Jump to content

The Official Head-Case Photography Thread.


Knuckledragger
 Share

Recommended Posts

"This, I think depends on what you're looking for in your photos and what you define as "better". Kinda like audio in a way, depending on where your priorities are you may prefer CDs or LPs, it's the same idea with film & digital cameras."

I guess I always knew that. After all, most of the "Wow" film photo's I've seen have been medium or large-format film; I tried 35mm film to see if it will be "good enough," but I have a feeling that one needs to go all out, along with the expenses involved.

Well, the next question would be what is it about those film photos that grabs you and makes you go "wow"? Is it the colours, is the sharpness and details, the composition or subject, or is it something else entirely? Or is it a certain "look" which you can't really place or define?

In my case it's the colours, I think Fuji Velvia looks awesome and there's really no way for me to consistently duplicate those colours in digital. That's why I still shoot film. That and my slide projector, I can subject people to actual slide shows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know absolutely nothing about film and thus have nothing to offer but just wanted to say no it doesn't always turn up washed out and also it is cool. Here's a pic of me:

83211366064357275435207.jpg

Facebook destroyed some of the goodness so I guess I should find the original print or scan, it's not supposed to look that grainy. And I realize it's over-exposed, blah blah blah.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps I shouldn't have used that nice Fuji Reala 100 film as my first roll, since most sunset/dusk shots came out hopelessly blurry and muted. My digital camera takes these scenes no problem, albeit at high ISO. ISO 100 film just doesn't do dusk; I hope to try ISO 400 film next for these sunset/dusk conditions.

The example below is probably about as much as you can expect from negative films without doing a bunch of Photoshop work or going to slide films. Negative films just don't have the deep solid blacks and vivid colours of slide films, if you want those eye popping sunsets on film you'll have have to shoot Velvia.

Hydro towers with Ektar 100

ektar3c.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is a 5D mk II. I gave one 5D to my little brother and I am selling the other so I picked up a second mk II with the credit from returning the 85 f1.2 I decided not to keep. I know it is kind of hard to keep up as I really like shiny new things.

As an aside, I picked up a BlackRapid RS4 for this camera as B&H did not have the 5. For the extra 10-20 dollars for the RS5 it is a dramatically better strap. The RS4 is pretty sorry for 55 dollars.

Edited by VPI
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You weren't taken with the 85L, VPI? What didn't you like about it? The weight? The glacial focusing speed? The battery drain? The extremely vulnerable front and rear elements?

Weight was certainly part of it but I think the biggest issue was that I had the Sigma before it and could not see the huge upcharge for the red band as the Sigma does pretty well for half the price.

I also had the Rokinon 85 f1.4 MF in the house at the same time and was really quite impressed with it though I was not willing to deal with all the work to get the focus confirmation to work and I cannot see doing so much photography with live view at 10x zoom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weight was certainly part of it but I think the biggest issue was that I had the Sigma before it and could not see the huge upcharge for the red band as the Sigma does pretty well for half the price.

Did you notice any color saturation difference bet. Canon 85 and Sigma? Haven't tried Sigma 85 but having compared Sigma 50 F1.4 with Canon L zooms, I really liked the colors of Canon L better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I actually thought the best colors might have been the Rokinon but they were on the verge of being oversaturated. There was really not much difference between the Canon and the Sigma. The Canon has the best Bokeh but really slow focus. Using it as a MF makes for some fantastic shots but I do not think it is better than the Sigma.

Some random snap shots with the new 70-200.

1148982052_ppfYg-XL.jpg

1149020674_68DFj-X2.jpg

1148982445_Ss4fB-L.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are some sharp shots! Is that hand-held and at long focal length (near 200mm)? Post-processing to up the colors? (colors look nice!)

This makes me wonder if I can get away with the cheap Canon 70-200 mL F/4 L non-IS for daytime shots like these...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ $500 would be too much, I think, considering the linked T1i came with over $200 worth of extra and that you can buy a refurbed T2i body from Canon for $640 (and a brand new one can be found at/near that price if one looks hard enough).

EDIT - And refurbed T1i w/ 18-55mm IS is $499.

Edited by Salt Peanuts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...