Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge
The Lounge We're all friends here. Hang out, kick your feet up and talk about whatever the heck you want!

Get excited for the Samsung Galaxy S5! Find everything you need and discuss it in our Galaxy S5 Forum!

Like Tree26Likes

test: Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old December 13th, 2012, 09:10 PM   #1 (permalink)
Nexus 5 beta tester...
Thread Author (OP)
 
ajdroidx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Colorado
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,762
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Galaxy note II (back up)
Carrier: AT&T

Thanks: 691
Thanked 1,075 Times in 626 Posts
Default Any shutterbugs in the house?

Just wondering if anyone around here was a camera junky? What do you have, what do you like to shoot?

__________________

Most people run from storms, I run to them (back by popular request )
Flickr Gallery
ajdroidx is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old December 13th, 2012, 10:12 PM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

35mm, medium format and when possible, much larger formats like 8 x 10 and 11 x 14.

The loss of Eastman as a film producer put an end to some of the work I once did, like using BIG film measured in feet. For example, 8 and 16 inches wide by 20 feet in length. I once carried around a five inch aerial camera for "snapshots."

Kodak put an end to photography for the most part. At one time, they stocked three hundred or more different films and glass plates as well as more than 50 papers in 30+ different weights and surfaces. Not to mention tens of thousands of photographic sundries.

Kodak went so far as to introduce new films for cameras that were discontinured twenty years hense. The customer was king as far as Eastman was concerned.

I also shoot some stereo photography and occasionally dabble with old processes like Vectographs and other obsolete techniques and processes.

I was a working pro for many years as well as a darkroom manager and printer. I can still make a fine quality black and white print, I'll bet.

Times have certainly changed.

My preferences for equipment include the Leica M system, Hasselblad, Linhoff, 8 x 10 Kodak Master View Cameras and EK Banquet Cameras. Stereo Realist for 3D.

Now, I am looking at one of these for 14 MP 5K digital stills:

RED Digital Cinema Cameras, Lenses and Accessories

So yes indeed . . . I know just a little more than just a little about photography.
breadnatty08 and Dieben like this.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Bob Maxey For This Useful Post:
Dieben (December 14th, 2012), Speed Daemon (December 14th, 2012)
Old December 13th, 2012, 10:53 PM   #3 (permalink)
Nexus 5 beta tester...
Thread Author (OP)
 
ajdroidx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Colorado
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,762
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Galaxy note II (back up)
Carrier: AT&T

Thanks: 691
Thanked 1,075 Times in 626 Posts
Default

I used to work a local film lab at a store a couple years ago. I basically ran the place, the manager had to ask me some things at times. I enjoyed it. I even processed some tri-x film in my bathroom a couple times, I forgot what I used, I think it was Diafine or something like that. It also processed neopan.

Still have my elan 7 sitting around and some techpan in the freezer along with some velvia 50 that will likely stay there now.

I found it kind of defeated the purpose of processing your own film if you are just going to digitize them and run them through photoshop, so that experiment did not last long. It was a treat to do this though
ajdroidx is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2012, 11:09 PM   #4 (permalink)
Member
 
Dieben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 258
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 67
Thanked 41 Times in 32 Posts
Default

I once worked for a commercial/industrial photographer who also did high quality portrait photography including fine quality hand tinted color portraits.

His commercial/industrial studio included a gymnasium sized darkroom with a *huge* enlarger/view camera that you walked inside of to load the 3-foot by 4-foot (?) (!!) negative or film. We would put an 8 or 10-foot high by 20 or 30-foot wide piece of print paper on the wall, expose it with a picture of something like a factory, then use mops and buckets to apply the developing chemicals.

Say "cheese"
Prinny likes this.
Dieben is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 13th, 2012, 11:33 PM   #5 (permalink)
live~laugh~love
 
damewolf13's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: AZ
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,091
 
Device(s): White Samsung Galaxy Note 2 AT&T, Black Samsung Galaxy S4 VZW, White Samsung Galaxy S4 AT&T
Carrier: AT&T and Verizon

Thanks: 5,438
Thanked 2,667 Times in 1,393 Posts
Default

If I had my youth back, that is the one thing I would change. I would take photography classes, and get involved in some kind of photography job.
I think that would have been most fulfilling for me.
breadnatty08 and argedion like this.
__________________
Never Lookin' Back!
damewolf13 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 01:00 AM   #6 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 71
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 3
Thanked 20 Times in 12 Posts
Default

I do photo and video work professionally, been 8 years now. I shoot a Canon 60D and Rebel T2i. Wanna see some of my work? Pick up the new Import Tuner magazine. I shot the cover model and her layout inside.
breadnatty08 likes this.
211275 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 02:35 AM   #7 (permalink)
The TechnoFrog
 
argedion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: The Severed Garden
Posts: 5,520
 
Device(s): HTC EVO 4g(Retired), HTC EVO LTE(Retired), LG Lucid(Returned), Motorola Droid Razr M, Nexus 7
Carrier: GOD

Thanks: 5,565
Thanked 5,324 Times in 2,469 Posts
Default

I took pictures but never got deep into it. I'm still pretty much that way today. I enjoy it but not enough to go get the expensive camera and stuff.
__________________
All My Links In one Convenient Place
Asking simple questions can keep us from doing dumb things.
argedion is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 02:41 AM   #8 (permalink)
你好
 
mikedt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Xilinhot, China 中国锡林浩特
Posts: 8,660
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy Win Duos, Lenovo P700i
Carrier: China Mobile, China Unicom.

Thanks: 2,944
Thanked 2,498 Times in 1,791 Posts
Send a message via Skype™ to mikedt
Default

I used to have a Made in East Germany Praktica SLR. No electronics, no batteries, completely mechanical.
Kaat72 likes this.
__________________
The People's Guide to Android in the People's Republic.
Honorary Grand Poobah Shenzhen University English Corner.
http://welcometomychina.tumblr.com/
There are nine million bicycles in Beijing.
There are nine million Androids in Shenzhen.
mikedt is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 05:45 AM   #9 (permalink)
Need Beer and Mustard
 
breadnatty08's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: District of Columbia
Posts: 17,753
 
Device(s): LG G2, Moto G, Galaxy S3, Galaxy Nexus LTE, Nexus 7, HTC Flyer
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 5,730
Thanked 5,416 Times in 3,570 Posts
Default

Took a few photo classes in high school. Loved it! Was my favorite art class. Remember making a camera with a shoebox.
Won a couple awards too!
These days I don't have too much time but my trusty Canon G10 is what I use. One day if I can justify the cost of a dSLR I'll jump on it.
__________________
New to the forum? Check out the FAQ
Haven't signed up? Join the best Android Forum out there!
Sign up here
breadnatty08 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 06:56 AM   #10 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
35mm, medium format and when possible, much larger formats like 8 x 10 and 11 x 14...
Looks like you're the top dog for photography, Bob. Wow!

Quote:
Now, I am looking at one of these for 14 MP 5K digital stills:

RED Digital Cinema Cameras, Lenses and Accessories
Out of curiosity, is there any particular reason why you're looking at Red as opposed to, say Arri for a multi-K cinema camera?

Pardon my ignorance, since I've never had the budget for more than 35mm film cameras and 2/3" imagers for my ENG-style cameras. I thought that the medium format still camera digital backs would be a better choice for still photography than adapting a digital cinema camera for the purpose. What am I missing? I'd think that something like the 80MP Mamiya Leaf back would be the way to go, especially for someone who already has medium format cameras and lenses.

I wish that I could afford a digital cinema camera, even though my "run and gun" video shooting style isn't really compatible with them. I almost bought a Panasonic 4K pro video camera, but when I came back down to earth I realized that I'd be better off buying a Sony that used my existing Sony batteries and accessories.

I expect a full report on what you end up buying!
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old December 14th, 2012, 07:31 AM   #11 (permalink)
Resident Linux Nutcase
 
Prinny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Greenville, SC
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,479
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy Note LTE
Carrier: T-Mobile

Thanks: 653
Thanked 1,037 Times in 721 Posts
Default

I do enjoy taking photos. In my car with me now, I have a Canon Rebel G2 35mm. One of the best film cameras I've owned in a while.

For my dSLR, I have a Nikon D3100. Great camera. I do miss the whole developing film aspect though.

I would love to go to school for photography, if I was younger and had the time and money.
__________________
Want to brighten my day? Feel free to donate
Prinny is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 08:00 AM   #12 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
zuben el genub's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 4,759
 
Device(s): Nexus 4, Galaxy S 4G, Nexus S
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 51
Thanked 868 Times in 698 Posts
Default

Have a 20D dslr and a Canon SX 20 IS. Have been playing around for years - I learned from an artist (paint type) friend. The 20 has a 800mm zoom - maybe not good for a lot of stuff, but it sure works for identifying birds.

I did have some stuff years ago in the magazine my employer put out. I got the opportunity to get aboard a coastal oil tanker. I don't bother with contests, popularity -- I shoot to please myself, and do read and study stuff to improve that. I tend to be more after a feeling.

I still have my film cameras. I did develop black and white. Think I still have that equipment, too.
__________________
Sent by UFO
zuben el genub is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 08:21 AM   #13 (permalink)
Member
 
Dieben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 258
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 67
Thanked 41 Times in 32 Posts
Default

When I became a computer weenie I spent several years converting graphics arts shops, advertising agencies, corporate graphics and advertising departments, etc. to digital. OUT with the film-based cameras and enlargers, the light tables and waxers and knives. IN with the high end digital stuff. (And out with most of the employees too.) I had a software developer at Kodak write me some device drivers to connect the largest Kodak copy machines to my digital graphics computers.

You have seen the work I was involved in:
- advertising, brochures, signage, etc. for a major bank.
- advertising program for a US automobile manufacturer
- wine labels
- catalogs for a major retailer
- design of commemorative coins at a US Mint
- computer designed graphics for name-brand toys

I even had an article written about me in a graphics arts magazine.


So why aren't I rich?
Dieben is offline  
Last edited by Dieben; December 14th, 2012 at 08:26 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 08:31 AM   #14 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dieben View Post
When I became a computer weenie I spent several years converting graphics arts shops, advertising agencies, corporate graphics and advertising departments, etc. to digital. OUT with the film-based cameras and enlargers, the light tables and waxers and knives. IN with the high end digital stuff. (And out with most of the employees too.) I had a software developer at Kodak write me some device drivers to connect the largest Kodak copy machines to my digital graphics computers.

You have seen the work I was involved in:
- advertising, brochures, signage, etc. for a major bank.
- advertising program for a US automobile manufacturer
- wine labels
- catalogs for a major retailer
- design of commemorative coins at a US Mint
- computer designed graphics for name-brand toys

I even had an article written about me in a graphics arts magazine.


So why aren't I rich?
It looks to me that you are rich. Many great experiences, public recognition, accomplishment. You can't buy stuff like that!
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 08:47 AM   #15 (permalink)
Member
 
Dieben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 258
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 67
Thanked 41 Times in 32 Posts
Default

These days most of my cameras are digital, but my camera that I absolutely love the most is my ancient Nikon F with the titanium foil shutter that can do 1/1000th.
Dieben is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 09:29 AM   #16 (permalink)
Member
 
Dieben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 258
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 67
Thanked 41 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
. . . Many great experiences . .
Talk about great experiences:

All of the employees and all of us contractors at the US Mint were subject to intense security checks when leaving the building. One day at the exit my luggage cart load of camera equipment and computer equipment passed inspection no problem, but the little metal hook at the front of my slacks wouldn't make it through the ultra-sensitive metal detector. The security guards wanted me to take off my slacks right there in the crowd of people in line there at the security gate
Dieben is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 11:20 AM   #17 (permalink)
Member
 
Dieben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 258
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 67
Thanked 41 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dreadnatty08 View Post
Remember making a camera with a shoebox.
Ah yes, pinhole lenses and narrow slit lenses. Favorite projects of my childhood.

Pinhole cameras - has anyone seen the Camera Obscura at the Cliff House in San Francisco? You pay your admission to go inside a 20-foot square building/camera to see live panoramic ocean/beach views projected on a large plate by the the rotating lens on the roof.

Slit lenses - light bends slightly around the edges of solid objects. That is how pinhole lenses work. Narrow slits also can be lenses. If you look through a narrow slit between your fingers, at the proper spacing you will see narrow grey bands that are interference patterns of the light bending around the edges of your fingers. Spaced properly the slit between your fingers becomes a lens. So . . .

. . . when the Navy sent me and one of my ROTC buddies from Chicago to Great Lakes navy base near Milwaukee for our jet pilot physicals, at the end they dialated our eyes for an eye test then sent us home. Not wanting to wait for our eyes to recover before making the drive back to Chicago, we used slit-between-the-fingers lenses and could see pretty well. But we drew some pretty astonished stares as we cruised down the Interstate in my top-down convertible sports car with our hands covering our eyes
Dieben is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 11:28 AM   #18 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajdroidx View Post
I used to work a local film lab at a store a couple years ago. I basically ran the place, the manager had to ask me some things at times. I enjoyed it. I even processed some tri-x film in my bathroom a couple times, I forgot what I used, I think it was Diafine or something like that. It also processed neopan.

Still have my elan 7 sitting around and some techpan in the freezer along with some velvia 50 that will likely stay there now.

I found it kind of defeated the purpose of processing your own film if you are just going to digitize them and run them through photoshop, so that experiment did not last long. It was a treat to do this though
I disagree. The quality of the negative always determines the quality of the print. These days, PS is used by many pros as a crutch. It is used to solve image issues that a good photographer would never allow to creep into their work flow.

Lots of "pros" do not know a blessed thing about photography. That said, I come from a time when professional photographers knew a few things. And I am quite bitter, too.

Yes, you can PS an image and if all you need is a decent looking print and if you can achieve the goal with digital processing, OK, that works for some people I suppose.

If you create bad negatives--either through poor photography or poor processing--your final print will lack shadow and/or highlight details and those things are vital if you want a truly great print.

Digital can help but it always comes down to the final print and your goals.

Certainly, an 8 x 10 view camera and film can create great images, but if your goal is to post images on FaceBook or eBay, it is perhaps overkill. A cheap digital camera is all you need.
Dieben likes this.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bob Maxey For This Useful Post:
Dieben (December 14th, 2012)
Old December 14th, 2012, 11:30 AM   #19 (permalink)
Nexus 5 beta tester...
Thread Author (OP)
 
ajdroidx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Colorado
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,762
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Galaxy note II (back up)
Carrier: AT&T

Thanks: 691
Thanked 1,075 Times in 626 Posts
Default

As far as camera bodies, I have:

Olympus OM-1
Canon Elan 7n

Canon 20D modified for astrophotography (when I actually had some decent skies)
Canon 30D - kind of retired
Canon 5DmkII, probably the best camera I have ever had.
Canon G12
Sony cybershot DSC-RX100 should be in in a couple hours. I needed something a bit more compact then the G12, something I could have on me, in my pocket for the low light shooting I often do, sunsets and storms.

For lenses, I would have to look, but off the top of my head:

All canon unless otherwise noted:

24mm f/2.8
50mm f/1.8
50mm f/1.4 Kind of messed up, these ones have issues. Never sent it in for repair
16-40mm f/4L
24-105mm f/4L IS
70-200mm f/4L (non IS)
300mm f/4L IS
1.4x extender
100mm f/2.8 USM macro
11-16mm f/2.8 Tokina

480ex flash and speed light transmitter. Which is cool, because I can mount both to my g12 when needed, or what ever else camera

Printer Canon pixma pro 4000 mkII. The thing is a beast.
ajdroidx is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 11:31 AM   #20 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dieben View Post
I once worked for a commercial/industrial photographer who also did high quality portrait photography including fine quality hand tinted color portraits.

His commercial/industrial studio included a gymnasium sized darkroom with a *huge* enlarger/view camera that you walked inside of to load the 3-foot by 4-foot (?) (!!) negative or film. We would put an 8 or 10-foot high by 20 or 30-foot wide piece of print paper on the wall, expose it with a picture of something like a factory, then use mops and buckets to apply the developing chemicals.

Say "cheese"
Sloppy work, I must say.

We were established in 1890 and we had a huge darkroom. Rather, we had a series of rooms. We used rollers and trays for large images as well as deep tanks for weghts. Not a mop or bucket in sight.
Dieben likes this.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bob Maxey For This Useful Post:
Dieben (December 14th, 2012)
sponsored links
Old December 14th, 2012, 11:40 AM   #21 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
Looks like you're the top dog for photography, Bob. Wow!

Out of curiosity, is there any particular reason why you're looking at Red as opposed to, say Arri for a multi-K cinema camera?

Pardon my ignorance, since I've never had the budget for more than 35mm film cameras and 2/3" imagers for my ENG-style cameras. I thought that the medium format still camera digital backs would be a better choice for still photography than adapting a digital cinema camera for the purpose. What am I missing? I'd think that something like the 80MP Mamiya Leaf back would be the way to go, especially for someone who already has medium format cameras and lenses.

I wish that I could afford a digital cinema camera, even though my "run and gun" video shooting style isn't really compatible with them. I almost bought a Panasonic 4K pro video camera, but when I came back down to earth I realized that I'd be better off buying a Sony that used my existing Sony batteries and accessories.

I expect a full report on what you end up buying!
Several good reasons I am considering a Red. I'll let you know why, when I can let you know why.

One big problem is when you spend money on a spendy camera, tech canges and better quality arrives and it costs you less money. Like everything tech, it gets better and cheaper and the costly crap drops in value.

As for Leaf, I am not talking. There are reasons I'll avoid Leaf.

If Kodak were in the photo business and digital did not rear its ugly head, I would stick with film. It's all Kodaks fault.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 11:41 AM   #22 (permalink)
Member
 
Dieben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 258
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 67
Thanked 41 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
. . . poor processing--your final print will lack shadow and/or highlight details and those things are vital if you want a truly great print.
Yes, if the lab uses stale chemicals to process your film the quality of your work is ruined. It's better to develop film yourself. And paying big bucks for dye transfer does not always guarantee great prints.
Dieben is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 11:47 AM   #23 (permalink)
Nexus 5 beta tester...
Thread Author (OP)
 
ajdroidx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Colorado
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,762
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Galaxy note II (back up)
Carrier: AT&T

Thanks: 691
Thanked 1,075 Times in 626 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
I disagree. The quality of the negative always determines the quality of the print. These days, PS is used by many pros as a crutch. It is used to solve image issues that a good photographer would never allow to creep into their work flow.

Lots of "pros" do not know a blessed thing about photography. That said, I come from a time when professional photographers knew a few things. And I am quite bitter, too.

Yes, you can PS an image and if all you need is a decent looking print and if you can achieve the goal with digital processing, OK, that works for some people I suppose.

If you create bad negatives--either through poor photography or poor processing--your final print will lack shadow and/or highlight details and those things are vital if you want a truly great print.

Digital can help but it always comes down to the final print and your goals.

Certainly, an 8 x 10 view camera and film can create great images, but if your goal is to post images on FaceBook or eBay, it is perhaps overkill. A cheap digital camera is all you need.
You are right. Too much photoshopping, not enough actually "trying to get it right in the camera" The experiment with the film was to see if I could do it, to see what it was like, and that was a success, but also, since I did not make any prints and just stuck the processed tri-x on the film scanner to import the image to photoshop to make the negative look better then say, "look what I did!" to me was not in the spirit of doing so because I never made any prints from an enlarger. I never did get to that point because getting the equipment and space (I lived in an apartment at the time) and everything else and digital was taking over. I figured if I was just going to digitize the negatives, I might as well go digital

It irks me to see "photographers" going out with the mindset of "I can fix it later" or going out to shoot something and use photoshop to turn it into something else, and have it called "art"

Sure, I shoot panoramas at times, even HDR images to try to get a more natural image, the way my eye sees it. Yeah, I do adjust saturation and sharpen just a bit, sometimes cloning out stuff, but more often I just leave stuff where it falls because it was part of the scene I was shooting. Even if it includes roads with traffic on it because it was in the scene that caused me to pick up the camera and shoot anyway:


Glow by slitherjef, on Flickr

Although, whenever possible, I enjoy getting away from the city, the urban snapshot location that is the bane of most photographers and get some shots where I can mount a camera to a tripod and spend some time trying to get my shot.

Otherwise in the city, at work, on the go, I just make snapshots, which others seem to see as just that, other then the subject matter, then they go on producing digital art creations with photoshop, whereas it takes me a couple moments to do the basic tweaks I need in photoshop or what ever new program I opt to try over the 600dollar premium package.


Sail by slitherjef, on Flickr
ocnbrze and Dieben like this.
ajdroidx is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to ajdroidx For This Useful Post:
breadnatty08 (December 14th, 2012), Dieben (December 14th, 2012), ocnbrze (December 14th, 2012)
Old December 14th, 2012, 12:18 PM   #24 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dieben View Post
Talk about great experiences:

All of the employees and all of us contractors at the US Mint were subject to intense security checks when leaving the building. One day at the exit my luggage cart load of camera equipment and computer equipment passed inspection no problem, but the little metal hook at the front of my slacks wouldn't make it through the ultra-sensitive metal detector. The security guards wanted me to take off my slacks right there in the crowd of people in line there at the security gate
I've been in that predicament before. It's strange because I've walked through the same model metal detectors when I forgot to take off my belt with a large cowboy buckle, and I've been stopped by a piece of foil left by a roll of antacid tablets. I had one operator who thought that the rivets in my jeans were causing the thing to go off, and he told me to take the rivets out. And he was serious!
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 12:21 PM   #25 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajdroidx View Post
You are right. Too much photoshopping, not enough actually "trying to get it right in the camera" (SNIP)

It irks me to see "photographers" going out with the mindset of "I can fix it later" or going out to shoot something and use photoshop to turn it into something else, and have it called "art"


Sail by slitherjef, on Flickr
We use to photograph buildings filled with people milling about. We delivered prints with no people visible in the photograph, way back in 1920 or so. And, as you might expect, in 1920 or thereabouts, very few local computer dealers stocked Photo Shop.

How did we do this? Simple. Very Long Exposures. The people moving around did not register on the film but the fixed structures did. Not that we were smart; this was a common technique.

Jump ahead several or more decades when I left the Dektol filled trays for soldering fumes and a cubicle. I remember when the pros arrived to photograph our new building when we became part of 3Com. These two idiots spent two days or so photographing our building.

Not photographing our entire facility, mind you. Their task was to take a photograph of just the outside.

They would endlessly bracket, try different angles. these were a couple of idiots to be sure.

I took a photograph almost in passing after their entourage left. I used my Bessa Rangefinder and a roll of Plus-X. I had amazing detail owing to the larger format and I used a red filter to darken the sky and bring out the clouds.

The pro shots were crap and my shots were wondrous. My print was delivered the next day, their image arrived a month or so later.

Too many kids with no clue in the biz these days. They try to redefine the business in ways to make up for their complete lack of skills. They visually realize the old saw: "It's not a bug, it's a feature." It's not blurry, it is art.

No it is pure crapola. But remember, I am bitter, so there you go.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 12:22 PM   #26 (permalink)
Member
 
Dieben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 258
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 67
Thanked 41 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
. . .
Lots of "pros" do not know a blessed thing about photography. That said, I come from a time when professional photographers knew a few things. And I am quite bitter, too. . .
Yeah, my shutterbuggery began when I was the Editor of my high school yearbook, supervised the excellent old tyme professional photographer who did the formal work, and did most of the candid photography myself. Control of depth of field was a key element in many of my (almost) great shots.
Dieben is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 12:39 PM   #27 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: The Shire
Posts: 810
 
Device(s): HTC Wildfire S x 2, Xperia U, Huawei Y300, N7, Generic Allwinner tab, Bluestacks
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 93
Thanked 206 Times in 154 Posts
Default

Still got my German Praktika with:
f1.9/50
f2.8/30
f2.8 135
and a generic swivel-head flash.
Also a 1950's cheap TLR 'Ensign' f5.6/60 - lens, takes very atmospheric shots, very good with B/W crap with colour.

Digital is Fuji S5700 & S9500 Bridge cameras plus the cameras on my WFS and XperiaU. As with Film I always try to get it right in camera and avoid post-processing if possible.
Davdi is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 12:48 PM   #28 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
Several good reasons I am considering a Red. I'll let you know why, when I can let you know why.
Sounds mysterious! I can't wait.

Quote:
If Kodak were in the photo business and digital did not rear its ugly head, I would stick with film. It's all Kodaks fault.
That's the part I can't understand: Kodak was way ahead of the curve with digital imaging technology of all types. No photographic company was better prepared for the digital age than Kodak!

I have it on good authority that Kodak and Fairchild provided most if not all the sensors for US photo reconnaissance projects. I'd have thought that some "black" money would get thrown at an ailing Eastman Kodak company just to keep the labs that made and repaired these secret devices going. I don't think that equipment can go to the liquidators either.

Then again pretty much the same thing happened when Polaroid went belly up. I remember reading that museums and other fine art businesses that were using large format cameras with special Polaroid film were left high and dry when the supply of film suddenly dried up. You might know more about that story than I ever did.

All I know is that digital has served me well for utility purposes, but I couldn't imagine going to a movie and seeing a screen filled with perfect square pixels. I'm a film noir fan, and its the grain that adds so much to the experience.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 12:57 PM   #29 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by damewolf13 View Post
If I had my youth back, that is the one thing I would change. I would take photography classes, and get involved in some kind of photography job.
I think that would have been most fulfilling for me.
One of the very best archetectural photographers I ever knew was an old woman. An archetect. She did amazing work. Work good enough to grace the covers of any interior design or archetecture publication.

She was old like me so stop thinking you are too old to learn how to take a great picture; grab your camera and go for it.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 01:37 PM   #30 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
Sounds mysterious! I can't wait.

That's the part I can't understand: Kodak was way ahead of the curve with digital imaging technology of all types. No photographic company was better prepared for the digital age than Kodak!

I have it on good authority that Kodak and Fairchild provided most if not all the sensors for US photo reconnaissance projects. I'd have thought that some "black" money would get thrown at an ailing Eastman Kodak company just to keep the labs that made and repaired these secret devices going. I don't think that equipment can go to the liquidators either.

Then again pretty much the same thing happened when Polaroid went belly up. I remember reading that museums and other fine art businesses that were using large format cameras with special Polaroid film were left high and dry when the supply of film suddenly dried up. You might know more about that story than I ever did.

All I know is that digital has served me well for utility purposes, but I couldn't imagine going to a movie and seeing a screen filled with perfect square pixels. I'm a film noir fan, and its the grain that adds so much to the experience.
I am not sure where or when Kodak went wrong. I could see the decline of Kodak beginning and then, things changing for the better throughout my history.

I do remember when mini-labs arrived in bulk. People that did not want to pay Kodaks higher costs flocked to mini-labs to get cheap processing, faster. Even though in some cases, Kodak offered a fast turnaround suited to the needs of the customer.

Kodachrome dropped on Monday morning was picked up the same day, taken to Palo Alto and processed. Slides were returned on Tuesday, usually, almost always. We still had customers wanting Ektachrome because it could be processed locally. Then the customer typically picked up the film a week later.

I remember when Kodak announced they would release Kodachtrome in 120. WOW, was I happy. The best color film ever made in larger sizes like the old days when Kodak sold Kodachrome sheet film in huge sizes as well as offering Kodachrome prints. These were prints on poly materials coated with Kodachrome emulsions. Very good in many cases due to the nature of Kodachrome.

I took the loss of Coloramas to be a sign Kodak did not care no more 'bout nuttin 'cept profits. Or perhaps it was a budget thing with GC Station.

I also remember Kodak's brief introduction of black and white printing services. Their quality sucked, but I took it as a sign that Kodak was once again serious about silver photography. Then it went away. Unique processes and materials arrived and then they were gone.

The Cibachrome Process was the first process I used extensivly that was not Kodak. Amazing quality and only a few steps required. Then Kodak released a color process that was also fast. They made making color prints fall off the log easy. Then it went away. Then they dropped Dye Transfer completely which meant the absolute best possibe process for making color prints was gone forever. Not a good or great process, but the absolute best.

I remember when Kodak decided to release Kodachrome 25 and 64 in obsolete sizes for long dead cameras. That would not happen today. It would be like Microsoft deciding to upgrade and offer support for Windows 3.1, even though people stopped using Windows 3.1 a very long time ago.

I remember the first Kodak digital efforts. They were terrible. Seems that helped kill digital at that time. Not sure when or how digital imaging started. Not sure what the first product was that put digital on the map. I did enjoy my Sony camera that recorded images on floppy disks. Made things easier.

I do remember their "new" ordering system. This was before the web was with us. They provided us with a cool touch tone phone to order products.

You punched out the little holes in plastic credit card sized cards. The holes corresponded to product SKUs. Then, you pushed a card into the phone and pressed a button. The card would be mechanically read as it slowly moved through the reader.

The first card you used was punched with EK's phone number. After a few signal tones, you started inserting the cards to order whatever you needed.

Long and involved system that usually failed at some point. It was easier to do it the old way.

Polaroid did have a large format camera. I never had much info about the process or the equipment. I do know we photographed the release meeting for the SX-70 here in Utah. We used our Kodak Master View Camera (we almost always used that camera for 8 x 10 large format. The images had to be tack sharp which is why we did the work rather than Polaroid.

Kodak did indeed do government work. Quite likely, secret work. Here is something many people do not know: Kodak produced hundreds of lenses in its history. Many Kodak optics like the Ektars, were amazing optics. Better than anything the Japs could produce. Their optics were simply amazing.

But back to secrets. I worked with a man that was a trainer that ran the Air Force Vectograph School in Colorado. He was seriously warned to avoid at all costs the secret device kept under wraps in the storage room or where ever it was kept, I forget.

He found out later, it was the Norden (Nordan?) Bomb Sight being fitted with something or another in the Denver Vectograph Training Facility.

I knew Polaroid was on the way out when they sold their polarizer division to 3M. The very thing that made them that they are/were was sold. I was actually devastated when they stopped selling their line of copy cameras.

But I ramble.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Bob Maxey For This Useful Post:
Speed Daemon (December 14th, 2012)
sponsored links
Old December 14th, 2012, 01:47 PM   #31 (permalink)
Member
 
Dieben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 258
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 67
Thanked 41 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
.... I have it on good authority that Kodak and Fairchild provided most if not all the sensors for US photo reconnaissance projects. I'd have thought that some "black" money would get thrown at an ailing Eastman Kodak company just to keep the labs that made and repaired these secret devices going. I don't think that equipment can go to the liquidators either.
Yeah, I worked for Fairchild for a few years and have done some pretty spooky black work other places, but not at Fairchild. Kodak corporate never responded to my requests so I went straight to individual Kodak employees to get what I needed.
Dieben is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 02:02 PM   #32 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Davdi View Post
Still got my German Praktika with:
f1.9/50
f2.8/30
f2.8 135
and a generic swivel-head flash.
Also a 1950's cheap TLR 'Ensign' f5.6/60 - lens, takes very atmospheric shots, very good with B/W crap with colour.

Digital is Fuji S5700 & S9500 Bridge cameras plus the cameras on my WFS and XperiaU. As with Film I always try to get it right in camera and avoid post-processing if possible.
Let me tell you about old cameras. There are many cameras available on eBay or elsewhere that are capable of creating images that are vastly superior to anything produced with a top of the line Nikon or Cannon.

In fact, if you look at an older Hasselblad Superwide, the fixed lens is a theoretically perfect lens. This means (according to Carl and the gang at Zeiss) a more perfect optic is not possible. Mind you, the SW had a fixed lens; that is, not interchangeable and designed for one camera. I tend to believe Carl, by the way.

No matter how costly or good the modern cameras are, there are better cameras out there waiting to be bought, adjusted, cleaned, loved and put to work.

I have a 6 x 9 Voightlander Bessa. The best Bessa ever made and probably the finest 6 x 9 folder available. It creates large negatives that are tack sharp. No pro would be caught dead using one because my theory is many pros do not consider that there were some amazing cameras made eons ago that can flat out do the job.

And secondly, it is not digital. Here in Utah, the labs leave lots to be desired when it comes to processing and printing seldom seen formats. This is why I still develop my negatives in a small Kodak Apron tank in the bathroom.

Barring scratches, I know my negs are as perfect as possible and processed to my specs. I never feel comfortable handing unprocessed film to a lab I do not trust.

Great negatives printed by a crappy printer usually yield crappy prints but they create great prints in the lab of an expert. OTOH, bad negatives are hard to print even by those wth darkroom skills. You can alwaus reprint, but it can be hard to salvage bad negs.

I use Minox 35s, a Leica CL and I have shot "professional" assignments with a Kodak Retina. All cheap cameras these days but superior in many ways.

Consider the lack of a super fast shutter. I use to shoot auto races for a local sports writer named Dick Rosetta. I never needed a fast shutter. I know how to pan, so 250th was plenty fast. I can shoot kids on swings at a 125th or slower.

Fast shutter speeds mean you need wider apertures which mean a loss of depth of field. another tech talk perhaps. Lets just say it can be important in some cases.

BTW . . . there is nothing wrong with a Pratika. Not one darn thing.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 02:17 PM   #33 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dieben View Post
Yeah, my shutterbuggery began when I was the Editor of my high school yearbook, supervised the excellent old tyme professional photographer who did the formal work, and did most of the candid photography myself. Control of depth of field was a key element in many of my (almost) great shots.
My absolute favorite portrait photographer is this guy:

Yousuf Karsh / Photographer

He was absolutely the best. His portraits tell you everything you need to know about the subject without knowing the subject. He had quite a bit to say about Depth of Field as well. As do I.

My three favorite Karsh images:

Hemingway:

Yousuf Karsh / Photographer

and Winston

Yousuf Karsh / Photographer

You know how serious a man Churchill just from his portrait.

And Jacqueline Kennedy:

Yousuf Karsh / Photographer

I love the shadow and highlight details in these representitive examples of this amazing man's work.

Look at the lovely Jacqueline Kennedy . . . her dress is filled with detail even in the highlights and the deep shadows contain detail as well. The skin tones are wonderful and the entire image is flawless.

If you ever get a chance to see his work in person, go for it. The web does not do the actual prints any favors. Several books are available detailing his work and they are worth buying.

Not even that snapshooter Adams can touch Karsh. OK, Ansel is not half bad; his books are worth a look, too.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 03:05 PM   #34 (permalink)
Member
 
Dieben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 258
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 67
Thanked 41 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
My absolute favorite portrait photographer is this guy:
Yousuf Karsh - I am awestruck
Dieben is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 03:43 PM   #35 (permalink)
Nexus 5 beta tester...
Thread Author (OP)
 
ajdroidx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Colorado
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,762
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Galaxy note II (back up)
Carrier: AT&T

Thanks: 691
Thanked 1,075 Times in 626 Posts
Default

New toy. Or perhaps I should say another tool for the toolbox.


Attached Images
File Type: jpg uploadfromtaptalk1355521435932.jpg (33.4 KB, 4 views)
ajdroidx is offline  
Last edited by ajdroidx; December 14th, 2012 at 03:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 06:30 PM   #36 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dieben View Post
Yeah, I worked for Fairchild for a few years and have done some pretty spooky black work other places, but not at Fairchild. Kodak corporate never responded to my requests so I went straight to individual Kodak employees to get what I needed.
Well it looks like Fairchild was the spooky contractor of the CCD cameras that provided real time images on SR-71 missions circa 1972.

The really interesting thing is that the US kept using photographic film in its spy satellites into the '90s. The Corona project, which ended in 1972, used airplanes to snag film magazines for processing on the ground. For the next 20 years the film was processed on the satellite, scanned and sent to earth electronically. There was even a plan for a manned spy satellite with image intelligence officers living in space for months on end.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 07:09 PM   #37 (permalink)
Member
 
Dieben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 258
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 67
Thanked 41 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Speed Daemon View Post
Well it looks like Fairchild was the spooky contractor of the CCD cameras that provided real time images on SR-71 missions circa 1972 ....

Well, there are limits to what I can say because I am a former employee of Fairchild. Yes Fairchild made CCD cameras but I wasn't in that group, and "I know nothing" (wink, wink)

"I know nothing"
Dieben is offline  
Last edited by Dieben; December 15th, 2012 at 10:29 AM.
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 08:28 PM   #38 (permalink)
Disabled
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,033
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Sprint

Thanks: 541
Thanked 556 Times in 440 Posts
Default

Pay TV's Business Engine?

Hey, all I know is what a retired spook told me when I was 11, and what I read in books.

I'm just a TV guy. All I do is TV stuff here at Forsythe Associates. The rest is pure speculation.
Speed Daemon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 14th, 2012, 09:02 PM   #39 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
tube517's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: USA
Posts: 2,154
 
Device(s): Samsung GTab 3 7.0,Samsung GNote2 (i317),EVO 4G, Toshiba Thrive, Galaxy Note LTE,EVO Shift
Carrier: T-Mobile,Google Voice

Thanks: 1,828
Thanked 834 Times in 546 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by argedion View Post
I took pictures but never got deep into it. I'm still pretty much that way today. I enjoy it but not enough to go get the expensive camera and stuff.
Ditto.
I like taking pics w/my phone or tablet, if necessary. I have a bunch of camera/photo apps on my phone and tablet
__________________
Samsung Tab 3 (7 in) • Deletrious ROM V1.6 /TOSHIBA Thrive • Pio's Team Baked BlackBean ROM 4.1.2/Samsung Galaxy Note2 • Temasek v37 kitkat (4.4.2)/HTC EVO 4G • Decks Reloaded ROM/EVO Shift• JellyBelly ROM/Samsung Galaxy Note I (i717)•CM11 (4.4.2 kitkat) /Samsung Galaxy S3 •DanKang 4.3.1 ROM
tube517 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2012, 09:40 AM   #40 (permalink)
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Indiana
Posts: 33
 
Device(s): Galaxy Nexus phone Samsung Tab 7.7 P6800 Unlocked GSM international version
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 5
Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Hello ajdroidx and dreadnatty, The reason I address you two is because you both have a Canon G series. I have no shame in referring to myself as a dabbler or novice. I mostly take snap shots and use them for refreshing memories. As an avid walleye fisherman, I take lots of photos of folks holding fish who have been out with me. Since 2008 I have been using a Canon A720is and it has take some pretty nice pictures, not just fishing but my son's college graduation and his wedding. I take lots of pictures and then just glean the better 5%.

I just got my G12 on Cyber Monday, when the price dropped from $369 down to $299 at B&H Camera in Brooklyn. I have been considering it for a couple years now. The urge to get it escalated because I have a weeklong fishing trip to the Kenai Peninsula of Alaska last part of July of 2013. I wanted a camera which can do justice to the Alaskan scenery. Where I work, the company bought a G series for some of my work cohorts. One has a G11 and another just got a G12 this past summer. The photo quality is amazing and I credit that to the optics.

I would like to be able to have more telephoto capability. It also puzzles me that a Canon camera which is current (don't know the model) with more pixels and a 30X zoom capability is close in price. I think there are trade-offs. No more optical viewfinder on this one. I wonder if the optics are as good on this one with the longer distance lens than the lens of the G12. Oh, there is a G15 out but I chose the G12 because on the G15 the lcd screen no longer pivots. I like being able to have the screen toward the camera when in storage for protection, so don't know why Canon did this.

On Dec. 1st I visited the Ford museum and went on a photo spree and most of the photos came out really nice. Only mistake I made was taking pictures of the model trainset with moving trains in auto rather than switching to a mode to capture the movement without blurs.

Anyway... I'd be very interested in your own reports in regard to taking photos with your G10 or G12.

Thanks ahead of time! tallmike00
Tallmike00 is offline  
Reply With Quote
sponsored links
Old December 15th, 2012, 11:15 AM   #41 (permalink)
AF Contributor
 
Doit2it's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Nashville, TN
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,956
 
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy SIII, ASUS Transformer TF101
Carrier: Verizon

Thanks: 151
Thanked 459 Times in 330 Posts
Default

Canon T2i
50mm f/1.8
55 250mm f/4-5.6
18 55mm f/3.5-5.6

Intervalometer - Some of my night sky and scenery photography and timelapse taken with the T2i
__________________
Apps on my SIII
OK, I admit it, I'm a Twit
Dropbox! 2Gb free cloud storage
SIII - CleanROM 7 BMF1 / TF101 - KatKiss 4.4.2
Doit2it is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2012, 11:23 AM   #42 (permalink)
Member
 
Dieben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 258
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 67
Thanked 41 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
. . . I have a 6 x 9 Voightlander Bessa. The best Bessa ever made and probably the finest 6 x 9 folder available. It creates large negatives that are tack sharp. No pro would be caught dead using one because my theory is many pros do not consider that there were some amazing cameras made eons ago that can flat out do the job. ..
It amazes me how the teeny tiny lenses on cell phones can take as good photos as they do. But they can't do real quality work. The tiny fixed lens on a cell phone offers nowhere near the image quality or versatility of good interchangible lenses or even of a decent zoom lens.

I spent big bucks for fast lenses and long lenses and closeup lenses for my Nikons and Minoltas, It's very rewarding to see the quality results that those lenses can produce.

I spent a few bucks for zoom lenses that are handy for a wide variety of decent informal memorabilia shots at family gatherings, sports events, etc.

Yes, my cell phone snapped that spectacular panorama on that hike in the mountains. But PhotoShop can't enhance that image into the work of art it could have been had I had a Nikon with me.
Speed Daemon likes this.
Dieben is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2012, 11:23 AM   #43 (permalink)
Nexus 5 beta tester...
Thread Author (OP)
 
ajdroidx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Colorado
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,762
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Galaxy note II (back up)
Carrier: AT&T

Thanks: 691
Thanked 1,075 Times in 626 Posts
Default

I made a couple 13x19" prints from images shot with the g12. They looked fantastic.

If zoom is your main thing, a DSLR may be your better bet, even though they will not fit in your pocket. Most pocket cams only have so much room to work with. And more zoom means the lens gets dark fast which means less light hitting the sensor, longer exposure times, more chance of motion blur, higher iso = noisier images etc. Most pocket cameras have a small sensor. The Sony I picked up yesterday has probably the largest (is 1") sensor in the smallest body available. It also packs in a massive 20mp, which, is not what sold me, the fast lens (f/1.8 and larger sensor did).

For just mulling around, the g12 should be fine. But if not enough reach, depending how much you need, a pocket camera may not be the best choice. I am sure there are cameras with longer reach, but what is the maximum (smallest f/stop) at max zoom?

How much zoom do you need?
ajdroidx is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2012, 11:43 AM   #44 (permalink)
Member
 
Dieben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 258
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 67
Thanked 41 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Filters!
Nobody has mentioned lens filters!
Dieben is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2012, 11:59 AM   #45 (permalink)
Nexus 5 beta tester...
Thread Author (OP)
 
ajdroidx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Colorado
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,762
 
Device(s): Nexus 5, Galaxy note II (back up)
Carrier: AT&T

Thanks: 691
Thanked 1,075 Times in 626 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dieben View Post
Filters!
Nobody has mentioned lens filters!
Wanna see my 4x6 filter collection?

Lee 4x6 hard and soft grad set.
3stop reverse GND 4x6

which are kind of ironic since I usually bracket my exposures anyway and I decided while I was doing this, might as well do HDR shots.

Also B+W circular polarizer.

I also ran across this: NEW MagFilter CPL (Circular Polarizer) Filter by Carry Speed | Carry Speed Store

Probably not the best glass, but seems like a neat (and usable) idea.
ajdroidx is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2012, 12:26 PM   #46 (permalink)
Member
 
Dieben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 258
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 67
Thanked 41 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dieben View Post
Yeah, my shutterbuggery began when I was the Editor of my high school yearbook . . . and did most of the candid photography myself. . .
It wasn't a good photo and wasn't usable for the yearbook, but one of my all-time favorite shots I took at a high school baseball game of a foul tip baseball a split second before it hit my Minolta square in the lens. What are the chances of snapping a shot like that? The batter completing his swing was the background of the photo and the out of focus baseball filled most of the frame.
Dieben is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2012, 01:42 PM   #47 (permalink)
Member
 
Dieben's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 258
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 67
Thanked 41 Times in 32 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Maxey View Post
... Consider the lack of a super fast shutter. I use to shoot auto races for a local sports writer named Dick Rosetta. I never needed a fast shutter. I know how to pan, so 250th was plenty fast. . .
A few years ago my sister took a photo similar to this of me in my orange Mustang leading the field several laps ahead and passing everyone in sight on the road course at Bondurant School of High Performance Driving in Phoenix. She lined up for a another shot but was very concerned when I didn't come around on the next lap. I had gone into turn 11 going WAY too fast, spun 2−1/4 times around on the asphalt, and went off the track backwards.

As required by school rules following a spin I returned to the pits. On pit road my instructor just handed me a "Creative Driving Award" and sent me back out to pass the entire field *again*
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Bondurant.jpg (75.0 KB, 5 views)
Dieben is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2012, 02:28 PM   #48 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dieben View Post
Yes, if the lab uses stale chemicals to process your film the quality of your work is ruined. It's better to develop film yourself. And paying big bucks for dye transfer does not always guarantee great prints.
Dye Transfers . . .

The DT (or Wash-Off Relief process in the early days) is an exacting process with zero room for errors or sloppy work.

For the uninitiated, a DT print is a created using a largely black and white process. Yourr color image is color seperated and individual negatives are created for each color channel.

Each negative is then contact printed to individual sheets of matrix film.

After processing the matrices, they are individually dyed in cyan, magenta and yellow dyes and then, each matrix is transferred in perfect register to a sheet of specially treated paper.

If you watch your moderncolor printer work, you might notice that the final color image is built up through sucessive spraying of cyan, yellow and magenta dyes.

If the worker is skilled, the result is glorious. Bad printers do produce bad prints, that is for sure. And most certainly, exhausted chemicals are bad. I never let that happen because exhausted chemicals lead to unrecoverable problems.

By the way, the famous Technicolor (IB) motion pictures was a dye transfer process. Technicolor cameras were huge cameras. They would create three black and white negatives. They were noisy and they required large amounts of light. You will often see pictures of the cameras and some of the bulk came from blimps to keep the noise levels down.

Hundreds and hundreds of Technicolor films were printed and shown to millions when Technicolor ruled. The wife of the inventor of the process handled the majority of the color timing and she was brilliant as was the inventor of Technicolor.

Too bad both processes are effectivly dead.

By the way, one of the world's finest DT printers is still going strong. He compounds his own dyes, paper mordants and he actually makes his own matrix film. His film is actually superior to Kodaks; or at least every bit as good.

He built a custom ultra-high resolution film scanner.

Too bad Kodak stopped making DT materials. When they announced they would stop offering materials, many printers stocked up.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2012, 02:38 PM   #49 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dieben View Post
Filters!
Nobody has mentioned lens filters!
So what do you need to know?

Filters. Well, there are/were thousands of different filters. Kodak once made vast numbers of gelatin filters. Specialty filters, color filters, contrast filters and the like.

Lots of filter manufactures at one time. For example Ednalite. Tiffen still makes filters, but their catalog lacks many of the best filters.

I use series size filters because I can use them on different cameras and all I need is an adapter and step-up/step-down rings.

Some filters are costly and some are cheap and some are poorly made and some are well made. For example, I favor old school Kodak rings and adapters. They were machined from stainless steel rather than aluminum.

If you shoot color, you need different filters than you require for contrast control in black and white.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old December 15th, 2012, 03:03 PM   #50 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Bob Maxey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,837
 
Device(s):
Carrier: Not Provided

Thanks: 381
Thanked 811 Times in 641 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajdroidx View Post
You are right. Too much photoshopping, not enough actually "trying to get it right in the camera"
To be fair, let's look at the PS generation Vs. The Old Farts. I am an old fart that believes PS is fine if you are a good photographer to begin with and you are capable of creating a great image.

You know, if we had to drive across the state to photograph a new building, we usually took one or perhaps two film holders. We often bracketed if we thought there might be a problem.

If we were photographing a group, we often used banquet cameras and in some cases, the Kodak Circuit Cameras. Very costly to shoot five or ten 8 inch rolls of film. For the most part, we used 8 x 10 because 4 x 5 was too small.

We also knew lab accidents occasionally happen. But we did not excessively bracket because we had skills. This idea of just shooting all over the place and then being able to fix it in PS later is the mark of a crappy photographer.

In my day, we sometimes processed by inspection. That means desensitizing the film with some toxic chemicals so you can process it visually in the darkroom under the safelight.

When I printed large negatives, I used a Morse Contact Printer. I could switch individual lights on or off. If I needed more control, I would use paper negatives or tissue paper. Tissue was widely used back in the day and basically, you placed a tissue between the lights and glass and using a lead pencil, you darkened parts of the tissue to control light.

We processed some negatives using water bath development. We did this when we knew there was a potential problem. We could process for the highlights or the shadows. Normal development was not ideal and water baths let shadow detains form.

You can photograph a large, brightly lit light against a sheet of newspaper and if dome properly, you end up with a negative that shows the individual filaments as well as the newspaper text, and you do not need to dodge and burn.

We also dodged and burned using fingers, paddles, whatever we needed to control paper exposure. We used developers like Selectol Soft to create softer images. We used toners and we hand colored prints.

We did many of the things PS users do. Not much difference except this: we were skilled behind the camera and in the darkroom. I am not saying I was ever a brilliant photographer, but I was a brilliant printer and I know how to properly expose a negative.

We OFs and PS'ers are often doing the same things but we love to argue with each other. Clearly, the past has much to offer the new working pro who know nothing. that said, no digital photographer really need to know what Dektol is or when you need to use a Wratten 98.
ajdroidx likes this.
Bob Maxey is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
Tags
camera, photography, shutterbug


Go Back   Android Forums > Android Community > The Lounge
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:29 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.