Q. Hi everyone!
So, I don't have very much knowledge in this area...so I need some help.
I need a camera/video camera. I take an average amount of pictures so picture quality is important. I'm not sure of the name for this...but I also would like a camera that takes multiple shots in a second..again sorry I don't know what that's called...
but I really enjoy making videos, so one that would be good for that. Video quality, I'm not really sure if there's better cameras for that..but ya know.
Panoramic view would be nice as well.
but yeah...that's what I would like. Size and shape all of that doesn't really matter that much to me. Obviously price is kind of important, I would like to not be paying too much, but I don't want to get something cheap, so if I have to pay for what I'm looking for then I'm willing.
I figured since black friday is coming up I should figure this stuff out..
Thanks!! If you need nay more info let me know!!
Thanks again. :)
So, I don't have very much knowledge in this area...so I need some help.
I need a camera/video camera. I take an average amount of pictures so picture quality is important. I'm not sure of the name for this...but I also would like a camera that takes multiple shots in a second..again sorry I don't know what that's called...
but I really enjoy making videos, so one that would be good for that. Video quality, I'm not really sure if there's better cameras for that..but ya know.
Panoramic view would be nice as well.
but yeah...that's what I would like. Size and shape all of that doesn't really matter that much to me. Obviously price is kind of important, I would like to not be paying too much, but I don't want to get something cheap, so if I have to pay for what I'm looking for then I'm willing.
I figured since black friday is coming up I should figure this stuff out..
Thanks!! If you need nay more info let me know!!
Thanks again. :)
A. Picture quality is sometimes called IQ, Image Quality, but just plain picture quality is good enough.
Multiple shots in a second, sometimes called continuous mode, or burst mode, is usually measured in frames per second (fps).
Video quality generally follows the quality of the camera. One aspect of video is resolution. This is usually called Full HD, HD, VGA. It's all about the number of lines on a screen 1080, 720, 640 or 320. The picture on your TV or computer monitor is drawn there with lines. The more lines used to draw the picture, the higher the resolution.
Some cameras do panorama in the camera. Usually I either crop to panorama or stitch some pix together. But I do have an old Kodak that does panorama in the camera and have used it once.
I hope you survived Black Friday without being ripped off.
Here is some help in picking a digital camera.
http://www.dpmag.com/cameras/slrs/top-10-tips-for-camera-buyers.html
http://nls.cnet.com/pageservices/viewOnlineNewsletter.sc?list_id=e435&send_date=10/04/2013
The best cameras are DSLR's.You don't sound like someone who wants to invest the time and effort to be a photography enthusiast. So maybe one of the advanced compacts is for you. Look into the Nikon P7800, Canon G15, Sony RX100 and whatever Fujifilm is offering.
Multiple shots in a second, sometimes called continuous mode, or burst mode, is usually measured in frames per second (fps).
Video quality generally follows the quality of the camera. One aspect of video is resolution. This is usually called Full HD, HD, VGA. It's all about the number of lines on a screen 1080, 720, 640 or 320. The picture on your TV or computer monitor is drawn there with lines. The more lines used to draw the picture, the higher the resolution.
Some cameras do panorama in the camera. Usually I either crop to panorama or stitch some pix together. But I do have an old Kodak that does panorama in the camera and have used it once.
I hope you survived Black Friday without being ripped off.
Here is some help in picking a digital camera.
http://www.dpmag.com/cameras/slrs/top-10-tips-for-camera-buyers.html
http://nls.cnet.com/pageservices/viewOnlineNewsletter.sc?list_id=e435&send_date=10/04/2013
The best cameras are DSLR's.You don't sound like someone who wants to invest the time and effort to be a photography enthusiast. So maybe one of the advanced compacts is for you. Look into the Nikon P7800, Canon G15, Sony RX100 and whatever Fujifilm is offering.
Getting all of my film speed with Rodinal?
Q. I've been playing around with different films and developers and combinations for the past couple of months. I want to branch out from HC-110 and see what else is out there, and what else I like.
I've read a lot about Rodinal not delivering full film speed, and I pretty sure that's what I'm encountering here. It seems like whenever I soup in Rodinal at the standard times given on the Massive Dev Chart (a good place to start, at least), the negatives come out around 2-3 stops dark. I don't care so much for test rolls, but I shot a portrait session with medium format PanF+, developed in Rodinal, and lost at least 4 or 5 frames that could have been great. They were just too thin to recover.
Anyone have any advice here? I just want my exposures to come out the way they would if I was using HC-110. I'm not underexposing in camera, it's definitely something to do with the developer. I'm using 1:50 so far, and souping as documented on my little blog I use to keep track of my experiments:
http://filmsanddevelopers.blogspot.com/2013/05/adox-adonal-rodinal-and-ilford-panf.html
http://filmsanddevelopers.blogspot.com/2013/04/adox-adonal-rodinal-and-ilford-delta-100.html
I'm sorry, let me clarify: The negatives are thin. The images themselves (after being scanned or printed) are dark. Meaning, underexposed. I didn't state that very well.
Thanks for the info though, I'll run some more tests.
I've read a lot about Rodinal not delivering full film speed, and I pretty sure that's what I'm encountering here. It seems like whenever I soup in Rodinal at the standard times given on the Massive Dev Chart (a good place to start, at least), the negatives come out around 2-3 stops dark. I don't care so much for test rolls, but I shot a portrait session with medium format PanF+, developed in Rodinal, and lost at least 4 or 5 frames that could have been great. They were just too thin to recover.
Anyone have any advice here? I just want my exposures to come out the way they would if I was using HC-110. I'm not underexposing in camera, it's definitely something to do with the developer. I'm using 1:50 so far, and souping as documented on my little blog I use to keep track of my experiments:
http://filmsanddevelopers.blogspot.com/2013/05/adox-adonal-rodinal-and-ilford-panf.html
http://filmsanddevelopers.blogspot.com/2013/04/adox-adonal-rodinal-and-ilford-delta-100.html
I'm sorry, let me clarify: The negatives are thin. The images themselves (after being scanned or printed) are dark. Meaning, underexposed. I didn't state that very well.
Thanks for the info though, I'll run some more tests.
A. Like more density on the negatives you work with do you?
A photographer in Alaska used black and white film which he exposed to have a minimum of emulsion left on the film back after developing.
If it was my roll of film, I'd have had a heart attack and died on the spot! And if I had survived that I would have had my light meters. handheld and built into cameras, looked at plus the shutter speeds and lens apertures and then the film developers!
But back to all seriousness, this fella, lets call him Bill, also modified his print processing procedure, buying and using a digital enlarger timer and with closing the enlarger lens down, printed some of the most grain free images with great tonal scale! Both pics taken out of doors and pics taken indoors in low light conditions
Most lab rats would close their enlarger lenses down a stop or two and use seconds to expose proof sheets and prints.
This fella closed the lens down a few stops more and used tenths and hundredths of seconds as exposure times!
Plus had many more pic taking opportunities than the rest of us using Kodak Tri-X films or Illford's similar b&w product, pushing films to a paltry asa 800, 1200 or 1600 and exposing films for shadow detail.
This I beleive is where Rodinal and other developers used for developing b&w films rated to higher asa's got their so called bad reputations. The photographers could not or did not know how to modify their print processing procedure to take advantage of ther film developers ability to make such delicate looking negatives and the higher quality grain free images that resulted.
A photographer in Alaska used black and white film which he exposed to have a minimum of emulsion left on the film back after developing.
If it was my roll of film, I'd have had a heart attack and died on the spot! And if I had survived that I would have had my light meters. handheld and built into cameras, looked at plus the shutter speeds and lens apertures and then the film developers!
But back to all seriousness, this fella, lets call him Bill, also modified his print processing procedure, buying and using a digital enlarger timer and with closing the enlarger lens down, printed some of the most grain free images with great tonal scale! Both pics taken out of doors and pics taken indoors in low light conditions
Most lab rats would close their enlarger lenses down a stop or two and use seconds to expose proof sheets and prints.
This fella closed the lens down a few stops more and used tenths and hundredths of seconds as exposure times!
Plus had many more pic taking opportunities than the rest of us using Kodak Tri-X films or Illford's similar b&w product, pushing films to a paltry asa 800, 1200 or 1600 and exposing films for shadow detail.
This I beleive is where Rodinal and other developers used for developing b&w films rated to higher asa's got their so called bad reputations. The photographers could not or did not know how to modify their print processing procedure to take advantage of ther film developers ability to make such delicate looking negatives and the higher quality grain free images that resulted.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
