OT - Anyone know a good photography forum?

[dansouth]

Anyone shutterbugs out there? If so, do you know of any good photography forums, preferably ones where questions get answered and you don't have to deal with too many trolls or attitudes? Also, if you've heard of any forums that specialize in digital photography, that would be really cool.

[b_3guy]

Hey Dan, what do want to know. I run a Linhoff 4x5, & a Mamiya RB67, studio lighting, etc. I'm investigating a getting some sort of digital camera, so I think I have a fair understanding. Here's my web site http://users.andara.com/~seagull What do want to know?

[dansouth]

[quote]Originally posted by b_3guy: [b]Hey Dan, what do want to know. I run a Linhoff 4x5, & a Mamiya RB67, studio lighting, etc. I'm investigating a getting some sort of digital camera, so I think I have a fair understanding. What do want to know?[/b][/quote] Hey, B3! I guess you DO know a thing or two about photography. Okay, I'll post a couple of questions, as long as Craig doesn't frown upon this OT thread. Actually, it's not completely OT, as I use my photos to dress up my MP3 site. (1) How do you clean you lenses? (2) How do you keep your lenses clear when it's raining? (3) Can you recommend a good all-purpose meter? (4) Any tips on using polarizing filters? (5) Any tips on dealing with haze? (6) Where do you have your film processed? I'm using a Nikon CoolPix 995 (3.3 megapixel digital rangefinder) with wide angle and telephoto adapters and UV, circular polarizer, and neutral density filters as needed. I'm hoping to pick up a digital SLR in the near future. Thanks!

[GY]

Hey Dan South! Sony Mavica Information Exchange. http://www.mavican.nu/ The Sony Mavica has proved itself to be a great bang for the buck digital camera, although Olympus is now giving Sony some competition. I use a Sony FD-91. I love it.

[DC]

Hi Dan, (1) How do you clean you lenses? Any quality lens deserves a UV filter. Just install one hopefully when your lens is new and now you never need to clean your actual glass, just the filter. I use a blow brush as well as those eyeglass cleaning tissues. (2) How do you keep your lenses clear when it's raining? Another thing I bought right away after I got my Nikon FM was a rubber hood. This screws on over the UV filter and collapses or folds out. The good thing about it is that it not only helps keep glare out of your lens (it's intended purpose), but it also offers padding in case you drop your camera. It would also keep rain off of your lens unless you needed to shoot something higher than where you're standing. (3) Can you recommend a good all-purpose meter? My camera has a built in meter so I've never bothered with them. (4) Any tips on using polarizing filters? Just put em on when it's extremely sunny. They work just like the shades you wear. (5) Any tips on dealing with haze? Are you speaking of something atmospheric or something dealing with developing? (6) Where do you have your film processed? Black & White I do myself when I can get into a lab. Color, I'm a bit miffed too. Once when I got back from Europe, one of those 24 hour places ruined like six rolls of my film. Remember that most of their employees are minimum wage morons who just learn to operate the machine. I think the labs that pick up film at Wall Mart or wherever tend to be a bit more dependable, but I wonder about this myself. I think this subject isn't OT at all. I mean we all use photos on our home-made CD booklets etc don't we? davecharles@musician.net

[b_3guy]

[quote]Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com: [b] (1) How do you clean you lenses? [/b][/quote] I use a funny little cloth called Micro-Clair. Its made here in Canada. It's some sort of micro-fiber cloth that won't scratch any type of lens. Even though it's cloth its so soft it feels like a suede. It also requires no sprays or cleaners, so its really convenient. After using it for a while you just put in the washer & it's like new. Repeated cleaning of lenses does put marks on them, so don't anything other than an approved lens cloth. [b](2) How do you keep your lenses clear when it's raining?[/b] I use rubber lens hoods on all of my lens. It also helps to prevent unwanted lens flare on sunny days. If the rain is driving into your face, use the lens cloth to wipe it off. [b] (3) Can you recommend a good all-purpose meter? [/b] I use a Seconic L-328 http://www.sekonic.com/Products/L-328.html And I bought the optional spot meter attachment. Do you know how to spot meter? If you don't I'll explain it to you. The reason I bought this one is that it's small & light. It doesn't feel like a huge weight hanging around your neck. It seems accurate enough. Metering for us pro guys is over rated because we bracket the shit on everything. The cost of film is minor as long as you get the right exposure. [b] (4) Any tips on using polarizing filters? [/b] Polarizing filters I never use unless the shot has water in it. But since you are in SoCal you have a lot of haze, I would use it more often. These filters are a little hard to judge. As you spin the filter you get more polarizing effect. Sometimes if you spin it too far, you get an unreal effect in the sky, it gets to be an unreal dark purple color. It is a great help at reducing haze. But the best thing to do in water & hazy situations is to get the sun at your back. There are scientific type explanations for polarizing filters & getting the sun at your back but they are not important. [B](6) Where do you have your film processed? /B] I get everything processed locally here in Halifax at a Pro Lab. The best thing to do is to look for a Pro Lab in your area. I never send anything away because of the danger of losing it in the mail, etc. Also time become a factor if you have to allow for a week for the mail plus the Lab needs time. We take for granted what we have here in Halifax. I did a trip through Daytona Beach to Clearwater, Florida & I was shooting transparency. I couldn't find a place to do the processing. They wanted to send it way out of state. Here the lab does it in a 2hr. turnaround. I would look for the word Pro in a lab in your area & ask around. Also try not to get stuff processed on Mon. The chemistry sits around on Sat & Sun so it becomes unbalanced. Often labs will not get rebalanced until Tues so you end up with your stuff looking too majenta (pink/purple) or too blue (cyan), etc. You have a really cool digital camera now. The difference between this & a 35mm digital is only in the 35mm type features, interchangable lenses, etc. The quality is pretty much the same. But I know the 35mm style looks way cooler than the other digtal camera. You look & feel like a Pro. Anything else, let me know.

[b_3guy]

[quote]Originally posted by DC: [b]Any quality lens deserves a UV filter. Just install one hopefully when your lens is new and now you never need to clean your actual glass, just the filter. I use a blow brush as well as those eyeglass cleaning tissues. [/b][/quote] I don't use any UV filters. You have a lens that cost hundreds of dollars that has had thousands maybe hundreds of thousands spent on R&D & you're going to put a $10 filter over it? Never use any tissues. All paper products scratch.

[dansouth]

Thanks for the detailed responses. I recently spent some time in the UK, hence the rain and cleaning questions. Before I ventured out, I bought a cleaning kit with a blow brush, lens tissue, a soft cloth, and a bottle containing a mild solvent. The tissue makes me nervous (scratches), and the cloth leaves a lot of lint behind. I found that a clean handkerchief works best. The solution has proven invaluable, but the brush picked up some slimy substance, and I had to discard it. The next step is to pick up some compressed air. Can you take this on the plane? Thanks for the tips on filters. I have some exposures that really could have used that polarizer, but I didn't know how to use it properly. I've since learned that they work best at rights angles to the sunlight. I'll have to experiment with them some more. Is it possible to polarize exposures after the fact, e.g. in PhotoShop? I used a UV filters with decent results. The haze I spoke of was atmospheric haze. Haze creates havoc when using telephoto lenses, I've found. The UV filter helped, but it's not a cure all. Pray for clear weather. By the way, I'm in Jersey, not SoCal. We've got lots of humidity and lots of pollution. Not exactly ideal atmospheric clarity for distance shots (until winter).

[b_3guy]

Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com: [b]The next step is to pick up some compressed air. Can you take this on the plane? [/b] I've never taken compressed air on a plane, always used before I left for a shoot. [b]Is it possible to polarize exposures after the fact, e.g. in PhotoShop? [/b] I've never noticed a preset in Photoshop that duplicated the polarizing effect. [b]By the way, I'm in Jersey, not SoCal. We've got lots of humidity and lots of pollution. Not exactly ideal atmospheric clarity for distance shots (until winter).[/b] Sorry my mistake about NJ. I thought that the reason you know db so well was because you were in California. Yeah we know all about the pollution in NJ. It shows up here in Nova Scotia as Acid Rain.

[dansouth]

I've never met Mr. Bryce, but he seems pretty cool. [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif[/img] Sorry about the acid rain. If it makes you feel any better, I drive a four-cylinder car, not one of these gas-guzzling SUV's. You and the rest of the world will be thrilled to learn that New Jersey's former governor is now the head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. That's kind of like putting Dillinger in charge of your banking system. Now if we could only find a president who speaks English... Personally, I'd settle for one who was actually elected. I'll bet you have some great scenery to photograph up there in New Scotland. I'm gonna have to head up that way for a vacation sometime.

[b_3guy]

[quote]Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com: [b]Sorry about the acid rain. If it makes you feel any better, I drive a four-cylinder car, not one of these gas-guzzling SUV's. [/b][/quote] Thanks for the contribution or better yet the non-contributuion! [b]Now if we could only find a president who speaks English... [/b] or had a brain! [b]I'll bet you have some great scenery to photograph up there in New Scotland. I'm gonna have to head up that way for a vacation sometime.[/b] Actually it is pretty. Those that are from away say around every corner is a picture. You could drop in & stay awhile!! I got to go now & check my fishing lines!! hehehe [img]http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/wink.gif[/img]

[DC]

b_3guy: "I don't use any UV filters. You have a lens that cost hundreds of dollars that has had thousands maybe hundreds of thousands spent on R&D & you're going to put a $10 filter over it?" Do you put a $10.00 pop filter in front of your several hundred/thousand dollar condenser mic? Actually, I notice no detrimental effect from a simple UV filter and it's way better if it gets scratched than my expensive Nikkor glass.

[b_3guy]

[quote]Originally posted by DC: [b]Actually, I notice no detrimental effect from a simple UV filter and it's way better if it gets scratched than my expensive Nikkor glass.[/b][/quote] The thing that prevents scratches is called a lens cap. Using transparency film, have you tested with & without UV filter?

[Chip McDonald]

[quote]Originally posted by b_3guy: [b] The thing that prevents scratches is called a lens cap. Using transparency film, have you tested with & without UV filter? [/b][/quote] You know what sucks? Everytime I've gotten into something, it quickly becomes evident that if I want to do something the way I feel is "right", it explodes the budget exponentially. I used to be into photography when I was younger. Figured out with a loupe that yeah, UV filters are pretty lousy. Among other anal retentive things trying to get a certain quality. Slowly figured out that I needed at least a medium format camera, $$$$ lenses, temperature controlled this and that, $$$$ enlarger, etc.... Luckily, I fell into music where I don't have to worry about expensive things and being anal about anything. Wait a second.... ------------------ [b]New and Improved Music Soon:[/b] http://www.mp3.com/chipmcdonald

[dansouth]

I've read several references and articles that suggest using a UV filter or something called a skylight filter at all times to prevent scratches to the lense. I've had problems with condensation between the filter and the lense under some circumstances. I'm sure that not all filters are created equally. Stuff I wonder about - - Last year, 2 megapixels was HUGE. This year I've seen inexpensive (relatively) cameras with 6 MP CCD's. How far is this going to go in the next few years? - When is someone going to make a decent digital SLR with interchangeable lenses for less than a fortune? The Nikon D1X looks awesome, but...$$$$ - What kind of discount (from list) should I expect to pay for lenses and camera bodies? - Why can't a full featured digital rangefinder like the CoolPix 995 come with an aperture that will close down to f/22? The shutter has a B mode. Without infinite depth of field, scenic shots will always be compromised by blur at some distance. - Print or slide film? Which is best for scenics? - Scanning slides - does this work to your satisfaction? - Should I opt to have a CD burned by the processing lab? What format will the files come back in? TIFF? JPEG? Thanks again to all!

[b_3guy]

[quote]Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com: [b]I've read several references and articles that suggest using a UV filter or something called a skylight filter at all times to prevent scratches to the lense. I've had problems with condensation between the filter and the lense under some circumstances. I'm sure that not all filters are created equally. Stuff I wonder about - - Last year, 2 megapixels was HUGE. This year I've seen inexpensive (relatively) cameras with 6 MP CCD's. How far is this going to go in the next few years? - When is someone going to make a decent digital SLR with interchangeable lenses for less than a fortune? The Nikon D1X looks awesome, but...$$$$ - What kind of discount (from list) should I expect to pay for lenses and camera bodies? - Why can't a full featured digital rangefinder like the CoolPix 995 come with an aperture that will close down to f/22? The shutter has a B mode. Without infinite depth of field, scenic shots will always be compromised by blur at some distance. - Print or slide film? Which is best for scenics? - Scanning slides - does this work to your satisfaction? - Should I opt to have a CD burned by the processing lab? What format will the files come back in? TIFF? JPEG? Thanks again to all![/b][/quote] I have lens that cost from $1200 to $2200. None of them have UV, or skylight filters on them. I don't think they're sharp as some else has mentioned & who needs condensation problems. First thing you know you have corrosion & can't get the damn thing off. Megapixels is only a factor when it comes to printing your shots. If you only view your digital files on your computer you don't need the high resolution that a larger numbered megapixels wil give you. If most people only print 4x5's from their digital files, you will never need a bigger CCD. You should have infinite depth of field shooting any scenic. Infinity happens very quickly, usually at 30 ft. or so. Shoot print film if want prints, slide film if you want slides. I have a $2000 Linotype-Hell scanner. Bought it to scan transparencies. It also does prints. Also your scanner only as good as your software. Sometimes I think I bought a $1500 software that included a $500 scanner. You should burn your own CD's because you can rename your files. Instead of getting back 4578723857544.jpg you can name it White Cliffs of Dover From the Water.jpg. Jpegs have different qualities. Tiffs do not. Jpegs cannot be resaved after editing as Jpegs because of subsequent losses in quality. Tiffs are bigger. I would shoot jpegs 7 if I edit my file in Photoshop, save as a tiff. Sorry got a to go. Got to go to a hockey game.

[dansouth]

[b] Megapixels is only a factor when it comes to printing your shots. If you only view your digital files on your computer you don't need the high resolution that a larger numbered megapixels wil give you. If most people only print 4x5's from their digital files, you will never need a bigger CCD.[/b] The ones that I choose to print are 8.5x11, minimum. [b]You should have infinite depth of field shooting any scenic. Infinity happens very quickly, usually at 30 ft. or so.[/b] I can understand limiting the ability to OPEN the aperture as a function of lense construction, but it shouldn't incur any more expense to CLOSE the darned thing to f/22 or f/32. This limitation of the 995 (and other semi-pro digitals) disappoints me greatly, because these cameras are essentually useless for scenics. [b]Shoot print film if want prints, slide film if you want slides.[/b] I notice that photos printed in photo books and travel magazines are usually captured on slide film. I bring this up, because I may have to dance with the devil of silver halide in order to capture my scenics unless digital SLR's come down in price significantly. [b]I have a $2000 Linotype-Hell scanner. Bought it to scan transparencies. It also does prints. Also your scanner only as good as your software. Sometimes I think I bought a $1500 software that included a $500 scanner. You should burn your own CD's because you can rename your files. Instead of getting back 4578723857544.jpg you can name it White Cliffs of Dover From the Water.jpg. Jpegs have different qualities. Tiffs do not. Jpegs cannot be resaved after editing as Jpegs because of subsequent losses in quality. Tiffs are bigger. I would shoot jpegs 7 if I edit my file in Photoshop, save as a tiff.[/b] I can always rename the files and burn a new CD. This saves me from buying a $2000 scanner if the lab scanning quality is optimal. Is it? Or is it geared to point-and-shooters with $7 disposable cameras? I won't settle for less than TIFF quality. A roll of 36 exposures should fit on a CD-ROM with room to spare at 10-15M per exposure. I can always compress them into JPEG's later.

[NKF]

>>>Also, if you've heard of any forums that specialize in digital photography, that would be really cool.<<< http://www.dpreview.com/forums/ http://www.robgalbraith.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi http://www.nikond1.net/ http://www.juergenspecht.com/d1scussion/ http://foto.no/nikon/ Nirto Karsten Fischer

[NKF]

dansouth@yahoo.com wrote: >>> - When is someone going to make a decent digital SLR with interchangeable lenses for less than a fortune? The Nikon D1X looks awesome <<< It's indeed a wonderfull camera - I have one since they came out, Nikon corrected weak points of the old D1 and added resolution and enhanced color sensitivity. I stepped up from Coolpix cameras. Combine the D1x with the great Nikon AF-S lenses and it is something that steps slightly into mid format land quality wise. Nirto Karsten Fischer

[dansouth]

[quote]Originally posted by NKF: [b]dansouth@yahoo.com wrote: >>> - When is someone going to make a decent digital SLR with interchangeable lenses for less than a fortune? The Nikon D1X looks awesome <<< It's indeed a wonderfull camera - I have one since they came out, Nikon corrected weak points of the old D1 and added resolution and enhanced color sensitivity. I stepped up from Coolpix cameras. Combine the D1x with the great Nikon AF-S lenses and it is something that steps slightly into mid format land quality wise. Nirto Karsten Fischer[/b][/quote] Nirto - THANKS!! That's a wonderful testimonial. I'm seriously looking at the D1X, also possibly an F100 for the best of both worlds. Do you use filters with the D1X? How's battery life? Weight? What lenses do you use with it most often? I'll check out the forums you listed. Your input is appreciated. Thanks again! And thanks to Craig for letting us continue this discussion here!!

[NKF]

dansouth@yahoo.com wrote: >>>Do you use filters with the D1X? How's battery life? Weight? What lenses do you use with it most often?<<< I don't know if we should discuss this further here ... anyway ... Sometimes I use a polarisation filter. Battery life is long - you can get around 300 images with one battery, but usually I carry two of them with me. Concerning lenses I have mostly the AF-S 28-70 mounted. Sometimes I use the AF-S 17-35, a Sigma fisheye lens and the lightweight AF 28-105. The AF-S series of Nikon are very high quality lenses and AF is extremly fast. Weight is a factor - a Coolpix feels like a feather in comparison. But for my needs I don't care about the weight - the camera is very ergonomic. If you need more info you will find it in the forums I suggested. Nirto Karsten Fischer P.S.: I think we should stop discussing cameras here. Usually I don't like going to far off topic ... but this time you got me with your questions ... :-)

[b_3guy]

[quote]Originally posted by dansouth@yahoo.com: [b]I can understand limiting the ability to OPEN the aperture as a function of lense construction, but it shouldn't incur any more expense to CLOSE the darned thing to f/22 or f/32. This limitation of the 995 (and other semi-pro digitals) disappoints me greatly, because these cameras are essentually useless for scenics. I notice that photos printed in photo books and travel magazines are usually captured on slide film. I bring this up, because I may have to dance with the devil of silver halide in order to capture my scenics unless digital SLR's come down in price significantly. I can always rename the files and burn a new CD. This saves me from buying a $2000 scanner if the lab scanning quality is optimal. Is it? Or is it geared to point-and-shooters with $7 disposable cameras? [/b][/quote] Gee Dan, it seems like you already have the answers to your own questions. I think you already know what you're doing. Most lenses on traditional cameras are sharper at a larger aperature than f22 or f32. I can't remember if it's f8, f11, or f16. I never shoot scenics. In fact its sad, I never shoot unless I'm getting paid. The stuff I'm shooting needs the depth of field to be sharp from the foreground to background. Rarely am I at infinity, so I'm always shooting f16 to f64. The reason travel magazines prefer transparency film is because of the better reproduction in a magazine or book. You get a sharper end result if you scan a transparency than a print, for obvious reasons. It's not because of the nature of scenics. I have found "Pro" labs will have the quality scanning that you are looking for. Ask questions like what's their scanner model name & number. Ask them to provide a sample. Also it's only as good as the operator. Ask if they have a designated scanner operator or is it the guy that can identify the scanner in the room, the one who gets the job. I got lucky buying the scanner I bought. It gives me wonderful results scanning medium format transparencies up to 300%, which is perfect for my needs. I would even out these scans up against a $20,000 to $40,000 scanner. We still use a company that has a $60,000 drum scanner for super critical stuff or stuff I can't get good results with our cheaper scanner. Also remember if you are going to view them on your computer, you are subject to what your monitor/computer color calibration is going to do to them.

[dansouth]

Thanks again for all of the responses. I've learned a great deal from this discussion, don't worry. I'm not a novice, but I'm not nearly as far along as the rest of you. I don't think we're too far off topic, because as someone pointed out, graphics and photos are a big part of CD production, band promotion, etc. Thanks much!!!

[zele]

A shooting pro for many years---just in the process of selling 25 years of darkroom accumulation---selling strictly digital prints-----presently scanning 2 1/4 negs and selling 11X prints through the gallery circuit---the top 35mm digital camera is the Contax---with a true "full frame" image>>>--most affordable/quality... Minolta 7 -----still prefer to shoot medium format film (for contrast/sharpness control) and 4000dpi scanner to epson printer>>>>> thanks kindly cjogo a few images>> http://fp2k.redshift.com/cjogo/Fineart_PortfolioOLD.htm http://fp2k.redshift.com/cjogo/Fineart_Portfolio4OLD.htm http://fp2k.redshift.com/cjogo/Fineart_Portfolio2OLD.htm http://fp2k.redshift.com/cjogo/Fineart_Portfolio.htm

[b_3guy]

[quote]Originally posted by zele: [b]A shooting pro for many years---just in the process of selling 25 years of darkroom accumulation---selling strictly digital prints-----presently scanning 2 1/4 negs and selling 11X prints through the gallery circuit---the top 35mm digital camera is the Contax---with a true "full frame" image>>>--most affordable/quality... Minolta 7 -----still prefer to shoot medium format film (for contrast/sharpness control) and 4000dpi scanner to epson printer>>>>> thanks kindly cjogo a few images>> http://fp2k.redshift.com/cjogo/Fineart_PortfolioOLD.htm http://fp2k.redshift.com/cjogo/Fineart_Portfolio4OLD.htm http://fp2k.redshift.com/cjogo/Fineart_Portfolio2OLD.htm http://fp2k.redshift.com/cjogo/Fineart_Portfolio.htm [/b][/quote] I agree. I find 35mm never looks sharp to me. I went on a spree of shooting 4x5, I found going back to 67 didn't look quite sharp. I haven't shot 4x5 in years & finally medium format is starting to look good again. I chech out your links. Nice eye & darkroom work!