49 new of 67 responses total.
#17. Denise. I have NEVER heard of this film, but it probably is pretty good if it is made by Kodak. Do they say it is good for huge light differences picture-to-picture within a role or within a single frame? I am curious - let me know what you think of it.
Sounds like Max is something worth trying - here are a few words from a site pulled down by HotBot: New! KODAK GOLD Max Film Improved! KODAK GOLD 100, 200, and 400 Films KODAK GOLD 100, 200, 400, and Max Films are a new family of color negative films that offer the best combination of color saturation, color accuracy, and sharpness at ISO 100, 200, 400, and 800 available from any manufacturer. They are designed for general picture-taking situations for exposure with daylight or electronic flash. You can also expose them under photolamps (3400 K) or tungsten illumination (3200 K) with filters. Improved! KODAK GOLD 100, 200, and 400 Films feature better color accuracy, more color saturation, and higher sharpness than the current generation of GOLD 100, 200, and 400 Films. They also feature wide exposure latitude--from two stops underexposure to three stops overexposure. New! KODAK GOLD Max Film is the newest addition to the family of GOLD Films; it features high speed (ISO 800) and outstanding emulsion efficiency. It also offers extremely wide exposure latitude--from two stops underexposure to five stops overexposure. Thanks, Denise.
Didn't Kodak have a ASA 1000 on the market in the early 70's? I seem to recall shooting a roll or two when I owned a Konica that my parents gave me.
Yes, I recall a 1000 print film. As I recall it was pretty grainy and contrasty. I have used Kodak 1600 print film indoors (graduation ceremony) with telephoto and no flash with pretty good results.
Kodak.com has more info on Max film than any human should know. ;) I found that they made a asa 25 film for bright lights. But it's not for my camera. I guess in some cases, the camera does matter.
I'm still looking forward to trying this film--but between my work schedule and the too hot and/or wet weather outdoors, I haven't been able to do any shooting with it yet. Soon, I hope!
Ok, here's my question: has anybody ever taken any underwater shots? I have decided that I want to take some... suggestions on film type, shutter speed, etc? PLus, there is the obvious question of has anyone ever seen a "camera-condom" (something that will keep a camera dry) that won't noticeably degrade image quality? I saw something meant to do this, but it was plastic and I figured that it would just smear my image to hell... anybody ever tried this?
You can buy the "disposable" type of cameras for under water. I saw pictures from these and they were really impressive. I think they had Kodak 400 film in them.
Yeah, I use those disposable ones and, if the water is pretty clear, and the sun is bright enough, you can get good shots. Obviously, the deeper the water the more light needed. I once saw a plastic bag type thing that had a glass lens, sort of like a large dive mask. The bag was flexible enough to manipulate the camera, but I could never figure out if you'd get distortion in the event the lens was not parallel to your focal plane/lens. Never used one...didn't trust it to keep my camera safe either.
I'd have a hard time trusting an expensive 35mm camera & lens inside a low-cost device which has no warranty for the equipment inside.
ditto that. I am sure there are professional devices intended for this though. Maybe i will go take a look at Canons website -- considering a lot of the other stuff they make, I have a feeling that they might have something along these lines...
Let us know what you find. Thanks
Ok, here is what I have found: there is in fact at least _one_ company that makes waterproof camera's that use standard 35mm film and are waterproof to a substantial depth (200 feet and more). Here is the company that I found (actually I kind of stumbled across this by accident in a sailing magazine). Pioneer Research 97 Foster Rd, Suite 5 Moorestown, NJ 08057 Telephone: 1-800-257-7742 The Autofocus SLR that was in this particular ad is called the "Sealife Reefmaster." I had an opportunity to check one out, and it looks pretty nicely built, very sturdy. The price tag is sorta hefty, though -- it will probably cost at least $125 (probably closer to $200 if you buy it in Ann Arbor), for a camera that if it wasn't waterproof would likely cost around $50. If you do a lot of underwater shots, or need to take an underwater shot that is more than the 9 feet or whatever that the Kodak disposables allow, this is quite likely a good bet. I did find a few companies that make camera housing. For _video_ camera's, check out aquavideo.com So, you are planning on taking the next epic underwater photo series for National Geographic, huh? You need something more than a point and click camera? Check out the Nikonos system (no, that is _not_ a typo) at larger camera shops, or check out ikelite.com, which also distributes underwater color filters and camera housings. The camera housings they make look pretty dependable (plus, they ahve been manufacturing them for 31 years now...) They have housings fitted for Minolta, Nikon, and Canon SLR's and lenses, as well as color corrective filters. Oddly enough, they also have a housing fitted for the SONY Mavica digital system, but I have no clue why someone would use a CCD system for an underwateer shot, where the image quality is going to be negatively affected by lower light levels. The Mavica system seems to work okay for closeup shots, though there is still some visible aliasing on close inspection, but for wide angle shots, the system is terrible, especially when there is a wide variance in light levels (this is a problem with CCD systems). I have put a _good_ example of what can be done with the Mavica system in an underwater setting here on Grex as /a/a/g/agent86/mavica-fish.jpg -- if you have internet access, just check it out directly at http://www.ikelite.com/web_pages/mav_pic5.html. Ah, well, thats all for now.
Anybody know anything about cleaning accumulated grime and dust off of old slides? I just got a slide scanner and I've been digging through the family shoebox...
A fine camel's hair brush is usually used, after blowing. You can wash the slides in distilled water, if you take them out of their mounts.
I was going to buy one of those camera lens brushes... Question two: Glass slides. They won't fit in the scanner, so how likely is it that they can safely be taken apart?
There are different kinds of slides *in* glass - old ones with thick glass and paper around the edges, and more modern ones of plastic with ultra-thin glass inserts. The former come apart by cutting the tape, and inside the photo is held in a paper frame. The latter snap open. In the former, the film is at most tacked with spots of glue on the edge. I'd suggest if you have the former that you remount them in the latter kind holder - they are thinner and lighter.
My dad is worried that the film itself may have become stuck to the glass. Yup these are the Olde Kinde of slides, thick slabs of glass held together with some kind of black tape. The projector we have actually has a "preheat" section for the next slide, so that it can warm up before having 500+ watts of incandescent heat blast through it.
Open a few and find out - it is easy enough to close them back up with new black tape.
hmmm...just wondering - what type of photography equipment is used to take poster size photos??? I have a hard time believing that so much detail could fit on 35mm, even with the top of the line SLRs.
You'd be amazed at how much information is contained in a 35mm negative. I used an 1800 dpi slide scanner to archive family photos, and even at the top resolution (yielding 13Mb files) I could zoom way in and see that there was still some stuff on the slide being messed up by the scan quantizing.
so then its basically an issue of film grain?
Yup. Also note that films shown in movie theaters (much bigger than poster size!) are shot and printed on 35mm film.
hmmm...... I scanned this picture from the book 'Better Homes and Gardens - Creative Decorating on a budget' published in 1970. http://members.triton.net/eprom/decor.jpg There is something in the tonal quality that gives this photo a dated look. I can't seem to put my finger on it though. I would like to use Photoshop to try to manipulate some pictures I took with my digital camera to re-create the same 'feel'. can someone give me some tips on how to possibly do this?
The decor itself is dated - the shrubery, the upholstery, statues, the wall paint. I'm not sure the "tonal quality" has much to do with it.
I'd guess that the dark walls are part of what you are seeing.
Dark walls, dim lighting, low contrast. The lighting and filtering used is giving a brownish cast, too. That's part of it -- dated decorating sense. However, I've noticed that older pictures seem to have a more muted color quality than modern ones. The colors are less bright and vibrant. I don't know if this is a result of the film stock used or a result of fading. I'm not sure exactly how you'd duplicate that in Photoshop.
On a second inspection I'm seeing a very subtle herringbone sort of pattern going from top left to bottom right - easiest to see on the right-hand wall. Might be part of the various format conversions on the way to my screen, though. Might also be something to do with color separations for printing - Pantone stuff, maybe?
the herringbone is due to my crappy flatbed scanner. I should clarify what I meant..... Theoretically if you had a regular 3 MP digital camera and were in that same place, time, setting, etc...as the original photographer and took a photo with the digital camera, you would capture quite a different look...irregardless of the dated drappery and carpet.. anyways...looking over the same book, i'm starting to wonder if some of those "photos" were actually very realistic illustrations. you can probably see what I'm taking about in this picture. specifically the photo to the left with the blue curtains. http://members.triton.net/eprom/decor2.jpg
Nobody does wall colors in anything like those photos anymore. Mentally map in white walls and it'll look a lot more recent.
Why is a focal length of 50mm considered a standard? I've been reading that 50mm is very close to what the human eye see's. I'm wondering which human is that? when I measure my perphial viewing angle it's slightly greater than 90 degrees. which according to this nifty little .swf applet: http://www.usa.canon.com/eflenses/lens101/focallength is somewhere between 20mm and 28mm...(i'd estimate 24mm). Am I gifted?
Its an arbitrary (compromise) value chosen to make cameras moderately compact but still have good resolution and light-gathering capability (smaller f). All you get with a longer focal length is a bigger camera (and image).
Re resp:49: It's based not on the field of view, but on how you perceive depth. With lenses shorter than 50mm, depth relationships look stretched, with distant objects appearing farther away than they really are. With lenses longer than 50mm, depth relationships are compressed.
I disagree. The effects lie in both field of view and depth of focus. Otherwise the images are identical (the image is only what can be seen from that point). I think what you call "depth relationships" are just depth of focus. You can obtain the same with a shorter focal length by stopping down (greater f).
No, I mean perspective, actually. A long lense compresses perspective, a short lens stretches it. Objects look closer together in a shot taken with a long lens. There's an excellent demonstration of this at the bottom of this page: http://www.mendophoto.com/grabshot/focallength.html
But he *moved*. That isn't fair. The effect shown is due to his motion, where moving further away from the stick (for example) decreases the apparent size ratio of the stick and objects in the background. If he had stayed in the same place and changed lenses, and then enlarged the pictures so that the stick was the same size in all of the prints, there would be no difference (apart from depth of focus and grain effects). You can get the same effect he got simply by using the same lens at different distances, and enlarging the prints to have the stick the same length in each.
The point is, if you position yourself to set something up full-frame in a telephoto lens, objects in the background will look closer to it. If you position yourself to set something up full-frame in a wide-angle lens, objects in the background will look more distant. A 50mm lens splits the difference and results in size relationships that look like what you would perceive with your eye. The fact that you can crop and enlarge to get the same effect isn't my point.
We are saying the same thing up to your conclusion, but the reason for compromising on 50 mm is that that creates what seems to be the nearby perspective we see *in the most economical fashion* in terms of camera size, weight, and film format and processing.
what exaclty are these for? They came attacted to my camera straps. I took them off because i don't have a use for them if I don't know what they're for http://members.triton.net/eprom/clueless.jpg
One of them looks like a viewfinder cover. It's used to keep light from leaking in through the viewfinder during long time exposures, since the light seal around the mirror is not always perfect. The other may be a lens cap holder.
I think you're right about the viewfinder cover, it fits exactly. They're both the same, I just positioned them at slightly different angles.
uhh...stupid camera question #4029 I have a Sunpak flash rated at a GN of 59. I need a more powerful flash...if I get an identical flash and fire them both at the same time, is it the equivalent of firing a single flash rated at GN 118?
question #34948 approx. what year did Kodachrome 64 first come out?
http://www.screensound.gov.au/glossary.nsf/Pages/Kodachrome?OpenDocument
That link you listed didn't really say when Kodachrome 64 came out. I did a little more checking and according to someone on one of the Usenet groups, It was introduced as Kodachrome-X in 1963. Prior to that, kodachrome was only availible in ASA 10 and 25.
I have an snapshot I'd like to turn digital. Dates from the mid80s, is in good shape colorwise. I've got an HP1510 scanner. How much better quality would I get by taking the photo to a professional photo shop for the transform?
It depends on what you want to do with the photo, in my opinion. Better quality doesn't mean anything if the quality from the scanner is good enough for your purposes. My experience is that the main weakness of home scanners is color consistency. You may need to learn how to use your scanner software's color balancing features to get the color to come out the way you want.
*grin* I don't think I HAVE color balance on the scanner. I'd have to play photoshop with it after it's digitized.
That works, too. I miss my old Agfa SnapScan scanner. It had a really nice set of color tools in the TWAIN driver. One of the best features was the ability to click on a white spot in the photo and have it automatically adjust the color so that spot actually *was* white.
You have several choices: