Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
3,870 replies · 234K views
Zaciekawiony
- 23
- 99
Sometimes I build this stone piles at the trekking
Point Conception
Gold Member
- 1,166
- 1,927
berkeman said:You folks talk funny...
At least here you can read it .When I was English teaching in Bangkok (ECC) there were some teachers from Wales. Standing right next to them talking could only understand about 30%.
I went for a run two days ago, of which 2.5 miles was a trail in the woods. Deer fly country. So I wore my deer fly hat with a new piece of fly paper. The hat worked well. I only whacked 5 or 6 of those miserable blood sucking varmints by hand.
The deer fly population is slightly below average this year. Some years ago, they were really bad: https://www.runningahead.com/forums/topic/08966a0c9bd04224beeb9bb03895a418.
The deer fly population is slightly below average this year. Some years ago, they were really bad: https://www.runningahead.com/forums/topic/08966a0c9bd04224beeb9bb03895a418.
Gold Member
- 2,832
- 12,475
- 13,805
- 16,615
Thought this might amuse:
The views from a cul de sac in a fairly generic housing estate are nowhere near as impressive as Webb's output.
The views from a cul de sac in a fairly generic housing estate are nowhere near as impressive as Webb's output.
DaveC426913
Gold Member
2025 Award
- 24,616
- 8,959
"Hey, what kind of bird is that?"
"I believe that's a Parallax."
Canon G15, F2.8, 1/100s, ISO 200
"I believe that's a Parallax."
Canon G15, F2.8, 1/100s, ISO 200
- 7,807
- 4,120
This is not fog:
(Canadian/Minnesotan wildfire smoke is visiting)
Somehow this image makes the air look more clear than it is.
(Canadian/Minnesotan wildfire smoke is visiting)
Somehow this image makes the air look more clear than it is.
- 7,807
- 4,120
Stuck inside today and bored = a brief photo essay. Images all handheld: 1/100 s, f/3.5, (auto) ISO up around 25 kajillion.
Went looking for bugs in the basement with my Micro Nikkor and found:
Because I have to get close, I startled the bug. It scrambled to secure its egg sac:
I went looking around for more:
And found this one:
Went looking for bugs in the basement with my Micro Nikkor and found:
Because I have to get close, I startled the bug. It scrambled to secure its egg sac:
I went looking around for more:
And found this one:
DaveC426913
Gold Member
2025 Award
- 24,616
- 8,959
I would really like to discuss this. I started to post one pic of a thousand today that had the same shutter/f-stop, and an ISO of a paltry 200, yet they're virtually unusable due to digital noise. I deleted it before sending but ill post it tomorrow withn samples and deets.Andy Resnick said:
DaveC426913
Gold Member
2025 Award
- 24,616
- 8,959
@symbolipoint has made a good point that escaped me.Andy Resnick said:
Micro Nikkor refers to a lens type. But are you shooting digital or film?
DaveC426913
Gold Member
2025 Award
- 24,616
- 8,959
IT'S A PARALLAX BIRD!
nobody gets me
.
.
nobody gets me
.
.
Ouch, stay safe. When we lived in the east San Jose foothills, wildfire smoke was a big issue. I rode a hard MTB ride on a singletrack BMX course one time, and had to pull up lame due to the very low air quality and smoke. Not my best decision to ride that day.Andy Resnick said:
Zaciekawiony
- 23
- 99
Photos from a trip to the Grabarka Holy Mound. This 18th-century Orthodox sanctuary is a center of pilgrimage. It's a tradition to bring votive crosses here, bearing inscribed requests for help with problems or offering thanks to God. Around the church stand several thousand crosses of various sizes, each with small crucifixes and rosaries suspended from them.
I don't have any photos of insides of the church; the nuns at the monastery asked visitors not to take photos of the interior. It has beautiful polychromes and frescoes on the walls and ceiling. Due to the very clean air, the trees and wooden crosses are covered with a wide variety of lichens.
"For peoples on the way to all borders"
I don't have any photos of insides of the church; the nuns at the monastery asked visitors not to take photos of the interior. It has beautiful polychromes and frescoes on the walls and ceiling. Due to the very clean air, the trees and wooden crosses are covered with a wide variety of lichens.
- 7,761
- 2,179
Do they permit manual drawings or manual paintings to be made of any viewable observables?Zaciekawiony said:
- 7,807
- 4,120
It's my usual arrangement: 55/3.5 MicroNikkor w/ M2 spacer on a Z7 body. I haven't shot film since grad school..... :)DaveC426913 said:
Point Conception
Gold Member
- 1,166
- 1,927
Abandon Ship
pinball1970
Gold Member
2025 Award
- 3,852
- 6,181
Rock club in Hull that doubled as a gym and boxing ring. They use the gym space at the back of the club for music now.
Stage.
Stage.
Gold Member
- 2,832
- 12,475
- 3,446
- 3,694
I am so behind on posting pictures. Skipping a lot in the post-processing queue, here are some images from San Diego's Pride parade that was about a week ago. (Part 1.)
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
To be continued ...
Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5.
Figure 6.
Figure 7.
Figure 8.
Figure 9.
Figure 10.
To be continued ...
- 3,446
- 3,694
... Continued from previous post. (San Diego's Pride parade, part 2.)
figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
Figure 17.
Figure 18.
Figure 19. This one was taken on Portra 400 film. I might discuss the film camera in a future post.
Figure 20. Also on Portra 400 film.
figure 11.
Figure 12.
Figure 13.
Figure 14.
Figure 15.
Figure 16.
Figure 17.
Figure 18.
Figure 19. This one was taken on Portra 400 film. I might discuss the film camera in a future post.
Figure 20. Also on Portra 400 film.
Gold Member
- 2,832
- 12,475
Some nice people shots there @collinsmark!
pinball1970
Gold Member
2025 Award
- 3,852
- 6,181
The storm trooper made me laugh. That would have made for a different film!collinsmark said:
- 3,446
- 3,694
So yeah, I picked up another film camera that I don't need. I figured it would be nice to have a film camera compatible with the manual focus lenses (Leica M mount compatible) that I've been acquiring lately. All the better if it's a rangefinder camera too.
Figure 1. Leica M-A camera. It's completely mechanical. No electronics in the camera at all: No aperture priority, no shutter priority, no auto anything. There's no battery in the camera. There's no On/Off switch; Once the film lever is advanced, it's ready to go indefinitely at a moment's notice. Up top, attached to the shoe, is an external Voigtländer light meter (which does use a couple coin cell batteries) to occasionally remind me that that the "Sunny 16" rule works. The lens is a Thypoch Eureka 50mm.
The rest of this post is to give a few reasons why anybody in their right mind would want to shoot with a 35mm film camera these days.
Before I give the list of reasons, let me state that I've been a proponent of digital photography for decades now (at least since the late 1990's early 2000's). For most situations, digital is better in almost every measurable way: Digital is less expensive in the long run. It's easier and more reliable to archive digital files than it is negatives or slides. Both effective resolution and dynamic range are now greater with a full frame digital camera than with a 35 mm film camera. A digital sensor has a more consistent, tighter tolerance of lying on the desired focal plane of the camera/lens system. Digital is just simply, hands down, superior to film in most ways that most photographers find important (assuming modern, quality hardware).
Arguing these points with die hard, anti-digital photographers has been historically frustrating for me. In principle I can demonstrate the applicability of Nyquist's sampling theorem, quantify the effects of quantization noise, compare these to how film grain can be modeled to affect resolution and noise floor (and dynamic range) and show objectively that the digital format retains more detail of the scene (again assuming quality hardware and RAW file format).
Or I can take a simpler approach and just demonstrate that it's far easier to edit a digital (full frame RAW file shot on a quality digital system with sufficient resolution) image to make it look like it was shot on 35 mm film than to do the reverse. That's because the digital version contains more useful information than its film counterpart.
The response from the die hard anti-digital photographers has historically been to reject the science, math and data, and insist on adopting a "digital bad, analog good, and somehow magic" rebuttal. Again, it's frustrating.
Okay, enough of that. I think I've made my point. Note that I said, digital is "superior to film in most ways that most photographers find important." Most doesn't mean all.
So here's some reasons why you still might want to shoot on film, at least occasionally:
Here are a few more pictures from the first roll or two of film shot on my Leica M-A. All photos shown here were shot with Portra 400 film and all on the setup shown in Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5. You can see my reflection in the window if you look.
Figure 6. Oops! I forgot to adjust exposure for the shade. Those shadow details are too far gone on film.
Figure 7. Sombody's idea of marketing is to put an ad on each bill in a pile of fake $100 bills, and let them scatter in the wind at the transit center. I question the legality of that on several fronts.
Figure 1. Leica M-A camera. It's completely mechanical. No electronics in the camera at all: No aperture priority, no shutter priority, no auto anything. There's no battery in the camera. There's no On/Off switch; Once the film lever is advanced, it's ready to go indefinitely at a moment's notice. Up top, attached to the shoe, is an external Voigtländer light meter (which does use a couple coin cell batteries) to occasionally remind me that that the "Sunny 16" rule works. The lens is a Thypoch Eureka 50mm.
The rest of this post is to give a few reasons why anybody in their right mind would want to shoot with a 35mm film camera these days.
Before I give the list of reasons, let me state that I've been a proponent of digital photography for decades now (at least since the late 1990's early 2000's). For most situations, digital is better in almost every measurable way: Digital is less expensive in the long run. It's easier and more reliable to archive digital files than it is negatives or slides. Both effective resolution and dynamic range are now greater with a full frame digital camera than with a 35 mm film camera. A digital sensor has a more consistent, tighter tolerance of lying on the desired focal plane of the camera/lens system. Digital is just simply, hands down, superior to film in most ways that most photographers find important (assuming modern, quality hardware).
Arguing these points with die hard, anti-digital photographers has been historically frustrating for me. In principle I can demonstrate the applicability of Nyquist's sampling theorem, quantify the effects of quantization noise, compare these to how film grain can be modeled to affect resolution and noise floor (and dynamic range) and show objectively that the digital format retains more detail of the scene (again assuming quality hardware and RAW file format).
Or I can take a simpler approach and just demonstrate that it's far easier to edit a digital (full frame RAW file shot on a quality digital system with sufficient resolution) image to make it look like it was shot on 35 mm film than to do the reverse. That's because the digital version contains more useful information than its film counterpart.
The response from the die hard anti-digital photographers has historically been to reject the science, math and data, and insist on adopting a "digital bad, analog good, and somehow magic" rebuttal. Again, it's frustrating.
Okay, enough of that. I think I've made my point. Note that I said, digital is "superior to film in most ways that most photographers find important." Most doesn't mean all.
So here's some reasons why you still might want to shoot on film, at least occasionally:
- A film camera turns on almost instantly. It might not have an on-button at all, in which case it's always on and never turns off. I've missed countless shots on my digital camera because I forget to turn the thing on. What I usually do with my digital M11-P when I see a potential shot on the street is in one fluid motion, (a) turn the camera on, (b) bring the camera up to eye level, (c) focus if I'm not zone focusing (which I can do even if the camera isn't fully turned on, because the M11-P is a rangefinder), (d) recompose, and (e) release the shutter. This works great as long as I remember to turn the M11-P camera on in the first place. With the M-A film camera, I don't have to worry about not turning it on. It's mechanical. It's always on.
- Film cameras don't have the battery-drain headaches. I'm always turning my digital cameras off to reduce battery drain. And even then, I still need to bring extra batteries if it's a busy photo day. It's not a big deal comparatively since I'd rather carry around an extra battery than a half dozen rolls of film, but I thought I'd mention it. It would be nice not to have deal with deal with turning the camera off, or having it automatically go into low power mode all the time.
- If you're bringing a second camera with you, one that you can shoot from the hip, and you don't want to worry about turning it on and off all the time, a film camera might make sense.
- The smell. There's nothing quite like putting your nose right up to a fresh, plastic film container of Tri-X, opening the lid, and taking a deep whiff of its silver glory. Ohhh, baby.
- Nostalgia if you're older.
- "Retro" if you're younger.
- High quality film cameras, which are available on the second hand market, can arguably have a lower priced entry point than a quality digital setup.
- Helps keep your local camera shop in business by buying and developing film.
- Infrared film. Yeah, there's film you can buy that's sensitive to infrared light (similar idea for ultraviolet too). This opens up new, creative possibilities when paired with the corresponding IR filter that you screw onto the front of the lens. Btw., you can use these near visible, IR filters on digitial cameras too; just be aware that you're fighting the IR-blocking filter on the sensor in addition to the color filters on the Bayer filter, meaning that your exposures may be long (10s of seconds) and you'll need a tripod. But they still work (probably). Results vary based on several factors, but it's something you might want to try out, film or digital.
- While it's possible to edit digital to make it appear film-like, it's also possible to skip that post processing and just shoot in film in the first place.
- That nagging voice in the back of your head that sometimes says, "Ya know, F- it. I'm sick of it. I just need a little break from technology. Just for a bit. Sure, I'm grateful for modern medicine and all. But I'm sick of AI, I'm sick of computers, and I'm sick of the camera making all of these decisions while relying on me to set up the settings correctly, only so that it can do what I can already do myself anyway. Just let me get back to the basics, please. Just for a little while. Yes, I know I have an electrical engineering background, digital signal processing in particular, and I'm supposed to like electronics and such. But F- it. Mechanical engineering isn't bad. And who doesn't like chemistry. The crap these days is just getting out of hand. I just need a little break."
- "Rosebud" <a snow globe rolls out of the hand and down a set of stairs>.
Here are a few more pictures from the first roll or two of film shot on my Leica M-A. All photos shown here were shot with Portra 400 film and all on the setup shown in Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Figure 3.
Figure 4.
Figure 5. You can see my reflection in the window if you look.
Figure 6. Oops! I forgot to adjust exposure for the shade. Those shadow details are too far gone on film.
Figure 7. Sombody's idea of marketing is to put an ad on each bill in a pile of fake $100 bills, and let them scatter in the wind at the transit center. I question the legality of that on several fronts.
Last edited:
- 7,761
- 2,179
collinsmark
Way way too long to read, even to see the resulting pictures. Still, GREAT that somebody knows how to use a real traditional camera and be able to use real roll film. I think there is still a real camera in the closet here, somewhere,...
Way way too long to read, even to see the resulting pictures. Still, GREAT that somebody knows how to use a real traditional camera and be able to use real roll film. I think there is still a real camera in the closet here, somewhere,...
pinball1970
Gold Member
2025 Award
- 3,852
- 6,181
Not something you see every day on Oxford Rd, Manchester.
DennisN
Gold Member
- 2,193
- 10,273
Congratulations! Have fun!collinsmark said: