D with a 120 roll back and it was surprisingly adjustable. Same thing here in the oil fields, back when there were more standing rigs than today. Hard to get parallax and vertical clean and neat with a straight body. I did have a Canon bellows housing that was interesting as it did allow tilts and lifts on a 35mm camera, but the bellows finally went to shit and I traded it off to someone who could afford to have it rebuilt.. It looked a lot like a close up bellows..but was multiadjustable.
Gunner
The methodology of the left has always been:
Lie
Repeat the lie as many times as possible
Have as many people repeat the lie as often as possible
Actually -- yes, a few -- if only to show people how it *used* to be. :-)
I actually started with the No. 5 flashbulbs, and only later got equipment which would handle the larger ones. I also got some demerits at school from using one. :-)
That is normal for those -- at least all that I have seen.
Sounds like a deal -- in both directions, depending on what you need.
If I had one, I would see if I could still get 8x10 litho film, and the two-part developer for it. (Of course, these days I would lay out printed circuit boards on the computer, and print the negatives on transparencies in the laser printer. :-)
[ ... ]
O.K. That explains both the mix and the quantity.
I think that most of mine were $50.00 or less.
The problem these days is finding batteries which work well in the Photomic head. (It really wants a pair of PX-13 cells, which being mercury cells are now made of unobtanium.) There are adaptors to fit modern cells in there -- including some air-activated ones, but I don't have them -- and have not bothered to make them. :-)
I also could use another for my Miranda spot meter.
My first one as the Miranda F, then added a Dr (previous model, but cheap, and with a bellows and a short-focus mount lens), another F, and then a Sensormat, which I preferred to the Sensorex as it was easier to use older lenses with it and still meter through the lens.
Of course, I now have a Gossen LunaPro SBC, which is nice in certain conditions.
And I'm currently experimenting with a Zeiss Contax to see what it does with some B&W Polaroid slide film -- if the processing pack is still good. :-)
[ ... ]
That is going to be expensive -- at about $47/roll, and I have at least ten rolls needing processing. :-(
O.K. But which *process* -- The older E4 (and earlier), or the more recent E6? If mine were E6, I could still process it at home, but I can't find kits for the E4. The temperature for the E6 process just floats the emulsion of the older ones away.
I understand.
I'm using a Mac Mini to run the scanner (A Nikon USB interfaced one), and keeping the 2 TB drives on FireWire interface docking stations to store them. They also get copied to my Sun Blade 2000, and processed using "the GIMP" to convert to JPEG, crop, and tweak curves, and from there are burned the CDs and DVDs for friends and family.
Hmm ... "Nan and Son". The kid is supposed to be the one with a Bandaid on. :-) Fun expression on her face, too.
Done a bit -- but not enough time to do it all.
My collection (in scanable 35mm format) dates back it the late
1950s. Lots of B&W (many which never saw print paper) and number of slides too -- mostly Ektachrome, but I experimented with various other films in the early days, where I was stuck with needing commercial processing.
I can understand that -- even though I've never seen combat. There are probably some in there which you would like to see again, but the trick is not seeing the rest.
B&W was more affordable, and easier to process at home. And could be pushed a lot more. I usually used Tri-X in Acufine or Diafine, and occasionally Plus-X, depending on what I needed.
formatting link
Me also.
The tags aren't working with my browser -- probably the security is set too tight. So I am seeing the top image with each URL.
formatting link
Of course. Or instead of the self timer -- a good long cable release. :-)
My wife gets some of me -- usually with a cat in my lap. :-)
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.