jmc Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 I'm spawning this thread because the subject of photography came up in another thread. It became immediately apparent that a lot of us are enthusiasts, and have been for quite some time. I myself still own my old Minolta SR/T, which was my "pride and joy" back in the 80's. That camera took a lot of pictures, it was strictly manual -- manual focus, exposure control and manual film advance. But I had no problem snapping off a frame per second when things were moving fast! I shot a lot of black-and-white film with that camera because I had my own darkroom -- complete with a home-made enlarger necessitated by my limited budget. I couldn't do color but b/w worked great! Now, although I've joined the digital revolution, it's still fun to break out the old 35mm and give her a whirl. The digital point-and-shoots are wonderful but the sound and feel of that mechanical shutter is something I'll never forget. Have a happy time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegant Posted October 27, 2008 Share Posted October 27, 2008 After my old HP Photosmart 720 drowned and never got to live again, I bought a Fujifilm Finepix S5500 compact. It ain't bad, but its limitations [lack of hot shoe, and low ISO: very noisy 400...] and unconvenient controls [zoom, focus, time & aperture] made me think of a SLR. I don't have any yet, but I know I'll buy a Canon: they seem more ergonomic than Nikons and some photographers I know told me that the Canon CCDs are of better quality. As for other equipment: I've had a tripod, but someone stole it off my bike. No big deal; it was cheap and already seemed to have broken down, so I wasn't sure I could use it anymore. Now I think about some vintage GDR Bilora tripod, they seem sturdy as heck and I don't care too much about weight since I won't be moving around with a tripod too much. But I can't live without this contraption, esp. if I do some urban exploration and take photos in abandoned factories, and I'm quite keen on it. What is good for a goose, can be good for any gender! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vector Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Cameras seem like local politics (in the united states at least). Tow major players and a bunch of smaller competitors. I'm in the market for a d-slr and have narrowed it down to the Canon XSI. Different cameras if the price range were markedly different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegant Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 A colleague of mine will buy an EOS 1D MkIII soon, but he's a professional photographer and he needs the best equipment available. What is good for a goose, can be good for any gender! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JeffB Posted October 28, 2008 Share Posted October 28, 2008 Well, I have a Nikon D80 with a recently bought Tamron 18-200mm zoom lens. I consider myself a somewhat advanced amatuer, but I've managed to take so fairly good pics with the camera which works like a charm. I don't want to LOOK like a woman, I just want to DRESS like a woman! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyFeat Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 I am as compulsive with cameras as I am with shoes! I love how these two topics are also shared with so many people. I own 3 Canon AE-1 Program cameras and a Canon T-90. The EA-1s are from the early 80's and the T-90 is from the late 80's or so. One AE-1 I have had since 1982, the others I bought on E-bay. All, of course are film cameras (you know that stuff you shove in the back of the camera, comes in a roll...) Since they are old, nice lenses have been easy to come by. They use the old Canon FD mount. I have a 24mm 2.8, 28mm 2.8, 35mm 2.8, a 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.2, 100mm 2.8, 135 2.5, 200mm 2.8, 300mm 4, a 500mm mirror 8, and a 70-210 4 lenses. They aren't great low light lenses, but they do a nice job. I also have a vintage Yashica Flex medium format twin lens reflex that I play with occasionally, but I need to order some 120 film. My goal is to get a Halsbad or Maymia medium format SLR outfit. I also have a HUGE collection of filters, mainly used ones that I bought from E-Bay. I have a dark room where I process black and white negatives and two enlargers. However, I have been using Kodak C-41 process black and white film and just getting the negatives processed at Target recently. As far as digital I have two "vintage" Sony Mavicas, one is a 1.2 MP and saves to floppy disk and the other is a 2.1 and saves to mini CDs. I have a Canon Powershot point and shoot that I carry with me most days. I would like to invest in a nice Canon dSLR in the near future, though I have one at work that I use quite a bit. I am old school. I am still not sold that a digital image can produce the range of tones, the depth of field, and the color that film can produce. But I also think that vinyl LP's sound better than CDs and the government is covering up Roswell and the moon landing was faked...well you get the idea. I am glad we have this thread! It will be fun to hear what everybody is into. Style is built from the ground up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightsnheels Posted October 29, 2008 Share Posted October 29, 2008 I am old school. I am still not sold that a digital image can produce the range of tones, the depth of field, and the color that film can produce. But I also think that vinyl LP's sound better than CDs. I am glad we have this thread! It will be fun to hear what everybody is into. I fully agree! I still use a Pentax K-1000 full manual I got back in 1987. I added a Richo with auto exposure but still manual focus in 1989. I would like to add a Pentax digital body to the collection as it will work with all my existing investment (lenses, flashes, ets...) T&H "Look for the woman in the dress, if there is no dress there is no woman."-Coco Channel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmc Posted October 29, 2008 Author Share Posted October 29, 2008 Those of us who are more than just casual shutterbugs seem to develop an near emotional attachment with our cameras. I've experienced it myself and as young as this thread is, that theme seems to be emerging. I believe that since a camera is a tool used in an intensely creative process it becomes an extension of ourselves. A camera that serves us well and allows us to create interesting images becomes a close, if inanimate, friend. That's why we get so opinionated about them. The old 35 mm SLR's with the eye-level viewfinders "connect" with us in a special way -- we actually look through the camera body and lens to compose our image. This intricate mechanism becomes an extension of our eye as creativity takes place. Digitals, on the other hand, often display the image on that little LCD on the back of the camera. You hold the device almost at arm's length while composing the image -- a major disconnect between man and machine. (Yes, there are a few digitals with eye-level viewfinders -- my Dimage Z1 is an example of one. It's a shame Minolta decided to cash out of digital photography.) Have a happy time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyFeat Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 What a wonderful analogy JMC. I even feel the same thing about autofocus. There is nothing like the grace and simplicity of turning the focus ring on a lens and seeing all of the potential subjects appear just with a slight turn of the wrist. This is not to say that I can't appreciate autofocus, but for really becoming part of the equipment, it kills the romance. Style is built from the ground up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary0618 Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I am old school. I am still not sold that a digital image can produce the range of tones, the depth of field, and the color that film can produce. But I also think that vinyl LP's sound better than CDs and the government is covering up Roswell and the moon landing was faked...well you get the idea. So I am not the only one who believes that Digital is a Close Approximation of the real thing. Minolta X-700. Had 2, both stolen, now on my third. For quick shots for work, I have a Fujifilm FinePix. Guess it is time to dump the VHS player and get a decent Digi Cam too, eh? FLAT SHOES, LIKE FLAT DRINKS, ARE FOR FLAT PEOPLE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kneehighs Posted October 30, 2008 Share Posted October 30, 2008 I'm actually going to get the Canon EOS 5D, with a FULL FRAME sensor, which will give me the image sharpness I need for everything from advertising to fashion pictures. Regarding photoshop, has anyone seen this hilarious site: http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/ Feminine Style . Masculine Soul. Skin In The Game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyFeat Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 I'm actually going to get the Canon EOS 5D, with a FULL FRAME sensor, which will give me the image sharpness I need for everything from advertising to fashion pictures. The full frame sensor is well worth the money. You also get the added value of the focal lengths of lenses translating to true 35mm, which for me is HUGE. Frankly I think the 5D is the best digital camera on the market, though I am going to hold out for a couple of years until the price comes down to the low 4 figures. So I am not the only one who believes that Digital is a Close Approximation of the real thing. Minolta X-700. Had 2, both stolen, now on my third. For quick shots for work, I have a Fujifilm FinePix. Guess it is time to dump the VHS player and get a decent Digi Cam too, eh? Digital is so convenient, especially for low resolution pictures. That's its one TRUE advantage. Frankly, I am not sold on VHS, I am holding out for Beta to make a comeback... Style is built from the ground up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thighbooter Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Well lets see, my first 35mm was an Argus C-3 Range finder that I got for $15 in the early '70's. Then a nieghbor gave me his old Kodak 35, also a range finder. I got my first SLR in 10th grade, a Canon FTb. In '99 I moved over to Minolta with an X-700, and later an X-350, (I think that's what it was). My first Digital was a Minolta Dimage 7. In 2005 I moved back to Canon with the 20D. While I hate the small sensor, and the 1.6 conversion, I will admit that some of my best work has been done with it. One other camera, a Sea & Sea 35mm for Under Water work. I love diving. The Argus and Kodak are both long gone. The Canon FTb, still flies and it's fun to pull it out and give it a roll from time to time. Both of the Minolta film cameras have busted light meters, and are not worth the cost of repair. The Dimage 7 still runs great, as does the Sea & Sea. I also got a Manfroto Tripod when I got the 20D, and it's the best one I've ever owned. However, when I travel, I still go with a small aluminum Slik that I'd picked up in Christchurch NZ on my first trip to The Ice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 31, 2008 Share Posted October 31, 2008 Pentax here An A3 (A3000), istD and K10D, enough length from 18 to 500. So why have I not loaded up the site with pictures - They're stuck on a hard drive "hidden" and locked cos it is not the correct computer talking to it to open or reset it, Damn cheep advent laptops. and too many other activities taking up time , can I retire soon? Q. how would most (fashion/glam) models handle heels behind the camera?? food for thought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vector Posted November 2, 2008 Share Posted November 2, 2008 So I am not the only one who believes that Digital is a Close Approximation of the real thing. It seems that a point and shoot digital (maybe an SLR also) takes better low light pictures that film. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyFeat Posted November 3, 2008 Share Posted November 3, 2008 It seems that a point and shoot digital (maybe an SLR also) takes better low light pictures that film. This is a good observation, and in my opinion one of the true advantages of digital. However, if you have the right equipment and have planned your shots film is still superior in many ways even in low light, but the difference can be small in comparison to the convenience. Low light photography, like all photography is determines by the holy trinity of photography- maximum appatrue, shutter speed and film speed. Though you are still constrained by the first two in digital, a good digital camera will allow you to increase your film speed (in some cases up to 3200) without ever having to change film. If you increase the ISO from 200 to 3200, you can slow the shutter down 4 stops and get it under 1/60 of a second, thus eliminating the need for a tripod. However, this assumes you have a good lens with a very wide appature, otherwise you may only be limited to the number of stops you can effect with shutter speed alone. To do this with film, lets say you are taking pictures inside on a bright day, you would have to change film or haul a tripod, etc. With digital, you can just change a setting. Much faster and much cheaper. A dSLR will still give a lot more options for this than a point and shoot, but I have used many point and shoot cameras that perform quite well. Style is built from the ground up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stockw Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 A colleague of mine will buy an EOS 1D MkIII soon, but he's a professional photographer and he needs the best equipment available. I have a Canon 1D MkIII, it was used to take my avatar pic. I also have a Canon 20D. Can't say I normally do much shoe photography though :-( Honestly a girl can't have too many shoes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegant Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Well, then you must be a professional [or very advanced]. An amateur wouldn't toss out big cash for the best equipment possible, unless he/she is an utterly rich or snobish person . BTW. I'll probably get myself a 10D in a few days, and some nice lenses afterwards. What is good for a goose, can be good for any gender! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stockw Posted November 4, 2008 Share Posted November 4, 2008 Well, then you must be a professional [or very advanced]. An amateur wouldn't toss out big cash for the best equipment possible, unless he/she is an utterly rich or snobish person . BTW. I'll probably get myself a 10D in a few days, and some nice lenses afterwards. Must make me snobish as I'm not utterly rich!! Honestly a girl can't have too many shoes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bubba136 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 BTW. I'll probably get myself a 10D in a few days, and some nice lenses afterwards. Well, then you must be a professional [or very advanced]. An amateur wouldn't toss out big cash for the best equipment possible, unless he/she is an utterly rich or snobish person Being mentally comfortable in your own mind is the key to wearing heels in public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastfreddy2 Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 First camera, Pentax ME -F. When I sold the Pentax, I then bought two Nikon FE2's. [One always with fast B+W film, the other with slow colour film.] The idea if Nikon over Penax was that many specialised acessories could be hired from the likes of Pelling & Cross. I got a dedicated Metz 45 for the Club and small amount of fashion work I did. For portraits I then bought a Mamiya RB67, with Polaroid back (amongst others) and 180mm lens. To make sense of buying this, I also shelled out for 3 monoblocs, and a good number of backgrounds and accessories. With the exception of taking some recent product photo's when I used the monobloc's, all of the equipment listed has been boxed (as new) since I sold my house/studio in 1989. The Nikons saw a fair bit of use, but were looked after. I've heard the digital vs film arguement many times. Film provides better tones, and more detail. Anyone who thinks otherwise, has not used 'slow' film. When enlarged, detail remains astounding. ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegant Posted November 5, 2008 Share Posted November 5, 2008 Well, then you must be a professional [or very advanced]. An amateur wouldn't toss out big cash for the best equipment possible, unless he/she is an utterly rich or snobish person LOL. You really mean that a camera launched in 2003 is *the best equipment possible*, do you? Sarcasm is good... What is good for a goose, can be good for any gender! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightsnheels Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 Pentax here An A3 (A3000), istD and K10D, enough length from 18 to 500. So why have I not loaded up the site with pictures - They're stuck on a hard drive "hidden" and locked cos it is not the correct computer talking to it to open or reset it, Damn cheep advent laptops. and too many other activities taking up time , can I retire soon? I can sum tis up with an old audiophile statement: "Digital is pivotal but vinyl is final." You can't loose negatives to a hard drive crash! But you do have to store them properly. T&H "Look for the woman in the dress, if there is no dress there is no woman."-Coco Channel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2008 Share Posted November 6, 2008 The hard drive is fully accessible, it's just the motherboard that's given up. power side will not feed to the board or recharge the battery. The "hidden" files require the original computer/mother board to "unhide". I need a friendly person with an Advent 7060 to charge the battery- then problem solved. All files get saved to disc ASAP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightsnheels Posted November 8, 2008 Share Posted November 8, 2008 Alsheels, which OS are you running on the aforementioned hard drive? There are enough tech guys here maybe one of us has the answer for retrieval. Unless you are running Vista there are ways to retrieve them without the original motherboard. T&H "Look for the woman in the dress, if there is no dress there is no woman."-Coco Channel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 XP (gen) with most updates until mid year (some bounced and didn't load correctly) so turned off updates due to frustration. That's the OS. Menu is show hidden folders Folder is "ghosted" and with cursor over shows as empty Opening folder properties and un-ticked Read only and Hidden click Apply (to change attributes) error box shows file address - ACCESS IS DENIED so I'm locked out, at least the kids can't get there Al PS folder wont move either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegant Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Since I'm using a Polish version of XP pro, it's quite hard to explain everything - but I'll try. Log on your computer as a system administrator, enter the directory's properties and select the "security" tab. In the upper box, you should see several users or user groups. Add your username there, give yourself all the access privileges, and try to enter the folder. If that doesn't work, get back to where you finished, and click the "advanced" button. In the first tab, uncheck the first checkbox, and in the "owner" tab, select yourself as an owner. You should have full access, then. What is good for a goose, can be good for any gender! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightsnheels Posted November 12, 2008 Share Posted November 12, 2008 Sorry running a bit late tonight. If Elegant's suggestions do not work there is a program called recuva from recuva.com that I have had great success with retrieving things from windows especially photos. Just set it to deep scan and be prepared to wait it should show everything though sometimes you have to do it twice. I managed to recover several hundred pictures from Mrs. T&H's deceased digital camera with this program when windows wouldn't even show their existance. Good luck with your endevors. T&H "Look for the woman in the dress, if there is no dress there is no woman."-Coco Channel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 13, 2008 Share Posted November 13, 2008 Thanks Guys Elegant Sorry my version is different, no security tab so I got no further. Many thanks though. tightsnheels Downloaded Recuva first 2 runs found nothing using the wizard. Run it advanced / manual gave a huge list of ever thing, found some of the files and recovered to safe normal folder. Another 2/3rds to do as I ran out of time, so that is one of tomorrows jobs Nice little program many thanks for a solution that works. Again thanks to both, very much appreciated Al Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tightsnheels Posted November 14, 2008 Share Posted November 14, 2008 Your quite welcome Alsheels, always willing to help out when I can. T&H "Look for the woman in the dress, if there is no dress there is no woman."-Coco Channel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts