September 20, 2014, 02:12:17 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - funkboy

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 28
Black & White / Re: The TRI-X 'look'...
« on: March 10, 2014, 05:53:05 AM »
I looked into the links you posted about gelatin/silver prints using an internegative process.  Do you know of any print shops that perform this service?  I gave up printing my own images a few years ago.  I got tired of dealing with clogged printheads, etc.  I use Costco for most printing, except the fine art prints I do on occasion.  I just sent the two images shown above to Costco.  You can't beat the longevity of silver based images, though.  I just looked at some work I printed more than 45 years ago, still as good as the day they came out of the fixer (but not as good as I could do today).

Haven't used any personally but teg goog turns up several promising shops which you could probably research a little further before taking the plunge.

I like Keith Cooper's quote on the care & feeding of large-format printers:

when recently looking into problems with our iPF8300, I talked to several people in the ‘large format business’, and lack of use was the number one cause of problems.

If I had to put a big sticky label on printers it would be:


I keep a 24″ roll of cheap proofing paper in our iPF8300 and try and make sure I print every week (a diary reminder helps).

Black & White / Re: The TRI-X 'look'...
« on: March 08, 2014, 04:23:19 AM »
I haven't used a chemical darkroom in 30 yrs, even though I've always had one within steps of my office/labs, but I remember with great fondness my grad school days (actually nights) spent making my own developers.  I briefly taught photographic chemistry to the local camera club, but gave up when people's eyes glazed over.  Not everyone was meant to be a chemist, sigh.  Here are a couple of recent B&W images from a trip to Myanmar last March.  They still have that Tri-X look, including the grain.

Awesome shots dhachey.  This thread rocks :-)

Bringing the whole thing together, something that I almost dove into back when I first got a good DSLR but was still shooting film occasionally is  making gelatin silver prints from digital files.  I first learned about it from LensWork magazine, which is a lovely find in and of itself.

In a nutshell, we finally have a use case for the insanely high resolution that the inkjet printer companies have been using as a marketing gimmick forever.  The printheads of even the now-12-year-old Epson 2200 are capable of small enough dots to print a negative with resolution surpassing film when used with the right transparency medium & inks, which can then be used to make a print with a traditional darkroom enlarger.

The process is laborious but I've seen the results in a gallery and the gelatin silver prints from an FF DSLR source file are every bit as stunning as medium format film.

Black & White / Re: The TRI-X 'look'...
« on: March 07, 2014, 06:47:59 PM »
Awesome thread.

I usually shot Ilford Delta 3200 for low-light club stuff in my T90 (which is most of what I shot with it), & HP5 and Superia 400 for outdoor work.  It blows people's minds when I tell them I got into photography with digital in 1999 using  a Powershot S20 and then switched to a fantastic manual-focus film SLR so that I could learn what the h*ll I was doing & get some good shots in music venues (which was basically impossible with the compact digitals of the day as anything over ISO100 was "boosted" & looked like cr*p).

Tri-X is lovely stuff though :-)

EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next from Canon?
« on: February 14, 2014, 09:39:19 AM »
well when you know what your doing you try to keep your ISO as low as possible.

I do try to keep ISO as low as possible.  I shoot aperture priority on my 6D (unless I'm using a speedlite) and set the auto ISO to stay low until correct exposure needs a shutter speed about 1/2 stop faster than the focal length of whatever lens I'm using at the time (yet another good reason to use prime lenses :-).  I just have to set the aperture to whatever is appropriate for the scene & the auto ISO & auto shutter speed does the rest.

This setup works marvelously, & I wish my older cameras had it as ISO really is a "3rd priority" in addition to aperture & shutter speed.

EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next from Canon?
« on: February 14, 2014, 05:15:46 AM »
I would dispute that most people shoot at base ISO.

Agree with you completely.  Ever since I got the 6D I leave it on Auto ISO 90+% of the time.  If I fiddle with anything ISO related, it's the minimum shutter speed and max auto ISO parameters, which I have on the quick menu.

EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next from Canon?
« on: February 14, 2014, 05:11:07 AM »
I personally just need a reliable 50mm.

1.8, 1.4, 1.X? I don't care.. Under $600 ideally, reliable, accurate, decent sharpness and bokeh, I'll buy one the day it's announced..

The new Sigma 50mm Art should get the job done for you.

EOS Bodies / Re: What's Next from Canon?
« on: February 13, 2014, 08:41:43 PM »
Personally I think the G1X II is awesome (the name is pretty rough though).  According to the DPreview preview, this camera has the most luminous lens/sensor setup of any large sensor compact (.7 EV better than the Sony RX100 II).
24-120 f/2-4 with IS is really in the ballpark of what I had hoped for on this camera, & ~12MP is a good sweet spot too.

The price will come down over time (you'll just have to buy a viewfinder on ebay or something if you want it cheaper).  If you have one of these I don't really see a justification for carrying around a non-FF DSLR unless you need super-long or super-wide lenses, or a really fast portrait/low-light lens.  The price would have been lower if they hadn't bothered with EOS M.

IMHO the execution of the EOS M system was pretty poor; theyd've been better served by further promoting the 100D/SL1 and coming out with a couple of compact EF zooms for it (the compact primes are finally coming along nicely & hopefully we'll see 50 or 85mm primes with IS soon).

Don't count on anything happening there, the 6d is unsupported in mainline ML and 6d-TL is only worked on by one person who managed to isolate himself from the rest of the devs. If you want a stable & supported ML anytime soon, definitely don't get a 6d.

Thanks for shedding some light on that, good to know.

Any reason you wouldn't just dump the cr2 once you had the converted DNG?
Because alex keeps improving cr2hdr all the time, next up is floating point dng because it allows more resolution from dual_iso output ... but to profit from that, you have to have the original cr2s available.

Awesome, that's really interesting.  So can these cr2hd files that it puts out still be read by LR/ACR?  Feel fee to point me to documentation or a FAQ or something.

I've been keeping a lazy eye on how things are coming along for the 6D (e.g. tragic lantern), wondering when it'll be stable enough for me to take the plunge...

It is, but dual_iso also has more noise (since it's interlaced with higher iso) and still unsolved wb issues in the acr workflow, plus it needs double the storage - once for the original cr2 to profit from cr2hdr advancements, and once again for the converted dng.

Any reason you wouldn't just dump the cr2 once you had the converted DNG?

PowerShot / Re: What to Expect From Canon For CP+ Next Week
« on: February 07, 2014, 02:20:31 PM »
If the G1X replacement specs are true, I'll crack open a bottle of Champagne.

That would mean that they finally get that this class of camera must have a lens no slower than f/4 at the long end in order to be competitive.  Fuji & Sony get this, and have highly desirable class-leading products in this segment.  Hopefully we're looking at something around f/2.8 in the "standard" focal range, which would be just fine for indoor stuff with an image stabilizer & a good sensor.

Come to think of it, it's Friday; maybe I'll crack open a bottle of Champagne anyway :-).

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Sony A7R With Canon Glass
« on: January 29, 2014, 06:41:07 AM »
This is pretty awesome; I hope some Canon marketing folks see Fred's article.

These photos look like they came out of a Phase One or something.

Good to see that the latest Canon glass can really handle the demands of the hi rez sensor (& the Samyang and FD glass did pretty well too!)

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Review: Sony A7R With Canon Glass
« on: January 29, 2014, 06:38:07 AM »
Oh how I wish Sony could arrange to release this in a fully functional EF mount. I don't want no stinking adapter...

The Metabones used by Fred is about as close as you're gonna get, which is pretty close...

Why doesn't Canon implement this natively in their firmware? There must be some technical reason Canon decided NOT to do this?

I would go with a few different reasons:

  • The same reason that the vast majority of x86 CPUs (and modern tubocharged automobiles :-) can be overclocked at least a little bit (& some like crazy):  The factory firmware engineers have to be 100% certain that the firmware works 100% of the time with 100% of the sensors & circuit boards that come off the production line, so they have to be conservative & not tweak every last little bit of performance out of the system.
  • I would hazard a guess that collectively, the ML team has spent far more time working on 5DII firmware than Canon has, & they've spent a lot of that time trying to add absolutely as many features & tweak as much performance as they can out of it, whereas the factory firmware engineers have other priorities such as stability, cross-platform compatibility, etc.  It's similar to the difference between a nice production sports car and a track car.
  • I'm not so sure that Canon's firmware engineers are videographers using their firmware to shoot movies as part of their living, but the ML folks clearly live & breathe this stuff...

Personally, I hate it when the specs of a camera are improved. I think we should go back to 320x200 resolution in 256 colours...

Personally, I felt that the real breakthrough was when we got 15 bit color (usually in 640x480 but video cards of the day could also do 800x600, as could my craptastic slamsung 14" CRT; in fact it could do 1024x768 but only at 60hz interlaced and the video card was only 8 bit at that rez so there wasn't really much point; it was painfully crappy to look at).  That was the first time an image on a computer monitor looked "real" (although I must say that for images that could have their own private 8-bit palette map they looked mighty fine for the day).  A cheap-ass 15-bit RAMDAC and a WHOLE MEGABYTE of video RAM was your ticket to "true color".

Amazing that I still remember this crap.  Dear God M$ still has a KB on this. Now get off my lawn <grin>.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 28