Thunderer

...but Liverpool Photographic Society's president has suggested I go and give their club a talk on macro with my images.

 

Problem is, I would have the bal*s to do it.

 

Next year sometime, but I would struggle to stand in front of loads of strangers and I would end up having nothing come out of my mouth! 

 

 

 

Paul

I had the same problem at work but in strangely I found large groups are easier than small groups to give a talk to. With large groups I didn't bother about individual responses but with small groups I could follow the reactions of individuals which could be unsettling. Other than that Ihave no explanation but it was true.

Also given that you know the subject inside out you will be able to deal with any questions.

I would say go ahead and do it. At the least it wouldbe a change from all those travelogue/holiday snap talks I get to see!

Jeff

There will be good and bad clubs. Same with everything in life really. This is a very friendly forum, but I bet we could all name other forums where everyone is constantly ripping in to each other. There will always be better examples and weaker examples of clubs and forums.

Serious question.

Can someone point me in the direction of one of these aggressive forums please? I am interested to see if the problem is hostility, point scoring, oneupmanship etc rather than blunt but honest critiques. I have been on forums where every image was "awesome" which was not true or useful. I would have no problem with robust exchanges of view as long as there was no agenda behind comments.

I am reluctant to offer critiques in case I upset people although critical comments ( on other forums ) about my work are usually ok and helpful.

Jeff

I was sometimes tempted by the much greater quality of medium format, but I think I'd have gone for the 'Hasselblad' SLR option (by which I mean a Bronica or similar!). I did once own a TLR but it was one of those cheapo Russian Lubitel things : surprisingly soft lens for a Russian made camera. Transparencies were a different matter though - 6x6 Kodachrome... mmmm, lovely.

Blimey.

You have been stalking me!

I had a Lubitel. Lens was mostly good but had a soft area. The camera disintegrated on me.

After the Mamiya I got a Bronica 645 format SLR with three prime lenses. An excellent camera.

Then I was persuaded, with a bit of financial help, to sell my Bronica and darkroom stuff and get an Alpha 100 to use with my Minolta lenses.

With 20/20 hindsight I should have stayed with film and got a digi bridge camera for convenience and holiday snaps.

Ah well upwards and onwards with technology??

Jeff

I never found Agfa colours bad - in fact, very good. It's just that they didn't last long.

 

Rolleiflex - you mean the 6x6cm twin lens reflex? I don't think you were an idiot! Those were good wedding cameras especially on a tripod, but really inflexible compared to 35mm. Yes, great quality, but you couldn't take it everywhere, nor change lenses.

Yes. a TLR. A very strong but light simple construction with fixed lens. I don't remember there were zoom lenses in those days but the first zoom lens seemed to sacrifice everything for convenience. Photographers pretty well accepted fixed lenses and worked around the limitations and with the benefits.

The daft thing Idid was sell it. It would have been a good investment.

I returned many years later to a Mamiya TLR. A much heavier machine but it had interchangeable lenses. But also a good tool. I had necessarily to work slowly so my photos were much more considered.

Jeff

My dad had a Retinette 1b !!! I think that was the one that had 'match needle' exposure metering? (Sorry, that wasn't intended to make you feel even older!) I have to say I never even heard of Kodachrome 10 until you just mentioned it. My thought is that film emulsions had improved to the point where they could more than double the speed with little or no drop in quality?

 

Dad used Agfa slide film, but sadly it doesn't have the archive quality of Kodachrome and many of his slides have deteriorated over 50 years

My mother got a 1b after I got the 1a. The great advances were indeed the built in meter with match needle exposure settings plus expanding shutter speeds to 1/15 and 1/500 and an f2.8 lens.

Agfa slide film ..... Hmm. Lurid greens and fading within a couple of years. Strange how the German cameras were regarded as superior eg Retinettes to Leicas but colour films were very inferior.

Kodak K10 and 25 were superb and indeed my interest in photography was attending in about 1958 a slide show of an RAF Himalayan mountain expedition taken on Kodachrome.

I moved on to medium format by saving my wages from working in a market garden ( my back still aches with the thoughts of picking French beans all morning ) for 12.5 pence per hour and buying a Rolleiflex Auto for not much money and selling it on because it didn't have flash synchro. What an idiot I was ( still am )

Jeff

I agree with just about everything you said Graham, and our paths weren't so very different, except that I never had the money to afford a Leica! I can also affirm that Kodachrome 25 was an awesome film, even used in my Zorki 4. I still have the slides and they still have the original colour and are as sharp as like.

 

The problem NOW is that people are indeed 'hung up' on sharpness, and you see so many over-sharpened pictures around. I've been guilty of it too, and I now try to leave pictures to reassess after first impressions. And then when I come to sharpen a decent picture, I will use Photoshop's High Pass filter ... at the end of other processing of course! I still think that all zoom lens output needs to be sharpened, but the gap with primes - especially for short zooms - isn't as great as it was in the 80s.

You talk about K25. Us old folk remember when K25 replaced K10 and being a bit surprised that saturation seemed to have been toned down. The assumption was that quality had been sacrificed for speed !

Sad to say my pictures are no better now than when I was in my early teens shooting K10 on my Retinette 1a ( f3.5 50mm fixed lens and shutter speeds 1/30 to 1/250 ) and exposure calculated by reference to month, time of day, quality of light, film speed, direction of light and subject, but now technical quality is better and there are far more shooting options.

Tonality and smoothness seem as important as sharpness in assessing technical quality but those are two qualities difficult to assess on most screens.

Jeff

Hi

 

I sometimes suspect that theses days we actually accept a lower quality of image from our modern digital cameras. (Tin Hat On) and heading for the door

 

In the 70's & 80's the test of a lens and film was how sharp the image was when printed to 20x16 inches, in the digital age the benchmark seems to have changed to A4.

 

I know I have negatives shot in the 80's that are much sharper than images I produced on highend Canon Cameras with L series lenses.

 

It used to be accepted that images produced by digital cameras always needed some form of sharpening because of the way the Image was produced and processed.  Not sure if that's still true though but suspect it is, not that anyone will admit to it though

 

Paul

The laws of physics and optics have not changed. Digital images need sharpening which may well be done by the camera when processing raw files into jogs. If you use raw files then sharpening is a normal processing action by the photographer/printer. Why would it be a question of needing to admit anything? After all techniques were used in film days to enhance apparent sharpness eg dilute ID11 1+3 to enhance acutance rather than use stock or 1+1

For what it is worth my view is that very sharp A3 prints can be routinely made from digital files whereas it was difficult from 35mm and MF film but OK from 4" x 5" negs. But tonality is another matter.

Jeff

I belong to a photographic club in the town I live , I joined via their web site . It's pretty much like this , chat , competitions , showing your photos off , people commenting on them . They meet once a week on a Wednesday and go out on a Sunday to various places to get some shots . I started off by putting on my 3 a day allowance of photos , occasionally asking questions on the forum , mentioning certain things I've seen or read regarding photography . Because of my work commitment and family life , I am , unable to attend any meetings or trips out . The reason for this posting is I've come to the conclusion , that if , you don't attend or go out with them , then you seem to be , let's say " the black sheep of the family " , no one is commenting on my photos , no one is replying to my postings . It annoys me as , if I'm allowed to say , they are mostly " oldies " , with all the time in the world . It's nice to be a member of this forum , as everyone is friendly and everyone comments on photos ( good or bad ) . Thank you alan

Sorry for late reply.

Actually, actually going to meetings does not mean you will not be ignored.

I joined one a few months ago and I go most weeks. The most meaningful conversation I have had was about sitting in the wrong ie someone else's, place.

Even winning both the print and DPI beginners' monthly comp. has not made me worthy of inclusion. But on reflection they possibly didn't connect my name with anyone they recognise.

But I have paid my subs and shall keep on attending.

A couple of lectures were OK. The last one was about how to improve your photography to which the answeres are to have a go at PAGB accreditations and use photoshop layers creatively! As an aside I was surprised, when the successful accreditation collections were shown that at least two photos were in all three collections ( I can't say panels of pictures because there was no theme or thread running through them but rather collections of unconnected images.)

Jeff

A long shot question.

I have a 3 metre HDMI cable to connect my non Internet PC to my TV.

Today I bought an Apple lightning to HDMI connector to connect my IPad to TVS

BUT the HDMI connector on the lightning connector is much smaller than my cable HDMI.

Question is what connector do I now have to buy to connect them? I presume some sort of mini HDMI male to big size female HDMI connector.

Any advice gratefully received on how to spend yet more money!

Jeff

Sorry folks. Ignore the question.

I confused a VGA cable with an HDMI cable ----- dohhhh

Jeff

A long shot question.

I have a 3 metre HDMI cable to connect my non Internet PC to my TV.

Today I bought an Apple lightning to HDMI connector to connect my IPad to TVS

BUT the HDMI connector on the lightning connector is much smaller than my cable HDMI.

Question is what connector do I now have to buy to connect them? I presume some sort of mini HDMI male to big size female HDMI connector.

Any advice gratefully received on how to spend yet more money!

Jeff

My doctor want's me to take both Statins and Beta Blockers as I've developed mild angina, I'm very much against taking any medication and I don't even take anything when I get a migraine. Are there any members on the forum who have experience of taking Statins or Beta Blockers, if so did or do you suffer any side effects.

Statins for high cholesterol.

No side effects.

A very interesting thread, this. However...

 

You can accuse me of peeing on the parade if you wish, but there's one thing that hasn't been mentioned - a large sensor, expensive lenses, a big-name badge on the front of the camera and having 18k of kit stored in the wardrobe does not a good photographer make.

 

For proof of this, take a sken at the quality work BP produces on his iPhone.

 

I have a friend who owns more expensive kit than I'll ever be able to afford, but he's never produced a worthwhile image in the fifteen years I've known him. Hope he doesn't read this!

 

Korky

I don't think that has been mentioned because it was not part of the question which was entirely about technical matters.

The point you make seems entirely correct but is for a different thread.

Jeff

Which one, out of interest? There's been several 'families':

 

• the original FZ30 & FZ50 which had slightly larger sensors than what followed, more manual control, but comparatively short zoom range
• FZ8/18/28/38/47 - smaller sensors, longer zooms, less manual control
• FZ100/150/200 - change to CMOS sensor (though still small), increasing zoom range, faster lenses
• FZ1000 - much larger sensor (1"), slightly reduced zoom range, but far higher IQ than what went before 

FZ28 I think.

One really good aspect was the available full manual control in RAW. The lens had a remarkable range.

I got it secondhand with known provenance after I got fed up changing DSLR lenses as I climbed a hill on Eigg on a windy day and kept getting left behind and worrying about dirt on the sensor.

It was good for on screen pictures but prints bigger than 8" x 10" were somewhat lacking.

I subsequently got a second DSLR body and was able to readily change between bodies with different lenses but witha weight penalty.

Jeff

To be honest due to ill health and the fact I can no longer carry my Nikon and my lenses I am thinking of buying to most capable super zoom bridge camera. I do a lot of wildlife so I need the longest lens available. I need something that is all in one with no other bits to carry around. Any recommendations would be good..

Thanks in advance..

I had a Panasonic FZ with an enormous range lens. Within it's limitations it was good but that tiny sensor's 10mp produced noticeably poorer prints than Sony a100 10mp. But on a laptop screen for which 10mp seems overkill there seemed little difference.

Jeff

First lets put the myth that four thirds is vastly smaller than APS-C to bed. If you want a big jump in sensor size go ful lframe and all that it involves

Click image to view large

Most of my images posted on this forum are from four thirds sensors

Also bear in mind that because of the slight increase in DOF that you can use say f/1.8 to get the same dof as f/2.5 on APS-C and so can us over a stop lower ISO to get the same shot.

 

Next I have used Canon DSLR's and the Pentax K-30, I now use the E-M5,E-M10 and E-P5 and can honestly say that there is little difference in image quality just the weight and I personally would not change back but that's just me.

 

I believe in tests the E-M10 beat quite a few new DSLR's in dynamic range and High ISO so image quality is no longer a factor unless your into massive prints but 30x20 inches should be possible at low ISO without cropping. I have 20x16inch prints hanging on the wall from four thirds sensors that are not as good as those available now.

 

Now for the caveat, if you are into fast action where you need CAF a lot then four thirds is definitely not for you.

 

Real life ISO example from a processed Raw file

 

E-M5 and 60mm Macro,ISO 3200 f/4@1/60sec with 100% crop

 

Click image to view large

 

Out of focus areas

Click image to view large

 

Now I am not trying to convince you either way just lay out the facts as I know them from personal experience, what camera you use is personal decision that only you can make and you have to live with it so please do not take this a  effort to convince you but just to put some of the myths about four thirds into perspective.

Thanks for your real life observations. It is print quality that matters to me so your info. is relevant to my question. And I rarely do action shots and usually shoot at ISO 100 - although if low light capture was very good I would probably use higher ISOs more often.

Jeff

Wrong. A 'very small' sensor would be 1/2.33, and even there they can produce good results in good lighting conditions. The mFT sensor is comparable to a APS-C sensor, which is what the original post was all about. And the difference in size is cancelled out by the lenses being closer to the sensor as there is no mirror to worry about.

 

And then you have to take lenses into account. The best Zuiko and Leica lenses are way better than Canikon kit lenses, and very much smaller and lighter.

Indeed yes. I guess I am asking for a comparison of old full frame lenses on a Sony 16mp sensor forced to be further from the sensor by the mirror with a new design lens optimised for digital capture ( light not striking sensor at a fairly acute angle) placed closer to the newer Sony 16mp sensor. And the aspect ratio of 4:3 is closer to my usual print size - usually about 12" x 16" so fewer pixels are thrown away.

Jeff

Your other option is to stick with APSC but switch to a mirrorless system like the Fuji X range. Just as good a sensor (better in the vast majority of cases) that any APSC DSLR and with a range of quite exquisite and tiny primes backed up with some lovely and light weight zooms. 

 

If I was starting over (like Phil) or had the cash to switch I'd go Fuji every time.

Or a Sony A6000?

Up to a 'reasonable' ISO you'd be hard told to tell them apart, dynamic range is likely to be a little lower due to the smaller pixels but careful RAW shooting and RAW processing will make the difference irrelevant.

Where you might spot the difference is when you try to get a very shallow depth of field - the smaller sensor is going to make that harder but that will depend on your shooting style and the types of shots you take.

Thanks for reply. I agree with what you say. Ie it is the quality of pixels and their carefull use that counts.

All I can give you is the results of my own research, not practical experience (except that my new camera uses a mFT sensor!). From what I've gleaned, mirrorless systems that use the mFT sensor are NO WORSE, and can be better, than APS-C. I don't know the Canon Pro 9000, but if it's a genuine Pro camera, you'd find it hard to match cameras but you'd match sensors easily. You might argue that the mFT is smaller than APS-C and therefore inferior ... well, it will certainly have a slightly greater crop factor than APS-C, but set against that the fact that cameras and lenses are smaller too, and the rear element of the lens is closer to the sensor.

 

mFT sensors are used in Olympus and Panasonic cameras - Zuiko and Leica lenses - so you should have no difficulty printing up to A3 with good sharpness, IMO. Yes, I understand the film argument, but film emulsion was of a finite grain size for each ISO, so it would ALWAYS be true that for a particular ISO, 35mm would beat the pants off 110, and 6x6 off 35mm, and so on. Differences in cameras were more dramatic then than they are now, and those differences would show up within the same format; it's far less true now. Even with different size sensors, differences are less dramatic : you have 1" Sony sensors with 20MP, larger mFT with 16MP, and they are both very capable. In some senses, the manufacturers of smaller sensors work overtime to make their products 'reach the mark': you would be very hard pressed to tell the difference between any of the mentioned sensors in anything but the lowest light. Full format sensors would have a greater dynamic range, but it wouldn't be dramatic compared to mFT or APS-C or even 1".

 

For me, I'd say you should go ahead with confidence as long as you don't expect a professional-level camera to be matched by something less.

Thanks for reply

I have done similar research. It was real life experience I was after. Possibly someone who has changed from APS-C to MFT.

I don't think there is a fundamental difference in sensors of the two sizes. I think the main difference is that the camera designer can put the rear element of the MFT closer to the sensor because there is no flipping mirror or mirror box to work around.

My Canon Pro9000 is my printer! So what matters is the quality of a 12" x 16" print emerging from that printer.

My comments about film referred to the pictorial quality difference between say 35mm and 60 x 60mm negatives but recognising that, for example, 35mm lenses were designed to resolve more detail than a MF lens and with meticulous attention to technique much of the theoretical difference could be overcome so far as sharpness is concerned and maybe tonality.

I asked the original question because two of my three lenses are full frame lenses and large and heavy and my A580 is heavy and when lugging them plus tripod etc about last week over Jeffrey Hill I got talking to a man who had just bought an Olympus MFT camera and he let me have a play with it. It felt like a lightweight toy

If I could satisfy myself that I could match current print quality with that from MFT Iwould be very strongly consider changing systems. Also the availability of relatively cheap prime lenses is a pull to MFT.

Jeff

My mind is turning to thinking a 4/3 camera system would be much easier to carry and use than my SonyDSLR system.

But is image quality from a new 16mp 4/3 Olympus sensor in an EM5 or 10 capable of matching my 16mp APS-C sensor in my A580 when printed to A3 on my Canon Pro 9000? Any real world experience that you could share that would help in answering the question would be much appreciated. I am interested in sharpness, tonality, noise and dynamic range. I have searched web sites but information about printed output seems scarce.

Being an old former film user I always assumed that bigger film was noticeably better than smaller film but does that also apply to digital.

And I should also say that real world performance is what I would like to know about rather than theoretical limits.

Jeff

The trouble with (going off topic) is that the F1 race itself is only a part of the whole

A die hard fan of F1 is emersed in the technicalities of racing and racing cars plus the politics of racing the actual race is the cumilation of all the pieces

Where as some one who tunes in and expects instant excitment is often disapointed with a tactical race as opposed to a balls out racing duel which only occurs now and then

I dont even waste my time with those that wish to see crashes

As for personalities (going back on topic) if your idea of who they are is formed from the garbage press then you can make there actions fit your picture If on the other hand you form your opinions from how they act on the tele in interviews you could be equally wrong Unless you know them personally you really dont have any idea who they are But you can judge there skill and sportsmanship from there performances in their particular sport , which is what all sportsman of the year should be judged on

I understand the interest of the whole business/politics/showbiz and even the bit of sport involved. The same applies to premiership football and test cricket as examples. Strangely enough the person I have met most absorbed by premiership football was an Iraqi

academic turned barrister who returned to academia on retirement to do a doctorate at Oxford University.

Is all press garbage? Is press bad but Internet forums good for getting information? Do you have privileged access to information about motor sport not reported in the press?

If tactical means cars following each other around, say, Monte Carlo, with no chance of overtaking then tactical can indeed be tedious.

What sportsmanship is demonstrated in F1 ? As an detached casual observer there seems little sportsmanship but there seems lots of ego and temperament involved.

I guess the huge amounts of publicity and cash sloshing around gives F1 far more exposure than other sports, except footy, so no doubt that will play a part in deterring who is the sports personality of 2014.

Anyhow I shall not watch the programme. Seeing the non personality Queen's granddaughter ( I think that is the correct royalness)

win the comp. cured me of wasting my time with it.

Anyhow Match of the Day will be worth watching tonight :-))

Jeff

Hi, mine were Edwardian half plate glass negatives, I had no joy with a scanner, so chose to use a DIY ground glass ( acrylic) screen, light box on which photographed each negative glass plate using a 50mm lens......I converted them to positives in Photoshop CS6.

Here is one if the results......a very seasonable one.

I processed over 200 in all, they ere wonderful.

FUJI

I have done that with 35mm colour slides using a Sigma 105mm macro lens on Sony DSLR. I used a small slide viewer light-box but the Iluminations was uneven. Howeve I have some of the plastic sheet used to make illuminated advertising signs which I guess is quite neutral and should work OK for even lighting if placed a few inches above the slide viewer. I have a copier stand ( adapted from an enlarger ) and digital files processed in LR could well Print OK.

Thanks for the suggestion/reminder.

Jeff

I know both Fuji and I do restoration work but I bet neither of us do everything the same way, it all often depends of what you have to start with - can you link us to a good sized file?

Three files but each is way to big to load here, and to make them small I will need to adjust them on my PC then use ITunes to get them on my IPad then somehow adjust the size to make them fit here. - a task that was beyond me last week.

But given there is no standard way to do the job a one off solution would not be what I need so I'll not pursue the offer. Thanks for the offer which is appreciated.

Jeff

I am trying to squeeze out the best possible quality from some 35mm monochrome negatives with an old Epson 4180 flatbed scanner using the supplied negative holder and software. Lack of good Dmax seems the major problem so I have tried a sort of hdr technique using levels to get the different exposures then merging in PSE photo merge. Question is does anyone have experience of doing this or similar and have any suggestions to make the idea work eg use curves or brightness settings and how many exposures to make? I have tried using HDR merge in CS5 but can't work out how many times over and under the standard exposure is used.

Any advice gratefully received - but please no suggestions about spending money on a different scanner or on expensive professional services.

Jeff

Hmm. I think we don't understand what's involved really. Richard Hammond couldn't get enough heat into the brakes and tyres when he tried to drive one and had to give up, and Clarkson virtually sh*t himself when he drove a for-sale-to-the-public F1-type car.

Not doubting skill, bravery etc etc. Only trouble is that it is about as exciting as Scalextric racing.

Much prefer bikes where you can see ( on TV ) the skills, daring etc.

Anyhow eulogising the skills of drivers is well off topic.

Jeff