Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Going backwards...  (Read 114967 times)
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


« Reply #60 on: June 08, 2008, 05:04:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I just was using this photo as an example on another forum. But I think it really fits the conversation here. What specifically seems to me to be a big point on this is the reflective sunlight on the surfaces. On this film shot it looks right. But I can't help but think on digital it would just be blown out highlights...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193057\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Aside from the fuji S5 (not used one..but hear its good), I would expect most digitals if not all to blow that out. Point is you can underexpose to try to hold the highlights, but its a pain for when you need to get a shot quickly.

Digital is terrible with highlights, IMO..my little trip out the other week, shooting side by side, and the negative film stuff just walked all over the digital for DR and highlights.

The other point is that digital gets colour and hue shifts, and that nasty "cyan" sky effect when the highlights are going. Not nice. Don't get me wrong, I like digital, but this area never gets mentioned in the "film v digital" articles, why? Because one wins hands down...and we dont want that do we?? lol
« Last Edit: June 08, 2008, 05:05:13 PM by barryfitzgerald » Logged
Plekto
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 551


« Reply #61 on: June 09, 2008, 01:36:49 PM »
ReplyReply

That looks very nice.  what camera/lens/film?

I really like how he sky in the background is realistic.  And, yes, the overall seamlessness and correctness of the colors is something that you'd have to go nuts with digital for an hour in some some software program to come close to.
« Last Edit: June 09, 2008, 01:36:58 PM by Plekto » Logged
jjj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3209



WWW
« Reply #62 on: June 09, 2008, 04:00:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I just was using this photo as an example on another forum. But I think it really fits the conversation here. What specifically seems to me to be a big point on this is the reflective sunlight on the surfaces. On this film shot it looks right. But I can't help but think on digital it would just be blown out highlights...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193057\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The superb quality of that image is not something I've seen in digital shots. Film certainly wins on that sort of image. And that sort of lighting is anything but unusual.
Logged

Tradition is the Backbone of the Spineless.   Futt Futt Futt Photography
SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461


WWW
« Reply #63 on: June 09, 2008, 09:51:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Sorry guys, I just saw that you asked me a question. I guess I didn't do e-mail notifications on this thread.

Anyway this was shot on the new formulation of Fuji 160c medium format. I used a Mamiya 645AFDII with the 45mm 2.8 lens.

Thanks for the kind words!

Quote
I just was using this photo as an example on another forum. But I think it really fits the conversation here. What specifically seems to me to be a big point on this is the reflective sunlight on the surfaces. On this film shot it looks right. But I can't help but think on digital it would just be blown out highlights...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=193057\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461


WWW
« Reply #64 on: July 08, 2008, 06:36:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Something a little different for me outside of my usual assignments of bodybuilders and mostly naked hot women with great bodies; Bombay Beach at Salton Sea in Southern California.
Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
sergio
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 661


WWW
« Reply #65 on: July 09, 2008, 08:42:14 AM »
ReplyReply

You know what is starting to bother me about digital cpature? I am having this feeling that someday all the images will be lost due to excessive volume and storage issues. I still have my first negs I shot 34 years ago and all the maintenance it has needed is just a change of sleeves.

Now tell me about duplicating hundreds of thousands od gbs from HDs or DVDs every couple of years. The other thing is that we need a fairly large amount of technology to access our images.

I think I'll start shooting daguerreotypes. At least till now they have been proved to be the longest lasting photographic medium ever. No fancy technology needed to look at it
« Last Edit: July 09, 2008, 08:45:50 AM by sergio » Logged

wolfnowl
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5698



WWW
« Reply #66 on: July 09, 2008, 09:31:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I think I'll start shooting daguerreotypes. At least till now they have been proved to be the longest lasting photographic medium ever. No fancy technology needed to look at it
 

Or tintypes, then you wouldn't have to worry about the glass plates.  There is that whole mercury vapour thing in the processing though.

I know what you mean, though.  We have books that are hundreds, even thousands of years old (including papyrus).  We're confronting several issues today, and not just with photography - the amount of information being created, the ability to archive it, and the technology to access it.

Mike.
Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.
~ Jean Cooke ~


My Flickr site / Random Thoughts and Other Meanderings at M&M's Musings
SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461


WWW
« Reply #67 on: July 09, 2008, 09:44:02 AM »
ReplyReply

I somewhat agree.

About a year ago I was on assignment in Dallas and took an extra day to wander around. I went to the Sixth Floor Museum at Dealy Plaza which is a museum dedicated to the assassination of JFK and also to a general museum nearby.

As I looked at the the photographs from just 40 years ago and then at the other museum from over 100 years ago, maybe 200 years, I wondered exactly the same thing. Will what we are doing now be as readily viewable and reproducible 200 years from now?
Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #68 on: July 09, 2008, 11:40:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Something a little different for me outside of my usual assignments of bodybuilders and mostly naked hot women with great bodies; Bombay Beach at Salton Sea in Southern California.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206529\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ian, look as I might, not a single naked hot lady with or without great body; possibly one or two disembodied ones, but that ainīt much fun and certainly isnīt fair.

Rob C
Logged

SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461


WWW
« Reply #69 on: July 09, 2008, 10:59:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Ian, look as I might, not a single naked hot lady with or without great body; possibly one or two disembodied ones, but that ainīt much fun and certainly isnīt fair.

Rob C
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206692\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I will see what I can dig up for ya!
Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #70 on: July 10, 2008, 07:57:51 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You know what is starting to bother me about digital cpature? I am having this feeling that someday all the images will be lost due to excessive volume and storage issues. I still have my first negs I shot 34 years ago and all the maintenance it has needed is just a change of sleeves.

Now tell me about duplicating hundreds of thousands od gbs from HDs or DVDs every couple of years. The other thing is that we need a fairly large amount of technology to access our images.

I think I'll start shooting daguerreotypes. At least till now they have been proved to be the longest lasting photographic medium ever. No fancy technology needed to look at it
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206644\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I quit with the discs years ago - I just use multiple external hard drives - one hard drive has everything, extras are just add'l backup.  Archiving?  Simple.  First lesson: Organize your images into directories by what's logical long-term.  Then, I use dirmatch and batch files to *intelligently automate* the backup process.  I can manage a million images as easily as a thousand.
Logged
sergio
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 661


WWW
« Reply #71 on: July 10, 2008, 06:11:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
e.  First lesson: Organize your images into directories by what's logical long-term.  Then, I use dirmatch and batch files to *intelligently automate* the backup process.  I can manage a million images as easily as a thousand.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=206968\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Could please explain this to me in a more step by step process?

Thanks.
Logged

dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #72 on: July 10, 2008, 07:29:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Could please explain this to me in a more step by step process?

Thanks.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207144\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Sure.  First thing is to have a plan.  The plan may change later, but the better it is to begin...  Either name every image such as (Bird_Sparrow_01.jpg) or create folders with names like (Bird_Sparrow_20080712) and put all the sparrows from the 7/12/2008 shoot into that directory.  You could begin the folder names with the dates, but then to find the sparrows would require additional work.  Another option is to create a document (or spreadsheet, or database) and keep a log of each image there with the filename and foldername and comments.

The disadvantage of not naming the individual images is that they're harder to find when you don't, in fact nearly impossible to get to.  You can read all of the questions and comments here on LL to see how many people just can't get to their images of a particular subject because their file management is done by an image editing program (very bad), or worse, no management at all.

Once you have a plan that allows you to search for the files you want to see, get a copy of the DIRMATCH program, or whatever the latest equivalent is from the Internet.  My copies are highly customized and would not be suitable to hand over without tutoring.  With Dirmatch, you can easily compare folders on your working computer with folders on your backup external hard disk.

If you have a *lot* of folders, then you need to consider two things:
1) Try to have "archived" folders that you do *not* need to compare, back up to, or otherwise examine frequently.  Then the remaining folders are your "current" folders that you will Dirmatch frequently.  This saves time folder-matching.
2) If there are a lot of current folders you make changes to (changing, adding, or deleting images), then (on Windows systems) you can create a "Batch" file that will execute the Dirmatch program for a whole range of folders, one by one, so you don't have to manually specify the source and backup folders for each folder in your current list.

I don't know if Mac computers have such a thing as a Batch file, or any user automation at all, sad to say.

A Batch file may look like this:
Dirmatch C:\Folder_A  E:\Folder_A
Dirmatch C:\Folder_B  E:\Folder_B
Dirmatch C:\Folder_C  E:\Folder_C
Dirmatch C:\Folder_D  E:\Folder_D
............ and so on

With this batch file, all I have to do is click Exit when I'm done with each compare, and the computer executes the next line automatically.

I maintain about 30,000 current files in about 300 current folders, with approx. 100 different files changed each day.  Since I don't know at the end of the day which folders have the changes (they're somewhat random), the 300 Dirmatches I execute take care of all that, and the backup takes only a few minutes.  In fact, I have about 6 or 7 backup drives, all identical, and all get updated within the course of a week.  And each backup session is just a few minutes.

**Important note: I cannot use a totally automated backup program, because those programs always copy the newer file to the older file, or the computer disk file to the backup disk file.  This is not acceptable to me for reasons you will discover when you get to that point.  Dirmatch allows you to easily copy the new to the old (or to a folder on the backup drive where the new file doesn't exist yet), and copy many files with one click.  But you can also decide when not to do that and go the other way when necessary.  Sometimes I may copy just one or two old files to the newer copies on the computer drive, and then copy all the rest with one click the normal (new to old) direction.

Intelligent backups and file management observe one extremely important principle that should never be abrogated: Never copy a file over top of the same file on a backup media if the file hasn't changed.  You could be copying a corrupt file over top of a good one.
Logged
sergio
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 661


WWW
« Reply #73 on: July 10, 2008, 07:42:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks a lot, I'll study this method. I want to think this very since it has to be a very long term solution.
Logged

SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461


WWW
« Reply #74 on: July 10, 2008, 10:44:51 PM »
ReplyReply

From July 4th at "Muscle Beach". Mamiya 645AFDII, Mamiya 105-210AF lens, Kodak 160VC film and this is just a 10 mb roll scan.
Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
daleeman
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 159


WWW
« Reply #75 on: July 14, 2008, 05:59:43 AM »
ReplyReply

This is an ok photo, so now give the great looking women equal time

Quote
From July 4th at "Muscle Beach". Mamiya 645AFDII, Mamiya 105-210AF lens, Kodak 160VC film and this is just a 10 mb roll scan.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=207205\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461


WWW
« Reply #76 on: July 16, 2008, 05:04:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is an ok photo, so now give the great looking women equal time

Are you one of those guys always looking at women
Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 566


« Reply #77 on: August 02, 2008, 07:23:11 PM »
ReplyReply

I like it, I mean the composition is very intersting indeed ;-)
Logged
Imaginara
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114


« Reply #78 on: August 12, 2008, 11:01:53 AM »
ReplyReply

Nice shots SecondFocus (oh and hi, always nice to see people you recognise from other forums

well i thought i'd join the film-shooting choir aswell.

When i was 15 years old (about 20+ years back) i shot medium format and 35mm, had my own lab and everything and stopped because it just became too expensive for a poor student and not enough time to play with it.

Then i fairly recently took up photography again after a long stint in the moving pictures world and started with a Canon EOS D30. This quickly became a D60, then a 40D (yeah, a bit of a leap) and a 450D (for fun .

Then i got the brilliant idea to try to start shooting medium format again as i did miss my old RB67 something fierce so i got me a 645 Pro... then a 645 AFD dropped by... and now im getting a RZ 67 aswell.

I dusted off my old EOS 500 and the darkroom gear and let me tell you. It's dang fun! I develop B&W myself, color through a lab. I usually scan the negs but give me enough time and i'll start doing the B&W prints aswell  It's just a whole lot of fun shooting film. And not very expensive these days either (especially if you do the scanning yourself)

I do not have to live off my photography right now however and that does help me play around with all this. A big benefit i'm holding on to for a while longer =)

so today i ordered a Holga 120N

It's all good =)
Logged
SecondFocus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461


WWW
« Reply #79 on: September 04, 2008, 10:32:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Mamiya 645AFDII, 80mm AF lens, Tri-X 400 pushed one stop. This is just from an under 10 meg roll scan.

[attachment=8228:attachment]
« Last Edit: September 05, 2008, 06:05:29 PM by SecondFocus » Logged

Ian L. Sitren
SecondFocus
Pages: « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad