Topic Closed

my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Upload your random pictures (Page 48)

This topic comprises 101 pages: 1  2  3  ...  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  ...  99  100  101

Author Topic: Upload your random pictures John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 02-24-2004 10:31 PM                        This is not political. But here are some candid photos I took of Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards during a rally in Rochester on Sunday night: Digital photo taken with Kodak DX3700 from about 15 feet, on-camera flash, handheld: Photo taken with Kodak MAX 800 film, Minolta X-370s SLR, 135mm lens, f/2.8, available light, handheld:  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 02-25-2004 12:01 AM                        Hmmmm. Kind of grainy. Maybe I should get that Fuji camera instead.  |  IP: Logged William Hooper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1879 From: Mobile, AL USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-25-2004 12:31 AM                        What are you doing to your pictures, John Pytlak? That picture of the Pharaonic Drumline was handheld taken with Max 800, & it's not the hell of grain yours are. Other pictures taken with more detail & light don't look like that either. And those are taken with the I-love-a-party-&-a-funky-old-auditorim Ricoh rock-n-roll camera, not the Nikon. Some goofy ProMaster 28mm-75mmish zoom. I had been running 400 ASA taking theater pictures (AKA 'taking pictures in the dark') & just tried the 800 to see what happened, & was very pleasantly surprised. If they looked like yours, I'd go back to the 400 ASA or use a pinhole! I hope the difference is not that I got Kodak processing & you didn't. I chalk up the increased camera shake in your picture to never having acquired the 60 foot vertical ladder vise grip.  |  IP: Logged Steve Kraus Film God Posts: 4094 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: May 2000 posted 02-25-2004 12:33 AM                    Looks like an enlargement of a very small segment of negative.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 02-25-2004 05:52 AM                        quote: Looks like an enlargement of a very small segment of negative. Yes, only about 1/4 of the whole image area. Plus it was tungsten available light (Kodak MAX 800 is daylight balance), and there was about 1 stop underexposure. I estimate the shutter speed was only about 1/30 second. John Edwards is a dynamic speaker and moved around quite a bit, so holding focus and avoiding motion blur were issues.  |  IP: Logged Travis Hubrig Expert Film Handler Posts: 175 From: Minot ND, USA Registered: May 2003 posted 02-25-2004 09:04 PM                     I can't vote for a guy that looks like Jack Tripper! (RIP) Just kidding, I wasn't making a political comment... please don't ban me!!!  |  IP: Logged David Favel Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 764 From: Ashburton, New Zealand Registered: Feb 2002 posted 02-25-2004 09:09 PM                     Ya can't trust a man who lived with 2 cute chicks for that long without boinking at least 1 of them.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 02-26-2004 12:37 AM                        Travis=BANNED! David=BANNED! And just for good measure: Ken Lackner=BANNED!  |  IP: Logged William Hooper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1879 From: Mobile, AL USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-26-2004 02:10 AM                        I still can't blast that kind of grain out of my MAX 800 pictures, even enlarged. Is the difference that yours was "underexposed" & processing the prints blew all the grain out? Most of mine are "overexposed" by about 2 stops because of the dark environment & light shining directly into the lens. It's all sort of meaningless when exposures are per situation, but probably the only useful relative terminology. Picture taken at the Order Of Myths parade Tuesday night by my friend Mike with his Kodak digital DXSomethingorother. For kicks, he tried one without the flash, & it apparently focused right in the center & with the 'aperture' wide open had near zero depth of field. It didn't look this good; it's been sharpened like bejeezus. It's a "hey I know what you can make with that" doodad you found type of thing.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 02-26-2004 02:29 AM                        quote: I estimate the shutter speed was only about 1/30 second. You can hand-hold at 1/30 without camera shake?! Anything slower than 1/125 and I need a tripod. The JPEG compression on this scan probably isn't helping the grain, either.  |  IP: Logged John Pytlak Film God Posts: 9987 From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922 Registered: Jan 2000 posted 02-26-2004 05:48 AM                        The general rule of thumb for camera shake is to use a shutter speed faster than the reciprical of the lens focal length in millimeters, so for a 135mm telephoto lens, 1/125 second or faster would be recommended. The photo of Edwards certainly has a bit of camera shake and motion blur, plus the shallow depth of focus at f/2.8. But it works well as a candid, as I like the expression and composition. Grain increases with underexposure, and this negative was fairly "thin". Lots of compression too, as that fairly large photo was less than 100 kilobytes to meet the Film-Tech posting requirements.  |  IP: Logged Michael Schaffer "Where is the Boardwalk Hotel?" Posts: 4143 From: Boston, MA Registered: Apr 2002 posted 02-26-2004 05:55 AM                        William - it`s really kind of funny, somebody who seems to know as much about photography as you, and who has enough perseverance to post here nearly 1k times, yet still you haven`t sent in a member picture! I understand not everybody is as blessed with good looks as I am, still you should send in a picture so we all can see what you look like. It`s not a matter of rules, it`s just a matter of style...It`s just so much more fun when you see who you are talking to, it`s just the style of this website.  |  IP: Logged Joe Redifer You need a beating today Posts: 12859 From: Denver, Colorado Registered: May 99 posted 02-26-2004 01:07 PM                        Yeah William! You can't look any worse than Michael! You have nothing to lose. Don't be paranoid! PS - They're after you.  |  IP: Logged Bruce Hansen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 847 From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 02-26-2004 06:08 PM                     OK, I have to try this picture posting thing too. That is a DTS reader rigged onto a Holmes 8. Now if I can get a picture of me, you would see it on the left.  |  IP: Logged William Hooper Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1879 From: Mobile, AL USA Registered: Jun 99 posted 02-27-2004 01:18 AM                        We are not allowed to discuss the details or activities of our organization. But I would like to say, because there will be talk & speculation, that at the last meeting Bill Bright, Bill Enos, Bill Gabel & I argued strongly & voted against sending the Black Spot on to William T. Parr.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 101 pages: 1  2  3  ...  45  46  47  48  49  50  51  ...  99  100  101

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.