Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,706   Posts: 1,548,495   Online: 997
      
Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 56
  1. #41
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,662
    Quote Originally Posted by ToddB View Post
    most of you know that you can turn it off and on by rotating it (obviously)
    The only way you can turn a polarizer off is by grasping the whole thing firmly and turning it counterclockwise until it comes off the lens.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  2. #42
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    I would agree the plain of focus is slightly off, definitely. However, I have no idea what film was used - but the grain isn't too excessive. It does look somewhat overdeveloped though.
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  3. #43

    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Mission Viejo, California
    Shooter
    127 Format
    Posts
    1,465
    The lens is probably 1,000 times sharper than the scanner...
    - Bill Lynch

  4. #44

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Georgia, USA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    211
    Yep, I've found my scanner is a bit soft at the frame edges and produces ghosts/double images in high contrast areas. I was blaming lenses at first but it didn't' take long to figure out the scanner optics were the source of my problems. I don't think the OP's problem is scanner related though. I think he is just going through a learning curve......

    Quote Originally Posted by wblynch View Post
    The lens is probably 1,000 times sharper than the scanner...

  5. #45
    Jim Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Rural NW Missouri
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,819
    Polarizer filters are more complex than most other filters, and can go bad. They are made as a sandwich of plastic between two sheets of optical glass. The plastic can deteriorate or become deformed. This can happen even to top quality polarizers like Leitz and Nikon. Try two test shots, one with and one without the filter.

  6. #46
    lxdude's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Redlands, So. Calif.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,662
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Jones View Post
    Polarizer filters are more complex than most other filters, and can go bad. They are made as a sandwich of plastic between two sheets of optical glass. The plastic can deteriorate or become deformed. This can happen even to top quality polarizers like Leitz and Nikon. Try two test shots, one with and one without the filter.
    I just recently tossed one that I have used for 25 years because of this.
    I do use a digital device in my photographic pursuits when necessary.
    When someone rags on me for using film, I use a middle digit, upraised.

  7. #47

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Adirondacks
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,459
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim Jones View Post
    Polarizer filters are more complex than most other filters, and can go bad. They are made as a sandwich of plastic between two sheets of optical glass. The plastic can deteriorate or become deformed. This can happen even to top quality polarizers like Leitz and Nikon. Try two test shots, one with and one without the filter.
    B&W too. But, I've had it since about 1978.

  8. #48

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    34
    All three shots posted exhibit front focusing. Shooting at f/1.4 exacerbates this misalignment. Recall that the image you see in the viewfinder is reflected by the reflex mirror, flipped around by the pentaprism, then projected on a ground glass (with fresnel focusing aid) screen. That screen MUST be the same optical distance from the lens as the film plane, otherwise front focusing or back focusing will occur. The focusing screen needs to be realigned. I do this by removing the back and taping a ground glass to the film track and focusing on a sharp target 12 feet away to obtain a perfectly focused image on the ground glass with the shutter open, THEN I release the shutter and adjust the focusing screen until I see the same point of focus as the film plane sees. It takes a few tries to get it good and dialed in.

  9. #49
    clayne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    San Francisco, CA | Kuching, MY | Jakarta, ID
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,838
    Images
    57
    Good advice on how to determine if the focusing screen is off - but that being said this is a Nikon FE, otherwise an infallible camera. :-)
    Stop worrying about grain, resolution, sharpness, and everything else that doesn't have a damn thing to do with substance.

    http://www.flickr.com/kediwah

  10. #50

    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    34
    Even a Rolex needs adjustment every decade or so.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin