HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Arts & Humanities » Photography (Group) » The tools we have today a...

Sun May 10, 2020, 02:56 PM

The tools we have today are so far above what 35mm film offered it's ridiculous.

Last edited Sun May 10, 2020, 04:52 PM - Edit history (1)

Recently got the m.zuiko 300f4 and 1.4x.

When it was first introduced it was heralded as being unreasonably sharp and the 1.4x converter was rumored to be the same. Well it appears to be true.

[img]?1[/img]
Looks like she has a scar on her face, right?


[img]?1[/img]
It's a beetle!

Had I shot this at base ISO 200 instead of 800 we could identify what kind of beetle.

OMD EM1 MKII, 300mm f4 plus 1.4x converter (effective 840 mm) @ f5.6 (wide open) hand held.

edit to drop the extra 0 from effective lens length "Dammit Jim, I'm a photographer, not a math teacher."

13 replies, 2155 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply The tools we have today are so far above what 35mm film offered it's ridiculous. (Original post)
flamin lib May 10 OP
Worried2020 May 10 #1
SeattleVet May 10 #2
fleur-de-lisa May 10 #3
flamin lib May 10 #4
Worried2020 May 10 #5
alfredo May 13 #13
NBachers May 10 #6
reACTIONary May 11 #12
flotsam May 10 #7
marble falls May 11 #8
Mr.Bill May 11 #9
pansypoo53219 May 11 #10
flamin lib May 11 #11

Response to flamin lib (Original post)

Sun May 10, 2020, 03:18 PM

1. I got my first camera around 1960





Yeah - 120 film (not sure what the 120 stood for) - sent out film by mail to receive the black and white photos - always Kodak film

1962, at the age of 12 - my Pa decided I had an "eye" for pictures and gave me his 35mm Fujika for my birthday.



I've had some pretty pricey equipment over the decades, but now satisfy my shutterbug needs just with my Samsung Galaxy's cam.

I can instantly share pictures now, but I sorta miss the excitement and anticipation of waiting for my prints to return by mail way back in the 60's - and then PHYSICALLY sharing some of my favorite snapshots with my friends - of course always in person . . .

I miss some of that

W



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Worried2020 (Reply #1)

Sun May 10, 2020, 03:45 PM

2. The 120 doesn't mean anything.

Kodak numbered their various film formats in a sequential order starting with 101 in 1895. Some numbers were even reused for totally different formats.

Other manufacturers had different numbers/letter designations for the same formats.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_format

It looks like the Hawkeye camera was made for 620 format - 120 *might* work in some of the cameras, but usually the spool had to be trimmed slightly to make it work. 120 has a slightly larger spool end than 620.

http://kurtmunger.com/kodak_brownie_hawkeyeid149.html

My first camera was a bare-bones Brownie, which used 127 film. I eventually started using my father's Argus C3 when I was in high school, then got my first SLR - a Yashica TL-Electro-X, with little LED arrows for metering instead of a match-needle meter system - as a graduation present. Used that for many years, and eventually replaced it with a Minolta Maxxum, then a couple of Minolta digital SLR's. Still using a Minolta Maxxum D7 -the last camera Minolta produced before getting out of the camera business. That one was a collaboration with Sony, and the Sony Alpha series uses the same lenses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Worried2020 (Reply #1)

Sun May 10, 2020, 03:48 PM

3. My grandmother, who died in 1940, well before I was born

had a Brownie (probably not this model.) My grandfather saved it, gave it to my mother, who gave it to my daughter, who is an artist who also dabbles in photo and video work. Itís one of the few belongings we have from my grandmother.

Thanks for sharing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Worried2020 (Reply #1)

Sun May 10, 2020, 03:49 PM

4. I miss some of that too.

A whole lot more thought went into composing and exposing when every shutter release cost us money. Now I routinely shoot 500-1000 exposures on an outing.

Once, in college, I did a studio shoot of glassware using tungsten light in a table top setting that included sand, driftwood and crystal stemware with a gold rim. Had to light the three elements separately plus the gold rim required it's own treatment. It took hours to set up. The 4x5 inch color film cost $4 a sheet, processing took hours in total darkness. When I looked at the final results I found that I hadn't taped off the small window in the door to the hallway. Hallway was lit with fluorescent light. Each piece of glass had a bright green reflection of that window. And I couldn't just Photoshop it away.

Now I do mostly wildlife. Back then if you got a well exposed and focused bird shot Audubon would publish it. Now if the bird isn't doing something interesting like flying, feeding or f**king it's just a bird on a stick and kinda useless. With great advancement comes great expectations.

Now all that energy goes into editing. I edit in camera, then again in upload to computer and a last time before saving to disk. I may have 3-4 images from a set of 500 as keepers and most of them never get printed or shared. Almost nothing I post on line makes the cut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Reply #4)

Sun May 10, 2020, 04:26 PM

5. "Editing" back in the 60s was literally cutting and pasting

We did that for school presentations, cutting out news articles, pix from National Geographic, and pasting them into a scrapbook format.

I've used Photoshop and a few others for editing, but prefer the lightweight user-friendly IrfanView

https://www.irfanview.com

speaking of wildlife - I've taken thousands of pics on my 28 acres in the boonies - I "shot" most of them with the Sony NeX 3N I had at the time

Not edited - a pic I took from my bedroom window a few years back . . .




I never noticed the bird until after I took the picture,

so not certain if the deer was looking at the bird or me!



W

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to flamin lib (Original post)

Sun May 10, 2020, 05:15 PM

6. As a Rochester native who saw the whole region buoyed during Kodak's Golden Age, I regret their lost

opportunities on the digital front.

And I still won't buy anything Fuji.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NBachers (Reply #6)

Mon May 11, 2020, 09:06 PM

12. No Fuji Blimp in Rah-Cha-Cha...

When I was working at Kodak, Fuji started to tour a Fuji blimp, in the spirit of Goodyear. Never was anti-blimp legislation enacted so fast, before or since!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Original post)

Sun May 10, 2020, 09:22 PM

7. I bought a camera this week

I still have what is technically known as a "shitload" of digital gear but gave up about two years back due to increasing disability. I recently decided that since I'm guessing we may be isolating this entire summer, and maybe all year, and since the mango moron mailed me a check that I would try again with a dedicated lightweight rig.

After looking around I found a remanufactured Nikon B600 bridge camera at $149 shipped. $15 for a charger and 2 spare batteries, $19 for a Nikon 62mm filter adaptor with lens cap. Let's call it $185 all in. I'm pretty sure I have the filters I need-a CPL, Straight UV, and a 6 point star effect...maybe a variable neutral density....

Still reading the manual , but this much I know-as long as I can brace the camera or hard mount it (can no longer hand hold in most situations) I can shoot in 35mm equivalent of 24-1440mm (60x zoom)! I'm actually figuring on putting a hard mount on a mobility scooter I'm getting set up for the summer. Also thinking of working indoor on tabletop with improvised studio lighting...

All of which is to say isolation sucks but occasionally inspires. This entire rig with bag and accessories will weigh less than a bare Canon T5 Rebel with a single zoom lens! It's a small corner of a large world but I'm gonna struggle to make it mine.

B600 Review: https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/nikon-coolpix-b600

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Original post)

Mon May 11, 2020, 02:37 PM

8. Why does that beetle have a deer on it's butt??

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Original post)

Mon May 11, 2020, 03:48 PM

9. In high school photography and journalism classes

I got to use a Honeywell Pentax 35 mm camera. It was the best one the school had. A few years ago I found one in a pawn shop. I bought it for $10. No intention to use it, I just wanted it for sentimental reasons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamin lib (Original post)

Mon May 11, 2020, 06:44 PM

10. old B/W pics are extremely clear. i have even done some touchups on damaged

pics. or 'fixed' washed out pics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pansypoo53219 (Reply #10)

Mon May 11, 2020, 07:28 PM

11. I have thousands of Tri X negs as

Well as 6x7 cm and 4x5. The beauty of silver is that, properly processed, they will last thousands of years. The best we can hope for with ink jet prints is 50 years. The digital information can last indefinitely but storage methods change so rapidly that accessibility can become an issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread