Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
superior choices only
yoshotography
yosotography
yostography
yosography
yosgraphy
yosraphy
View Results
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Megabound
Oct 20, 2012

Got a new camera to play with:













Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

this is really good

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

Megabound posted:

Got a new camera to play with:















oh god i always wanted to try one of those lol

that looks really pretty grainy though. what kind of film are you using? is it custom?

Megabound
Oct 20, 2012

Beeftweeter posted:

oh god i always wanted to try one of those lol

that looks really pretty grainy though. what kind of film are you using? is it custom?

Regular Double-X in 16mm that I pulled one stop and developed in POTA, to minimize grain. Flatbed scanning is surely the wrong way to go about this. A Plustek or even camera scanning would be better but all I got is my V850. I'll be darkroom printing one of the frames on Sunday and I think that'll be a lot nicer, but we shall see.

Base Emitter
Apr 1, 2012

?

do you mean like 16mm movie film? i thought it looked like 110 format from the cartridge

Megabound
Oct 20, 2012

Yeah, that's right. It's called the Minolta-16 for a reason. They sold empty carts designed for reloading yourself, the manual even tells you what length of film to use for 20 exposures (50 cm).
It's funny cause it's also cheaper than shooting 110, which is like $20 a cart here in Aus

qirex
Feb 15, 2001

every time I get curious about it I look at film prices and lol, I love computer camera world

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face
yeah lol. god i remember when a 110 cartridge was about a buck

Megabound
Oct 20, 2012

You can get it done for cheap but you have to have a pretty big initial investment into the whole process. I shoot black and white for $4 a roll and process it for 6c. In medium format I spend $8 a roll and the same cost for processing. This is on the back of having bulk loaders, all my own dev and scanning gear and the knowledge to know how to do it.

However, there are lots of cool camera clubs around and lots of people who are willing to share their particular bad brain with you. I spent last weekend with some fellow photographers just lending out cameras so people could try shooting their first roll of medium format. Was a great time and I'm sure I only ruined some marriages.

Beeftweeter posted:

yeah lol. god i remember when a 110 cartridge was about a buck


Yeah, 110 is a niche now, only 1 company makes the film still.

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

kinda trying something different with a shoot lately. trying to get further back and also I kinda feel like Iíve nailed the look of the kind of portrait I was going for when I started shooting people, and donít really wanna just keep doing more of the same.

Iíll be the first to admit I am not the best when it comes to colour management. itís like iím too close the trees to see the forest when I am editing. cos I was happy this but now it feels off, too yellow maybe? it was sunset so was already naturally orangey already. anyway, already posted it now lol

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004




echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

sick looking camera

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

took some photo




something my camera does that bugs me is jump out of auto iso :qq: I am still trying to find out what exactly it is I do that bumps it out. I lost a handful of photos today because it stuck on iso 200 and was having to shoot at 1/30 and I was too busy shooting to notice :qq:

Megabound
Oct 20, 2012

echinopsis posted:

sick looking camera



Not as cool as an F

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

agree that is fully sick

Megabound
Oct 20, 2012

Not my photo, instead a photo of me using my favourite camera

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

nice work

Megabound
Oct 20, 2012





echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

I like this shot. and also my editing :smugmrgw:

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

I need to do some double exposures

which of course means taking two separate photos and using photoshop to create their offspring

HAIL eSATA-n
Apr 7, 2007



a picture.

masked/edited the top quite a bit to bring the exposure down and canít decide if it looks weird or not. just pretend you were there and your brain was editing in real time

scottch
Oct 18, 2003
"It appears my wee-wee's been stricken with rigor mortis."
looks great, not overcooked at all. nice fuckin shot

Bloody
Mar 3, 2013

loooks great where is it

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face
fantastic. leave it

the only thing i might change incidentally would be to bump down the contrast just a tad. i had my ipad on about half brightness and the black level on the trees closest to the foreground got kinda crushed

with it turned up all the way i can see that it's actually quite well balanced, but not everyone is going to be viewing in ideal conditions

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004


good

HAIL eSATA-n
Apr 7, 2007

thanks pals

i'll leave it alone and let the flavors meld and see if i want to make edits later

am trying to highlight the colors and light on the midground ridge while balancing the super bright sky and dark trees

just need a a little more dynamic range bro, just a few more steps

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face
yeah ime stepping away from it for a bit always helps

have you tried messing with the curves manually? i've found doing RGB individually to be very helpful when trying to squeeze the absolute most out of a picture, particularly when you have dark spots that are mostly one color (like your trees)

HAIL eSATA-n
Apr 7, 2007

Beeftweeter posted:

yeah ime stepping away from it for a bit always helps

have you tried messing with the curves manually? i've found doing RGB individually to be very helpful when trying to squeeze the absolute most out of a picture, particularly when you have dark spots that are mostly one color (like your trees)

i'll give it a go

don't like to spend more than a few minutes editing stuff but i might print this

Bloody
Mar 3, 2013

camera chat: Iím thinking about upgrading my backpacking camera setup primarily to cut weight. I currently carry a d7500 with an 18-300mm lens, which is mediocre at everything but more importantly capable of everything; I photograph birds a lot, so more zoom is better, but I also like being able to shoot some landscapes and portraits. the drastic downside to the setup is that it weighs several pounds.

anyone got any comparable capability but (much) lighter recs? thinking some kind of mirrorless setup. budget is unlikely to be a limiting factor

Achmed Jones
Oct 16, 2004



i have a panasonic g90 that i like, but no equivalent lens. normally i'll just take the kit lens or a couple small ones (12-32 pancake and my macro) and then be bummed when i miss cool birds. i have no idea how it compares to yours wrt weight though. you'd probably do better with an even lighter camera; MFT has been very good to me thus far. occasionally i've been like "dang" for portrait-style bokeh stuff but by and large i've been very happy with the system

HAIL eSATA-n
Apr 7, 2007

knowing only the fuji system - the fuji xt cameras with a 70-300 and 27mm pancake lens might suit your needs

also what i might try myself :mrgw:

e: or a shorter zoom lens and a teleconverter

be mindful that a tradeoff for lightness is a narrower, slower lens

HAIL eSATA-n fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Oct 2, 2023

polyester concept
Mar 29, 2017

HAIL eSATA-n posted:

knowing only the fuji system - the fuji xt cameras with a 70-300 and 27mm pancake lens might suit your needs

I have these and it indeed is very needs suiting

the ibis plus ois makes shooting video handheld at 300mm extremely awesome. i recorded a shoving match between two guys in the parking lot from my balcony this weekend and I felt like a secret spy lol. it didnít amount to anything though

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

Mega Comrade
Apr 22, 2004

Listen buddy, we all got problems!

Bloody posted:

camera chat: I’m thinking about upgrading my backpacking camera setup primarily to cut weight. I currently carry a d7500 with an 18-300mm lens, which is mediocre at everything but more importantly capable of everything; I photograph birds a lot, so more zoom is better, but I also like being able to shoot some landscapes and portraits. the drastic downside to the setup is that it weighs several pounds.

anyone got any comparable capability but (much) lighter recs? thinking some kind of mirrorless setup. budget is unlikely to be a limiting factor

Fuji xt4 607g (d7500 - 720g)
Tamron 18-300 620g (current 18-300 800g)

But your point of 'mediocre at everything' is kind of what all 18-300s are. They are convenience at the cost of optical quality. You could get the Nikon 70-300 dx p and it's half the weight and sharper than your 18-300.

So while you can save a good 300g by going mirrorless, you would save more by picking up some better lenses and going out with what you want to shoot in mind instead of a bulky jack of all trades super zoom.

echinopsis
Apr 13, 2004

I prefer jack of one trade

Megabound
Oct 20, 2012

Got a beautiful Gilkon 4x5 enlarger a while ago and gave it a good clean and service. It's gorgeous. Not as nice to use as my Omega to the right of it but certainly much prettier.



Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face

Bloody posted:

camera chat: Iím thinking about upgrading my backpacking camera setup primarily to cut weight. I currently carry a d7500 with an 18-300mm lens, which is mediocre at everything but more importantly capable of everything; I photograph birds a lot, so more zoom is better, but I also like being able to shoot some landscapes and portraits. the drastic downside to the setup is that it weighs several pounds.

anyone got any comparable capability but (much) lighter recs? thinking some kind of mirrorless setup. budget is unlikely to be a limiting factor

if you want small and light micro four thirds isn't a bad choice, but it's pretty old at this point. the corollary is that there's a lot of excellent lenses and bodies available for not much money. if you look at my post history itt, i love MFT

otherwise the fujis seem nice. lots of people itt really like theirs but i don't have any direct experience with them

qirex
Feb 15, 2001

bird folks like 4/3 a lot because the long zoom lenses are smaller and cheaper. fuji sensors tend to do better at higher iso. I'm 100% on team dedicated dials but if you're not used to shooting that way the xs-10/20 are really good value

Beeftweeter
Jun 28, 2005

a medium-format picture of beeftweeter staring silently at the camera, a quizzical expression on his face
yeah, fuji's sensors are undoubtedly better and they are bigger. but in decent lighting MFT's iso sensitivity isn't a problem and hasn't really ever been; granted in low light it can be, but any even fairly recent MFT bodies are really pretty good (much much better than they used to be anyway). imo MFT kinda gets a bad rap because of its earliest models, but those are like 20 years old at this point. i would hope this goes without saying, but they've improved in pretty much every possible way since then

that said the main selling point for me is that there's an absolute shitton of cheap, excellent manual lenses available for MFT, and incidentally those are mainly what i use. a lot of those are also available for fuji but there are fewer, and they seem to be more expensive despite simply having a different mount

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Achmed Jones
Oct 16, 2004



same except i dont really use manual lenses. but was able to get a 100-300 and a 30mm macro and an absolutely great 12mm prime and some other ones more for fun (like the 12-32mm pancake) and now i dont really want to buy any more lenses. like, it'd be great to get faster lenses generally, and i'd like to have a 60mm macro so i don't have to be quite so close, but those are all small non-necessary upgrades. i can do everything i want to do with my existing MFT kit; on other mounts for the same price i'd be less than halfway there. and if i want to buy a $300 pocket camera that takes the same lenses and go ultralight for hikes, I totally can. i just haven't, because my hikes aren't grueling enough that an extra 10oz or whatever is much of a problem.

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply