it's not all that big a difference, really; at least in the one week i rented one, i didn't see a big difference. ask BAH, who switched to from a 1.6x sensor (20D) to full-frame/35mm film equivalent (5D).
I just sit at that happy 1.3 medium. I like it plenty. FF would be nice, but at this point there is no full frame camera that can do what the mk2 can. The d3 can do it, but only in DX mode. For now, the mk2 is still kickin ass and takin' names.it's not all that big a difference, really; at least in the one week i rented one, i didn't see a big difference. ask BAH, who switched to from a 1.6x sensor (20D) to full-frame/35mm film equivalent (5D).
ISO 800 or iso 1200 BW film is rad.its all cloudy and boring and its going to be cloudy and boring for the rest of the week. any suggestions for shooting with poor light.
Yeah, just think how much Cartier-Bresson's and Robert Frank's pics sucked...Edit: Just read that you have to use tri-x 400, ****ty.
What until after Christmas, don't own a digital camera at all right now. Only extended experience I have with digital is borrowing a friends Rebel to shoot a few sculpture projects. It was fun, I'm getting excited to get back into photography.
if it's so damn easy, let's see yr digitally-created portfolio.
i'm preparing to be blown away.
Awesome.keep in mind my teacher is flaming homosexual who worked in the fashion industry for 20 years. today he showed us prints from his other class's. 95 percent of them he threw across the room saying they were crap. the other 5 percent were "really hot".
it's really funny. to day he said, "so sue me paris.....THAT'S HOT" (ad in your strongest flamer voice)Awesome.
i can't wait to take photography next year. i hope hot chicks like film studies classes as well.Hmmm. The best part about teaching/assisting photography in a university setting is that 1) lots of hot chicks take photography as an art elective, because it seems easier than drawing/paining 2) 3/4 of them inevitably choose the nude self-portrait as a form of expression.
i thought that since you do a prewash before developing, getting a fingerprint or two on the film isn't that big of a deal. the only real problems that i've had with my negatives were water marks.i did the black bag today. that was really stressful. i only got one finger print on the film to. so not bad for my first time.
yea apparently its not but it might leave little smudges.i thought that since you do a prewash before developing, getting a fingerprint or two on the film isn't that big of a deal. the only real problems that i've had with my negatives were water marks.
See, Ridemonkey is useful!right now i'm 5 days ahead of the rest of my class so today i taught the class and the teacher went out to get coffee.
my english and biology teachers don't agree.See, Ridemonkey is useful!
I'm having fun shooting film again. It does have qualities that digital just can't replicate, some like that feel and some don't I guess.
I picked this up the other day:
My grandpa bought it in 1959 or so, and it's been in the family ever since.
Whole 'nother world for certain kinds of shooting. Since you're looking straight at the subjects, not a projected image, it tends to make it less like you're making photos and more like you're slicing out some reality.is that a rangefinder? i've never used one of those before.
and much more likely to get a finger/camera strap in the picture...Whole 'nother world for certain kinds of shooting. Since you're looking straight at the subjects, not a projected image, it tends to make it less like you're making photos and more like you're slicing out some reality.