|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
07-03-2023, 12:27 PM
|
| |
It looks like the thing they’re showing off is their progress on their ratchet crank mech. You know, the one they say could potentially be used on a future SLR project.
Most of the later compacts used motor winders or thumb wheels.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
07-18-2022, 08:25 PM
|
| |
So the whole thing about inkjets being better than Ciba. I kind of have to wonder by what criteria makes it “better.” As artist we should know this is always a dangerous path to take.
I’ve printed a few Cibachrome prints in addition to the Discovery Kit I mentioned earlier. Essentially one packet of 8x10. I already had an 8x10 drum from my color negative print experiments. I wouldn’t say my prints were particularly good, but they came out ok. As I mostly shot negatives, I didn’t really continue my experiments with Ciba because of that and the costs. I still have a few of them today.
However, at the camera shop I worked at there was this one gentleman who mastered the Cibachrome print. He mostly did 11x14’s and the quality is a bit different from anything I’ve ever seen since.
Not as sharp as an inkjet print today, I would say similar tonality. But there was this depth thats hard to explain to someone who’s never experienced the viewing of such a print. It was even present in the “ok” prints I did. It’s kind of a weird unsharp, but still sharp image. Almost like you could touch a part of the image that was just a millimeter or two below the surface.
Pro Inkjet printed onto metallic paper comes close, but not the depth.. and definitely not the whites.
I would say that Cibachrome is a completely different medium thats now extinct. We should all be sad of its loss.
I don’t know… maybe I should do an “unboxing” video (I really abhorr unboxing videos) and try to develop a print.) This box is potentially 45 years old.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
07-12-2022, 08:48 AM
|
| |
I also used the Discovery kit in school some 40 years ago. Took about five of the 20 sheets to get it right. Beautiful stuff. It was split four people to a kit so I had two clean prints out of my run.
I purchased this kit about ten years ago out of nostalgia. I don’t know if it would still be viable if used today.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
04-20-2022, 12:36 AM
|
| |
Yes, the temperature control system is pretty good. I got one early one to support the research and to give them some $$$ for the curation. But it is essentially a rebranding of a Sous Vide device.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
04-18-2022, 08:26 PM
|
| |
| |
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
01-18-2022, 07:51 PM
|
| |
This is true.... sadly.
Case in point, my girlfriend. A former professional Wedding and Event photographer. A notorious Green Box spray and pray shooter with a 1Dsomething Marksomething with various Red Rings at her disposal.
She's not a bad photographer, but she's not a good one either. She knows her basics, but also knows that Green Box will get the shot and Red Rings and the 1Dsomething Marksomething will have the quality that customers want.
What she also is, is very good with people. She has that list in her head (and clipboard) of all the money shots that clients want. She is also excellent and corralling drunk people and getting them to take a decent photo.
Its rare that you have true creative photographers in this field of photography as its more of a photo mill than anything else. You're more of a documentarian and director than a fine art photographer. When I would second shoot with her, it was Green Box all the way mostly for a kind of continuity of styles. And I left the 645Z at home.
Once we did an experiment and I took the formals using the 645 (original) on Portra 160. Everyone loved the way it looked. But honestly, if it was shot digitally they would have been just as happy. Most people are just not that concerned with quality or style. They say they are, but they're not. And if they are, they're likely wanting you to copy the most recent trend. And generally they're definitely not willing to pay extra.
Me personally, I will stay in advanced amateur land thank you!
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
07-28-2021, 09:36 PM
|
| |
Hmm… You’re shooting with a K1000 so it can’t just be a price thing. I’m guessing besides budget, the OP is looking for the film experience. Truth is, at this point is technology, digital as far exceeded what film can do in terms of sharpness and color rendition.
However, that being said, film looks like film. It’s really hard to copy that look, close.. but not really. So that being said….
I recommend going with the original Trinity. K or M 28mm f2.8 and the K or M 135mm 3.5 in addition to the 50 you already have. The 35mm you have is a bonus. This will give you the landscape and telephoto reach you want. Also the primes are generally a little faster than the zooms with less distortion and these lenses have great IQ. And the price is right on this combination as they’re really common.
And they’re both more aesthetically and time period “correct” on the K1000.
Well, thats my opinion.
|
|
Forum: Pentax SLR Lens Discussion
07-12-2021, 04:12 PM
|
| |
And I was wondering when someone would get to this part. So the newer software corrected lenses will only be used on the newer cameras. At this point,I have to wonder about the creep toward obsolescence. Historically, lenses had very long useful lifespans that outlived maybe three or four bodies.
Camera manufacturers have tried to mitigate the losses by a variety of marketing methods. 1) Starter lenses on APS-C that are then useless on full frame. 2) More plastic components that wear out quicker. 3) Forcing lens upgrades that don’t resolve high enough due to the megapixel wars. This is not a conspiracy. These are totally valid marketing tools after all, if you’re happy with the quality of your fifteen year old system, you don’t need to upgrade. But thats now how we work.
At some point, I suspect that software correction (or lets call it what it is, computational photography) will actually be fully baked into the actual design of the lens. So if the manufacturer discontinues support of the lens…. Well. That would be like trying to run your copy of your original PC version of Microsoft Word on you new Windows 11 system. Maybe it will work, maybe it won’t, maybe it will work a little.
Maybe Pentax/Ricoh will be the holdout. Or maybe Pentax will be the holdout and Ricoh will be the leading edge company?
|
|
Forum: Photographic Technique
06-21-2021, 08:27 PM
|
| |
Most of the replies concerning megapixels tent to concentrate on pure mathematical calculations and while they’re not wrong, those aren’t the only values that need to be taken to account.
Higher resolutions in my experience increase the ability for overall better photo quality. Sharper images while also also affecting tonality. Careful downsizing with good algorithms also can increase that effect, or make it worse. The big problem for me is that a pixel is not necessarily the same as another pixel. There seems to be a big difference is how pixels are rendered from one camera or sensor to another.
Years ago, I was shooting with a Nikon Coolpix 7100. A 10 megapixel camera. (I was largely shooting film at a time so I didn’t want or need a DSLR) However, I still wanted decent quality in a compact camera. The theory on this camera was to use a slightly larger sensor than what most bridge cameras at the time was using (a 1 1/7” vs a 1 1/2.5”) and less megapixels 10 vs 16. The idea is that the photo buckets would be larger and be able to capture better photo quality with increased tonality. My personal observations on this camera seem to support this although the differences are subtle, not night and day. And you really need to process the photo from raw to get the full benefit.
So I find this to also be the case going from APS-C, to full frame, to 44/33 medium format. However, technology also changes the equation too. Pixel density on a sensor is getting to be less of a problem, but it still makes a difference. So you have to factor in generational changes in the sensor as well as the software to make a decision on how that affects resolution.
Also, realistically, to upgrade your resolution to something noticeable, you need to double what you have. That part is just math. How many MP it takes to fill out a rectangle. 16mp to 24mp is nice, but not a particularly big jump. You ideally need to go to 32mp. Realistically, to have a substantial jump you need to multiply that number by 4.
And lastly, screens seem to be more forgiving that printing. Cellphones with their 12MP photos are awesome on screen, but many tend to fall apart when you’re PROCESSING for print. I’m sure there are many nice photos taken in more acceptable conditions, but when you start to print them with an eye for fine art the post processing is possible, but frustratingly slow. Which brings the last point.
Eventually technology (as Apple and others are beginning to show with their infant stages of AI and computational photography) will make it so that none of this will matter much in the very near future. We will be able to process anything to look like anything else soon.
So I’m here going blah blah blah….
The short point that I’m trying to make is that resolution is nice, but you only need as much resolution as you need. But resolution can also make other parts of the rendering worse if the technology hasn’t caught up. And that the argument won’t even matter in a few years.
James
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
06-16-2020, 01:11 AM
|
| |
Thats good information. I have an extra UC-21 from the film cameras. Since I'm largely using the manual focus lenses, this may be a better way for me to go. I'll leave an update after I do the modification and try it out.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
11-12-2019, 06:17 PM
|
| |
I could. But there are already a gazillion on YouTube. It would kinda be redundant.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
11-12-2019, 03:51 PM
|
| |
Lab Box has been pretty consistent. No fuss no muss. I did have a problem with the 120 size, but that was probably due to the base thickness. Never had a problem with the 35mm size though. It’s become my go to for single roll developing.
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
07-18-2019, 09:26 PM
|
| |
After near two years, it finally shipped. Just got it yesterday and ran a roll through it.
Is it worth $200? Maybe. Maybe not. It was definitely worth the $100 I spent on the 135 & 120 module version. Depends on how much you develop and your workflow. If you're a hybrid shooter that intends to develop then scan, it may be worth it. If you're a high volume shooter, probably not. There is much to say about not needing a dark room or changing bag.
It does exactly what it says it would. Easy to use. Fast to load. Small learning curve.
But for perspective, I think in 1980, a GAF tank was about $18 and a changing bag was $10. Adjusted for inflation thats about $87 today. I almost definitely would have spend the 2X plus amount in high school for not having to use a changing bag.
James.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
04-16-2019, 01:09 AM
|
| |
This is cool. I thought I'd update this with prices adjusted for inflation in April 2019.
-- Pentax K2 with f/1.7* = $1251.52
-- Pentax ME with f/1.7 = $1013.69
-- Pentax KX with f/1.7 = $873.33
-- Pentax MX with f/1.7 = $972.75
-- Canon AE-1 with f/1.8 = $1052.48
-- Canon AT-1 with f/1.8 = $857.74
-- Canon FTb-N with f/1.8 = $853.84
-- Olympus OM2 with f/1.8 = $1312.92
So yeah, even entry level cameras were NOT cheap.
James
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
10-28-2015, 08:00 AM
|
| |
The skyline is a fair topic for discussion. It is one of the few failings left for digital. I've always wondered why DSLRs haven't gone to multi chip CCDs or done other in sensor magic for a HDR raw file. It's one of the reasons I went back to film. (One of the reasons, not the major reason. Lots of my reasons are more emotional than technical.) I would at least try and print it. The worst case scenario is that it becomes a learning experience.
I like nomadskings suggestion #1. Enjoy it now. Critique it later.
|
|
Forum: Photo Critique
10-24-2015, 12:50 AM
|
| |
Hmmm.. if we were to go with the simplistic explanation. Personally, I find the textures very interesting. Like I want to reach out and touch the rocks and the water. The color gradients are nice too. I agree that there is no point of focus and I think that works to the photos advantage. I can see multiple leading lines. The horizon... the top of the cliff, (and if you look carefully or just unfocus your eyes you can see...) an inward curving of the cliff going downward... until it reaches a different texture of rocks, that then draws your eye to the left to the water.. where you follow the gradient back up... then we start over again. Also notice that the "leading lines" are nicely placed approximately to the rule of thirds. (yeah, I know its overdone as a composition tool)
I agree on the sense of scale. I suspect that blown up to a 16x20 the sense of scale would change the overall feel of the picture.
The nitpicks and minor technical stuff which could just be the way my monitor is set. I would play around with lightroom a little and draw out the shadows in the rock lines a little more. And the high contrast line from the white sky to to the top of the cliff seems bothersome to me for some reason. I'm kind of torn about adding more saturation as I think this works.. but adding some *could* give a little more pop to the pic. Maybe worth trying.
Then again, forget everything I said. Everything I said is rubbish except the scale. The more I look at it, the more it seems to draw me in.
Other than that... VERY nice pic.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Compact Cameras
04-23-2014, 04:07 PM
|
| |
Actually, the charger didn't really bother me much. But you're right on the charger. There seems to be a lot of compromises on the MX-1 that Pentax didn't have control over when it came to the mechanical design. Fortunately, they don't seem to be critical ones and Pentax did a good job working around most of them.
People have said that I was a bit critical on the MX-1, but you have to remember that I was comparing it to its competition at the $500 point which is considered advanced photographer territory. I mean, come on it competes with the Canon G15, Nikon Coolpix 7700, Olympus XZ-2, and the Lumix X7. All pretty heavy hitters. Someone theorized that some of us had high expectations of the MX-1. I think that is true, for two reasons. 1) its high initial price point. and 2) its called the MX!
Since I shoot regularly with the Nikon 7100 as my compact digital and one of my friends shoots with the Canon G13 as his regular camera, I have something to directly compare the MX-1 to which probably jaded my review a bit.
That being said, I think that if it had an initial price point of $299.. reviews would most likely have been much more favorable. It would have been an outstanding camera at that price point.
James
|
|
Forum: Film Processing, Scanning, and Darkroom
04-08-2014, 03:11 AM
|
| |
A little late to the party but....
So looks like he was picking up a bunch of 50mm lenses trying to upgrade. However, from my quick research, almost all of these lenses are approximately the same type. 3 and 4 element lenses. I wouldn't worry too much about it. All those 50mm's are made by quality manufacturers so you should be ok with any of them. I recommend you start off with the brighter Minolta lens as it will be easier to focus. The 80mm Nikkor is a fine lens should you start shooting medium format.
Looks like you got everything you need. If you're trying to process on a budget, I recommend using Rodinal and powder chemicals like fixer and such. These chemicals tend to have a ridiculous shelf life. Plus with Rodinal's 50 to 1 dilution, is very economical. Some chemicals like fixer and stop bath can be used for a very long time. Developers though have varying shelf lives. Some like Rodinal are one shot.. others like D-76 can be reused. Others like Ilfosol (beautiful results) DIE A HORRIBLE DEATH 3 weeks after you open the bottle.
Darkroom is another art form. You may or may not get addicted to it. Just remember, its ok to screw up the first few times.
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
03-07-2014, 08:12 PM
|
| |
I know this is a little late to the party. My MX has always had that ping noise. Even new in 1980. Didn't seem to affect anything or induce additional camera vibration so I just learned to live with it. After I put the autowinder on, the noise just disappeared!!!!!
I kinda actually like that noise now... its screams "I'm mechanical!!!"
James
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
06-19-2013, 03:04 AM
|
| |
Although the conventional wisdom is that primes are sharper than zooms, its not necessarily written in stone.
I generally like the primes with lower light situations, but for versatility some zooms are nice to have.
I have a preference for the 75-150 f4 lens which has been called "a bag full of primes."
I also find the 28-50 f3.5-4.5 nice, although not optically up to their prime counterparts. But still quite sharp.
Still, the 28mm, 50mm, 138mm combination is still an excellent choice.
James
|
|
Forum: Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras
06-19-2013, 02:43 AM
|
| |
Just had my MX CLA'd by Eric. I must say his reputation is definitely well earned. Just a few things to note though. He seems to be much more busy than some of the earlier posts from a few years ago. Mine took about 3 weeks to come back with the estimate coming in a few days after he received it. Not really a problem, just an observation. With the condition the camera came back in, he can keep it for a month or two if he needs to. He's definitely the guy to send Pentax stuff to.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Medium Format
06-04-2013, 02:26 AM
|
| |
I have both the 35mm A and the 45mm A lenses. I consider them as two different purposes. I use the 45mm as my "standard" wide angle lens and the faster f2.8 helps. The 35mm I use for landscapes and creative shots when I want that super wide perspective.
The 45mm gets a bad rep for lack of corner sharpness but my example is pretty good with only minor losses at wide open. I suspect that there may be more variances in different examples of the 45mm A lens.
|
|
Forum: Pentax Compact Cameras
05-26-2013, 12:02 PM
|
| |
Ok, I finally got my hands on a MX-1 this week that I borrowed from a friend. Thanks Mike. And I now have some informed opinions on it.
It doesn't suck, but I don't really see who this appeals to.
First the good. Handling is not bad and the lens is pretty damn good. The chip logic works fairly well in low light aided by the shake reduction. The ergonomics are probably a 6 or 7 on a scale of 1-10. Not bad, but not excellent. But the styling gets a lot of looks from the trendsters. I don't think the screen spoils the look, but as someone pointed out, the lens spoils the retro look.
The problem I can see with this camera is that it won't please anyone because it doesn't do any one thing well. Lets see.
The Features Crowd: Nope, even my now discontinued Nikon 7100 out features the MX-1. It has a hot shoe and a small viewfinder. Do you NEED either? Well, the hot shoe comes in handy when you need more light, or to hold an accessory like a bubble leveler. I find myself using the viewfinder more often than I thought I would. It's faster (interface between your eye and the scenery is quicker although not as accurate) and in weird lighting, you can actually see the subject.
The Retro Crowd: Nope, the screen and the lens spoil the retro aesthetics.
The Nostalgia Crowd: Nope. They named it the MX-1!!! What were they thinking. The MX was a professional camera. They should have called it the Spotmatic D or ME-D or something like that.
Personally, they should have just gone for the full Retro/Nostalgia Crowd. It would have been easy. Put in a viewfinder, make the lens look more like a traditional rangefinder lens. Put an aperture ring on it and a shutter speed dial on the top. Bingo, call it a day. It would have probably cost the same to do it that way.
But thats just my opinion. I think the entire camera industry is caught in a kind of group think. Maybe they should have put the team in charge of the 645D in charge of the MX.
|
