Photography

[Jorge]

I don't think that'll be a big issue for me. So, if I check out this camera tomorrow and it looks to be in good shape, it's worth buying for $190 right? Even if it's a mark I and thus five years old? Are the newer models huge improvements or is it worth to just buy this used one for the price (and the fact that I'll only use it when traveling)?

[run2death]

Not really any huge improvements in terms of photo quality. Slightly better sensor, wi-fi file transfers, tilting LCD and a viewfinder come in later models. But all those features come with a hefty price increase. Just for comparisons sake, the latest model sells for ~$1,000.

$190 would be a fair deal. $160 to $215 looks to be the going rate depending on condition.

[Sgt. Crackpot]

One of the risks with a 5 year old device, would be the battery - that is if it's non-replaceable. Depending on it's use, it may not retain a decent enough charge anymore (even Lithium based rechargable batteries have a finite lifespan and a certain amount of cycles).

I'd be inclined to give it a good test run for a day to see if it holds charge, and allows a good amount of use before being depleted.

Then again, if the battery is replaceable this isn't an issue.

[Jorge]

I have it. I have the camera. It really was "like new". Dude threw in a cool leather case for it too. Thanks again for the rec.

[run2death]

Enjoy!

[run2death]

I'm getting a 4' x 7' canvas made of this one for my mom. It's only gonna end up being ~$65.

[run2death]

These award-winning drone photos contrast nature and humanity

The winners of the annual drone photography contest hosted by Skypixel, the photo-sharing community owned by drone maker DJI, show the alluring beauty of nature and the ways humanity inhabits it.

https://qz.com/1583018/the-worlds-best- ... l-and-dji/

[doug rr]

this years winners of wildlife photography...

https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2019/ ... 19/600130/

[washing machine]

back in the days before the invention of the smartphone, people used to carry around big hunks of plastic, glass and metal with them when they wanted to capture still images of things. this thread is for the pictures taken with those old timey contraptions.

I unearthed an old Canon AE-1 that my grandfather used a lot in the 70s and 80s. It seems to be in decent shape but needs a dusting and new foam light seals.

Where do people go to develop film these days? I want to shoot a test roll and see if I can self-diagnose what kind of servicing it might need.

I have no knowledge of correct aperture, Iso, and shutter speed... I plan to waste a ton of film. The cheaper the better as I learn. I'd ask my grandpa, but he died the year after Vitalogy was released.

[washing machine]

Test scan. Baseline photo just to make sure this camera technically works. I shot on that Canon AE-1 with some walgreens Kodak. I am challenged with exposing for skies and need to work on depth of field, but I like the colors in these images.

What I'm most curious about is whether or not these washed out skies are user error or a flaw in my shutter. Most of what I shoot is shutter speed 250-500 on the camera's automatic aperture setting, if that helps. Anyone have tips?

[tragabigzanda]

I worked in a photo lab/camera shop all through high school, so I have some likely stale questions and/or my memory might be fuzzy:

1. What ISO are you using? Lower (like 50-100) should get you more vibrant skies, but you'll have to be still; and you may have to adjust some of your other settings to compensate.

2. Where are you getting your film developed? That side of the industry has tanked, and your average Walgreens photo lab is probably not paying super close attention to their development process... But you might be able to see some gainful improvements if you start to talk up the techs at the lab. Anyone still doing the work likely takes pride in it and will enjoy having a customer that asks sharp question. Back in the day, the good labs would customize their process for your film (it's very easy to do, just takes good guidance on behalf of the customer).

[washing machine]

Good feedback.

1. What ISO are you using? Lower (like 50-100) should get you more vibrant skies, but you'll have to be still; and you may have to adjust some of your other settings to compensate.

400 ISO for the first couple of rolls. Box speed. The roll I'm shooting now is intentionally bracketing different apertures to see if I can make some sky happen, rather than trust this auto setting on the lens. I suspect that might be part of the issue.

2. Where are you getting your film developed?...Anyone still doing the work likely takes pride in it and will enjoy having a customer that asks sharp question. Back in the day, the good labs would customize their process for your film (it's very easy to do, just takes good guidance on behalf of the customer).

Certainly not Walgreens. I've found a fantastic lab that offers all kinds of support. Only trouble is that their hours are not super-friendly, as they are a small operation. I've been using their remote drop box and getting scans emailed to me so far, which is the bare bones they offer and still isn't cheap. $13 a roll of Ultramax and a $15 base fee for developing makes this a 2-3 roll a month at habit, max.

I would say the infrequency of developing is a blessing and a curse for learning. I am enjoying the slow rhythm of the thing, but by the time I get the scans back I sometimes forget what I did to get a specific shot, even when I took notes.

[tragabigzanda]

Lower ISO should get you closer, but then you'll have to be mindful that it won't work as well for images in motion; also it won't work well for darker lighting. But for the washed out sky issue, I think it will help.

And yeah, skip the auto-focus, that goes against the spirit of what you're trying to do here. I'd also say to keep learning about the other settings -- aperture and shutter speed, and how those interact with the ISO -- before you start asking your lab tech to rescue your pictures. But it does sound like the right kind of place where you could probably start making custom requests, once you've got a handle on the mechanics.

And that's about the extent of my retained knowledge base. I used to know this stuff way better.

[washing machine]

I appreciate the suggestions. That must have been a really cool experience working in the lab

I'm really excited about the roll in my camera right now. I took it downtown around midnight after work and shot some neons and intersections. Lots of bright reds and greens. I don't have a tripod, but I mounted the camera on some flat surfaces and used the timer so I'm not too worried about blur. Shutter speed about 2 seconds and I'm really hoping I caught some cars and busses in motion. I kept the aperture between f4 & f8... I think this will be the make or break factor..

[VinylGuy]

oh i wanna see those neon pics.

[washing machine]

oh i wanna see those neon pics.

Me too...

In due time.

I will finish the roll before the weekend, then drop off. From drop off it's 7-9 business days, but the lab operates on a 4 day work week. Analog timeline. The world is healing.

[washing machine]

Hey, I see blue skies here. Wish I'd taken notes on my settings...

[tragabigzanda]

JJ Cale album cover

[washing machine]

Yeah, all my compositions are coded in liner note aesthetic. I was shooting more Kurt Vile but JJ works.

[washing machine]

This place shut down during Covid. Before that, it was a great spot for breakfast tacos and cold beer in my hood.

I'm embracing the free version of lightroom for some edits, mostly to see if I can bring some sky out of the exposure. I tried to leave the red alone as much as possible, because I really like the way Ultramax 400 handles reds and oranges.

I think when I shoot this building again, I'll frame it head on. Assuming it doesn't get torn down for a CVS soon.