[Swift1]

I just got back from a 5 day trip to Washington D.C. I went there (with my family) as part of the ALS Association for National ALS Advocacy Day, where we went to Capitol Hill to advocate for various issues relating to ALS.
Here's on of the first photos I took while in D.C.

Contax G2
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 35/2
Kodak Portra 400
Epson V500

[Cuthbert]

Very Coltonial, how is the G2? I heard it's a good rangefinder...

[Swift1]

Very Coltonial, how is the G2? I heard it's a good rangefinder...

Thanks
The Contax G2 is a superb camera. Although it's technically a rangefinder, in use it's more like an autofocus super P&S. Looking through the viewfinder, you don't really get any visual focus confirmation, nor is there a rangefinder patch. What you do get is autofocus lock (on AF-S), and a distance scale in the finder, which tells you how far away the camera is focused. There is also a small LCD on top of the camera which gives that distance reading. For manual focusing, once the focus switch is set to MF, the distance scale will change to a small row of dots. By placing the AF frame on your subject, and turning the manual focus wheel, the number of dots will change. 1 dot means correct focus, 2 or more dots mean incorrect focus.
It's definitely a camera that some will love, and many will have trouble with.
I've found the autofocus to be very accurate, but you really need to pay attention to what your AF frame is on, and what the distance scale says. If you're taking a photo of something 6 feet away but the scale reads infinity, then your subject will not be in focus.
Many have complained about it having a small viewfinder, but I never found it to be an issue.
The build quality, fit and finish, and the overall feel of the camera are all excellent.
The lenses are some of the best AF lenses available.

[stevebrot]

Colton - have you thought about putting a book together to raise money for ALS research? You've definitely got the body of work for it in my opinion.

Now there is an idea that should have wings...


Steve

[stevebrot]

This was taken just to see what kind of bokeh the Tri-Lauser triplet could produce. Shot wide open at minimum focus distance.

Toyocaflex TLR Type Ib
Tri-Lausar Anastigmat 8cm/3.5
Expired Fujicolor Reala 100 @iso 25
Epson V500

Swirls!


Steve

[samtr87]

These are from February, taken the same time as the other car photos. Just finally got through the roll and got it developed. Took three weeks just for the processing.

On a side note, Walmart has dramatically increased their 120 send out prices. A few months ago it was under $2 to develop and get (crappy) 4x4 prints. Today it was $11.52 / roll. I guess I will either be finding somewhere else or shoot less medium format.

Camera was a Rolleiflex Automat Tessar 3.5 loaded with Ektar 100

[skierd]

So far I've used dwaynes photo for my 120 needs. C41 prices are pretty reasonable and I haven't found a lab that's less expensive yet.

[Swift1]

These are from February, taken the same time as the other car photos. Just finally got through the roll and got it developed. Took three weeks just for the processing.

On a side note, Walmart has dramatically increased their 120 send out prices. A few months ago it was under $2 to develop and get (crappy) 4x4 prints. Today it was $11.52 / roll. I guess I will either be finding somewhere else or shoot less medium format.

Camera was a Rolleiflex Automat Tessar 3.5 loaded with Ektar 100

Gotta love a Tessar
Nice work.

[Cuthbert]

Attention please! Here you an see some bad film pictures that are not post processed therefore might look dull and boring.

The bad overcast sky and cheap film (Superia 200) combined with the scarce talent of the photographer can increase this perception of the shot, if you don't like it go to the digital board to see uberpostprocessed pics that look perfectly syntethic.





Fujica ST705, 55mm f1.8, Superia 200 and Pentax cloudy filter.

[cooltouch]

I think you're being a little to hard on yourself. That cheap film delivered well saturated images with very fine grain. Focusing was precise. Subject matter was clear. Hard to go wrong with a classic Corvette Sting Ray. But, gotta question. I don't recognize the hood ornament on that first car.. Looks like a body surfer on an outrigger body board or something -- what make and model is it? Got any more shots of that car you'd like to share?

[_Ben]

Tried out Lomography Redscale 100 ISO. Meh. Maybe I'll take it out to the woods next time. The line on the left if from my defective Epson V600 that needs to be sent back.

Pentax 645 45mm

[Swift1]

Attention please! Here you an see some bad film pictures that are not post processed therefore might look dull and boring.

The bad overcast sky and cheap film (Superia 200) combined with the scarce talent of the photographer can increase this perception of the shot, if you don't like it go to the digital board to see uberpostprocessed pics that look perfectly syntethic.





Fujica ST705, 55mm f1.8, Superia 200 and Pentax cloudy filter.

Looks great to me.

FWIW, any scan of negative film is post processed.

[samtr87]

Gotta love a Tessar
Nice work.

Thanks!

[Swift1]

Contax G2
Carl Zeiss Planar T* 35/2
Kodak Portra 400
Epson V500

[Cuthbert]

I think you're being a little to hard on yourself. That cheap film delivered well saturated images with very fine grain. Focusing was precise. Subject matter was clear. Hard to go wrong with a classic Corvette Sting Ray. But, gotta question. I don't recognize the hood ornament on that first car.. Looks like a body surfer on an outrigger body board or something -- what make and model is it? Got any more shots of that car you'd like to share?

I have been facetious because yesterday for the first time I received a warning from the moderators because it appears I'd been roughing up the digital guys who use post process to sharpen and increase the contrast of their old lenses for then showing up how cool these lenses are, It told them that IMO the sharpness and constrast of a lens should be judged on film and posted two pics of mine with the same lens, then one of these guys said my pics were crap because they were flat, boring, lacked contrast, sharpness, bla bla...all because they were taken with an overcast sky (like these ones) so as you know the light is different in comparison to a full sunny day.

Then I told him that thread was so filled with digital stuff that Michael Bay would have been proud of them and I assume they got offended...but please I've enough of the CGI crapfest we see on the cinema, digital photography is the still version of that IMO.

However, these shots were taken at the Heritage Centre where I casually found a rally of historic cars (surprise surprise, they have one almost every other weekend) while I was testing the small Fujinon system I got last week, I didn't look for stellar pics, just to check out camera and lenses were OK, unfortunately the weather was what we see but I can't rule the clouds yet.

The "spirit of ecstasy" in question looks like a sort of joke from the owner of these small British cars from the 50s, I am not familiar with them, they looked like the English answer to the Fiat 500 or something like that, very rockabilly, here there are other pics:



The ST705 has a nice partial almost semispotmeter with gallium cells, to take the naked lady fine I underexposed the rest of the pic but I liked because I got more saturated 50s colours. Of course the digital boys photoshopping here and there can do better, right?





Other pics you would appreciate I assume:



Checked on the negative, the nose of the shark is present but they cropped it out from the scans, I know I SHOULD scan myself so at least I can have a 24:36 image.

All these pics were taken with the 28mm f2.8 so I had to go very close to the subject and in some cases I got some perspective distortion, but it's unpleasant.

This is a shot with the 55mm:



This is a shot with the zoom of another commodity very common in the area besides classic cars: sheep. They have seas of sheep.