As for my 30-40% figure - well, it's not like the rest are publishable or anything, they're just interesting enough to go in the albums. The 30-40% are underexposed, out-of-focus, compositionally dull, inferior near-duplicates, people looking their worst, badly framed, etc, etc. We don't snap-snap-snap away, we can't afford to.
― Michael Jones (MichaelJ), Monday, 9 February 2004 10:08 (twenty years ago) link
― caitlin (caitlin), Monday, 9 February 2004 10:50 (twenty years ago) link
(the main reason I want a Nikon is that eventually I want to get one of their digital SLR bodies too, and then use the same lenses for digital and film shooting. I also have a late-70s Pentax ME)
― Tech Support Droid, Thursday, 23 June 2005 17:36 (eighteen years ago) link
― Michael Jones, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 10:55 (seventeen years ago) link
― Michael Jones, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 11:10 (seventeen years ago) link
― g-kit, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 11:11 (seventeen years ago) link
― blueski, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 11:16 (seventeen years ago) link
― g-kit, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 11:27 (seventeen years ago) link
Does anyone else put all of their photos thru Auto-Contrast in Photoshop (or similar) before uploading? It's no real use on poorly lit shots tho - not from an Ixus 55 at least. I'd say it improves two thirds of the photos I take though.
― Ed, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 11:31 (seventeen years ago) link
― treefell, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 11:40 (seventeen years ago) link
― Michael Jones, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 11:47 (seventeen years ago) link
― Ed, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 11:49 (seventeen years ago) link
― Michael Jones, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 11:57 (seventeen years ago) link
― blueski, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 12:28 (seventeen years ago) link
― Sarah, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 14:46 (seventeen years ago) link
― blueski, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 14:48 (seventeen years ago) link
― Sarah, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 14:53 (seventeen years ago) link
― blueski, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 14:55 (seventeen years ago) link
― Sarah, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 15:01 (seventeen years ago) link
― blueski, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 15:03 (seventeen years ago) link
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 22 March 2007 10:53 (seventeen years ago) link
― .stet., Friday, 23 March 2007 22:12 (seventeen years ago) link
― Doctor Casino, Friday, 23 March 2007 23:58 (seventeen years ago) link
― Michael Jones, Saturday, 24 March 2007 00:12 (seventeen years ago) link
― .stet., Saturday, 24 March 2007 00:25 (seventeen years ago) link
― Michael Jones, Saturday, 24 March 2007 08:52 (seventeen years ago) link
― Mark C, Saturday, 24 March 2007 09:45 (seventeen years ago) link
― .stet., Saturday, 24 March 2007 14:08 (seventeen years ago) link
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 09:37 (seventeen years ago) link
― g-kit, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 09:47 (seventeen years ago) link
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 09:57 (seventeen years ago) link
― g-kit, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 10:16 (seventeen years ago) link
― treefell, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 10:26 (seventeen years ago) link
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 09:05 (seventeen years ago) link
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 09:17 (seventeen years ago) link
― Ed, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 09:21 (seventeen years ago) link
― Ed, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 09:29 (seventeen years ago) link
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 09:32 (seventeen years ago) link
― Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 14:54 (seventeen years ago) link
― Michael Jones, Tuesday, 17 April 2007 15:45 (seventeen years ago) link
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/09/24/070924fa_fact_lane?printable=true
This piece makes it almost seem worthwhile to dev and scan the negs. And M-series bodies seem much cheaper than they did pre-digital. But I still doubt the existence of the "Leica glow", except in the eyes of people justifying a £2500 lens.
― stet, Thursday, 27 September 2007 14:44 (sixteen years ago) link
I'm going to be naughty and print that NY article for consumption on the train home.
In Lens News, I now have a Hanimex 28mm f/2.8 (£12 on eBay) which...isn't going to do my kit lens out of a job any time soon and a 80-200mm f/3.5 zoom/macro beast by the same manufacturer which the vendor bunged in for a fiver when I turned up to collect the 28mm. The latter seems a bit better value. Perhaps I'll get more out of the 28mm on a film body with a nice, big, bright viewfinder. Came with a couple of 52mm-dia filters, which is nice.
I'm wondering whether the search for a cheap, manual, wide-angle lens that does what the kit lens does but, like, better, is kinda pointless. The Zeiss Flektogons are too expensive, the sub-£20 stuff seems fairly hopeless. Thinking about Tamron Adaptall gear next (28mm f/2.5 has a good rep), but that's another adaptor...
Oh, and then there's the tantalising world of IR photography. Get a Hoya filter from the Far East for coppers + big P&P or a Kood filter from the UK for £12 + small P&P?
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 27 September 2007 16:40 (sixteen years ago) link
I used to spend ages fiddling trying to get the right exposure on IR, until I worked out you can just show the red channel in photoshop and convert to gray to get much the same effect.
― stet, Thursday, 27 September 2007 16:42 (sixteen years ago) link
80-200mm f/3.5 zoom/macro beast For a fiver! Nice one. Is it any good?
― stet, Thursday, 27 September 2007 16:46 (sixteen years ago) link
I've yet to really test it out (that moon pic on Flickr was taken with it, some flower shots in Golden Square the other day, that's about it). I don't think it's as good as the Zeiss but the 1:4 Macro might come in useful. Very heavy and long - not likely to be taken out and about much. There are hilarious manhood compensation jokes to be made when I attach it PLUS the extension tubes to the 300D. I don't know if anything of worth came out of that particular session of mucking about...
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 27 September 2007 22:36 (sixteen years ago) link
That Lane piece is eh... he's a little too into the fashion aspect. The whining about viewfinder blackout is a bit dodgy as well - it's a few tenths or hundredths of a second, can you even register small details you might be missing?
I have a Leica, purchased with gambling winnings when I was younger and stupider, and it is a wonderful thing (though the ergonomics, frankly, suck - there's a reason every modern SLR has a big grip for your hand) and if I had a darkroom I would shoot nothing but Tri-X until it was just me, Keith Richards and the cockroaches left.
But I don't. And I hate scanning film, even if I had a scanner that could do the Summilux justice.
So I'm selling it, I think. I will probably regret it someday, but for the ~$4000 I stand to take in (a couple hundred more than I spent, actually), I can buy either a 40D or 5D dSLR and actually get to shoot as much as I'd like.
― milo z, Friday, 28 September 2007 00:31 (sixteen years ago) link
That's the thing, really. I mean the trade-off is immense. I had a whole darkroom at my disposal, with a minilab to dev the film, free film and a top-end scanner and I still couldn't be arsed and got dust all over the negs.
It's only when I look back at scans from the color negs I realise just how wildly much more dynamic range C41 has compared to digital, which is a pisser.
― stet, Friday, 28 September 2007 00:43 (sixteen years ago) link
Most fun I ever had was making darkroom c-prints from 4x5 negs.
For all digital's compromises, it is at least painless. Scanning film is torture.
― milo z, Friday, 28 September 2007 00:56 (sixteen years ago) link
At my first newspaper job, the scanner would choke on neg strips any more than 5 long, so we first had to cut the rolls by hand, then manually align each frame on screen, adjust the wildly crazy colour settings by eye, then scan it (which took about 10 minutes). It nearly drove me insane.
― stet, Friday, 28 September 2007 01:01 (sixteen years ago) link
I’m just going to tape my phone to my x70
― calstars, Sunday, 26 September 2021 17:51 (two years ago) link
just imagine the entire back of your phone is the sensor
just an entire plane for finger smudges
― mh, Sunday, 26 September 2021 18:26 (two years ago) link
https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/p/E~TS590x0~articles/8974175294/ProductShots/Fujifilm_GFX_50R_X-E3_side-by-side.jpeg
Just watched a video on the rangefinder style medium format Fuji, looks so fun (if you've got $4500+lens laying around). Also has a crop mode to match the Hasselblad XPan I would have died for 20 years ago.
― papal hotwife (milo z), Thursday, 30 September 2021 05:52 (two years ago) link
oooooh
― assert (matttkkkk), Thursday, 30 September 2021 06:59 (two years ago) link
I dream of medium format
― calstars, Thursday, 30 September 2021 11:30 (two years ago) link
Hired the Fuji GFX50S a few years ago for a (grey, wet) Easter weekend, with the 110/2.0 prime. It was pretty great, but a bit of a chunky beast. They seem to have streamlined the medium-format bodies.
My Bronica is still in the same place it's been for a couple of years, on a shelf. I really need to get back into it, with a drawer full of (expired) 120 film, but I say that every spring and... suddenly it's October.
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 30 September 2021 14:31 (two years ago) link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_t_9LXcjBE
Looks even bigger in his hand than that still photo lol
― papal hotwife (milo z), Thursday, 30 September 2021 15:50 (two years ago) link
Lovely stuff. Maybe I'll shoot at 24mm FF and crop everything to 2.71:1 for a while :)
The GFX was my first ever experience with an EVF, and it kind of spoils you for other lesser models. Wandering around looking at the world with an Acros filter was nice.
Here's the (then) 13yo toting the big bugger around Fitzrovia...
https://live.staticflickr.com/881/39491176020_4fa94fc5a1_b.jpg
And the (then) 11yo working the other Fuji, as shot with the GFX...
https://live.staticflickr.com/796/41237312082_16d9e812da_b.jpg
― Michael Jones, Thursday, 30 September 2021 16:18 (two years ago) link
beast mode
― calstars, Thursday, 30 September 2021 16:51 (two years ago) link
fantastic!
― papal hotwife (milo z), Thursday, 30 September 2021 16:51 (two years ago) link
https://i.tformers.com/g/generated/46865/Takara%20TOMY%20Canon%20EOS%20R5%20x%20TRANSFORMERS%20Optimus%20Prime%20Official%20Image%20(14)__scaled_800.jpg
― koogs, Wednesday, 10 August 2022 13:43 (one year ago) link
(from https://tformers.com/takara-tomy-canon-eos-x-transformers-optimus-prime-r5-crossover-official-images/46865/news.html )
― koogs, Wednesday, 10 August 2022 13:44 (one year ago) link
:)
Even has the tantalising dream of a L-grade pancake (optimus) prime on there.
― Michael Jones, Wednesday, 10 August 2022 14:08 (one year ago) link
Hilarious !
― calstars, Wednesday, 10 August 2022 14:38 (one year ago) link
The light was fantastic today in London when the sun was out: everything crisp and clear, and trees and foliage drenched with light as if illuminated specifically for photographers. I took my EOS 5D out for the first time in quite a while, and the colours were fantastic. I particular like the way bright colours - such as red and orange - seem to almost pop out of photographs. For example a red and white polka dot blouse against a background of green foliage and a bright orange Vespa against grey brickwork. What a camera!
― Dr Drudge (Bob Six), Saturday, 28 October 2023 20:45 (six months ago) link
Let’s see some shots!
― calstars, Saturday, 28 October 2023 20:49 (six months ago) link