Some more B&W's C&C please :)

[naptime]

her lens for those shots was a canon 35-80 on the rebel 2000. it came with the body. and yes, it has a screw on $5 tulip style lens hood, screwed into the UV filter.

Well, there's your mechanical vignetting...the UV filter + that hood, at that focal length, at that close range, blocks the light. The added distance of the UV filter makes the problem a wee bit worse, but my guess is that the hood is simply not the one that goes with that lens.

yeah they definitely don't go with the lens.

i bought the hoods on ebay for 5 bucks each. bought one for all three lenses. zeikos tulips

 

[LightSpeed]

And dad, I'm just faster and more advanced than you, in my opinion . Gosh , step up the game & get with the program ! :lmao:

grounded. two weeks.

LOL

 

[Jeremy Z]

I like all but #3

#1 would be better, IMO, if the corner of the wall were not visible in the background. Also, I was going to comment on the vertical lines from scanning. Can't be helped. I just sold my darkroom equipment last year. JPGs converted to B&W cannot touch the tonal range of print film developed properly in the darkroom. But the darkroom work is just SOOOOO time-consuming! Great job.

I'd say instead of spending hundreds of dollars for a film scanner (good ones cost that much) invest the money in a digital camera instead.

 

[Derrel]

I like all but #3

#1 would be better, IMO, if the corner of the wall were not visible in the background. Also, I was going to comment on the vertical lines from scanning. Can't be helped. I just sold my darkroom equipment last year. JPGs converted to B&W cannot touch the tonal range of print film developed properly in the darkroom. But the darkroom work is just SOOOOO time-consuming! Great job.

I'd say instead of spending hundreds of dollars for a film scanner (good ones cost that much) invest the money in a digital camera instead.

YEAH, I would agree. I was in a pawnshop just today...MAN! Digital P&S start at $39, go to $49, and up to $79 for the majority of the "good ones", and $99 for a black, ultra-compact Canon SD780 IS. Today they only had two d-slrs, a Canon T1i for $329 with 18-55 USM kit zoom, battery,charger, a small camera bag, and lens caps. They had a Nikon D40 with some indeterminate zoom (I did not look at it, but it looked like a Kits Camera aftermarket zoom based on the lettering and rubber design) for $269.

Yeah...dedicated film scanners...QUALITY film scanners that are affordable are slowly slipping away, according to an article I read, written just this month by Ctein. Given the cost of film, processing, and then the time and effort needed, digital shooting has become pretty affordable, ESPECIALLY now that one can have color prints made at super-low cost at Sam's Club or Costco or Ritz/Kits on certain days of the week.

 

[naptime]

well, the plan all along has been to get digital bodies in february with taxes. the film bodies were short term to get us both started with our kits, and ensure that we really wanted to learn this, before spending more on digital bodies.

plus, she had to learn film anyway for her photography class in school.

if/when we get a film scanner, it would be a used epson perfection on ebay. i would budget aorund 100-150 for it and no more.

but, i won't buy that until after we have digital bodies.


we have two different pocket digitals, a kodak and a fuji. but neither offers manual modes. but we also have an olympus bridge, that offers manual as wel as a/v & t/v modes. i just don't care for the camera. it's only a bridge. not a dslr.

we'll be getting some version of canon rebel digital body.