Jump to content

The Official Head-Case Photography Thread.


Knuckledragger
 Share

Recommended Posts

The same week, I also saw the Shpongletron show:

5691368047_589230515f_b.jpg

35mm, F/2, 1/50th, ISO800.

5705584105_76f20cab96_b.jpg

5712317694_0859962c13_b.jpg

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..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Scan-110515-0005.jpgScan-110510-0021.jpg

Scan-110517-0001.jpgUntitled-3.jpg

Scan-110510-0015.jpgScan-110511-0013.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Scan-110511-0013.jpgScan-110517-0001.jpg

Assuming competent scanning and processing, the colors and contrast say Fuji.

Untitled-3.jpg

Eye-gougingly bad contrast. Gold 400.

Scan-110510-0015.jpg

Kinda ugly. Gold 400 looking better than usual.

Scan-110510-0021.jpg

Either Gold 400 looking better than it should, or mystery film.

Scan-110515-0005.jpg

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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... :palm:

post-893-0-14562300-1306047275_thumb.jpg post-893-0-22321000-1306047279_thumb.jpg post-893-0-09350700-1306047284_thumb.jpg post-893-0-04822700-1306047290_thumb.jpg post-893-0-10615700-1306047294_thumb.jpg post-893-0-35041700-1306047300_thumb.jpg post-893-0-19334000-1306047305_thumb.jpg post-893-0-40955300-1306047309_thumb.jpg

Edited by Asr
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

DSC00246.JPG

Edited by crappyjones123
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

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...