 Messages |
Topics |
Attachments
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - tamoio
26
« on: April 29, 2013, 03:05:04 PM »
scroll to around 2:20 to see the sexiest color on a camera Ive seen ever
gunmetal! but plastic I'm sure?
27
« on: April 29, 2013, 02:42:19 PM »
For the first time in 3 years I am officially m43less.
28
« on: April 29, 2013, 02:33:03 PM »
man, that was quick
29
« on: April 29, 2013, 01:09:22 PM »
Camera Model: Panasonic DMC GH3
Approximate age of Body: 3 months
Body Condition: Pristine
Number of Shutter actuations: more than 1000, but I shoot primarily video
Sale Includes: Body Cap, all of the original items in the Panasonic box but no box, one additional Panasonic battery, Panasonic wired remote release.
Price: 1100
Payments Accepted: Paypal
Possible Trades: no
Shipping Methods Available (Ships From): USPS priority mail is free, UPS the buyer pays the shipping
Shipping Available To: anywhere in the United States
Item location: Fairbanks, Alaska
Best Contact Method: PM here
Feedback:
Reason for selling: general (perhaps temporary) m43 liquidation
Photos: on request
30
« on: April 28, 2013, 10:30:36 PM »
Ilford used to sell a B&W film that was basically C-41 color film, it had a lot of latitude (for overexposure) and was virtually grainless, but I forget what it was named. I played around with it for a couple years back in the 80s.
It was convenient for travel, you could shoot some rolls almost anywhere and drop it off at a 1 hour lab, but I think it was not as successful as it could have been because most people shooting B&W like traditional style film grain.
That's Ilford XP2
But, I thought you developed C41 Color film in B&W developer... Kodak Gold 100 in HC110, or D76
Cross Processing, That is.
Just skipping the blix step, FWIW I think diamine based c41 developer works on regular b&w emulsions, but color emulsions without the bleaching you get that groovy posterization-cross-process look (at least in color). I get a rash just thinking about color chemistry anymore.
31
« on: April 28, 2013, 04:32:54 PM »
For the time being E-P5 will have some superior tech compared to the E-M5, but the E-M6 is right around the corner.
I wonder how many people could honestly say they have 'mastered' the E-M5 at this point.
32
« on: April 28, 2013, 04:29:18 PM »
Ilford used to sell a B&W film that was basically C-41 color film, it had a lot of latitude (for overexposure) and was virtually grainless, but I forget what it was named. I played around with it for a couple years back in the 80s.
It was convenient for travel, you could shoot some rolls almost anywhere and drop it off at a 1 hour lab, but I think it was not as successful as it could have been because most people shooting B&W like traditional style film grain.
33
« on: April 26, 2013, 04:31:31 PM »
nobody thinks its insanely overpriced???
Yes. When you combine the price for the body and a VF its going to be much more than an OMD. I still think it is drop-dead-gorgeous.
34
« on: April 24, 2013, 04:02:35 AM »
people with GH3s (the flagship of the line) are upset about this.
35
« on: April 24, 2013, 03:54:51 AM »
The background on the bottom one looks slightly more 'busy' but there is also some exposure or DR difference, but actually looking across the frame. . .no, I can't tell from this resolution. Do us a favor and post those over in FM in this thread: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1203885
36
« on: April 23, 2013, 10:47:40 AM »
37
« on: April 23, 2013, 10:41:01 AM »
commando
38
« on: April 23, 2013, 07:21:38 AM »
39
« on: April 22, 2013, 03:50:40 PM »
But which one is 'better'?
40
« on: April 22, 2013, 10:12:15 AM »
I'll try to be a little more articulate about what it was that provoked my response in the OP. I think it is completely ok to like the 'look' of your M9, M 240, 5d mkIII, D800e or whatever, but to attribute those qualities to sensor size (as compared to APS or m43) and then broadly claim some sort of qualitative superiority for that sensor format is probably a stretch (putting it mildly).
I do understand the attachments people form to their gear, sometimes it is a little like musical instruments. When I was shooting stills for a living the one lens I could absolutely, positively not live without was a Nikkor 105mm f1.8. I stayed with the Nikon system for almost 15 years for pretty much that lens and the 300 f2.8. If I was all invested in some Leica M or Canon L glass, I would be very reluctant to go to a 'crop sensor' format. That said, every day you can see examples of work done with the other formats that is technically comparable to FF, very very few people 'need' FF anymore for anything except impressing other photo geeks.
41
« on: April 21, 2013, 06:51:59 AM »
Theres no end to it, the logic is:
Any full frame, ANY, even if its the first one ever from the contax N, is better than any crop now or that will ever be by miiiiles...
Before digital the same argument was used with regards to MF vs. 35mm, sometimes it made sense when going to a large display use, but the biggest prints a client ever made from anything I did came from 35mm and I was shocked. I walked into a store one day and over in the Levis section there were these huge hanging banners made from my 35mm chromes.
I think the key to subverting this FF nonsense is wiping the metadata and not offering any camera/lens specs. I'd really like to start submitting stuff over at LFI that way.
I take it further. I change the metadata and put in ff cameras with expensive lenses in there. I post the photos and sit back. Im an evil evil troll....im over at a leica forum and a canon one, 1000 $ to anyone who can find me
and I guess in theory stitched panorama/frames are bigger than FF, those are getting difficult to spot.
42
« on: April 21, 2013, 06:36:56 AM »
This is really the closest thing I have to a cat.
43
« on: April 21, 2013, 06:33:11 AM »
Have you decided what to do yet?
It is a lens with a high used value, and if you are going use it, a few hundred to get it in top shape is a worthwhile expense.
I'm going to be back in the U.S. on Thursday and I'm in dilemma on a couple equipment fronts, I really need a long lens for the Sandhill Crane migration which is happening now. I'm still on the fence over selling the m43 system and the Nikon 300 is really ideal for both stills and video of wildlife on m43. I have been looking at legacy 500s (Canon and Nikon) if I found the right one I might just buy it and send the 300 off for service. Last time I had a big telephoto serviced (a Canon 300 f2.8 L) it ended up costing me over $300, so I'm slightly wary, I think the nIkon is only worth $400-$500.
44
« on: April 20, 2013, 08:21:44 PM »
45
« on: April 20, 2013, 09:01:45 AM »
Theres no end to it, the logic is:
Any full frame, ANY, even if its the first one ever from the contax N, is better than any crop now or that will ever be by miiiiles...
Before digital the same argument was used with regards to MF vs. 35mm, sometimes it made sense when going to a large display use, but the biggest prints a client ever made from anything I did came from 35mm and I was shocked. I walked into a store one day and over in the Levis section there were these huge hanging banners made from my 35mm chromes. I think the key to subverting this FF nonsense is wiping the metadata and not offering any camera/lens specs. I'd really like to start submitting stuff over at LFI that way.
46
« on: April 20, 2013, 08:20:02 AM »
I've been waiting almost 30 years for the Leica balloon to finally bust, but it just keeps keeping on. Great but heinously overpriced lenses, well built but heinously overpriced mediocre performing cameras. Pure sex. My first Leica was a fairly beat-up M2, then I had several M4P and used those and an R system professionally in the late 80s early 90s. The one thing that can be said about all the Leica gear I have owned and used (and this is not insignificant) is that I never lost money on any of it. If one had $20k just lying around there are worst things you could do with it than buying a new Leica M and a couple of the new premium M lenses. Chances are the Leica will hold its resale value better than the Fujis.
47
« on: April 19, 2013, 08:14:38 PM »
What I shoot is not the problem, its stuff I read on the internet that makes me unhappy.
49
« on: April 19, 2013, 02:48:34 PM »
My head feels like it is going to explode after reading about 100 pages of wisdom over in the FM Alt section. Kudos to Jman for the Leica M-E effort.
50
« on: April 19, 2013, 07:57:05 AM »
Well, Yes... Consistently + Water Quality (Mineral Free)
Make sure you have more developer than you need for stand. IE: 1 roll 35mm = 10oz... use 12oz instead.
Try a few sec agitation halfway through the development... it can help keep developer drag down. That may be what is happening. Looks like fog lines on film.
I haven't tried Stand with HC110.. What dilution did you use?
Sorry, I threw out all my 'comp books' a couple decades ago, but if memory serves me I found the issue was with the 4x5 film hangers, for a lot of reasons I found the 'deck of cards in the pyrex bread pan' method not optimal and went back to the old 'in out in out' method. I'm sure I derived my formulas from the Adams series of books in one of the chapters on 'compensating developer' techniques. Aside from agitation I always found temperature the most difficult variable to control, especially in California and Canada.
|
Show Posts
