May 17, 201115 yr The same week, I also saw the Shpongletron show: 35mm, F/2, 1/50th, ISO800. Both exposures: 35mm F/2, 1/50th, ISO400. Are you setting the ISO manually at 400? I imagine auto ISO would try to pick 3200 or something, which is what happens with my Canon in dark and I've been too lazy to set ISO manually I admit..
May 18, 201115 yr Panorama from our hotel room at Niagara Falls this past weekend (hence the window reflections visible) Stitched together using Microsoft Live Photo Gallery which did an absolutely outstanding job compared to Photoshop CS2 Photomerge Pretty awesome. Does need some contrast/WB post though.
May 18, 201115 yr 2. Fuji makes the best (color) film stock. In fact, they are the last company standing who are serious about film. 11. Kodak Gold is worst film stock in the history of humanity. Never use it, no matter how cheap it is. Some of these are Fuji Superia 200, some are Kodak Gold 400, and the last one is a mystery film. Same camera, same lens, all shot within the last 8 months.
May 19, 201115 yr ^^ Is this a challenge to get me to try to ID which is which? You can if you want, but saying which ones have nicer colour or look better would be good enough.
May 19, 201115 yr Author Some of these are Fuji Superia 200, some are Kodak Gold 400, and the last one is a mystery film. Same camera, same lens, all shot within the last 8 months. Assuming competent scanning and processing, the colors and contrast say Fuji. Eye-gougingly bad contrast. Gold 400. Kinda ugly. Gold 400 looking better than usual. Either Gold 400 looking better than it should, or mystery film. This one I really can't tell. I think it's hindered by a bad scan. I'm gonna go with mystery film because I can't tell.
May 19, 201115 yr In the order that you just posted them: Kodak Ektar 100 (the mystery film), Gold 400, Gold 400, Superia 200, Superia 200, Gold 400. Superia 200 was a fucking bitch to scan, I was at the camera show this past weekend and had a batch of Velvia 50 and Superia film with me so I could try out all the scanners. Tried the Epsons, tried a Nikon 5000 ED, resolution was way better than what I can pull out of my ancient HP scanner but the colours weren't much better even with their full film profiles & colour management systems. Ektar 100 ain't fun to scan either depite what the Kodak PR material says. Gold 400 is a piece of cake, pop it in the scanner and it comes out pretty good every time. I think a lot of the issues people are having with Kodak's films comes from exposing them at box speed or god forbid underexposing them. That's what happened in the 3rd photo where I was under by about half a stop since I wasn't going to slow down the shutter speed any more and didn't want to open up the lens all the way since I still wanted some depth of field. Overexpose it by 1/3 to 1/2 stop and it punches up the colours and contrast.
May 22, 201115 yr Last set of unmodified JPGs from my Florida trip. Will definitely be modifying the related RAWs later, just wanted to post these before I go on my next trip to NYC next weekend. Didn't notice the vignetting in the first pic until I got it on my PC, next time I won't be stacking the UV filter and CPL... Edited May 22, 201115 yr by Asr
May 22, 201115 yr Some snapshots from my walk this morning in Chicago. This place is dead on the weekends.
May 22, 201115 yr Some more extension tube action until I decide on an actual macro lens, hand-held. IMG_0398 by drjlo1, on Flickr IMG_0362 by drjlo1, on Flickr Edited May 22, 201115 yr by Jon L
May 24, 201115 yr is the scratch under where it says voigtlander something that is expected for a used lens? the buyer said it was in as new condition however there are 2 marked scratches on the lens that are visible to the eye. original thread - http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum//viewtopic.php?TopicID=1008894&page=0#9590617 mostly concerned if i overpaid for a scratched lens and if i have a leg to stand on given the original description of the seller. Edited May 24, 201115 yr by crappyjones123
May 24, 201115 yr i am talking about the glass. look under the "t" in voigtlander in the blown up picture. theres a scratch on the glass. theres another one which i dont have time to take a photo of right now. trying to finish up some paperwork. i dont care for the metal/plastic enclosure. its the glass thats bothering me. not small amount of money for me.
May 24, 201115 yr is the scratch under where it says voigtlander something that is expected for a used lens? the buyer said it was in as new condition however there are 2 marked scratches on the lens that are visible to the eye. original thread - http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum//viewtopic.php?TopicID=1008894&page=0#9590617 mostly concerned if i overpaid for a scratched lens and if i have a leg to stand on given the original description of the seller. That looks like a refund to me. The seller claims there's no wear on the lens and it's like new, that would be a lie since the lens is scratched. Unless he wants to claim that scratches don't count as wear.
May 24, 201115 yr pm sent to seller. she replied immediately saying she spent the money already on a hotel room. take it to paypal?
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now