| Author | Message | ||
     Wyckedflesh  |
Let me start this off with my new aquisition... Bronica ETR Medium Format Camera with Rollei Beta 5 Flash Pistol Grip f2.2/105mm f2.8/75mm f2.8/50mm f5.6/105-250mm Macro/Telephotonot pictured  As you can tell this is a film camera that shoots 120film in the 6x4.5 format. The clarity and quality of the Bronica is so far ahead of my Kiev88 it was just too difficult a thing to pass on. I will have the large lens in a couple of weeks when I make the last payment for the set. I personally think that having both mediums of photography are vital now. The DSLR that I have (Canon Digital Rebel 300D) is phenominal and allows me to quick shoot and make instant corrections to exposure and such right on the spot. For sporting events the DSLR is perfect allowing me to instantly see if I got the shot or not. The quality is very good for use on the Net and for print making up to 11x14. But beyond 11x14 it just doesn't cut it. The pixels become apparent and the image looses some of its sharpness. The Bronica however doesn't. I know I can take a negative and blow it up to 24x36 real easy with it. If I scan that image into the computer with a high enough resolution I can then work the image in Photoshop to edit just as with my DSLR but not have to worry about the loss of image when its sized for 24x36 because that is the starting point for the image. Also currently the depth of field or how much of the foreground and background stay in focus is touchier on the DSLR because of the size of the sensor aray. In the case of mine, its smaller then the negative used in a standard 35mm camera so the lenses have to take up more of the slack. That makes the sensor 1/3 at the least the size of the negative for my Bronica pictured above. Flash and white balance are easier to abuse with a DSLR then a film camera. Over exposure on a digital burns out the image more then on a film camera. But hey, you know it right away on the digital and can reshoot at a lower exposure  The film you won't know until its developed. Digital has its place. Film will still have its place. When Digital catches up to the higher end formats then film may have to worry, the 35mm format is in trouble because of the ease of use of Digital and with home printing becoming cheaper and cheaper Digital will gain more advances each year. I still enjoy my medium format stuff and plan on keeping it for a VERY long time... Now something I would like to add to this thread is a "word of Mouth" portion. In my case I am curious about film experiences. Who has used what films with what success? For instance, lately I have been shooting Fuji Reala 120/100ISO film and have loved it. I recently shot some Fuji Superia 120/100ISO and though it was shot in the Bronica VS the Kiev and the clarity of picture was incredible, the grain was evident in the film. The colors were not as bright and defining as with the Reala. I just shot 2 rolls of slide film, Fuji Velvia 120/50ISO and Kodak Ektachrome 120/100ISO and will have the results back later this week when I get to take them to be developed so I can comment on them. Film suggestions are welcome. So are lens and filter as well as any other accesories anyone can think of  So let's hear it folks | ||
| Ethanr  |
The latest more expensive (e.g., Fujifilm S3 Pro and Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II) digital cameras have double the pixels of the Rebel. I haven't seen any large prints from them, but the reviews are solid. I haven't shot film since long before I got my Rebel, so I can't help you there. | ||
| Dasbuell  |
What??? You didn't go for the Hasselblad? Guess what I use for a door stop for the master bathroom? An old Kodak box camera (it was there when I bought the place). I used to do the Olympus OM-1 & OM-2 thing... tossed a chunk of change at it... the lag between what I tried and what I accomplished delayed or steepened the learning curve. I finally went with the Sony DSC-F717... and was personally happier with what I was trying to do. I bought a DSC-F818 for myself for Christmas... and love the camera! For those purist who have the fortunate skill of really knowing what they are doing... film is still the only way to go. (I wish I was one of them) For those like me... digital is the best path. My son is going to take a photography class... he will be using a big bag full of Olympus gear... and will most likely be one of those who knows what he is doing with a film camera. Cool set up ya got though! | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
Das for what I paid...I STILL couldn't get a Hasssleblad... | ||
| Halffast |
How about a Mamiya ZD? 36 X 48mm, 22 megapixel sensor! That should give a pretty good image when enlarged. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0409/04092902mamiya_zd.asp | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
Have you seen the price? | ||
| Davegess |
Digital has it palce and is very cool. Film however is not going away. I think we will see a bit of a revival like we are seeing in audio. High end audio these days like records because they are analog not digital. No matter how many pixels or how much memory you have digital is still be definition a stepped media. It is on or off, yes or no. Film and records are stepless, in theory they have an infinite amount of data. | ||
| Dino  |
Wycked - Impressive acquisition! Very tasty. I haven't shot medium format in many years, so I can't help you on film except to say that the guy at the nearest big city photography shop said to try Velvia ISO 50 for landscapes. I just picked some up thinking I'd drag my old 120 format stuff out of the gun safe. I'm curious to try the Mamiya against the 8mp digicam I just bought for myself for Christmas. We shall see. As for accessories...that's a nice Sekonic light meter, but incident meters have limitations for use in landscape photography. I'd recommend a 1 degree spot meter for that use. That way you can check the highlights and shadows to make sure that you're within the film's tonal range. Getting the highs and lows on the film is more important than perfect average exposure since you can tweek that later in Photoshop. You can't get back detail in the highlights or shadows that didn't get recorded to begin with. (I realize the Sekonic will do reflective also, but you don't want to hike all the way across the canyon to get a reading of that one dark shadow!) I'm assuming you have a tripod. It doesn't matter what resolving power your lens/film/digital sensor have if the camera isn't still during the exposure. Get a good tripod, like a Bogen or Gitzo. Do not get a pan head for still camera use! Get a ball head with quick release plate. Reading recommendation...if you don't already have them, buy Ansel Adams' series of books: The Camera, The Negative, The Print. Great books, still in print...and I'm pretty sure the author knew what he was taking about! By the way, I'd recommend The Negative even for people shooting digital and The Print even for people printing from computer. And, if ya like photography, they're a good read! One other thing, for people using imaging software for post-processing and printing, get good software like Photoshop CS or Paint Shop Pro and LEARN HOW TO USE IT. Don't be lazy. The most basic controls, the ones everyone immediately recognizes and tends to use by default (specifically brightness and contrast) aren't worth using! There are much more effective, flexible controls in there if you know what you're looking for. And "much more effective" is an understatement as used here! Also, don't post-process in JPEG format unless you're willing to lose image information with every operation (even rotating the image 90 deg.) Have a ball Wycked! Again, really nice stuff ya got there...I'm jealous. Now I have questions: What scanners are people using for transparencies of 120 format and up? And are you happy with the results? | ||
| Court |
We hired, four our recent wedding, a "one who knew what he was doing". The guy was from Austalia and his own wedding was featured in Martha Stewart Living. It's been interesting to compare the 1400 film proofs he shot withthe various digital pics taken by guests, some of whom are skilled photographers (as in have published books) themselves. My personal favorite was shot by Jack Rinehart, Buell R&D Fabricator. It is extraordinary in terms of composition and lighting. However, in reviewing the "real film" pics two things become quickly apparent. Thing 1: Photography is an art to those who "know what they are doing". Thing 2: I am not among their number and hence "doomed to digital". I have a Nikon 950, want a D70o and can find absolutely no reason to part with the 950. By the way...I confess, I carry a camera everywhere with me...I mean this *IS* New York City. My kids and my SCU (spousal Command Unit) haunt me about it. But, I have soem waaaaaaaaaay cool pictures. In fact, they may become one of those goofy table top books. One of my favor collections are my "doors". I've captured interesting doors and done them on full pages with poety and thoughts accompanying them. Court | ||
| Dino |
Court - after my sister finished her fine arts degree many years ago she moved to NYC to do the art scene. During that time she did a series of windows (paintings and pastels). I have one of the series up at Mariposa. I'll e-mail you an image when I get up there, if'n you'd be interested. Dino ps Let me know when you publish your door book! Might have to get it. | ||
| Newfie_buell  |
I have shot with a lot of cameras over the years and by far my favorite is the Canon Digital Rebel. For ease of use and being able to manipulate it like a film camera. Eventually I will upgrade to a 10++ megapixel cam but for now the Rebel is great. | ||
| Josh_  |
Court - get my email? Mariabelen loves door shots if you have any to spare. (Message edited by josh_ on December 21, 2004) | ||
| Ebear  |
Howdy Mikel...Real nice setup!!You'll probably find the 75mm the most usefull,However that 250 is killer for a long lens!Do as Dino said,if you don't already for your Kiev work,buy the strongest tripod (and you can even make a rubber band foot sling)to get the most stable shot.Buy a Ball type with qd heads.Use mirror lockup and a remote release.If you don't you'll never realize the ultimate ability of these lenses. E6 Color If your going to scan your work try Velvia 50 and Provia 100.I think you'll find these films are BY FAR the best Pro films out there!!Provia is a little sensitive to blue in the shadows..I.E..try multiple pass scanning and the software Silverfast can help.(More about that later!)Shooting with an 81a filter will help also! Black and white For scanning black and white use Kodak TMAX 100 and 400.These are Professional quality films.For a superfine grain black and white film try Ilford Pan F. Fuji Reala is a consumer grade film and you won't be as happy after using Pro films.Its also too sensitive to red. Buy several backs so you can have both Black and White and Color ready.If you need more stuff check out KEH,they have the best prices for Med and Large format cameras and with everyone going to Digital there will be better prices as we go.Film will never be replaced as the finest resolution medium and there will always be scanners to manipulate as needed! As far as Scanners go the Best Affordable($299.00!!)one is the Epson 3200!!True 3200 resolution with no interpolation.Comes with adaptor for 35mm,filmstrip AND a 120 holder!! It also comes bundled with software,I believe it was Epsons own scanning software(very good!)A light version of Photoshop and Silverfast.This software ,though not the best has enough for most people and does a great job of reducing noise in black areas. Find Picture Window Pro for removing Color fringing on your digital and make sure your scanning in 48bit color and 16bit grayscale! I use Adobe Photoshop CS but I'm just learning with lotsa help from my friend Wayne.Good luck and Happy Shooting!!!  | ||
| Ebear |
Pllease...stop me ...please!!!!I get worked up talking about Photography and if any of you perused the "Puns intended" thread you'll see the #25 "ZEN thoughts for the day" from Tucsonxb9s..."There is a fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness"....VERY well put,particularly for Buellers!!(and photohounds!) I have recently been trying to break into the world of Sports Photography.Extreme competition between Photographers is one aspect of this(no pun intended there!)I have had good results with my Canon D10 and a 100 to 400mm type "L" Image Stabilization lens but am lusting after a 600mm IS lens.$6000 is too much but maybe if I sell a bike...nah... The D10 is a metal bodied 6.3 megapixel DSLR with mirror lockup and 5 more custom functions over its baby brother the "Rebel" or 300D ,its real name.I owned several AF lenses already so it was a natural tradeup,however it still doesn't have the abilities of my favorite film 35mm camera..The Elan 7E.This camera can focus track an object approaching at up to 188 MPH!!As if that isn't enough,my favorite feature is EYEPOINT CONTROL!You program the camera to your eye and wherever you look in the viewfinder the camera FOCUSES there AUTOMATICALLY and instantly!To program camera to your eye is simple and it works perfectly with Glasses on!Particularly with a wide angle lens this feature is simply the best invention of Canons!I can look at a lineup of vehicles,animals,people,boats or anything and focus and shoot without intervention the moment they move. I presently own a 100-400 , 100-300 , 28-135 , 35-70 , 20-35 and a fixed focus 20mm and am looking for the medium quality macro lens.I have a few non-Canon lenses I use in the worst scenario,quality irrelevent jobs and some special effects lenses that I love messing with but it's the type "L" lenses I try to trade up to. I use a Canon S1 IS camera for on the bike shots but its expendable...I took it Dirt Bike riding with me and American Sport Bike AL,Joanne and Zack last weekend and it survived admirably!Guess I better shutup and go home,or I'll be here all night...See Ya!  | ||
| 2k4xb12  |
Hasselblad H1D -- 22M pixels, $22k  | ||
| Al_lighton  |
Ebear, It's a good thing I tumbled down that hill instead of you, then! Al | ||
| Ebear |
Hey 2k4xb12....Could I trade you my D10 for your Hasselblad??Just for a while???One of my ALLTIME favorite camera brands...maybe if I'm REAL good for Christmas!!..(in my dreams!!) | ||
| Blake |
Great topic. I have an urgent question! Most all the ditital pic editing apps include a red-eye removal feature that works very well. It doesn't work for gold-eye with flash photos of animals, like my Border Collie or Aussie Shepherd. I've been too cheap to spring for Photoshop. The MS Image Composer 1.5 that came bundled with another purchase seems to provide a lot of capability. Can anyone tell me how to edit out the gold-eye in my doggy pics? Great topic. Dave, I'm glad you bring up the issue of digital versus analog. Comparison/contrast of analog versus digital is a VERY intriguing issue for me. Question: When the quality and quantity of information recorded via digital media exceeds significantly all human ability to perceive the difference between it and reality, how is analog any better? How many shades can a human discern? How many hues? How many tones? How many amplitudes? How many frames per second can the human eye/brain perceive? Are not even the very best analog sound and photo recording/reproducing capabilities limited in their ability to record information and the quality of that information? Also, how does the factor of unwanted information/noise which is introduced by analog devices factor into the issue? In truth, are not analog and digital recording mediums equivalent in many ways with just the sensing/recording medium being different? For instance, can we not find poor quality film and audio tape and/or develpment/playback devices that will yield poor quality photos and audio playback? It is all relative to the top levels of each type of media, and I submit that when the top levels of digital media exceed the quality of the top levels of analog, there is no advantage to analog. I wonder if the audiophiles who prefer albums over CD are basing that preference on something other than quality of playback, like maybe they have a preference for albums due to nostalgia, exclusivity, or are just plain anti-establishmentarianists. (Do I win a prize for using that word?  :lol The further that digital technology progresses, the more evident it is to me that there is a point beyond which there is no difference between analog and digital. We now have digital devices that provide orders of magnitudes of sensitivity beyond that which humans can detect. The scanning electron microscope comes to mind. Knowing what I've seen transpire in my own home and at work, I wouldn't bet that digital will not displace film for all but the most stubborn analog ideologues (AI's heheheh). Someday, I believe it will. Hey, isn't digital photography a lot more environmentally friendly? Is DNA analog or digital? | ||
| Smadd  |
Digital Light and Color makes a very good photo editing application called Picture Window. With the red eye tool, you can alter the color, size, and just about every other aspect of it. The application is not so well-known to the general public, but gets rave reviews from professional photographers and has quite a loyal following of same. I believe they have a free trial available. Check out their website at http://www.dl-c.com/Temp/. Steve | ||
| BadS1  |
I'm actually looking to buy a new camera (digital) but want something that can get the action picture without such a delay on capturing it.Can someone that has knowledge help me out and without spending a fortune??? | ||
| Pdxs3t  |
Look here, one of the best web sites for camera reviews Steves Digicams | ||
| Jlnance  |
Blake, I've been too cheap to spring for Photoshop. The MS Image Composer 1.5 that came bundled with another purchase seems to provide a lot of capability. Can anyone tell me how to edit out the gold-eye in my doggy pics? There is a photoshop like application called The Gimp. I have no personal experience with it, but it does have a loyal set of follows and it is free. You can get it from www.gimp.org It is all relative to the top levels of each type of media, and I submit that when the top levels of digital media exceed the quality of the top levels of analog, there is no advantage to analog. I would submit that the advantage of digital is the ability to get excellent results from poor/cheap media. As long as the media is good enough to yield an accurate stream of ones and zeros, any noise it might introduce is irrelivant. For analog noise matters. I wonder if the audiophiles who prefer albums over CD are basing that preference on something other than quality of playback My own cynical suspicion is that they are ticked that anyone can afford a CD player. That may be grossly unfair on my part though. I am not an audiophile, and I can not hear the differences that are important to them. (And perhaps we would all be upset if everyone owned a Buell) | ||
| Davegess |
BLAKE <I wonder if the audiophiles who prefer albums over CD are basing that preference on something other than quality of playback> Don't know, I am not one of them. I have read that there is a whole movement that claims better sound IF the record is preoduced proberly, palyed back on the best equipment and is in perfect shape. Since my records never met any of those criteria I wouldn't know. Film vs Digital, Absoulutly bad film and processing will effect the product. Digital will yeild a certain result with much more consistancy with less effort. I don't think that digital has yet to surpass film in many applications. Most notable would be exceptionally fine resolution films, particulary the large format - 4x5 and up. Digital tends to produce artifacts when operating at the very high resolutions; film, if handled properly, does not. The large format world is a ways away from being digital. High quality digital is available for medium format, 11 megapixels is on offer, but I have to think that fine grain, high res film will out perform that in a 2 1/4 inch camera. The large format cameras do have 500 MP backs available and these will produce results comparable to normal 4x5 film but usually require longer exposure time. I don't know that you can get 8x10 digital backs at this point. Don't know if there would be a market for such a beast. Than you go to the 20"x 24" Polaroid or the 44 x 80 and the resolution and colore saturation are simply off the charts. Of course the 20x24 will set you back an easy 20000 just to get in and the 44x80 is only available for rental at one location in the world so most of us will not be using these. <and I submit that when the top levels of digital media exceed the quality of the top levels of analog, there is no advantage to analog> That is probably true. Not yet there. (see above) Most people can't tell the difference anyways, heck with my old eyes I can't tell the difference without bright lights and my reading glasses. Me, since they don't make a digital that uses my Zuiko lenses and I can buy a lot of film and processing for what I have tied up in them I am in no big hurry to go digital. | ||
| Lpowel02  |
Taking good photographs and good riding, laptimes etc have a very important factor in common...the operator is the key, not the equipment... Having said that, I've dropped a decent amount of coin on camera (and bike) equipment...most recently a Nikon F5 that I love...I could write pages on what a great body it is... I really believe learning to process your own film and print your own prints makes a world of difference and gives you a great insight into making a photograph - pre and post exposure the Zone System...again, you could write pages..created by one of the greatest, learning and thinking/envisioning through the Zone System will allow you to reach a level you never thought you could Blake - border collies? cool...they've been in my family for ages...a smarter dog you will not find. (Message edited by lpowel02 on December 23, 2004) | ||
| Lpowel02 |
unfortunately tho, I have next to nothing to contribute to the digital discussion...I know that the price of a digital camera that could accurately reproduce what I can achieve with film is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaayy too expensive | ||
| 2k4xb12 |
Ebear -- I would if I had one... This time of year I can't help but wish though... | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
I have 2 "experimental" rolls of Velvia 50 going to the shop in the morning. Is the Provia C-41 or E-6 ? I also already have my first "job" doing jewelry macros for a friend | ||
| Ethanr |
Blake, spring the $90 for the "light" version of Photoshop (Elements). It's well worth the price and will do just about anything a hobbyist needs. Regarding the quality of film, there's one area where it still can't be beaten for the price: enlarging. Using my $200 Pentax K1000 with decent film, I can (and have) blown up pictures to poster size...after cropping them significantly. The negative contains more visual data than a 6.3 megapixel image. (It was a problem I ran into constantly when I was doing my doctoral research on compression of medical images such as X-rays, where you can't afford for liability purposes to lose any quality.) I can't come anywhere near that with my Canon 300D at 4x the price, and at the local pro shops, an enlargement costs the same whether the source is negative or digital. Similarly, analog audio recording do contain more information than digital. For most of us, however, the effectiveness of the music industry's current quantization routines is such that it's very hard to tell the difference. That wasn't always true of the first generation CDs. It was most evident when you really cranked the volume...the musical equivalent of enlargement. A good analog recording could be amplified beyond the clipping threshold of its digital counterpart. That's much less true today. | ||
| Wyckedflesh |
Blake, Email me, I have a copy of Photoshop Elements 2.0 with registration that I could pass on to you. Davegess, what camera/format are the Zuiko lenses for? | ||
| Blake |
Don't want to sound picky, but will it fix the gold eye in the flash photos of beasts? |
