July 30, 2014, 11:37:46 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 - agierke

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 23
Black & White / Re: The TRI-X 'look'...
« on: March 07, 2014, 10:41:44 PM »

Additionally, I have discovered that using my 100mm macro to photograph my negatives gives really phenomenal results over straight scanning. You actually retain the grain structure in the negative rather than the weird pixel/grain hybrid look you get from scanning

That's very interesting, I'd love to know more about your setup for that please.
I considered getting an old FD slide duplicator (I already have an FD/eos adapter) but a quick Google put me off the idea at the time.


It was actually a forehead slapping moment for me.

It started with me acquiring a 1904 stereo viewer and the idea that I would like to produce my own stereocards. Picked up the kodak stereo camera soon after and shot the test roll. Then came the frustrations of trying to get decent scans out of my epson 3200 with the odd format of the stereo negatives. Back when I got the thing I felt that I got some decent results scanning 120 frames but with the slight curl of 35mm format coupled with the paired images being separated by three frames it was a complete nightmare getting anything remotely acceptable.

After a couple hours scouring the internet for different solutions, I ran across some guys blog expressing the same frustrations about direct scanning that I had and that his solution was to photograph his negatives with his macro lens. This was the forehead slap moment. Brilliance is often so simple...

Anyway, I use a simple light box (same one I used in art school for tracing stuff and viewing print files of negatives). I place the negative emulsion up and place a cleaned piece of glass over it. The guy from the blog suggested taking 4 sections of the negative and merging them in PS to maximize detail and resolution but as I was already shooting a smaller format and just doing a quick handheld shot I just did a single frame at the largest RAW setting.

Works brilliantly! I did have to do a perspective crop in PS as it was hand held my edges weren't perfectly straight and you do have to invert the image to get a positive but the results were CLEAN. Totally beats even the results I used to get scanning 4x5s on a Flex scanner.

Additionally, I used to have to do dupes when I worked at the lab and I always was surprised how much was lost in that process. I would say this process beats those results by a long shot as well.

If you have the 100mm L you should give it a try. I doubt you'd be disappointed. I'm sure the non L would yield superior results as well.

Technical Support / Re: Lightboxes, umbrellas, stands, etc.........
« on: March 07, 2014, 08:12:04 PM »
I endorse the manfrotto boom stands as well but be advised they come in a couple different versions. I have the steel base version which I love ( very very sturdy ) but it is quite heavy and not easy to lug around if your intentions are to go outside with it.

As far as umbrellas go, photek makes a great product in their Softlighter series. It's a convertible umbrella with optical white material and comes with a front diffusion panel ( to create a round softbox effect) and silver/gold inserts for a wide variety of uses. Great versatility and value!

Black & White / Re: The TRI-X 'look'...
« on: March 07, 2014, 05:43:18 PM »
Ah you guys are bringing me back!

Tri-X 320 with D76 1:1 was my go to combo back in film days. I have actually gotten bit by the nostalgia bug recently and am dusting off a few film cameras. I ran a roll of film through a kodak stereo camera a couple of weeks ago (another recent fancy of mine) and processed for the first time in close to 8 years. It felt really good to get back to my roots!

Additionally, I have discovered that using my 100mm macro to photograph my negatives gives really phenomenal results over straight scanning. You actually retain the grain structure in the negative rather than the weird pixel/grain hybrid look you get from scanning.

Thx for this thread....I feel the stars aligning for me!

Lighting / Re: Whitebalance with grey card seems red?
« on: March 07, 2014, 01:07:57 AM »

 It seems to me that the bike in your picture is fairly neutral. The black tires, silver wheels, and the bike frame don't seem to be carrying much of a cast at all...which is what I would expect being that they are lit by your strobes.

 A potential problem enters the equation in that you have a good amount of light fall off on your background. There are a number of things that can cause a color shift in areas of a photo that aren't being fully illuminated by your strobes. These causes can include:

1. An ambient light source bleeding into the exposure, particularly the shadows
2. A portion of your strobe light bouncing off a colored object (walls, ceiling, furniture) picking up a color cast and projecting that cast on the background. In this scenario, any direct strobe exposure wouldn't exhibit the color cast.
3. Your strobes themselves operate at a certain color temperature that could be off from a neutral temperature...thus shifting the color of the areas not being fully lit by them when you balance for that light.
4. Modifiers can also shift color balance of the strobe leading to problems described in # 3
5. It appears your using a grey seemless, these can exhibit different color characteristics when lit or not lit and it varies among different brands.

You should certainly follow the advice of others concerning white balancing techniques but it is important to understand that there are other factors that contribute to the characteristics of color in a photo even in a studio environment. Knowing how the color temperature of light works is important in controlling your white balance. Light sources, modifiers, environment, and lighting technique can all contribute to color shifting in a photo...even when a white balance technique is used.

I would advise looking into these different aspects as well as refining your white balance technique.

Why not just get a gopro. They are so small the chances of it getting hit are extremely low.

Canon General / The future of data storage
« on: March 02, 2014, 09:48:29 AM »
Just ran across this article online..


Really fascinating. The potential for limitless data storage and it's various applications is pretty exciting. Hopefully we see this available to the mass market in the next decade or two.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D M3 - Mirror slap during live view?
« on: March 02, 2014, 01:26:05 AM »
I use 2 seconds time with mirror lock up. No problem of blur so far though I haven't experienced live view photo yet.

This. Sounds like you don't have mirror lock up enabled. I shot a ton of architectural stuff for a few years and results would suffer if I didn't do mirror lock up and wait a second to two to trigger the shutter after the mirror had settled into position. The tripod in this situation can actually magnify the vibrations of the mirror slap causing slight motion blur in otherwise sharply focused images. The effect lessens with faster shutter speeds or really long shutter speeds. When the shutter is between 1/60th and say a sec or so it's particularly troublesome.

Irregardless of live view, make sure mirror lock up is enabled and that you allow time for the mirror to settle before triggering the exposure.

Street & City / Re: Neon Bright Stockholm
« on: March 01, 2014, 02:50:47 PM »
I'm not a fan at all of the coloring of the first set. The colors are discomforting, not pleasant, and confusing as to how I'm supposed to feel about these scenes. The second set is much better, with exception of the ones that are completely overcast and grey. Maybe turning those into b&w would work.

These really illustrate how important quality of light is to photography. If the light is dead, the photos will be as well. Sometimes it's just not worth taking the shot if the light is that bad. I realize that sometimes circumstances don't allow for another opportunity to shoot a given subject but I always make every effort to find the right light first (waiting for it if I have to or returning at another time even).

I know from experience that there is virtually nothing that can be done in post to recover a photo from really bad light (without completely overdoing it of course). The most likely solution is to go to b&w and try to pump contrast up. For color, good light is critical.

Lenses / Re: General purpose zoom for honeymoon
« on: February 25, 2014, 08:38:53 PM »
This thread makes me smile.

First off... Congratulations! This is a very exiting time in your life. Enjoy every moment of it.

Let me echo others in saying don't make this about photography. I know it's tempting but you only get to honeymoon once and you and your wife should enjoy each other as much as possible!

I got married 2.5 years ago and I purposefully left my gear at home (much to my wife's relief and delight). Instead, I mixed it up and brought a Polaroid Land camera with a bunch of pack film. Due to the nature of the camera I only took pictures when the moment seemed appropriate to do so. My wife was so intrigued with the process she asked me to teach her how to use it and she had a blast picking moments to shoot as well. We ended up with a really cool set of unique polaroid prints that feel more special than anything I would have gotten if I had brought my regular gear.

I realize this might not be a realistic suggestion for you but I wanted to share the sentiment more than suggest specific lenses.

That being said if I had to pick something, I would stay true to your roots with primes but ONLY take the 35mm. It would allow you to get great shots but force you to pick your moments so that you won't be overly distracted by shooting. And if she doesn't already know...teach your wife to shoot so she can share in the moments when you are photographing!

Have a great time!!!

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Help: Amateur upgrade from a t2i to....
« on: February 23, 2014, 10:46:08 PM »
If you are planning on doing this professionally I would suggest the biggest issue is making sure you have a back up camera. You can't have your only camera go down on a job...

Never put all your eggs in one basket...it's a bad idea. Go with 2 smaller cards.

Not sure if you are shooting for fun or for jobs. I shoot jobs and maintain 12 8gb CF cards and 4 16Gb CF cards currently. They get rotated out as I shoot a job, download it, and post images. The shot cards don't get rotated back into service until the job is done and backed up on external drives. Redundancy = Security.

I also purposefully use smaller cards so that I have to change cards more often. I hate to have too many images on a single card....makes me nervous. I prefer to break up a long day/shoot over several cards just in the case of disaster.

There actually can be degradation of a digital file... And far faster than analog. The best way to ensure archival of a photo remains a print and a negative. I heard a few years back that Hollywood briefly attempted to archive via digital format only until they lost a whole film. The response was to reverse course and make an analog master print of every movie made (including ones shot digitally) to ensure future revenue years down the line.

The archival standard in photography is at least 100 years of durability. Digital has yet to be proven by this standard. Burning to DVDs, maintaining RAID drives, or even storing on SSD are all rife with potential failure and loss of data. Each successive copy made over the years increases the likelihood of a corruption of data and loss of access to your images.

I have yet to gain faith in the likelihood of my digital images being around in 100 years but I remain confident that my negatives will.

Portrait / Re: Bikini on the beach
« on: February 19, 2014, 10:59:45 PM »
Man this thread has a lot of creepy elements to it.....

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon's Medium Format
« on: February 10, 2014, 10:22:07 PM »
A resounding no. I would actually be pissed if they wasted R&D resources in this manner.

I used to be a medium and large format shooter in the film days and I loved it. I had zero interest in the 35mm format as it could not come close to delivering the quality that even the smallest size medium format could deliver. Running around with a hassi or a 4x5 was worth the extra effort due to the phenomenal quality provided.

In the digital world that is no longer the case. Though there still may be a gap in quality between the formats it has been significantly reduced. If you remember, once digital came out of it's growing pains, it actually put a huge dent in the medium format market. Why go into a market you helped to mostly annihilate after you annihilated it?

The only aspect I miss from the medium and large format days is the leaf shutter and syncing at any shutter speed. That's it.

Photography Technique / Re: Photography fail moments !!!
« on: February 06, 2014, 07:48:01 PM »
The thing that gets me every once in a while that drives me crazy is when my camera hangs to my side off my black rapid strap it sometimes hits the AF switch to manual and I don't notice it. I usually notice after a minute or two but it really burns when I realize I've been firing off frames thinking the AF is working and wondering why I'm not getting in focused shots....

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 23