Jump to content
302w

Photo developing in North Jersey

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, 302w said:

I'm having focus issues. My close up pictures are blurry 

50+ feet, no problem. Shots are nice and crisp.

3-15 feet and my photos are coming out very out of focus. I am lining up the edges in my rangefinder but everything is blurry on my developed photos. I had someone at the camera store/lab take a few shots and their photos were even more blurry. This is all across various lighting and aperture settings.

I was using Fuji 200 speed film shot at 100. Any suggestions? User error? Mechanical issue?

I compared my rangefinder distances with a tape measure. It appears correct. This is on my Argus C4

If it's a C4 I think you should have shutter speeds of 1/25 and 1/50 too.  I have a C4 among boxes and boxes of old cameras I have.  I've actually used a C4 and it's predecessor, the C3.

First, your focusing problem.  While your rangefinder may be working properly the coupling to the lens may not be.  IIRC your rangefinder is externally coupled to the lens. When the focusing dial is at infinity or the closest focusing distance is the gearing on the lens and dial agree?  It might be able to repair it if it isn't working correctly if you do it yourself.  A C4 in mint condition is worth maybe $50 at most.  That's mint.

Second, the lens on these cameras were not the greatest even if everything was working correctly.  They produced images barely acceptable in most cases.  They all show soft images in a 5x7.  At wider apertures they were horrible.

Good advice from @dajonga.  If you know how to check the equipment out you can find a lot of bargains at garage sales, flea markets, and even Craig's List.  I bought a mint Minolta SRT101 w/ a 50mm lens at a yard sale for $25.  Found a Minolta XG7 with 28mm and 50mm Rokkor lens, a decent Vivitar zoom, manual electronic flash, and camera bag for $40 on Craig's List.

If you find a Nikon FM or better yet a F the 50mm F2 is one of the sharpest lens ever made and one of the cheapest on the used market 

There is a certain mystique in using a rangefinder 35 mm and playing Alfred Eisenstadt or Henri Cartier Bresson.  But a SLR is easier to use and much more versatile 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm having focus issues. My close up pictures are blurry 
50+ feet, no problem. Shots are nice and crisp.

3-15 feet and my photos are coming out very out of focus. I am lining up the edges in my rangefinder but everything is blurry on my developed photos. I had someone at the camera store/lab take a few shots and their photos were even more blurry. This is all across various lighting and aperture settings.

I was using Fuji 200 speed film shot at 100. Any suggestions? User error? Mechanical issue?

I compared my rangefinder distances with a tape measure. It appears correct. This is on my Argus C4



I know lenses are important with Digital SLR cameras. Could it be a lense problem? I know nothing about film and just enough to be dangerous with Digital. I use the camera to take pictures of jobs with a true wide angle lense (not fisheye), pics of the family with regular lense, kids sports with zoom lense, and I need a macro lense for extreme close-ups of markings on firearms and edge weapons. If I am too close with my current lenses the picture is blurry and I have to move back. That's about all I can contribute.


Anyone have a suggestion for a Canon Lense for taking closeup shots for selling items on eBay, GunBroker, etc. Important for lense to get closeup of markings, blade edge, bore, etc.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 302w said:

I'm having focus issues. My close up pictures are blurry 

50+ feet, no problem. Shots are nice and crisp.

3-15 feet and my photos are coming out very out of focus. I am lining up the edges in my rangefinder but everything is blurry on my developed photos. I had someone at the camera store/lab take a few shots and their photos were even more blurry. This is all across various lighting and aperture settings.

I was using Fuji 200 speed film shot at 100. Any suggestions? User error? Mechanical issue?

I compared my rangefinder distances with a tape measure. It appears correct. This is on my Argus C4

Your rangefinder sounds like it's out of calibration.  Shots at 50+ feet are covered by "depth-of-field" depending upon lighting conditions & aperture selected.  Other causes could be camera shake? 

IMPORTANT QUESTION:  When taking a photo at 3-15 feet is there ANY point of sharp focus either in front of OR behind the main subject? If there isn't then the culprit could be lens element separation OR the camera could have sustained a drop, impact or other violent enough encounter to possibly cause the lens helicoid itself to shift off-axis as it's focused closer to its' minimum focusing distance.  In this condition the light waves can't focus on the entire film plane because the lens "shifts" and it's all out of focus.  If this is the case, your C-4 is a paperweight no matter how pretty it looks to the untrained, naked eye. 

I've been using rangefinder focusing systems since I was 8 years old.  I had a Voitlander Vitessa w/ retractable 50mm F2 lens almost 50 years ago.  At 12 I could check the calibration of a 4 x 5 Speed Graphic with its' Kalart Rangefinder.  Today my Leica M6TTL's film cameras still do a fine job.  Their rangefinders are the most accurate in the world, all the way down to F.95 Noctilux lenses.  Is a used Leica in your future?  Depends on what you need in a camera & your disposal income.

Here's a great video featuring a Leica M9 digital full frame.  Since this model, Leica has introduced two others.  Although the video features a digital M, all of the "guts of a film camera", the reason you fell in love with a rangefinder, are HERE!  Enjoy!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, capt14k said:

Anyone have a suggestion for a Canon Lense for taking closeup shots for selling items on eBay, GunBroker, etc. Important for lense to get closeup of markings, blade edge, bore, etc.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Budget?

A true, dedicated macro can be a couple hundred to the thousands. Thankfully, you don't have to worry about your subject getting scared off, so no need for a 100+mm macro. I don't believe they are made anymore, but the Canon 50mm f/2.5 (?) Compact macro was a 1:2 'macro' that was very good for the price (I think about $250 new back when I had one). It was a slower focus motor, but macro is often manual focus anyway. I'd bet you could find a used one for $100-175. If you have a crop sensor body, i think there is an EF-S 60mm macro now, but I have no experience and know nothing about it as I do not ever buy crop lenses.

Certain lenses have pseudo macro capabilities, allowing for close  focus and shots which give enough detail for most needs. However, just because it says Macro on a lens, does not mean it is a true macro- it means it can focus closer. Certain 75-300s have the capability as well, though I was never impressed with them. My 24-70 2.8L can do reasonable closeups in a pinch.

Final "quick" thought is 3rd party lenses. I have a Sigma 150mm macro, which is a nice lens, and cost hundreds less than the Canon 180mm macro. You may find an inexpensive quality offering from Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@capt14k look for a Sigma, Tokins, or Tamron macro lens as @Malice4you said. They are much less expensive than Canon and produce excellent images.  I've been using s manual focus Sigma for years.  Many professionals use these aftermarket lenses. They are as good and sometimes even better than those from camera mamufacturers.  A fixed focal length not more than 100 mm would fit your needs and be less expensive.  Add an inexpensive ring flash (about $100) and you will do fine with the close ups you want to do.

@Smokin .50 you're talking Voightlander, Kalart, and Leica.  Much higher quality than the Argus.

@302w are you interested in macro photography?  If you are a SLR is the way to go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, capt14k said:

I have a Canon T6i. I would like a macro lense for under $300 but I would spend up to $600. I am never going to use it to take pics of flowers or bugs.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Look into that canon ef-s 60mm, likely your best bet. Not sure if the other big 3 make anything sub-100mm in a true macro.

More important than the lens, learn how to light the subject well. If poorly lit, no lens will capture a good image. Those ringlights will likely help, but don't be afraid to use off-camera lighting, especially for stuff like lettering. Having some shadows in the lettering might make them stand out more.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look into that canon ef-s 60mm, likely your best bet. Not sure if the other big 3 make anything sub-100mm in a true macro.
More important than the lens, learn how to light the subject well. If poorly lit, no lens will capture a good image. Those ringlights will likely help, but don't be afraid to use off-camera lighting, especially for stuff like lettering. Having some shadows in the lettering might make them stand out more.
 
I use a light box with edge weapons and handguns and natural light with rifles.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Smokin .50 said:

Your rangefinder sounds like it's out of calibration.  Shots at 50+ feet are covered by "depth-of-field" depending upon lighting conditions & aperture selected.  Other causes could be camera shake? 

IMPORTANT QUESTION:  When taking a photo at 3-15 feet is there ANY point of sharp focus either in front of OR behind the main subject? If there isn't then the culprit could be lens element separation OR the camera could have sustained a drop, impact or other violent enough encounter to possibly cause the lens helicoid itself to shift off-axis as it's focused closer to its' minimum focusing distance.  In this condition the light waves can't focus on the entire film plane because the lens "shifts" and it's all out of focus.  If this is the case, your C-4 is a paperweight no matter how pretty it looks to the untrained, naked eye. 

I've been using rangefinder focusing systems since I was 8 years old.  I had a Voitlander Vitessa w/ retractable 50mm F2 lens almost 50 years ago.  At 12 I could check the calibration of a 4 x 5 Speed Graphic with its' Kalart Rangefinder.  Today my Leica M6TTL's film cameras still do a fine job.  Their rangefinders are the most accurate in the world, all the way down to F.95 Noctilux lenses.  Is a used Leica in your future?  Depends on what you need in a camera & your disposal income.

Here's a great video featuring a Leica M9 digital full frame.  Since this model, Leica has introduced two others.  Although the video features a digital M, all of the "guts of a film camera", the reason you fell in love with a rangefinder, are HERE!  Enjoy!

 

When focusing my view is quite sharp.. but my photos not so much. I don't see any adjustability in my rangefinder. Is it possible to adjust one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, 302w said:

When focusing my view is quite sharp.. but my photos not so much. I don't see any adjustability in my rangefinder. Is it possible to adjust one?

Might be possible, but may require benching the camera on technical equipment not yet in discussion.  I'm studying your camera now, and have been for a while today, off & on.  Found the complete manual online, including all nomenclature & how to use the camera's controls.  I'm still working on the rangefinder calibration issue.  Checking to see if friends have worked on same.  I also answered your PM.

@GRIZ yes my equipment & experience is far above an Argus C-4, but the principles of focus, calibration, flatness of field, depth-of-field and other issues all share a common denominator:  rangefinder focusing.  Sometimes a CLA (Clean, Lubricate & Adjust) is all that's needed for a sticky rangefinder, since the lube inside of it often collects ambient dust & "gums-up".  An Argus has more than a 1/2 century to collect such stickiness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Smokin .50 said:

 

@GRIZ yes my equipment & experience is far above an Argus C-4, but the principles of focus, calibration, flatness of field, depth-of-field and other issues all share a common denominator:  rangefinder focusing.  Sometimes a CLA (Clean, Lubricate & Adjust) is all that's needed for a sticky rangefinder, since the lube inside of it often collects ambient dust & "gums-up".  An Argus has more than a 1/2 century to collect such stickiness.

Yes the principles of optics are all the same.  The problem is the quality of all optics is not. Neither is the durability. Drop or bang around a Leica and it can take it.  That's what made it so popular with photojournalists and combat photographers. Argus C series falls into the barely acceptable range.  They had good marketing though. One of the names they used for their lenses was "Geiss".  Sounds a lot like "Zeiss".  Kind of like buying a "Rollex" which has the lead (metal) ring inside to give it weight.

A CLA on a C4 would cost more than the camera is worth. One can do it yourself if you know what you're doing.  I have a little experience in camera repair.  Adjusting focus on a fixed lens rangefinder is not that hard.; Argus or better yet inexpensive Canon and Yashica rangefinders like the Canonette or Lynx.   A lot easier if you have access to a collimator.

Like anything else.  It's easy if you know how.  A Kalart on a Speed Graphic is about the easiest.

BTW, I wouldn't work on a Leica although I have with a Russian FED which is pretty much a copy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, GRIZ said:

Yes the principles of optics are all the same.  The problem is the quality of all optics is not. Neither is the durability. Drop or bang around a Leica and it can take it.  That's what made it so popular with photojournalists and combat photographers. Argus C series falls into the barely acceptable range.  They had good marketing though. One of the names they used for their lenses was "Geiss".  Sounds a lot like "Zeiss".  Kind of like buying a "Rollex" which has the lead (metal) ring inside to give it weight.

A CLA on a C4 would cost more than the camera is worth. One can do it yourself if you know what you're doing.  I have a little experience in camera repair.  Adjusting focus on a fixed lens rangefinder is not that hard.; Argus or better yet inexpensive Canon and Yashica rangefinders like the Canonette or Lynx.   A lot easier if you have access to a collimator.

Like anything else.  It's easy if you know how.  A Kalart on a Speed Graphic is about the easiest.

BTW, I wouldn't work on a Leica although I have with a Russian FED which is pretty much a copy.

100% agree^^^ w/ the entire post.  Lens elements' cement has been known to age in cheaper cameras and result in piss poor images, especially at closer distances.  Leica once used an "OOOPS" from an accidental airplane "drop" of an M rangefinder w/ lens into a muddy field from several hundred feet up in a print ad.  Camera & lens were fine, but the lens shade had to be replaced!  Tough?  Yeah, ya could say THAT, lol!  A "CLA" is worth more than the camera itself in question.  Don A. Goldberg does mail-order CLA's & has a price list online I believe.

Memories of Press Camera Calibration for interested parties on the thread:

Dad taught me to do this when I was 12.  That was 46 years ago now.  Nothing has changed!  Checking the Kalart rangefinder on a Graphic is indeed as easy as mounting the camera on a tripod, pulling the lens mount out to its' infinity "stop", setting the lens' shutter to BULB & the iris to F4.7 (for the standard 135mm optic), making sure there isn't a film holder in the camera, then opening the ground glass hood to see the image on the ground glass (upside down & reversed L-R).  Point the camera at a subject a few hundred feet away (such as the corner of a building for instance), and after checking the infinity focus on the camera's ground glass, peek into the rangefinder to check focusing.  If the rangefinder has a "soft slightly double image", it needs an adjustment back to INFINITY.  Once adjusted, place an object near the feet of the tripod & focus on it, using the pan & tilt head on said tripod to move the camera to compose an image.  Confirm focus on the actual film plane itself by checking the ground glass. Viola!  You now have a rangefinder you can TRUST wide-open! 

Here's a peek at Elliott Erwitt's Leica M3 & 50mm F1.4.  Notice the brassing?  GRIZ is right, they go thru WARS & come back!

Image result for elliott erwitt camera

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, capt14k said:

Digital is a whole lot easier

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

Only when it comes to printing.  Printing from film, in a wet darkroom, is not only a science but an art.  More so in black and white where you can do things like expand and contract the tonal range in the negative by altering developing times.  No digital black and white print comes near the richness and depth and permanance of a silver print.  Black and white requires the photographer to interpret the colors of the subject into black and white and shades of grey.  I haven't done any weddings lately but for a while black and white wedding photography  waa very fashionable.  Doing weddings I was more a Henri Cartier Bresson and "captured moments" vs a Monte Zucker who set everything up.  Both take skill.

An auto focus SLR on the program mode is just as easy to use as a digital.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Film Photogs care what's around & behind the subject.  We "see" in all 3 dimentions.  Digital Photogs take hours to correct their mistakes.

Wedding PJ with a motorized M6TTL is amazing & has to be experienced in order to be fully comprehended.  Being able to walk around with a 35 F1.4 or a 28mm F2.0 stopped-down to F8 & actually use the depth-of-field scale printed on the lens barrel results in a photographic education like no other.  Imagine pix of cocktail candids where you pre-focus using yer head to guess the distance and merely click the shutter once the viewfinder is up to your eye!  No auto-focus locking on the wrong focus point, ever!  What freedom to capture fleeting moments.  What pleasure to know you've done better than anyone else could do because you have "an eye for a good photo", the sharpest lenses in the world and a trained brain to know when & where these "moments" take place with your Leica rangefinder pre-focused!  Single or continuous at 3 fps, your choice :) .  Fits in place of regular bottom plate.  I own TWO.

M-EQUIPMENT-MOTOR-M-EXTREMELY-SMALL-AND-HANDY-1_teaser-480x320.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, capt14k said:

You guys are really into photography. I don't even know what I'm reading means.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk
 

If you find a Crown Graphic or a Speed Graphic at an estate sale I'll teach you how to work it :) 

The joy of film photography & making silver prints with a rich tonal scale is something that every Photog ought to experience.  Think of it in the same way as you being able to chat about a bolt-action Milsurp rifle.

805510501_2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

15+ years ago I befriended a local development lab/print store owner who had several printing machines. They were leased so at some point he upgraded them to the latest and greatest. Old machines used chemical processes, new machines used a film scanner and printer (but kept the size for some reason). Scanning was done very fast, and research showed that new machine's resolution visibly decreased. I suspect store owner did not setup them right. The same upgrade happened to a more expensive high end lab in NYC but end quality was better. I imagine it is very hard to find a real chemical process lab nowadays.

Digital vs film wars were finished a long time ago and film lost in every category. It is a fine hobby and stuff but saying that film gives you a better quality is just not true except for maybe some very special applications. There was a couple times when I sent all my digital cameras for repairs/recalibration (aren't we lucky to have Canon repair facility in the neighborhood) and I shot with 30+ years old FED5 for weeks. Longevity/relevance of digital equipment is definitely a concern!

Easily printed at home pigment prints have longevity measured in 100+ years when stored properly. Longevity concerns are simply not relevant anymore.

I think I covered all hot points of this topic from point of view a photographer who shoots digital for almost 20 years (and film for 10-15years)  :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 @Oleg I generally agree with what you say.  However, b&w silver gelatin photos have been around for about 150 years.  Many have survived stored under less than ideal conditions.  We won't be around to see if digital prints really last 100 years.  IIRC I read an article somewhere that Ilford is developing silver digital printing.

Digital b&w prints lack the brilliance and depth silver prints have.  Maybe Ilford is on to something.

I do agree digital is the way to go for most applications.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Smokin .50 said:

Film Photogs care what's around & behind the subject.  We "see" in all 3 dimentions.  Digital Photogs take hours to correct their mistakes.

Wedding PJ with a motorized M6TTL is amazing & has to be experienced in order to be fully comprehended.  Being able to walk around with a 35 F1.4 or a 28mm F2.0 stopped-down to F8 & actually use the depth-of-field scale printed on the lens barrel results in a photographic education like no other.  Imagine pix of cocktail candids where you pre-focus using yer head to guess the distance and merely click the shutter once the viewfinder is up to your eye!  No auto-focus locking on the wrong focus point, ever!  What freedom to capture fleeting moments.  What pleasure to know you've done better than anyone else could do because you have "an eye for a good photo", the sharpest lenses in the world and a trained brain to know when & where these "moments" take place with your Leica rangefinder pre-focused!  Single or continuous at 3 fps, your choice :) .  Fits in place of regular bottom plate.  I own TWO.

M-EQUIPMENT-MOTOR-M-EXTREMELY-SMALL-AND-HANDY-1_teaser-480x320.png

Sorry I don’t buy that argument one bit. Shooting with film vs using a digital camera doesn’t make you a better photographer. You don’t just start taking great pictures automatically because your exposing a roll of film vs. writing to an SD card. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, carl_g said:

Sorry I don’t buy that argument one bit. Shooting with film vs using a digital camera doesn’t make you a better photographer. You don’t just start taking great pictures automatically because your exposing a roll of film vs. writing to an SD card. 

I remember seeing an interview Ed Weston.  When asked what he felt his most important tool was he said "my eye".

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Internet and digital changed what we see and what we share. If you do not control tightly what you see you will get a feeling that digital decreased amount of great photography. It is simply not true. Amount of NEW great photography in the last decade is mind blowing (feels wrong to use on gun forum :) ) but you have to make an effort to find it in the sea of average photography shared everywhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, carl_g said:

Sorry I don’t buy that argument one bit. Shooting with film vs using a digital camera doesn’t make you a better photographer. You don’t just start taking great pictures automatically because your exposing a roll of film vs. writing to an SD card. 

Of course it doesn't!  What makes you a better photographer is knowing what you got when the shutter opens & w/o having to look at a screen to hit "playback".  Taking too many pictures of a particular subject actually can lead to "Digital Itis", that well-known condition of not being able to USE YER BRAIN (like Edward Weston did) to analyze a scene & compose ahead of time and check for lighting & background conditions as well as REMEMBER exactly what ya did to create the amazing image in the first place.  Others refer to it as "Happy Accident Syndrome", where you "don't realize what GOOD IS", so you keep on clickin' often wearing-out a portrait subject (static trees & beaches don't have to think or go potty).  Anytime you slow down enough to concentrate on composition, learn how to see & evaluate light as well as "doctor it" with strobe & reflectors, learn what hyperfocal means by reading a lens barrel (don't look for it on digi lenses cause distance scales & depth of field aren't printed on lens barrels any more), learn syncro-sun & syncro-shade, selective focus, how to use prime lenses and learn to think in terms  of what that prime lens can do perspective-wise and distortion-wise, you learn to take better pictures.  It's not ABOUT film vs. Digital, it's about how to master how to think & how to know you have a great picture at the click of that shutter.  It's about knowing when to STOP!

Two generations ago a very famous Photog was hired by an Art Director to do a commercial shoot for an advertising agency.  His day rate was truly up there.  For this particular assignment he chose a 11" x 14" rosewood View Camera and Kodak High Speed Ektachrome transparency film because a 2-pg magazine spread as well as billboards were gonna be made from this shoot.  The models, dressed in their new Bikini swim suits, approached the beach in a single-file line-up.  The Photog was out in the ocean with a (now) wet wood tripod & rosewood view camera.  After several "practice runs" running, holding hands and kicking the water playfully, the models were in perfect synchronization.  With the Art Director on scene & very happy with the set-up, the Photog signaled the ladies to do it again.  As they approached his pre-determined focus point, and without looking thru the camera & instead concentrating on the SUBJECT, he squeezed his air release bulb and made the exposure.  He immediately put the dark slide back into the 11" x 14" cut film holder and PACKED-UP HIS EQUIPMENT!  He captured what he was hired for & he KNEW IT!  The Art Director went NUTZ & thought the Photog CRAZY, swearing to never hire him again & to make sure he'd be "black-listed" by every ad agency in NYC.  

Then the single transparency came back from the lab (the Photog had exposed a text shot or two to determine exact development required).  The AD's client LOVED THE IMAGE, and so a mutual respect & understanding was instantly developed between the Photog & the A.D.  Any time the A.D. needed a unique approach, he called upon the same Photog, and the two grew rich together :) 

Gentlemen, the world-famous B&W picture of a very stoic & grumpy Sir Winston Churchill was obtained in a single instant by a Canadian Photog named Yousuf Karsh.  He PULLED THE CIGAR FROM CHURCHILL'S MOUTH and grabbed the release bulb!  And history was made!  

There are those that "KNOW what they GOT when that shutter clicks" and there are those with "HAPPY ACCIDENTS"...

https://karsh.org/photographs/winston-churchill/?order=date

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Smokin .50 said:

Of course it doesn't!  What makes you a better photographer is knowing what you got when the shutter opens & w/o having to look at a screen to hit "playback".  Taking too many pictures of a particular subject actually can lead to "Digital Itis", that well-known condition of not being able to USE YER BRAIN (like Edward Weston did) to analyze a scene & compose ahead of time and check for lighting & background conditions as well as REMEMBER exactly what ya did to create the amazing image in the first place.  Others refer to it as "Happy Accident Syndrome", where you "don't realize what GOOD IS", so you keep on clickin' often wearing-out a portrait subject (static trees & beaches don't have to think or go potty).  Anytime you slow down enough to concentrate on composition, learn how to see & evaluate light as well as "doctor it" with strobe & reflectors, learn what hyperfocal means by reading a lens barrel (don't look for it on digi lenses cause distance scales & depth of field aren't printed on lens barrels any more), learn syncro-sun & syncro-shade, selective focus, how to use prime lenses and learn to think in terms  of what that prime lens can do perspective-wise and distortion-wise, you learn to take better pictures.  It's not ABOUT film vs. Digital, it's about how to master how to think & how to know you have a great picture at the click of that shutter.  It's about knowing when to STOP!

Two generations ago a very famous Photog was hired by an Art Director to do a commercial shoot for an advertising agency.  His day rate was truly up there.  For this particular assignment he chose a 11" x 14" rosewood View Camera and Kodak High Speed Ektachrome transparency film because a 2-pg magazine spread as well as billboards were gonna be made from this shoot.  The models, dressed in their new Bikini swim suits, approached the beach in a single-file line-up.  The Photog was out in the ocean with a (now) wet wood tripod & rosewood view camera.  After several "practice runs" running, holding hands and kicking the water playfully, the models were in perfect synchronization.  With the Art Director on scene & very happy with the set-up, the Photog signaled the ladies to do it again.  As they approached his pre-determined focus point, and without looking thru the camera & instead concentrating on the SUBJECT, he squeezed his air release bulb and made the exposure.  He immediately put the dark slide back into the 11" x 14" cut film holder and PACKED-UP HIS EQUIPMENT!  He captured what he was hired for & he KNEW IT!  The Art Director went NUTZ & thought the Photog CRAZY, swearing to never hire him again & to make sure he'd be "black-listed" by every ad agency in NYC.  

Then the single transparency came back from the lab (the Photog had exposed a text shot or two to determine exact development required).  The AD's client LOVED THE IMAGE, and so a mutual respect & understanding was instantly developed between the Photog & the A.D.  Any time the A.D. needed a unique approach, he called upon the same Photog, and the two grew rich together :) 

Gentlemen, the world-famous B&W picture of a very stoic & grumpy Sir Winston Churchill was obtained in a single instant by a Canadian Photog named Yousuf Karsh.  He PULLED THE CIGAR FROM CHURCHILL'S MOUTH and grabbed the release bulb!  And history was made!  

There are those that "KNOW what they GOT when that shutter clicks" and there are those with "HAPPY ACCIDENTS"...

https://karsh.org/photographs/winston-churchill/?order=date

@Smokin .50 you can't use a view camera like a 35mm and really can't compare using one to a digital camera.  You can't use a B52 to dogfight and you can't use a F16 to carry 30 tons of bombs.

A big advantage to digital cameras is action photography.  You used to have to spend a lot of money for a motor drive that in many cases cost about as much as the camera. That would give you 6-8 frames a second at best.  Digitals have it built in and easily give you that 6-8 frames a second and more in some cases.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw an interview with a person making Henri Cartier-Bresson's prints. He said that a lot of Cartier-Bresson's film was exposed incorrectly and required a lot of work to make it right in print. After visiting a big exhibition of his work I noted that if Cartier-Bresson lived in a digital era his work would be not only properly exposed but also in focus. Equipment has nothing to do with vision if you have one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...