Random Thoughts... [Photographic Edition]

I've heard Kodak Ektar 100 is good: http://www.amazon.co.uk/EKTAR-P-Pro...2?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1266063351&sr=8-2 and a review here http://blog.epicedits.com/2009/04/06/film-review-120-format-kodak-ektar-100/

About developing I don't have an idea of the prices where you live, here the cheapest 35mm develop is about 1 euro, I have yet to come across a lab that would do wide as it's not that common. You could do B&W yourself but I don't know about color.
And 12 shots just makes you think more about what you're doing with the camera and not be as wasteful as with a digital one.
 
Last edited:
Thomas, just make sure any colour film you buy isn't slide film (the most common is Velvia), E6 processing is horrendously expensive to get processed and is extremely hard to expose properly (very easy to over and underexpose). Ektar looks lovely.
 
Having done a lot of studies on primes lately, I'm kinda dragged towards completing / replacing the focal range of my D700 with primes only. If you look around a bit, you will find very good primes you can have for cheap for any focal length. Of course, one day owning Nikons current "magic three" (14-24, 24-70, 70-200, all f/2.8) would be the logical way, but it's not all sunshine there either (price, size, weight, etc.).

Here's what I have in mind:
20mm Nikon f/3.5 (haven't found a better wide choice yet, Sigma 18mm and Tokina 17mm don't deliver)
35mm Leica Summicron-R f/2.0 (modded, waiting for good offer)
50mm Nikon f/1.2 (bought and on its way)
85-105mm range (undecided, maybe 90mm Tamron macro?)
150mm Sigma f/2.8 macro (already own it), 1.4 TC for more reach
300mm Nikon f/4.5

I could have all of these (except the ones I already have) for the price of the 14-24mm.

Of course, the "magic three" are real pro lenses which offer uncompromised image quality, which in the end is what I'm after. Yet, getting the whole focal range from wide angle to tele with a handful of very affordable and optically excellent 2nd hand primes is kind of seductive, too. It's buying the Corvette instead of the GT-R: it may be the simpler approach in technical terms, but it delivers results just as good and gives you a much more involving experience. I feel like I'm actually photographing when I use fully-manual primes, as opposed to pressing a few buttons and just waiting for a result when I use them awezooms (yes, I just made up that word).

Thoughts? :)
 
You definitely have too much money and free time. :mrgreen:
I have too much money because I want to cover the focal range with lenses that are a fraction of the price of the logical choice? :|
 
I have too much money because I want to cover the focal range with lenses that are a fraction of the price of the logical choice? :|

If you look it that way it's sensible I guess, but it's still loads of lenses and lots of money, but I'm living on a budget so my view is definitely skewed. Have you thought if you really need to cover the whole focal range?
 
If you look it that way it's sensible I guess, but it's still loads of lenses and lots of money, but I'm living on a budget so my view is definitely skewed. Have you thought if you really need to cover the whole focal range?
Well, it's more like a long time plan. I'd say the 35mm and the 50mm are must-have primes, and the 150mm macro I already have. A wide-angle I'll also need for architecture / indoor photography. The ones I probably don't have to have are the 85-105mm lens and the 300mm, so I'd get those when I stumble across a good offer.
 
In a very simple studio-ish photography setup for small objects (read: I want to do some nice photos of stuff I'll sell on eBay), made of two white planes (one lying down, one in the back) and two desk lamps illuminating the scene from the corners at the front, how do I avoid shadows? There is enough light overall, but both lamps obviously cast shadows. What do I do?
 
Last edited:
another white plane on the top and two on either side :p
 
Technically you need a translucent surface and to direct light through the surface.

Depending on the size/space/number of lamps, you could aim a light at the background itself to help eliminate the shadow(s).

Alternatively, if you can edit, you could take a couple of shots and edit the shadows out/blend a couple of shots.

And one large sheet is better than two, bend it up for a makeshift cyclorama.
 
In a very simple studio-ish photography setup for small objects (read: I want to do some nice photos of stuff I'll sell on eBay), made of two white planes (one lying down, one in the back) and two desk lamps illuminating the scene from the corners at the front, how do I avoid shadows? There is enough light overall, but both lamps obviously cast shadows. What do I do?

Try some tracing paper in front of the lamps. You know, like in a DIY lightbox...
 
Try some tracing paper in front of the lamps. You know, like in a DIY lightbox...
DIY lightbox is the magic term which made me find help, thank you!
 
DIY lightbox is the magic term which made me find help, thank you!

No problem, glad to be of help :)
So does thi mean we can expect some macros with that Sigma of yours?

Which reminds me, I should really get my LB back together and start shooting, it's just lying in the corner...
 
Top