Extra, Extra, read all about it!!!!

[Nickcanada]

I'm not sure if everyone read the lesson I gave Mr. Schap on zoom vs prime lens,;) but I've got some more information I think you should all know.... 28mm on a 1.6 crop body IS NOT the same as on a 35mm film camera!.... pause..... I know, I know, crazy!

28mm on a full frame camera is WIDE!!!!!! I love it! keep in mind I've been shooting with my 28-135mm and 50mm exclusively. I just borrowed my parent's P30n Pentax film SLR with a 28-200mm 3.8-5.6 and I took it to the museum of civilization on the weekend. I just got the pics back. I had them scan the negatives onto CD for me. It was quite expensive 23 bucks for two rolls of film. I had a fairly high keeper rate though. I had it on 28mm for the entire 2 rolls I really need to get a wide angle lens!

Enough blabbering. here are the pics. just resized, I adjusted the horizon on one of them and that is it. ISO 800 and mostly 3.8 and shutter speed... a freaking long time!

[Nickcanada]

I used supper cheep generic film. I paid a 1.65 per roll.

[Nickcanada]

How do you # the pics???

[cdifoto]

Film rocks. When I get my 4 rolls from B&H I'll be back with more shots too! :D

Can't wait to get Jamie's 135mm Lentar & 3x Tele as well. :D

Those scans must be a helluva lot better than what I got at Wal-Mart for $5 a roll including developing.

[Nickcanada]

Ok last one, thanks for looking.

[forno]

Nice contrast in these pics, really like the very last pic and the last pic in your first post

I really want a ultra waide lens:o

[Nickcanada]

Film rocks. When I get my 4 rolls from B&H I'll be back with more shots too! :D

Can't wait to get Jamie's 135mm Lentar & 3x Tele as well. :D

Those scans must be a helluva lot better than what I got at Wal-Mart for $5 a roll including developing.

I really enjoyed using it. I love the veiw finder!

Looking forward to your shots. :cool:

I don't know if the scans are any better... I got them done at Black's. Do you guys have those down there. I'm not very happy with the prints I've gotten from them, but it was either them or Henry's and wait a week to get em' back.

I brought the XT with me expecting to want to switch but I was having so much fun with the Pentax I didn't bother with the XT.

[Nickcanada]

Nice contrast in these pics, really like the very last pic and the last pic in your first post

I really want a ultra waide lens:o

I think 28mm on FF is equal to 17mm on the 1.6 crop sensor. I think the size of the view finder and the fact that I've never shot at that focal range just makes me think it's wider than it is. I can't wait to shoot with a 10mm lens.

[DonSchap]

10mm, although sounding awesomely wide, tends to offer some serious distortion to the edge of the image. It isn't until you reach around 14mm that things tend to look ... how should I say it ... "normal?"

Do a series of vertical elements ... and it will become apparent. Obviously, you'll have to experience it, yourself ... so let the good times roll and get some terrific images to share. :D

[cdifoto]

I really enjoyed using it. I love the veiw finder!

Looking forward to your shots. :cool:

I don't know if the scans are any better... I got them done at Black's. Do you guys have those down there. I'm not very happy with the prints I've gotten from them, but it was either them or Henry's and wait a week to get em' back.

I brought the XT with me expecting to want to switch but I was having so much fun with the Pentax I didn't bother with the XT.

There may be Black's somewhere in the USA but definitely not around me. What resolution did they give you? Mine had OK quality but they were barely big enough to get an 8x10 print. For the price I can't complain too much but I'll be looking to get a Nikon Coolscan V so I can get similar resolution to my 30D.

[cdifoto]

10mm, although sounding awesomely wide, tends to offer some serious distortion to the edge of the image. It isn't until you reach around 14mm that things tend to look ... how should I say it ... "normal?"

Do a series of vertical elements ... and it will become apparent. Obviously, you'll have to experience it, yourself ... so let the good times roll and get some terrific images to share. :D

That has more to do with getting a good lens and keeping it level than it does the width itself. My Tokina isn't perfectly straight but it's not bad either at 12mm if you keep it level to the ground.

[Nickcanada]

Resolution is 1840x1232. What kind of print size can I expect from my 35mm negatives?

And I like the idea of distortion on a wide angle lens. It's not ideal for every shot but I like distortion. Even more so if I can just zoom in closer to reduce unwanted distortion.

And here are two more for Forno. There is a picture of this statue on our 5 dollar bills... I should have read a bit about what it represents, next time.

[forno]

Awesome shots:D

The light is having an absolute ball on all those shapes combines with the surface textures:cool: :cool:

[forno]

Statue reminds me a bit of the book
"Where the wild things are"

[cdifoto]

Resolution is 1840x1232. What kind of print size can I expect from my 35mm negatives?

And I like the idea of distortion on a wide angle lens. It's not ideal for every shot but I like distortion. Even more so if I can just zoom in closer to reduce unwanted distortion.

And here are two more for Forno. There is a picture of this statue on our 5 dollar bills... I should have read a bit about what it represents, next time.

That's pretty much the same resolution I got (1818x1228). You can get a LOT more out of a 35mm negative though. A professional (but expensive) drum scan can give you a MASSIVE image, and even a decent "home scanner" like the Nikon Coolscan V can get you approximately 8MP. With a scanner somewhere in the middle you can get a 16MP image but I haven't seen anything reasonably priced that someone would likely own personally. The Nikon is about $550 but there's a higher end Nikon that's $1800 I think. Same resolution though...not sure what the better specs are TBH.

[forno]

I tried scanning some old trannies on a flatbed(neg/trannie capable) and it took forever and the res was pretty poor.

Need to find one to hire or a service that will do bulk as I and my father have heaps of trannie lying around. The old bastad has a lot of medium format trannie too

[cdifoto]

I tried scanning some old trannies on a flatbed(neg/trannie capable) and it took forever and the res was pretty poor.

Need to find one to hire or a service that will do bulk as I and my father have heaps of trannie lying around. The old bastad has a lot of medium format trannie too

Yeah I have a flatbed too and it...well it's good for documents. Not so hot for photos. It doesn't to negatives though and that's what I want most...I don't want a cheap one either because that would be a waste of money in my opinion.

[cwphoto]

These look great Nick - good on ya for giving film a go.

You can enlarge 135 to any size you want, years I ago I used to sell a few 20x30" prints from weddings and I never had a complaint about the quality.

Remember, when you enlarge your viewing distance increases proportionally too.

[Wesan]

What about the sensitivity (ISO or ASA) of the film used? The higher sensitivity the more grainy the pictures get, as I understand (because the grains on the film need to be larger to allow faster shutter speeds, right?). Doesn't that somewhat limit the size of the prints that you can make? I think Nickcanada mentioned he used ISO 800 film. That's a pretty high sensitivity on film, isn't it?

BTW - when you scan film, do you need to adjust the resolution you're scanning at according to the film sensitivity? Considering the size of the grains, I mean?

[cwphoto]

Doesn't that somewhat limit the size of the prints that you can make? I think Nickcanada mentioned he used ISO 800 film. That's a pretty high sensitivity on film, isn't it?

No. You can make any size you prints you like. Whether you are happy with the quality of said print is a different matter entirely.

But whether you are looking at a postcard right in front of your face, or an 8x10" at arms length, or a poster on the wall, or a billboard on the side of a building - the apparent resolution is the same.

[Wesan]

No. You can make any size you prints you like. Whether you are happy with the quality of said print is a different matter entirely.

But whether you are looking at a postcard right in front of your face, or an 8x10" at arms length, or a poster on the wall, or a billboard on the side of a building - the apparent resolution is the same.

Yes, it was the quality of the prints I was thinking about. :) And I think I understand what you mean about "the apparent resolution" - the larger print size you use on the image, the larger the grains become (or pixels, to compare with digital cameras, if you'll allow that comparison). And the larger the grains are, the further away you need to be from the image, in order not to notice the grains (or pixels) - that is, to get the same apparent resolution.

Am I thinking right here? :confused:

[cwphoto]

Yes, it was the quality of the prints I was thinking about. :) And I think I understand what you mean about "the apparent resolution" - the larger print size you use on the image, the larger the grains become (or pixels, to compare with digital cameras, if you'll allow that comparison). And the larger the grains are, the further away you need to be from the image, in order not to notice the grains (or pixels) - that is, to get the same apparent resolution.

Am I thinking right here? :confused:

You are spot on. :)

[Nickcanada]

These look great Nick - good on ya for giving film a go.

You can enlarge 135 to any size you want, years I ago I used to sell a few 20x30" prints from weddings and I never had a complaint about the quality.

Remember, when you enlarge your viewing distance increases proportionally too.

Thanks, I understand why there are still some hard-core film users. I think I'll get that last one printed and framed.


Thanks for looking. :)