|
Forum: General Photography
10-30-2021, 02:19 PM
|
| |
About 30 years ago some kind person broke into my car and stole all my gear. That is, LITERALLY, the end of the story.
I never reported it to police. I never reported it to my insurance company (not covered anyway).
A.) I don't buy stuff I can't afford.
B.) Even if I saw the crime in action, I would have ignored it.
C.) Criminals around here (northern-central Indiana) have the disturbing habit having friends and family who will kill you after you are ID'd in court as the plaintiff.
D.) I don't own anything worth dying for.
|
|
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing
04-30-2021, 07:07 PM
|
| |
I highly recommend LightRoom. AFAIK, you can still buy a stand-alone version (no subscription required). I've used it differently with every digital camera I've owned. My Canon 80D is amazing with regards to it's JPG output; I could mess with LR for days and never improve on SOOC JPG files, if I get it right in camera. I use my Canon 5d2 exclusively in RAW because I can do better in a few minutes with Digital Photo Professional (Canon's canned raw processor), than the camera can do when shooting JPG. With the 5D2, export JPG from DPP and fine-tune those files in LR.
One huge feature of LR is the catalog feature. LR's organizing/sorting/searching abilities are the stuff of legend. In a few clicks/seconds, I can find every photos I shot on any date, with any gear, at any camera setting I care to input. Need all photos shot with this camera, and that lens, with a certain ISO or aperture? LR can do that, and so much more.
Random comments on other software. I used SilkyPix when I was shooting Panasonic bridge cameras; loved it. My wife still uses Picasa, she loves it. I think it is crap. I've used several versions of Photoshop; it is the definition of overkill for processing digital photos. I still have PhotoShop Elements 12 installed. I use it for downsizing/down-res'ing/screen grabs/HDR. Maybe LR can do those things, but I already know how to do them in PSE. PSE as a photo editor? As hard to use a standard PS, and way less useful. I've tried FastStone and DXO. Neither is worth what I paid for them, and they were free.
With all that said, the best way to post-process digital photos is to NOT process digital photos. Get it right in-camera (easier said than done), and you'll have JPG files that need only minor tweaking you can do with any of the above mentioned packages. Remember, RAW is MOST useful when you DON'T get it right in-camera.
|
|
Forum: Pentax DSLR Discussion
04-13-2021, 02:45 AM
|
| |
I can't speak to anything but the Canon G7x II. I bought it to have a smaller camera with a relatively large (1") sensor. Apparently, size matters. While I was happy with it in good outdoor lighting, that is all it was good for. Flash is crippled by Canon's firmware, and ISO 400 looked pretty rough in low(er) light. I found it unusable above ISO 400. For reference, my DSLRs are Canon 80D and 5DII.
The dog photo is at ISO 640. Even w/flash (enough light) the noise is obvious and kills all detail. Grandson (Albert Einstein) was shot w/flash at ISO 320. Heavy shadow noise is distracting, but the subject at least has some detail. I did take this camera to several Chicago Cubs games. It does great in bright sunshine. So does my cell phone. Sold the G7x II as disappointing.
|
|
Forum: Sold Items
04-09-2021, 03:32 AM
|
| |
Sold. Thank you very much, Richard.
|
|
Forum: Sold Items
04-08-2021, 02:13 AM
|
| |
PentaxForums.com Marketplace Listing
Item for Sale
Pentax 645 A 35mm f/3.5 manual focus Wide Angle Lens
Asking Price
349.00 USD
Item Location
Osceola, Indiana (United States)
Item Description
This is a manual focus Pentax 645 SMC A 35mm f/3.5 Wide Angle Lens. It is in excellent condition with no mars/scratches to the glass or coatings. Item will come with both front and rear caps. PLEASE NOTE: I inadvertently photographed the lens with a CPL filter installed. The CPL filter is NOT included in this sale. My preference for shipping is the United States Postal Service. I am amenable to UPS or FEDEX, if you prefer. I am selling this lens because I have recently retired, and am giving up 645 as it is very expensive to shoot compared to 35mm. I have little feedback here. My E-Bay username is: ditchiefat. This item is also listed there. Reasonable offers will gladly be considered.
Are you the original owner of the item being sold?
Yes
Are you selling or trading this item?
Selling
Item Condition (Key)
Used
Excellent
Shipping Destinations
North America
Shipping Charge
US$ 0.00
Shipping Services
USPS/UPS/FEDEX
Accepted Payment Types
PayPal
Return Policy & Additional Details
Full refund, no questions asked, up to 10 days after delivery, when I receive the same item back, in the same condition as it was shipped.
Please send me a private message if interested in the item!
|
|
Forum: General Photography
08-26-2020, 08:12 AM
|
| |
I am an oddball. When I see a good photograph captured by someone, I appreciate it for what it is. I do not presume to think the photographer was happy with it, or not. And I don't care. My thoughts about someone else's work are, or should be, totally irrelevant. I have no desire to 'copy' others' work, or to 'improve' on it. I expect as much from those viewing my work. It is mine. If you like it, fine. If you don't, also fine. I graciously accept un-solicited comments either way. Others' thoughts on my work are, likewise, totally irrelevant. I've been behind the viewfinder for about 55 years. A technically good photo can be boring and dull. I have technically atrocious photos that fill me with emotion and make me cry.
This photo illustrates my last point. What you can see in this photo: Technical quality, total crap. What you can't see in this photo: Emotional value, unlimited. Everyone, please meet Scruffy. She was the most bull-headed, stubborn, obstinate terrier you'll ever meet. She marched to the beat of her own drummer for 17+ years. She was affectionate like a rattlesnake. As she got on in years, rising and walking became major chores for her. But she still loved laying in the yard in the sunshine, watching local goings-on. For the last 6 months or so of her life, she barely had the energy to stand, and could not walk but a few steps. My wife and I took turns carrying her outside 5 or 6 times a day. She would conduct her business, walk a few steps, and lay there until we carried her back in the house. She always enjoyed the outdoors; the barn cats loved her. At the end of her life, she lost the ability to control her bladder and bowel functions. At that point, my wife and I made the decision that her time was up. We both cried like babies for her loss. She was a good girl.
I hope this gives you some glimpse of why I don't critique others' photos, and have no interest in others' critiques of mine. My photography, like my piano playing, and my golf game are for me. It is hugely presumptuous of you to share any opinion at all about any of them. I don't do them for you.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
08-25-2020, 12:59 PM
|
| |
Sorry, I'm a bit late to the party. You compared 2 lenses from f/5.6 to f/16, on a tripod, with a cable release? Ok. That does not surprise me; it is a good methodology for comparing results. What does surprise me is that you were expecting noticeably different results. The major differences in IQ resulting from any lens(es) arise at the extremes. An f/1.4 lens is going to be way better at f/4 than any f/4 lens.
I learned this lesson a few years ago. I used to shoot Canon full-frame bodies, and L-primes/zoom. Somewhere along the line I realized I was pay truckloads of money to get images I could acquire for a lot less money. I do most of my shooting from f/8 to f/16. In this range, lens choice makes little difference. I sold all of the full frame digital cameras, all of the L-zooms/primes. I now shoot 20+ year old Canon T2, EOS 1, and EOS 1N bodies with 20 year old consumer glass: 28-135, 70-210, 100-300, and my one concession to IQ, the Tokina 17-35 f/4.
Yes, I spend about $20 for a roll of 36 frames. I traded $15,000 worth of gear for just about $500 worth of gear. The math works out to film is costing me nothing until I get to 750 rolls processed. At 12-15 rolls per year, I am good for the rest of my life.
Oh, the other thing I've learned from going back to film: Pixel-peeping is a complete waste of time. Nobody viewing your photos will care one iota.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
08-19-2020, 11:06 AM
|
| |
Half-size files may well matter for your organization. Lots of folks store things besides JPG files. None of those other things ARE jpg files, which is the topic of conversation.
I am not pushing back against alternatives to JPG. I am simply doing nothing until: A.) a reason to change presents itself. and B.) The thing to change to is as universal as JPG.
Keep me posted.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
08-19-2020, 04:20 AM
|
| |
File size? Really? File size may have been an issue when 1.44MB floppy disks were several dollars each. At $30 for a 32GB card, file size is just not an issue. I use 1.5TB 2.5" (< $100/disk) drives in a redundant back-up system. File size is a problem for exactly nobody.
I print 11"x17" and 20"x30" photos at Walmart, from JPG files out of Canon APSc cameras. The lab I use (TheDarkRoom.com) sends me quite excellent JPG scans of my 645 and 6x6 films. I think the first step in creating any impetus to move FROM JPG would be to find a fault with it. I don't see any. Obviously, neither do many other folks. As mentioned, JPG replacements are, collectively, solutions in search of a problem.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
07-17-2020, 03:38 AM
|
| |
I use TheDarkRoom.com (TDR) for all my film processing and scanning. I do manage to save a few dollars by sending in 3 rolls for every order. Return shipping is $5.99 for 1, 2, or 3 rolls. I only pay for the medium size scan, and find it quite useable for 11"x17" prints. Everything smaller is excellent. I've tried a few other labs and have never gotten the quality of results TDR provides. After several orders, they know what I want (density adjustments, color balance, please), and they nail it every time. They also push/pull process for $2, no matter how many stops. Most other labs charge $2-3 PER STOP. Oh, BTW, I use them for 120 (6x6 & 645) in addition to 35mm.
You can certainly find cheaper processing. Finding better would be more of a challenge.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
06-15-2020, 02:55 AM
|
| |
I disagree. Value is cost over unit time. Paying TDR $5 per 36 frames (sometimes 24) saves me about 3 hours of work, just for the scanning. On top of that, they do simple density and minor color adjustments for me. Just working with round numbers, the $5 per roll scanning cost saves me about 4 hours work per roll.
On the other hand, you paid way more than $5 for a scanner, so you could spend your TIME NOT spending $5 to pay someone else to do it. My method seems way less expensive, to me. Time is money. Money I've got. I'll gladly buy the time.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-15-2020, 02:41 AM
|
| |
I am a fickle photographer. I have lots of cameras in different formats, and enjoy shooting all of them. I guess my primary format is 35mm film, for which I use a variety of Canon bodies (1N, 7, 7N, T2, K2) with consumer-grade lenses (28-90 III, 28-135, 70-210 f/3.5-4.5, 100-300). The autofocus and cost per frame anchors me firmly in 35mm. I also have several medium format film cameras: Agfa Isolette III, Mamiya 6 folder, P645N x2. The 6x6 cameras are a throwback to all manual everything. They don't get used much, but they do bring a smile to my face. The 645 was a test gone way wrong. I liked the original 645 so much that I bought an NII. Then I came across a deal too good to pass up on a second 645N that came with both FA 45-85 & FA 80-160. Now I have bunch of 645 stuff that mainly collects dust because the cost per frame is quite high. And of course, there has to be a digital in the mix: Canon 80D and some EFs lenses. Next year it may all be different.
Wrigley's way of telling me 80 degrees and sunny is too hot for a 114 pound (freakishly large mutant) Golden Retriever. Canon K2/28-90/Fujicolor film.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
06-08-2020, 09:55 AM
|
| |
No offense taken. We all do things our own way(s). I don't do any darkroom stuff; tried it once, hated it, never again. I thought PhotoHut was a Godsend! That is how I roll, I know it's not for everyone. TDR does my developing and scanning. I get my prints at Walmart. My wife prints at FreePrints.com.
I think you'll be happy with the Plustek 8200i. I got good results with it. I just don't care for doing that kind of stuff. As you know, I had to try it! Enjoy your scanner. Post some results, please.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
06-08-2020, 03:27 AM
|
| |
Emphasis above is mine.
I like to do my own post-processing, also. That is why I pay someone else to do my scanning. One of the great savings of paying someone else to scan my negatives is that I have way less post-processing to do. Doing your own scanning, like every other endeavor, is a series of compromises. I have no desire to spend my time scanning 12 (6x6) to 36 (35mm) frames for each roll of film I shoot. What I do want is the best results I can get from the gear I am using. Plain and simple: paying a professional to use professional-grade equipment will always yield better results than I (me, not necessarily you) can get at home. If I allow 5 minutes per frame, I have devoted from 1 to 3 hours to EACH ROLL OF FILM, and I've done nothing with regard to post-processing yet. Paying $5 per roll saves me 3 hours of work? SOLD! On top of that, I get better scans than I could ever get at home. WIN-WIN!
More benefits of paying TheDarkRoom.com (TDR) to do my scanning. I overexpose every roll of film I shoot. Color negative film has at a truck-load of overexposure tolerance. My baseline is +1EC, and adjust from there. TDR knows how I shoot; they process my film accordingly. My overexposed film is developed at box speed (not pulled), which results in denser-than-usual-negatives, which requires density adjustments for my scans. Finally, TDR does my basic post-processing for me: exposure adjustments, color balancing. I spend way less time processing my film results from TDP than I ever did in 10+ years of shooting digital. Don't even get me started on the fallacy that is RAW digital shooting. Get it right in-camera and you have no use for RAW.
Bottom line, I am getting better results, requiring less time (and slightly more money) by paying someone else to scan my negatives. If time is money (it is!), I am ahead of the game at $5 per roll to pay TDP to develop and scan my film.
As usual, YMMV.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
06-07-2020, 04:57 PM
|
| |
I paid more for higher resolution scan on a couple of rolls. Not worth it when I'm shooting 3 rolls a month. For mostly 4x6, 5x7, and the occasional 8x10, 2700x2000 works quite well. I very rarely do anything larger. I suppose if I knew I were printing large (8x10 and larger), I'd pay the extra few $$ for higher resolution.
Super Scan is $5 more than what I am paying. From their web-site:
QUOTE:
Super Scan
Our new, super scan is perfect for those who want professional resolution or to never worry if you have enough resolution for current and future projects.nnIt works very well for advertising, giant prints and large posters.nnScan Sizes 35mm Film – 4492×6774 pixels – 87.1 mb Medium Format 645 – 3533×4824 pixels – 48.8 mb Medium Format 6×6 – 4760×4760 pixels – 64.8 mb Medium Format 6×7 – 4815×5902 pixels – 81.3 mb
Super Scans are 4492×6774 pixels or 87.1 MB when opened in an image editing program like Photoshop. Remember that the file size will appear much smaller until you open it up in an image editing program like Photoshop.
:END QUOTE
That a lot of pixels for $5. I'll never scan my own film again.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
06-07-2020, 03:40 PM
|
| |
Noritsu Koki, 2796 x 2048. Higher resolution scans are available for a few dollars more. They only do JPG, this file is 7.35MB
EDIT: Details are for the 120 scan. Similar for the 35mm, I would suppose.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
06-07-2020, 03:32 PM
|
| |
I have changed my perspective on 'expensive'. I realized that the modern, digital trend of chasing IQ was my GAS downfall. At some point I realized that digital full frame has absolutely no advantage over APSc for what I do. Sometime later I realized that a snap-shooting hobbyist with $12,000 worth of photo gear is just absurd. I started buying film gear about 2 years ago to get back to my roots (I'm 63, grew up on film). I spent a decent chunk of change buying 645N, 35A, 45-85FA, and 80-160FA. That aside, the rest of my gear is 35mm. I got a perfectly functioning Canon EOS K2 on E-Bay for $9.88. These days, $100 for a lens is EXPENSIVE. I just splurged on a 25 year old Canon 1N; for $125. THAT was EXPENSIVE.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
06-07-2020, 03:19 PM
|
| |
I thought perhaps I should show some 35mm stuff.
Canon EOS K2, EF 100-300mm, Fujicolor 200 @ 100.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
06-07-2020, 03:09 PM
|
| |
Perhaps the lab used for scanning matters. I use TheDarkRoom.com, and am extremely pleased with their work.
Shot on Fuji 400 rated @ 200, Pentax 645N, 35mm 645A, Tiffen CPL.
|
|
Forum: Troubleshooting and Beginner Help
06-03-2020, 02:41 PM
|
| |
I got a fungus infested lens from E-Bay a few years back. It never made it to my camera closet; directly into the bin it went. I've got way too much good gear in my closet to risk 'infecting it'. For $35, buy another copy.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
06-03-2020, 02:36 PM
|
| |
I used a Plustek OpticFilm 8200 for a few months. The Silverfast software that comes with is tedious and cumbersome, and that is just the install process. Using it is worse. I much preferred VueScan for working with my 35mm negatives. What I didn't like was the time involved and cleaning/handling/scanning negative. This is probably where I should admit that I've always thought darkroom/processing printing is the tedium of photography. After several months of playing with the 8200, I opted to go back to paying TheDarkRoom.com to develop all my film, scan all my negatives, and mail the results back to me when finished. They do better work than I ever could, and it takes no time at all. Two trips to the mailbox, and "I've got photos!"
BTW, I've never read an article/review of any home-use scanner that claimed I could do better at home than paying a lab. If I'm going to get better results from $3/roll scans, I'm all in. They do all my 120 film work, too.
|
|
Forum: General Photography
05-28-2020, 07:26 PM
|
| |
I fought the GAS for years with digital. Over the last year+, I've sold off $10,000 worth of digital gear, and replaced it with film stuff. I now own 6 35mm film AF cameras, 1 35mm folder, 4 6x6 foldelrs, and 2 medium format 645, with lenses. All in, I am at about $3,000. I can pay to buy, develop and scan about 350 rolls of film for that $7000 difference. Oh, yeah, and I am enjoying shooting again, and it's all FREE!
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
05-23-2020, 09:06 AM
|
| |
Oops! RED FACE. I thought this thread was about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
05-23-2020, 09:00 AM
|
| |
Sticking to Pentax: 645N w/35 A, 45-85mm FA, and 80-160mm FA.
For digital I use a Canon 80D (apsc) w/Tokina 12-28mm, 18-135mm USM, 60mm macro.
|
|
Forum: Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands
05-09-2020, 04:36 AM
|
| |
I'm late to the party, but having shot all manner of Yashica from the FX-2 to the Contax 159, my guess is FX-7. I have no explanation for the lack of a badge.
|
