MadameButterfly wrote:Thank you and a most stunning shot there Z!
And your flowers were also stunning so keep up the good work Z!
Thankee
Debs 
Izzy HaveMercy wrote:Take an example at Zeno, just discussing the matters at hand.
Thanks
smiscandlon wrote:For what it's worth, my personal opinion is that these photography threads haven't been the same since Carpy walked off into the sunset. And I'm not taking about the quality of the work on display.
What can I do but agree with that
And the foodie thread as well, for that matter
reactiv8 wrote:On the subject of photography @obviousman, your perseverence with film intrigues me. This makes a lot of sense, but a good range is getting harder to find and afford for sure. Processing seems to be disappearing fast too - perhaps it will only be found in art schools and professional labs soon? Patience and setting up a shot is virtuous, and something I should remember, so perhaps I should buy a good light meter? Any suggestions there pls? ... Digital does have its advantages for me though, exposure post-adjustment is one, as is access to HDR (High Dynamic Range) software. I'm learning about the latter, and wouldn't know how to achieve this in an 'analogue' darkroom - perhaps you or Mr Blast know more about this?
Presumably you have access to a slide-scanner too, or do you request a CD at processing time? Just curious you understand. I’ve got a Minolta transparency scanner which is 10 years old now, but still does a passable job!
Haven't got a clue about HDRs TBH. My usual way to see what light condition there is is to just study the shades, the sharper they get, the brighter the light is. Not too hard and works pretty well I find!
I'm quite lucky to live in a city which has a couple of good old school photographers. I get my film at one which has an incredible range of Ilford, Fuji and Kodak in all sorts of formats and get it developed at another which do nothing but actually developing film. I find the economic outlook for a shop like that a bit doubtable myself, but as they just redid the interior and everything I guess there is still business to be done in the sector!
I’m surprised that you could take that cherry blossom with 200 film at 1/125 and f22 ?!…
Just a very nice day really, and the blossom was hanging from a tree,so the camera was pointed towards the skies. Twas that or 1/250 f16, but I'm guessing it was the former... I do however suspect current 200ISO film to be more sensitive than traditional 200ISO. Compared to Sunny/15, there's just too much of a difference.
This was at ISO800 f5 1/200th
and the colours are still acceptable, although not remarkable I would agree … Yeah, I do forget now that we can be ‘restricted’ once a certain film is loaded – another ‘advantage’ of digital I suppose, unless we can afford several cameras, a range of films and carry them around all the time, eh? I still have two Canon film cameras incidentally, but they are hardly used now. I use my polarising filters with my Canon DSLR and lenses now, but the graduated filter in Picasa does a better job than the real thing for me. Your Schneider K. polariser filter sounds like a fancy piece of kit? I compromised with Jessops models of various diameters! Whilst you’ve got me thinking about colour, I’m also surprised that you make no mention of Fuji Velvia? The ISO50, and 100 now, is restricting of course! So, clouds, colours, and photography as a hobby … ? All of those things aye, …
This was an example of my use of transparency (Velvia)
Vignetting is the word here n’est pas? ‘Nice’ maze though, eh?
Liked the pictures! I Have a set of different cameras, but they all eat a different film format so can't really exchange there. My dream camera does have an exchangeable back though, think that'd be very handy!
My filter is good stuff indeed! Picked it up at a photographer who stopped his business for just €5 (instead of 100'ish regular price
). One of my favourite bargains of all time
I have heard so much about Velvia and do plan to get a roll this summer. As it's such a low ISO-film, I'll wait until then as I think it wouldn't quite go together with my slow lens and I wouldn't want it to go waste trying to make pictures that won't catch sufficient light...
IMHO, that's not how "the Internet" works, it's merely how some folks work. 
