timor
Been spending a lot of time on here!
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 5,905
- Reaction score
- 890
- Location
- Toronto ON
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos NOT OK to edit
Great idea ! A bit of surrealism ?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I disagree with this statement!I am such a bad photographer.
Your too kind[emoji4]I disagree with this statement!I am such a bad photographer.
Fantastic.I did everything I knew how to eliminate the fishing line in camera. I am happy with result of a goal to illuminate a subject on film while trying to eliminate highlights and create a floating effect. Unfortunately, I burned through three images on film to study. I had to post process but it was minimal. Spot, drop 2 stop, focus, and make sure you +2 stop and/or bracket. The fishing line was virtually invisible. I have so much to learn. I am such a bad photographer.
View attachment 154672
ThanksFantastic.I did everything I knew how to eliminate the fishing line in camera. I am happy with result of a goal to illuminate a subject on film while trying to eliminate highlights and create a floating effect. Unfortunately, I burned through three images on film to study. I had to post process but it was minimal. Spot, drop 2 stop, focus, and make sure you +2 stop and/or bracket. The fishing line was virtually invisible. I have so much to learn. I am such a bad photographer.
View attachment 154672
I have a pair of these somewhere, from the 70's. I recall them being outrageously large / heavy but good sounding.
The person was moving and either the focus was locked in prior to the person entering and/or shutter speed was to slow. One of the reasons I don't like AF vintage cameras, especially point and shoots. If a lot of non moving shots were sharp, kind of tells you it's the AF. Another reason, no control on a camera like this. If there was a switch to change it to manual focus and the lens had the foot marks on it, then we might be able to overcome some things.First roll through my Canon AF35M. A lot of these shots turned out pretty blurry, which is a bummer because one of the reasons I picked it up was that I'd heard people rave about how sharp they are. Not sure if it's the camera, dirty lens, old film, or just my crappy scans...but anyway. I like the shadows and psychedelic feel of this one, even if it is out of focus.
View attachment 155547
That's weird, because it was my understanding (based on several reviews I'd read) that this camera was super fast with the auto-focus, and specifically noted how great the focusing was for moving objects. It's also weird because the camera doesn't do the half-press for focus thing—you have to trip the auto timer and focus, then re-compose in order to focus anywhere other than dead center. I know I didn't do that for this one, and I also know if she was moving it was just barely. Do you think it could be a scan thing? I scanned these myself, and the negatives were curled enough that I had a harder time keeping them in the holder than I usually do.The person was moving and either the focus was locked in prior to the person entering and/or shutter speed was to slow. One of the reasons I don't like AF vintage cameras, especially point and shoots. If a lot of non moving shots were sharp, kind of tells you it's the AF. Another reason, no control on a camera like this. If there was a switch to change it to manual focus and the lens had the foot marks on it, then we might be able to overcome some things.
One way to find out is to use a lupe and see if it's in focus. It appears to me it is not but hard to tell on here. If you don't have a lupe, a 50mm prime lens reversed will work. Set the negative on your cell phone and a all white jpeg background and inspect. You should be able to tell with this makeshift method.That's weird, because it was my understanding (based on several reviews I'd read) that this camera was super fast with the auto-focus, and specifically noted how great the focusing was for moving objects. It's also weird because the camera doesn't do the half-press for focus thing—you have to trip the auto timer and focus, then re-compose in order to focus anywhere other than dead center. I know I didn't do that for this one, and I also know if she was moving it was just barely. Do you think it could be a scan thing? I scanned these myself, and the negatives were curled enough that I had a harder time keeping them in the holder than I usually do.The person was moving and either the focus was locked in prior to the person entering and/or shutter speed was to slow. One of the reasons I don't like AF vintage cameras, especially point and shoots. If a lot of non moving shots were sharp, kind of tells you it's the AF. Another reason, no control on a camera like this. If there was a switch to change it to manual focus and the lens had the foot marks on it, then we might be able to overcome some things.