Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Taking Pictures the Hard Way

blog.brixit.nl

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 92 posts

Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way

#81

Post by Forgeties79 »

ivanech wrote: post #79
Forgeties79 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can assure you that if I put a 50mm prime on my 5D (full frame) and then on my GH5 (mFT), the 5D focus will roll off noticeably more than the GH5. This is a thing to consider when using cropped sensors.

Run that test for real! The GH5 image will be cropped, but the relative amount of blur between your subject and out of focus areas will be identical

Don't take my word for it, check out this piece by Zeiss. https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/en/article/making-sense-of-...

>A crop-sensor camera also comes in handy for macro shots. Recall that depth of field (DOF) is the distance between the closest and furthest parts in an image that will appear in focus. At the same aperture and for the same field of view, an APS-C sensor will have a higher depth of field than with a full frame camera.

Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way

#82

Post by throw0101a »

regus wrote: post #49
MartijnBraam wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess developing BW film is more expensive because there's just less volume? Most people shooting BW film probably develop it themselves while it's way harder to develop color film without getting a full lab. The price for 35mm per shot is a bunch less for me. And it seems like people still have stocks o their old 35mm film rolls I can get for free-ish. Developing and scanning was something like 17 euros for me. Se…

The reason I've heard why it is more expensive is that color development has been completely standardized. You put the rolls in the machine and the negatives come out the other end with little interaction from a person. They never standardized black and white photography development so it all has to be done by hand, which is more time consuming. As for 35mm, yes it's true that it is cheaper, but I got into this for t…

> They never standardized black and white photography development so it all has to be done by hand, which is more time consuming.

The 'default' process for processing colour film is C-41:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-41_process

You can get B&W film that uses the same process:

* https://www.ilfordphoto.com/xp2-super-35mm

One of the hard things about colour film processing in the past was that the chemicals had to be in a narrow temperature range: nowadays that is relatively easy to do by 'simply' keeping them in a warm bath kept in the correct range via sous vide equipment.

Generally if you're doing analog B&W photography at any non-small volumes, it's probably cheaper to get the gear to have your own darkroom and at least process the negatives yourself. Once you see the shots, you can then perhaps take them to a printer if you don't want to do that yourself.

Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way

#83

Post by ivanech »

Forgeties79 wrote: post #81
ivanech wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Run that test for real! The GH5 image will be cropped, but the relative amount of blur between your subject and out of focus areas will be identical

Don't take my word for it, check out this piece by Zeiss. https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/en/article/making-sense-of-... >A crop-sensor camera also comes in handy for macro shots. Recall that depth of field (DOF) is the distance between the closest and furthest parts in an image that will appear in focus. At the same aperture and for the same field of view, an APS-C sensor will have a higher depth of field than with…

Ah okay if you have an f/2 50mm-FOV-equivalent lens (~25mm) on an MFT body and a 50mm f/2 on a full-frame body, yes, there will be more blur because the aperture radius is twice as large on the full-frame lens.

I read your comment as saying that the exact same 50mm f/2 lens will produce less blur on an MFT body than on a full-frame body. That'd be a narrower FOV (~100mm equivalent) but the same blur as full frame. Perhaps I misinterpreted?

Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way

#84

Post by throw0101a »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #5
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #4

I’d argue ‘the hard way’ is probably shooting large format slide film and developing it yourself ;), but seriously congrats on this foray into the exciting world of analog photography! Just don’t get too attached to any Fuji film stocks…

Raised on analog film (spent many hours in darkrooms both in high school as well as in elementary school). 35mm was the largest film size I tried. When I went back to analog a few years back I introduced myself to medium-format as well as the tried-and-true 35mm. I think I was surprised at how inexpensive (eBay) and yet capable the older medium-format cameras were. I confess to having put down the 35mm cameras though…

Which lenses / focal lengths do you find you're using the most with MF?

Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way

#85

Post by Forgeties79 »

ivanech wrote: post #83
Forgeties79 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't take my word for it, check out this piece by Zeiss. https://lenspire.zeiss.com/photo/en/article/making-sense-of-... >A crop-sensor camera also comes in handy for macro shots. Recall that depth of field (DOF) is the distance between the closest and furthest parts in an image that will appear in focus. At the same aperture and for the same field of view, an APS-C sensor will have a higher depth of field than with…

Ah okay if you have an f/2 50mm-FOV-equivalent lens (~25mm) on an MFT body and a 50mm f/2 on a full-frame body, yes, there will be more blur because the aperture radius is twice as large on the full-frame lens. I read your comment as saying that the exact same 50mm f/2 lens will produce less blur on an MFT body than on a full-frame body. That'd be a narrower FOV (~100mm equivalent) but the same blur as full frame. Pe…

Larger sensor = an image with a shallower depth of field. That’s all any of us are saying.

Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way

#86

Post by igouy »

mabunday wrote: post #21

I shoot a lot of photos at techno raves and I shoot exclusively on 800 ISO film rated at 3200 ISO. The environments are dark with lots of movement. Not being able to see the results until I get the roll developed keeps me in the moment and I love the delayed gratification I get when the photos turn out well. Some of my favorites from recent months: * https://www.instagram.com/p/CZsFxpmvp-J/ or https://www.reddit.com/…

> delayed gratification

“After I photograph I wait quite a while before I actually look at the stuff; a year, two years – sometimes longer. I need to be distant from the subjective experience so I can see what the photograph itself contains.”

https://www.anothermag.com/art-photography/3809/henry-wessel...

“In fact, the work I'm looking at now is from 2002 [the interview was taking place in 2007]. But that time is a good lag time, because what happens is that I forget about the subjective experience of taking the picture, which is always pleasurable. When I look at the contact sheets, I want to be free of that. I want to just look at the photograph and see if it's interesting.”

https://ww2.kqed.org/spark/henry-wessel/

Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way

#87

Post by aaronbrethorst »

dietrichepp wrote: post #71
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #4

I’d argue ‘the hard way’ is probably shooting large format slide film and developing it yourself ;), but seriously congrats on this foray into the exciting world of analog photography! Just don’t get too attached to any Fuji film stocks…

And if you want nice prints from your large-format slides, just enlarge them onto Ilfochrome.

Now that would really be doing it the hard way, seeing how Ilfochrome hasn't been manufactured in ten years.

Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way

#88

Post by helloworld11 »

rATRIJS wrote: post #30

Analog photography is quite amazing but, at least, in 35mm world it's not because of the resulting images but more in the cameras. Old, mechanical film cameras are much more pleasant to use for me. And before someone says that camera doesn't matter - it sure does. A camera that you like to use will be used more so you will end up "doing more photography". I also love black and white films. I've not tried monochrome d…

Always love seeing other's black and white work, especially with film. Any posted examples of your own you'd like to share?

Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way

#89

Post by JKCalhoun »

throw0101a wrote: post #84
JKCalhoun wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Raised on analog film (spent many hours in darkrooms both in high school as well as in elementary school). 35mm was the largest film size I tried. When I went back to analog a few years back I introduced myself to medium-format as well as the tried-and-true 35mm. I think I was surprised at how inexpensive (eBay) and yet capable the older medium-format cameras were. I confess to having put down the 35mm cameras though…

Which lenses / focal lengths do you find you're using the most with MF?

Many of the cameras (twin-lens reflex) have just the one lens. (Or if they have other lens it's an odd sort of attachment — probably not worth the hassle.) There is a lot to be said to "using your feet to zoom" with a fixed (prime) lens.

I did play with both a Mamiya and Bronica that had bayonet-style lens mounts. I cannot say from memory which lens I used with each. They were primes to be sure. I'm thinking maybe about 150mm or so? I believe that because of the film size, they're equivalent to about half their length in 35mm. So a 150mm lens is more like a 75mm lens for a 35mm camera (a decent portrait lens).

Generally though, not an "action" camera, so telephoto was mot so interesting. People and land/cityscapes look best, IMHO so a wide to medium-angle lenses were the best.

Re: Taking Pictures the Hard Way

#90

Post by igouy »

rATRIJS wrote: post #77
igouy wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've not tried monochrome digital cameras Sony SLT a65, just set the "Creative Style" to B/W and the viewfinder shows B/W ;-) or post-process https://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Black-and-White https://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/Film_Simulation

Haha. I was meaning true monochrome cameras without the color array filter ( like the bayer or x-trans ) in front of the sensor. Like Leica monochrome cameras ( Leica M9M and later models ). You get a lot more detail that way and theoretically tonal / gray separation should be better as well. I do actually have two Sigma Foveon cameras ( DP2 and DP3 Merrill ) where the sensor is layered and each RGB pixel is layered…

Do you know of a "blind" A-B comparison between photos made with those different technologies?

It's not even clear to me how to establish a like-to-like sensor resolution.

Post reply on HN