|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
06-06-2022, 11:51 PM
|
| |
Might consider the super light weight X370 (made in Japan version). It is my travel camera.
Main detractors are 1/60th sync speed, and that it doesn't look like much (although it is charming to use).
Main good points are sharpest glass at the lowest cost, and the AE Lock feature (much easier than +- comp rings).
When fitted with a comfy and lighter 2" wide neoprene strap, the very lightweight X370 can be comfortably carried all day.
It is slightly larger albeit much lighter than my ME Super.
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
02-12-2022, 10:49 PM
|
| |
Beautiful! And, also want french fries. I like how the nature and cityscape are harmonious in this photo.
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
04-11-2020, 03:49 PM
|
| |
I love this means to enjoy it.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
12-17-2019, 02:04 PM
|
| |
That rangefinder lens has a great sense of depth/3d.
Must have been fastidious with the lens cap or ready-case to conserve the selenium.
|
|
Forum: Monthly Photo Contests
12-11-2019, 08:58 AM
|
| |
It is hard to choose; so, I nominated the one that made me jealous.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
12-08-2019, 10:44 AM
|
| |
That's a wonderful image.
Do you use a gallery lamp or digital photo frame for display?
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
12-08-2019, 10:30 AM
|
| |
The materials are probably the same supplier, not exactly Kodak (there are more brands/labels than films). Currently Kodak Portra is the only fast color film without a color cast. Other [insert brand name here] fast color films have at least a slight color cast (very mild). I tried correcting this with an 81 series filter. It did remove haze so that distant trees weren't blurry-blue-black; but, light brown things became purple... Is there a 1/3rd stop light yellow filter available?
Tri-X works better in 2 ways:
1. The black and white film is slightly faster in practice (as usual, the color film is ASA320, approximately).
2. Sunset with cloudless sky (or a headshot), is smooth with black and white; but, fast color film might look like an alien invasion or at least not smooth tonality.
Fast color works better in 2 ways:
1. High resolution designed for big enlargements (or crop), and it scans well (if exposure allows).
2. Can make both black and white, and color, images, with just one camera body.
I'd probably use actual black and white film more often, if I could get more than one camera body working simultaneously.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
12-06-2019, 05:12 PM
|
| |
Awesome!
#3, Tri-X and Double-X have nice even tones.
However, the color films (#1, #2) have the little pepper/patches, such as on the cat's nose (that's on the film, but not actually on the cat himself).
#2, most new fast color film is cine500t-based, which scans well and was made for movie-screen size display (at most).
It is nice to leave the zoom at home. That image is 1/3rd of a frame crop.
#1, old color film is what the scanner doesn't like, although a heavier exposure could be HDR scanned (takes a while).
Kudos for matching the photos to the film!
I'm curious for what clues you used to match them?
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
12-05-2019, 10:35 PM
|
| |
I did actually mean that, because I aim for 3 meters print size, even if I use that capacity less often than 2/3rds meter print size. Mainly, I just want to get the metering right more often. Its a goal.
But, your comment is really good!
The Kodak Portra 400/800 (same film) is non-blue and has broader latitude.
Instead of 3 meters, it can do 4 meter sized prints if the exposure coddles the scanner.
The double price is not a real thing, because it is a bit more likely for a successful image.
I'm so grateful that you've mentioned it.
However, the need of good exposure is a real thing. Portra just does either better or bigger.
I am in need of some wall prints, so thanks again for recommending the right film for that.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Forums Giveaways
12-05-2019, 05:10 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
12-05-2019, 04:40 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
12-05-2019, 02:34 PM
|
| |
One of these was shot on Kodak Tri-X film.
One is on Fuji 400 old 4-layer color film.
One is on Fuji 400 new cine-based film (b&w&color, silver highlights).
Can you match the photo to the film that was used?
1
2
3
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
12-05-2019, 01:33 AM
|
| |
35mm f2.8 @ f5.6, 81a, Fuji 400 film
It was the last of the fall foliage for this year.
That's an an amazing size radio tower for a community radio station. Apparently, they don't use much electricity.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
12-04-2019, 11:44 PM
|
| |
f8, flash, 2/3 frame of Fuji 400 film
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
12-04-2019, 10:34 AM
|
| |
35mm f2.8
f4, fuji 400 film, 81a filter
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
12-04-2019, 09:02 AM
|
| |
35mm f2.8 at the park
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
12-04-2019, 08:46 AM
|
| |
I'd get some mailers from mpix.com for the low cost processing + scans by email + they send your negatives to you.
Instead of buying prints, a 'digital photo frame' is far more effective.
For film, you won't have to look much farther than the wal-mart for Fuji 400 (fast film for reduced motion blur).
Scanners don't tolerate any underexposure. (underexposure looks like gravel)
You could bracket, or set the ASA to 320, or review the camera instructions for use of the comp dial.
P.S.
All of my gallery photos are film.
Challenges include: exposure to coddle the scanner, old camera breakdown, motion blur.
Surprises include: If everything went right, dramatically high quality (and the opposite case is possible too).
|
|
Forum: Flashes, Lighting, and Studio
12-02-2019, 10:55 PM
|
| |
The variety for the meter, is but 4:
There are ASA100 B&W and color films with similar linearity.
There is one slide film.
There is a classic ASA400 B&W film.
There are fast color films based on movie film all with similar linearity.
I use a fast color negative film, for reduced motion blur. So, just one type.
The photo is because that's 1/3rd of a frame of film printable to 28" from a quickie scan. It was possible because the negative is thick enough. However, if it was thin, then the max printable size falls by 12 times or worse.
The new quality works so long as the exposure was enough and motion blur is absent. After buying the Weston Pixie meter the exposure results are better. And, I use it only when I suspect that the in-camera meter is off.
However, if I use an auto-exposure camera, the difficulty automatically went up if it wasn't aimed at the film that I'm using.
P.S.
Thank you for steering the topic towards what I had meant to ask about.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
12-02-2019, 10:12 PM
|
| |
Lens hood = no change
Lens hood + 81A filter = 1/3rd stop
If the camera handbook had been translated between languages, or compressed, then the 0.3 aperture surely came from a discussion of filters.
Here is the likely confusion:
You don't need a filter when using a lens hood, but...
You need a lens hood when using an uncoated filter.
I suspect that the handbook wasn't clear about the equipment and scenarios:
The exposure correction (for filter) is automatic/included with the in-camera meter of your slr/dslr/mirrorless-digital camera; however...
The exposure correction (for filter) is manual with the external/pocket meter for your antique TLR/View/Rangefinder film camera.
Example of pocket meter:
Using a device like this is the only time you need to worry about the exposure compensation (for a filter). This applies to an antique camera, or even a new camera if its light meter were either inaccurate or inoperable. Then, a filter is in front of the lens, but not in front of the external light meter. That's when you compensate for that specific difference, manually.
Or, in QA form:
What is the lens hood for? Because of the filter.
What is the exposure compensation for? A filter.
Does a lens hood need exposure compensation? No.
Does a lens hood need a filter? No.
Does a filter need a lens hood? Yes.
P.S.
If an explanation from me did better than the handbook, then...
A more reliable handbook is probably available.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
12-02-2019, 04:42 PM
|
| |
That is attractive. And it is very sharp/high-resolution.
|
|
Forum: Flashes, Lighting, and Studio
11-28-2019, 03:42 AM
|
| |
Thanks!
This is 1/3rd of a frame crop from 35mm film, with exposure to suit the scanner.
It is Fuji 400 from wal-mart and a quickie lab scan by mpix. Just ordinary and cost-effective.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-28-2019, 02:39 AM
|
| |
The Sears Macro 135, f8, flash, close range, quickie film scan by mpix.
This is 1/3rd of a frame crop.
The slightly above average performance is more evident at close range, doing what that lens was made for.
I used the 'first click' of the soft focus portrait/macro feature.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-28-2019, 12:42 AM
|
| |
The Sears macro 135 at f5.6, mpix scan, fuji 400
That soft-focus portrait lens wasn't made for landscapes/distance, but it tried.
I probably should have used a sharper (Pentax or Tokina) lens to get the distance.
 |
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-27-2019, 11:45 PM
|
| |
Geese,
Sears Macro 135, f4, Mpix.com scan, Fuji 400
Zoom in and see the leaf that the white goose is standing on.
|
|
Forum: Lens Clubs
11-27-2019, 04:16 PM
|
| |
Amazing peacock-duck.
Half a frame crop from: Sears 135 Macro, f4, Mpix.com scan, Fuji 400 film
(Similar to the KR mount, A contacts, chrome A button, version, on an APS-C)
The Sears Macro 135 is a commonplace lens of slightly better than average performance, plus a nifty close+soft focus trick. It is heavy and large and doesn't snap-focus (the focus takes time); but it can outperform a zoom lens.
|
