Monday, August 17, 2015

Well, I Was Wrong. And It Cost Me Money.


But that was a long time ago.

I was using a well-known name of SLR camera with well-known film. And a simple set of lenses - f:1.8, f:2.8, f:4. My slides were taken out in the open air and at medium f stops and about 1/250 of a second. And they were sharp and well-coloured.

As photography enthusiasts go, I went, and like many others was not satisfied with success. I lusted after the LX version of the camera and when I got it decided that the 55mm f:1.8 lens was not going to be as good as the 50mm f:1.2. So I traded it in and got a couple of boxes of colour negative film, and went out to take pictures in the twilight.

Not surprisingly, when I got back the results there was more grain in the image, the focus was not as sharp, and the postcard prints had none of the sparkle of the transparencies. I just knew it was the fault of the camera and the mens and sold it all off in a snit to buy the next hare-brained idea - a medium format press camera.

Older readers will detect where I went wrong - f:1.2 is not as sharp as f:8. Low light levels and shadows mean muddy shadows. Negative film has more grain than transparency film. Minilab prints can sometimes be minimal quality. But I convinced myself it was the fault of the camera.

Now I work in the trade and have taken more photos and looked at them. I realise my mistake. I spent out big and spent out wrong because I did not talk to someone in...the photo trade.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

2 Comments:

Blogger Sandra said...

I have had same discussions with people (some were joking but most weren't) regarding my getting f/4.5 lenses. My reply is "I'm shooting outdoors at f/8 or higher, why would I get f/2.8?"

August 17, 2015 at 11:15 AM  
Blogger Ezra said...

This!

August 17, 2015 at 4:51 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home

--> Camera Electronic: Well, I Was Wrong. And It Cost Me Money.

Well, I Was Wrong. And It Cost Me Money.


But that was a long time ago.

I was using a well-known name of SLR camera with well-known film. And a simple set of lenses - f:1.8, f:2.8, f:4. My slides were taken out in the open air and at medium f stops and about 1/250 of a second. And they were sharp and well-coloured.

As photography enthusiasts go, I went, and like many others was not satisfied with success. I lusted after the LX version of the camera and when I got it decided that the 55mm f:1.8 lens was not going to be as good as the 50mm f:1.2. So I traded it in and got a couple of boxes of colour negative film, and went out to take pictures in the twilight.

Not surprisingly, when I got back the results there was more grain in the image, the focus was not as sharp, and the postcard prints had none of the sparkle of the transparencies. I just knew it was the fault of the camera and the mens and sold it all off in a snit to buy the next hare-brained idea - a medium format press camera.

Older readers will detect where I went wrong - f:1.2 is not as sharp as f:8. Low light levels and shadows mean muddy shadows. Negative film has more grain than transparency film. Minilab prints can sometimes be minimal quality. But I convinced myself it was the fault of the camera.

Now I work in the trade and have taken more photos and looked at them. I realise my mistake. I spent out big and spent out wrong because I did not talk to someone in...the photo trade.

Labels: , , , , , , ,