Search results

I am just waiting for someone to come along and say they look fake because you used digital :munch:

I have no clue whether what you propose will work but I am intrigued! I think you'd want a maskless c41 film e.g. Rollei digibase.

Bear in mind that it was a technical tour de force, to design and build this lens. Perhaps it wasn't made to be used or even to be kept in a velvet box. Nikon may have been made it for the same reason that automakers make a concept car: because they can and the other guys can't. I, for one...

KRST won't do squat for a very thin neg. Neither will chromium (I have some and can attest). Neither is particularly good for "saving" a very thin neg, they will merely make a thin neg more easily printable. Know the curve; become the curve; use the curve ;) Paper has a narrow range and...

If I remember correctly, my back has some screws for adjustment; why not check your registry. You could open the back and put some ground glass or thin paper there....

If the neg is really thin, then what about making an interpositive on film first. You can play more curve and compensation tricks with film and film developers than with paper. What you want to do is take all that detail compressed in the shadows and spread it over the linear portion of the...

The blurriness isn't a problem of the film, that's for almost certain. You might check your focus. You may well need to underexpose fp100c to protect highlights. It just depends whether you value highlight or shadow detail more, and how you meter. Are you average or spot metering?

I am struggling; I need some support. Why would I not try a Rollei 6008AF? It's a Rollei. It's square. It's got lots of coloured buttons and dials. It's AF. It's 6008. What's not to like? Help me. Anybody here got one? This thing is costly but intriguing.

classic!

Well... I think it's wonderful that someone is willing to invest substantially in a lens that they believe will suit their needs, whatever those may be. That's all I'm saying ;)

Very nice!

I have been thinking of using an enlarger. The beselers I have can rock back...

Terrific!

See I praise something and its value goes up, interesting how that works! I bought it for $420 a couple years ago.

Bah.... Nikon 50/1.2, $450, and worth every penny.

Ah physics :) Anyway, the basic point, for those who care to know, is that lens design issues tend to reduce resolution at wide apertures, whereas diffraction tends to reduce performance at small apertures. Thus the best performance is typically at intermediate apertures. For RF lenses...

Interesting. I haven't seen Pandora's Box. The only b&w film that comes to mind offhand is Metropolis. I guess I need to do some film watching!

P.S. Ah-Ha! Contax G 45/2 has better MTF at f/4 than at f/8. Not really a surprise to those of us who've beheld one. http://www.photodo.com/lens/Contax-G-Planar-45mm-f2-783 I'd expect the same of the konica hexar AF 35 and the comparable Leica and Zeiss lenses.

Anything RC and multigrade and preflashed... and with no watermarks.

Oh I'd be willing to bet a matted print that the contax g lenses are at their best a few stops wider than that. But anyway I have yet to see a photograph for which any of this matters.

Haven't seen The Artist yet but the snippets I've seen look very good. I just hope they don't, you know, come out with a 3D colourized version in a few months :confused: I suspect that we'll see more back-to-the-future cine in the coming years. There has been so much 3D / CG / blue panther...

Most of the nominated films were shot on film, weren't they?

Do I understand that this is meant to be a learning exercise? If so then why not go ahead and overexpose and then reduce development a bit and then see what your negs look like, i.e. look at the contrast index. Chances are you just need to tune the grade of your paper. Multigrade makes a lot...

That's true Bruce, there haven't been any direct accusations of mental illness... yet :)

Cool! Now throw it in gently boiling water, wait till the emulsion loosens up, and pull it off and put it down on a piece of smooth paper e.g. glossy inkjet paper. Trust me you'll love it!

Ach sh*t I thought we were done with the silly back and forth. People! Let... It.... Go. And shoot more film ;)

Great!

Yes well unfortunately St. Ansel was in a small minority and the same water has been used to process a lot of crap too. Plus you have to bear in mind that the air you breathe was once in the lungs of Stalin and Hitler and other deplorable characters... not just Jesus;) But you might be on to...

Oh no, the fabric motion is the best part of the whole shot!!! It evoked that great Steichen shot, for me, and some of Ian's work posted here. The horizon didn't bother me one bit; what did bother me was the lighting, which makes her nose glow and also makes a feature of her spine. Anyway...

For what it's worth, I am now experimenting with some outdated but carefully stored aerial +sex and it is very nice :) I paid next to nothing for it (thanks Mark!) and it's superb. Not a lick of fog. I agree that fp4+ is the film to try; with a bit of experimentation, you can probably get...