Search results for 'back focus' - page 42
Back to basics
Phew!:D Good point Don, but I'd suggest getting a feel for film first, then dual shooting.
Posted by Hardgravity on 03/10/2009 - 18:45
Back to basics
would set up the shot, the lighting and shoot both film and digital, easy to compare, and I had similar shots for the darkroom and computer. What's the fun in it? :) When diving into the deep end its always fun to go head first and not have any alternative means to rescue the shots. That's why I...
Posted by aminstar on 03/10/2009 - 19:43
Back to basics
I think you're crazy as a codfish. In a few months you'll be buying another digital. But of course by then you'll be a better photographer! G
Posted by George Lazarette on 03/10/2009 - 22:41
Back to basics
I think you're crazy as a codfish. If his film endeavours launch my new scanning business, I maintain that he's perfectly sane :D
Posted by ChrisA on 03/10/2009 - 23:19
Back to basics
I have always maintained that there are three reasons to use digital; known as the three Cs: Cost. Convenience. Control. Aminstar is a bit of a control freak in my view, and also somebody who needs the convenience of instant feedback. I fear this project won't last long. Cost, of course,...
Posted by George Lazarette on 03/10/2009 - 23:38
Back to basics
Considering your kit George, it does'nt seem to worry you either! :wink:
Posted by Snootchies on 04/10/2009 - 00:06
Back to basics
I think you're crazy as a codfish. In a few months you'll be buying another digital. But of course by then you'll be a better photographer! G Amin, I'm in awe of the guts it must take to dump all of your digital stuff. On the other hand I also have to agree with George, you've gone completely m...
Posted by thoughton on 04/10/2009 - 01:51
Back to basics
I have always maintained that there are three reasons to use digital; known as the three Cs: Cost. Convenience. Control. Aminstar is a bit of a control freak in my view, and also somebody who needs the convenience of instant feedback. I fear this project won't last long. Cost, of course,...
Posted by aminstar on 04/10/2009 - 07:07
Back to basics
It's another of your smoky ladies, with a rather baleful left eye. G
Posted by George Lazarette on 04/10/2009 - 08:34
Back to basics
It's another of your smoky ladies, with a rather baleful left eye. G By George, George you seem to spot these ladies at a distance :) Same here, the moment I saw it I knew it was a lady, not as sensuous as the previous ones though :) I will try to give her some colour and see if she turns mor...
Posted by aminstar on 04/10/2009 - 08:39
Back to basics
Considering your kit George, it does'nt seem to worry you either! :wink: You're confusing quantity with cost. Most of my kit was second-hand, designed for film, and acquired when prices were significantly lower than they are now. To replace it today, which is what Aminstar will have to do, I w...
Posted by George Lazarette on 04/10/2009 - 09:00
Back to basics
To replace it today, which is what Aminstar will have to do, G George, you are assuming that I will want to replace my kit. In which case it would worry me too. I too bought all those lenses when they were cheap. I am sticking with film and cheap lenses for my Pentax kit, and like you will be...
Posted by aminstar on 04/10/2009 - 09:06
Back to basics
It's another of your smoky ladies, with a rather baleful left eye. G By George, George you seem to spot these ladies at a distance :) There are some things left in this modern world that one doesn't need training for. G
Posted by George Lazarette on 04/10/2009 - 09:07
Back to basics
By the way, I have been re-evaluating some of my "old stock" (not listed), and have been struck by the quality of the SMCP-M 1:2.8 100mm. Sharp as just about anything else I have and a lovely, neat little lens, like so many Ms. G And if you are considering selling it let me know :) On the contra...
Posted by George Lazarette on 04/10/2009 - 09:16
Back to basics
Considering your kit George, it does'nt seem to worry you either! :wink: You're confusing quantity with cost. Most of my kit was second-hand, designed for film, and acquired when prices were significantly lower than they are now. To replace it today, which is what Aminstar will have to do, I w...
Posted by Snootchies on 04/10/2009 - 10:10
Back to basics
Well....Amin, I have been reading this topic and I must confess: I am at a total loss here.:shock: What are you trying to improve here? Somebody mentioned: Everybody should have to do 6 months on film before being let loose with a digital body And there you go, sell of your Pentax Digital Gear...
Posted by Malo1961 on 04/10/2009 - 10:57
Back to basics
Hi Amin, It's a long time since I first "spoke" to you, we never did get the BBQ did we:(:( You've come an awful long way since then. Anyway good luck with all your endeavours in the future with film. I remember spending hours sometimes when working on flowcharts and COBOL codes and then h...
Posted by HowardJ on 04/10/2009 - 11:13
Back to basics
It does seem a very radical decision, both film and digital have their strong points and by discarding the digital you are loosing a whole side of photography and all that offers. You must have had your reasons but I am at a loss to understand what they may be, adding a film body I can understand...
Posted by Thordell on 04/10/2009 - 13:15
Back to basics
I do have to agree with what others have said - I love having my MZ-60 but for me I see it as complimenting the (mainly digital) equipment I already have. Though my kit does'nt really stand up to the considerable amount others have on the community, I still would'nt want to part with any of it. ...
Posted by Snootchies on 04/10/2009 - 14:39
Back to basics
Amin has his reasons and they are important to him and that's the main thing. Totally agree. Good luck Amin. I have enjoyed your images in the past, hopefully you will still post the occasional one once you get the scanning side sorted. Davex.
Posted by davex on 04/10/2009 - 15:02
