[Nick Siebers]

Here's a favorite, maybe on the kodak c-41 BW film? With an MZ-S and F 35-70



And with the FA 20-35mm, on FujiFilm

[jgredline]

Nick, That is a great image of your daughter..Careful though as it likely will offend one person.

[jgredline]

I am pretty sure this was Tri-x 400, though not positive.

[R.N.Brown]

Some shots of friends racing at a track I used to work at. I usually shot tmax 400 or delta 400 and pushed them one or two stops as needed.

Attached Images

       

[Pumalite]

I love those horses!

[artobest]

I don't really mind/care on what sort of shot that is taken .... I just want to see what everyone has submitted ... regardless of subject matter.

Me too. Which is exactly my point. Unfortunately the thread has become bloated and unwieldy because a few people have insisted on flooding it with the contents of their hard drive.

What's wrong with a little judgment and restraint? How is it abusive to expect that we are considerate of one another's bandwidth? A case in point: Douglas recently posted seven images of a polar bear, when just one would probably have sufficed. Now, I don't expect to open a book by Eliot Porter and find several similar pictures of the same lion, just because Porter was unwilling to exercise a little discernment and selection. These are critical qualities in photography, arguably more so now in the digital era than ever before.

This is not just about this thread. It's about keeping all similar threads in the future from becoming unmanageable. However, I can see that I am in a minority of one. Therefore I will quietly withdraw from the discussion and leave you all to your peaceful enjoyment of the photos.

[Stevopedia]

*silently concurs with artobest*

[zplus]

Me too. Which is exactly my point. Unfortunately the thread has become bloated and unwieldy because a few people have insisted on flooding it with the contents of their hard drive.

What's wrong with a little judgment and restraint? How is it abusive to expect that we are considerate of one another's bandwidth? A case in point: Douglas recently posted seven images of a polar bear, when just one would probably have sufficed. Now, I don't expect to open a book by Eliot Porter and find several similar pictures of the same lion, just because Porter was unwilling to exercise a little discernment and selection. These are critical qualities in photography, arguably more so now in the digital era than ever before.

This is not just about this thread. It's about keeping all similar threads in the future from becoming unmanageable. However, I can see that I am in a minority of one. Therefore I will quietly withdraw from the discussion and leave you all to your peaceful enjoyment of the photos.

While you may be partly or mostly right, you cannot control other peoples photography tastes and habits, especially over the internet. So just get over it, bandwidth is dirt cheap now days anyway.

[stevebrot]

While you may be partly or mostly right, you cannot control other peoples photography tastes and habits, especially over the internet. So just get over it, bandwidth is dirt cheap now days anyway.

*Silently concurs with zplus*

[Stevopedia]

Look, the way I see you're both right here.

I enjoy the family snaps. Really I do. It's just that too much of the same thing gets boring.

Case in point: I bought a Carousel slide projector at Goodwill two days ago because I've started shooting slides. It came with a HUGE box full of Ektachromes from around 1983. When I was first looking at them, they were utterly fascinating. The family had gone on a trip to France then, and it appears that they very well could have lived there.

But I got bored after a while. Do you know why?

They were all practically the same. They got old.

That, and the photography wasn't particularly good (not the problem here, to be sure!)

Please, do post on--but not five (or more) shots of the same thing!

[jgredline]

Me too. Which is exactly my point. Unfortunately the thread has become bloated and unwieldy because a few people have insisted on flooding it with the contents of their hard drive.

What's wrong with a little judgment and restraint? How is it abusive to expect that we are considerate of one another's bandwidth? A case in point: Douglas recently posted seven images of a polar bear, when just one would probably have sufficed. Now, I don't expect to open a book by Eliot Porter and find several similar pictures of the same lion, just because Porter was unwilling to exercise a little discernment and selection. These are critical qualities in photography, arguably more so now in the digital era than ever before.

This is not just about this thread. It's about keeping all similar threads in the future from becoming unmanageable. However, I can see that I am in a minority of one. Therefore I will quietly withdraw from the discussion and leave you all to your peaceful enjoyment of the photos.

I actually agree with most of this as I am sure most others would...Problem is that this is not what you originally said.

[jgredline]

Well, time to get back to photography....
Canon AE-1 with Kodak 400 ultra max

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

Cool photos !

Back to spring 1979 with my Canon A1 and Vivitar Series I 70-210mm f:3.5 on Agfachrome 200. You can even see in the white of my turtle's eye !

Scanned with my K20D + DA* 55 + Dörr slide duplicator + Metz 48 AF-1 Digital.

Very nice shot with the turtle and the flower. Looks like the DA*55 is very good for slide copying. This is indeed a sheap way (I mean if on budget you can shoose another lens of course) to get slides "scanned". Some old bellows and/or slide copier are not very expensive compared to a film scanner.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

I meant to comment on this yesterday, but got distracted...Simply put, while there are many great images here, this is my favorite photograph of this entire thread..I only wish it where mine

Thank you! Comming from you this is very great praise!
I'm indeed very hapy with this picture. As I'm usually carrying with me a film camera (MX or Super A mostly) I had tried to get this sort of pictuer for a while, but since this is real life, trying to shop on the way home from work with the kids, it took a couple of times before I got it right.

[Douglas_of_Sweden]

(Please excuse this digital photo on a film thread; it's just to prove a Konica lens can mount on a Pentax and produce a photograph)

Hey, now you got me interrested since I have a few old Hexanon lenses hanging around. But when I tried, inspired by you, to mount them in my K20D it does not work, I have to hold them in place while shooting. How did you do?