File :-(, x, )
NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
Victory /p/ after a year or so of searching I've found my grandfathers old light meter. With a quick cursory search of the tubes I've found that it is from 1940. Now off to do some cursory testing to see if it's still accurate enough to use. If it does, it is time to do some medium format again =D

Also
"During dry cold weather the glass on the instrument is likely to become electrified by contact with the hands or clothing. This attracts the pointer and gives erroneous readings, but the charge on the glass can be easily eliminated by breathing upon it."
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 30DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 MacintoshPhotographerunknownMaximum Lens Aperturef/4.0Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:07:07 01:42:35Exposure Time1/40 secF-Numberf/4.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/4.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length33.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width983Image Height655RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
Talking about light meters, I have an Eos 5, but I still meter on incident light with my Luna-pro SBC when shooting street. I like it. I like no having to meter a scene every time. Set it and forget it.

What MF system do you have?
>> Anonymous
Interesting but sorta useless with modern technology already inside DSLRs. Pretty neat though.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>219358
dont read the whole post or anything.

All this filmfaggotry on /p/ is making me want a 7 or 9 a lot more...

Possibly more than new headphones.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>219353
I am using old Mamiya C220 on loan from my photo teach. It has a 55mm leans on it, though it seems to act like my 10-22 on my 30D.
>> Anonymous
>>219380

the only reason all you digitalfags dont like film is because you actually have to know what you're doing.

enjoy your shitty DSLRs that do everything for you
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>219496
actually for black and white work film is a lot more forgiving exposure wise than digital...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
I have a similar meter. The one in the pic is mine.

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon PowerShot A630Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2007:06:06 17:52:17Exposure Time1/60 secF-Numberf/3.5Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashFlash, AutoFocal Length14.93 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1023Image Height768RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>>219380
I hope you're not a Sonyfag for your cans as well.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>219583
Canon user who respects Nikon. Mostly I just prefer canon's classification system. It's so logical.
>> Anonymous
>>219594

example
>> DC
>>219580
digital has bigger dynamic range than film.
>> Anonymous
>>219675

proof?
>> Anonymous
>>219675
Medium format dynamic range in film > digital dynamic range for a cheap DSLR

At the same time, film medium format is MUCH cheaper than a 35mm full frame SLR with comparable dynamic range.

Therefore, it's easier to get a greater with medium format than it is with digital.

/debate
>> Depressed Cheesecake !iZn5BCIpug
>>219967
You have no idea what you're talking about.
>> Anonymous
>>219975
Oh lawd! Says the Depressed Cheesecake!
>> sage !i/euDJmWr2
>>219979
/p/ has the worst ability to detect fake trips...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>219967
Actually, I'm thinking of selling all my excess 35mm gear (About $400-600 of stuff) and get a starter MF system. What do you recommend?

I already shoot 35mm and I'm not happy about all the grain I pick up when scanning slow film.

Pic related.

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwarePicasa 2.7Image-Specific Properties:Unique Image ID3abd24c5b532ed0827189e78c924304a
>> Anonymous
>>219675
>>219877
>>219967
>>219975
>>219979

same unfunny fag
>> Anonymous
>>219981
Good idea. Though is that grain really from the original negative, and not from pushing it during scanning due to a over or under exposed neg? It seems more likely, or due to the scanner..
Can't go wrong with MF though. Depending on what kind of work you do, get a 6x4.5, 6x6 or a 6x7 (They CAN be handheld!). Be sure to get an SLR though. $400 to $600 should be enough to get a pro kit with one lens.
>> Anonymous
>>219986
>and not from pushing it during scanning due
Good call. One photo lab I know asks for prints of the original for making negative scans because of the dynamic range thing.

My Epson 4490 actually dumps more grain in your lap if you don't go with their auto exposure. So it's a matter of knowing what your picture should look like, dynamically. Which probably failed in this case.

I should probably try a Coolscan like natureguy before knocking 135 film. Look at all those Noctilux + Velvia fags on flickr. What do you think they use.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>220038
forgot to attach. Superia 400 (the old emulsion, pre-2006 I think. Also expired) has waaay to much grain when scanning for me.

pic fucking related. Don't cry

Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwarePicasa 2.7Image-Specific Properties:Unique Image IDd9d975829cae8dc3a853755104c0a759
>> Anonymous
Actually, how heavy can I expect a 6x4.5 to be? I'd like to be able to stash it in my bag and be on the go with it and forgo the tripod.
>> NatureGuy !se3A3TwzdY
>>220038
I use cool scan?
>> Anonymous
>>220038

wat?
>> Anonymous
>>220187
You don't? My bad, I must have confused with another trip.
>> Anonymous
>>220039
It's an old film, high sensitivity, and expired. And you start complaining about grain? Oh wow. You'd have heavy grain even with a coolscan. (I use a Coolscan 9000.)
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>220172
It depends on the camera, but most 6x4.5 SLRs aren't much bigger or heavier than a pro-level digital or 35mm body (D3, 1Ds, etc)

The Pentax 645 is a good choice if you want something to shoot handheld. It was designed to be used that way, has good ergonomics, and is inexpensive. A Mamiya 645 Pro with an eye-level prism and motor drive is a good choice too. Bronica ETR is probably going to be the cheapest but clunkiest of the bunch, but it's still a good camera.

Another option would be a 6x4.5 rangefinder. Fuji made a bunch of them and Bronica made an exceptional one. The downside is that (excluding a few older Fuji models) they're a lot more expensive than SLRs.