Jump to content

Welcome to NikonForums.com
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. If you already have an account, login here - otherwise create an account for free today!
Photo

Just a quick hello from here in East Yorkshire UK


  • Please log in to reply
10 replies to this topic

#1
tonyste

tonyste

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Country Flag

Hi guys, I'm new to the forum so a little about me though not new to photography.

The last time I seriously handled a camera was probably back in 2010 ( my D200 and Fuji S5 pro) and the reason for the long break was all down to life getting in the way but I knew that one day I would pick up where I left off as I've always loved photography, having started with a Yashica TLR which I bought used back in the mid-1970s.

I learned just about everything I know about photography with that camera, even how to shoot action shots and it was a great grounding for me.

 

I used to develop and print my own film and photographs and always had a darkroom right up to about 15 years ago when I first discovered digital. I was into people photography and used to specialise in portraits and boudoir glamour. Monochrome was my favourite.

 

I actually used my first digital camera ( Konica Minolta bridge camera ) initially as a substitute for the polaroid backs on my Bronicas which saved me lots of money at that time as the little camera was capable of very accurate manual exposure with a flash sync socket so I could set up both the exposure and frame the shot with studio lighting before transferring the settings to my Bronicas which meant I got more keepers out of each roll of film.

 

As there was no such thing as auto-focus on the Bronicas, everything was shot in manual with a hand held meter or using the Sunny 16 rule outdoors with a Metz flash for fill. The Sunny 16 rule still holds good today.

With few exceptions even when shooting with the D200 or Fuji S5, almost everything was shot in manual-everything mode with a Gossen meter for the exposure..

 

The other day I dug out my D200 and Fuji S5 pro and they both appear to still be functioning well enough. I still have a reasonable set of usable lenses which I suppose were the pro lenses of the 1990s.

 

I have the ubiquitous Nikon 50mm F1.4 of course a great lens apart from the chroma issue at wide apertures, the useful Nikon 35-70mm F2.8 which is probable still one of the best portrait lenses I've used and ultra sharp if you can get a good copy  A Nikon 20-35mm F2.8 which I love using, a Nikon 85mm which is sharp and a great portrait lens for not very much money but the bokeh is not so good and then I have one of my all time favourites, my Nikon 80-200 f2.8 which is sharp right from the 2.8 throughout its entire focal length. It doesn't have image stabilising but it's a fantastic old fashioned pro lens

 

I have a couple of DX lenses, a Tokina 12-24 which is actually great for tight work and a Nikon 16-85 which I purchased for use as a walkabout lens but never got to use so I have just about all the lenses I need.

I also have a set of early Nikon mount manual lenses which I often used on the D200. It was fine for me as I was used to setting everything manually. The old manual 75-150 was an excellent lens if you could find a good copy as was the old 80-210, again if you could find a good copy of course, 

 

I was so used to shooting film that when shooting with a DSLR, I'd always rather spend time using setting up the shot with a hand held meter for exposure and manual focus and frame the shot before pulling the trigger. That way I'd shoot just enough really good keeper shots than shoot hundreds of mediocre images and have to scroll through them to find a few passable shots, though I suppose it's each to their own. 

 

Today I took the plunge and mounted my 80-200 onto my D200 with its motor drive after charging up the batteries which surprisingly still work. I then put a new battery into my old Gossen meter and stepped outside of my front door and took some shots at various focal lengths and I have to say that it all came back to me and the results were pretty impressive for such an old camera although at 800 ISO or above the noise is a bit noticeable but at 250 ISO they were very good.

My Fuji is a bit better than the D200 in lower light so we'll see how I get on with that when I take it for a spin tomorrow.

 

The Fuji S5 pro was always a good 'people' camera and used as a backup or even main camera for wedding shooting by many pros.

 

Today I noticed with the heavy 80-200 which doesn't have any stabilising, I was a little shaky with my D200 at first so I think it will maybe take a little while to get back to the steady hand low shutter speed shooting I used to do but I'm sure I'll get back into the swing of things as time passes.

One thing that surprised me was my old Gossen meter with the incident slide engaged still gave absolutely perfect exposure readings just as it always did, not bad considering its age and the fact it hadn't had a battery in it for 12 years which is good as it means I don't have buy a new one. 

 

I still have my Bronicas and lenses so I might dig those out and even get out my developing gear with new chemicals and use the huge 5 x 4 Chromega enlarger with every conceivable extra that's just stood in my spare bedroom doing absolutely nothing. All I need is a bit of blackout curtaining and I'm all set.

 

Anyway, first things first, I'll start using my D200 and S5 cameras and see where I go from there.

If anyone wishes to chat about cameras the old days, I'm always up for it. 

Tony



#2
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,589 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

Welcome to the forums! 
 

Your old cameras don’t handle low light well, but on the other hand they give you skin tones equal to or better than a D850 or a Z7II as long as the light is there.

 

I skipped the CCD Nikons as I used the F-mount Kodak bodies from 2001 to 2007 when I got my D300.



#3
g4aaw pete

g4aaw pete

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,756 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationBirchington, North Kent Coast.

Site Supporter

Welcome Tony

 

My only film camera of note was a Praktica MTL3 which I bought sometime in the 1980s. I found the printing exercise very engaging. Ah - the smell of stop bath!

I still have all the negatives, one day I'll go through them & digitize worthy examples. I can't say when that day will be though.

 

We'd be interested to some of your work.



#4
krag96

krag96

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

Welcome! 

 

That Fujifilm S5 is still a relevant camera today, like Peter said, it gives better skin tones than many of today's super cameras.  I recently saw a photo of a model taken with an ultra high mega pixel camera, and it did her a great injustice.  Every pore and flaw highlighted, it made an attractive woman appear, ''plain'' to put it nicely. 

 

I'm in a love affair with the D700 myself and the older Nikkor lenses like the 20-35mm f2.8 D and the 80-200 f2.8 D  ED.  I did buy a gently used D750 for low light, but it lacks the handling of the old D700. 

 

Somewhere around here there's an old Ricoh twin lens socked away and my Canon F1n film camera.  It's been thirty years since I've developed my own B&W film and printed.  I still have the hardware though no desire to put it to use. 

 

It's good to have some, (hopefully active) fresh blood around here, so please do join in our challenges and show some of the lovely British country side and city scapes. We're an easy going bunch and I always like the photos our British, European, and farther American Nikonians put up. What you shoot isn't as important as getting some images up for the rest of us to admire. 



#5
tonyste

tonyste

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Country Flag

Welcome! 

 

That Fujifilm S5 is still a relevant camera today, like Peter said, it gives better skin tones than many of today's super cameras.  I recently saw a photo of a model taken with an ultra high mega pixel camera, and it did her a great injustice.  Every pore and flaw highlighted, it made an attractive woman appear, ''plain'' to put it nicely. 

 

I'm in a love affair with the D700 myself and the older Nikkor lenses like the 20-35mm f2.8 D and the 80-200 f2.8 D  ED.  I did buy a gently used D750 for low light, but it lacks the handling of the old D700. 

 

Somewhere around here there's an old Ricoh twin lens socked away and my Canon F1n film camera.  It's been thirty years since I've developed my own B&W film and printed.  I still have the hardware though no desire to put it to use. 

 

It's good to have some, (hopefully active) fresh blood around here, so please do join in our challenges and show some of the lovely British country side and city scapes. We're an easy going bunch and I always like the photos our British, European, and farther American Nikonians put up. What you shoot isn't as important as getting some images up for the rest of us to admire. 

Thank you for the much appreciated welcome.

 

I'm not so sure about the fresh blood bit, I'd describe myself as a bit long in the tooth if I'm honest but I do get what you mean LOL  :D  

I did seriously consider buying a D700 when I was last active with my cameras but life got in the way though hopefully I'll get back into it over the coming months.

 

As for city-scapes, although I suppose I could compose and execute a scenic shot competently, I have to say that scenic shooting never came natural to me. I'll always get the shot required of me but put someone in front of me for a portrait then I'm your man.

Likewise, give me average the girl next door with a bit of enthusiasm then I could invariably turn her into a very attractive boudoir model. I suppose it's horses for courses as they say though I was never into glamour as I much preferred creating a picture with a story that could be appreciated rather than ogled.

 

The old S5 pro was a very decent camera especially for the type of photography I was into but you're right of course, high definition isn't always welcomed by the subject in portraiture, that's why there is often more time spent on hiding flaws in post production with modern cameras high def sensors.

 

It was the same when shooting portraits in monochrome. As I used to shoot boudoir shots I'd often be asked for the images to be shot in monochrome which was fine if the subject was young with a relatively flawless complexion and taught body, then I was in my element as it was easy to produce very appealing, sometimes even stunning images but, young or old, most females want to be flattered and unfortunately monochrome can become unflattering in low key lighting as it would highlight the age lines and contours of not so perfect bodies which were best shot in colour.or softening filtering applied.

 

Of course I shot some stunning older women too but when I shot film, but my Bronicas were quite unforgiving when it came to detail so I made sure that their makeup was flawless, particularly their foundation makeup and when matched with appropriate lighting as well as using poses which kept their bodies taught.

 

While not exactly a muse I used to know one or two girls who enjoyed posing for me and we would often collaborate on new ideas with different props which helped enormously. 

Boudoir photography by its very nature is intimate and for obvious reasons I just can't post many of the shots I've taken but I still have one or two old digital 'polaroid' pose tests from when I was still shooting with my Bronicas.

 

The simple low res pose test image below might give you an idea of the type of shots I used to take..

It was part of a series of poses taken with the aid of a good friend Millie in my lounge with an old dressing table and Millie's Steiff bear as props using a very modest Dimage 7i bridge camera in 2006 which I used back then instead of the polaroid back on my Bronicas. Using the little bridge camera was far cheaper than polaroid film replacement. I also preferred and I suppose still do prefer to work with natural light so it was essential to have an indication of how the shot would turn out.

 

The beauty of such stock pose test shots is that they can be refined with regard to both pose as well as adjustment of the light fill reflectors. They can also give an indication of what shading and burning in will be required when printing out the final  10 x 8 or 20 x 16. 

Anyway I'm sure I've bored you enough for now but I will add that one doesn't need the best of cameras or flash equipment to be creative where people photography is concerned. Natural light and a modest camera is really all one needs to turn out some very good images.  

 

 

 

A1TWreM1_o.jpg?download=true



#6
krag96

krag96

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,319 posts
  • Country Flag

Site Supporter

The pose and composition of that photo is near perfection, an excellent job done. 

 

When I first dipped my toes in the digital realm, I had been away from photography for some years, only practicing it with whatever ''smart'' phone I happened to have at the time.  I tried a Sony point and shoot, that lasted part of a day before I returned it and was advised to get a Nikon DSLR.  My choice wasn't much better there with a D5500.  The Camera takes wonderful photos, it's the mechanics, (or rather the electronics) of the thing I couldn't get used to.  Talking with a National Geographic nature photographer, Ted Schiffman who suggested the D700 might be more to my liking.  Ted was right, the D700 fit right in to my mind set and ability, learning curve you could say.  After two years of using the D700 I bought a gently used D750 simply for it's increased dynamic range and low light capabilities.  It does excel there, but is nowhere close to the D700 in handling and quality.  I Think if I were to convince myself into buying another camera, it would be a D4s, but I'm not willing to part with that kind of money right now. 

 

I don't live in a city, or even a small town.  I'm pretty much out in the country among farms.  I look at street photography in two ways, first as simply a record of what it was like then for those in the future, common street scenes containing the cars, people, buildings and buisnesses.  Nothing special now, but in 40-50 years someone may be looking at them and wondering...  The artistic view, unless a particular unique building or home I leave for after dark leaving some mystery about it.  Again, find of a record, but there's something about a lone person waiting under a street light, or a person walking along at night that's interesting, (particularly if done in B&W).  Even a man walking into a bar can make an interesting photo.  I believe the most powerful portraits are those done in B&W, a man at his desk, a tough ''Junk Yard Dog'' type with a cigar and a stare against a black or dark background makes for an interesting and powerful photo, at least one that won't be forgotten soon. 

 

I, like most others here are non-professional still learning photographers just here to enjoy the art and hobby and to see each-other's work and learn from one-another.  Sometimes our images are less than interesting, sometimes they're the same old-same old, but every now and again someone slips a gem in.  We're all relaxed and friendly here. 



#7
tonyste

tonyste

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Country Flag

Welcome to the forums! 
 

Your old cameras don’t handle low light well, but on the other hand they give you skin tones equal to or better than a D850 or a Z7II as long as the light is there.

 

I skipped the CCD Nikons as I used the F-mount Kodak bodies from 2001 to 2007 when I got my D300.

Hi there and thank you for your welcome.

I remember the Kodak DSLR though I never tried one.

 

As you allude to, the disadvantage of most older/earlier digital cameras including my models was that they just weren't good in low light which was a pain if shooting action under those conditions but fortunately most of my shots were of static subjects so one often tended to cancel out the other but noise was definitely a limiting factor in certain instances.

Having lenses capable of f2.8 or larger apertures helped enormously, especially if wishing to isolate the subject from a busy background but later sensors were unquestionably better in poor light.

 

The Fuji S5 pro I found was streets ahead of the D200 when it came to skin tones but for some reason it lacked the sharpness/crispness of the D200 though the Fuji was also arguably noticeably better in lower light so it was trade-offs when I used each of them. The example of the D200 I owned when coupled with a good lens gave very sharp results, especially if the MLU was engaged but that slight inherent softness in the S5 made it a great portrait camera so I could always get the shots I wanted.

 

Life eventually got in the way so I effectively stopped using my cameras, particularly my Fuji which I suppose was compounded by the fact that my later Windows versions didn't support the Fuji software which originally came with the camera due to a missing file if I remember correctly.

I still have an old working computer buried under all the junk piled into my spare room which I used back then with a copy of Windows 2000 or XP and which should still be capable of running the software. I really liked that software with it's film emulations, so I must see if I can get it working again. For the D200 there is still plenty of software to handle the RAW files.

 

What I found curious was that during the days of film, noise in the form of grain was somehow accepted especially if shot in monochrome but noise became an obsession once people could view their images on a screen in front of their nose as they were no longer restricted by the viewing distance of the normal print.

 

If one looks closely at instantly recognisable iconic monochrome images of the past, close inspection would often reveal that some were far from perfect but it didn't stop the images from being hailed masterpieces of their day by less technical and less camera-minded viewers so, obsessing over how forensically sharp an image is produced by a camera and or lens to my mind can sometimes be missing the point.

 

I guess I'm a bit of a photography dinosaur and have been for a long time but it's the same for me with in-camera metering and auto-focus on digital cameras.

Those features certainly have their uses and can give good results but if I was wanting to shoot specific shots, where possible I would always gravitate to using manual focus and use a decent off-camera exposure meter to get the exposure and shutter speeds I wanted/needed just as I would with film cameras. I rarely needed to look at the viewing screen to check the exposure as I knew it would be correct. Of course I would bracket a number of shots if the light was complicated or shoot extra frames if the subject had the potential to move but by doing things manually, I had far less exposures to assess and discard after a shoot.

 

I found it somewhat difficult to get out of the 'film habit' and would usually end up with a similar number of shots with digital as I would if shooting with rolls off film. Silly perhaps given theoretically there are no extra costs or limits to the number of shots that can be taken but it worked for me.

 

I would find it interesting to see if I am the only one with this archaic line of thinking. I took the D200 out the other day with the 80-200 and my Gossen Lunasix F for the first time in many years and got virtually perfect exposures over a spectrum of tones in strong sunlight just with simple incident light readings.



#8
Merco_61

Merco_61

    Nikonian

  • Premium Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,589 posts
  • Country Flag
  • LocationUppsala, Sweden

Site Supporter

There is one current raw converter that does the S3 and S5 pro raw files justice. This is Photo Ninja from Picturecode. There is a bit of a learning curve, but it is well worth the cost and the work in learning to use it.

I use it for all the Nikons I have, from a D300 up to a Z6II, as well as a Leica compact. I get as good results as with Capture NX-D for the Nikon files and with Adobe Camera Raw for the Leica. Using one program for all cameras really simplifies the workflow.

 

My first Kodak really didn’t work in low light. Anything above ISO125 lost tonal range and became a noisy mess.

 

I still use a handheld meter, but only in the studio. It is much faster to set up strobes and reflectors using a meter with attached radio master than to faff around with tethered shooting and having to evaluate the balance by either visual analysis or some tools in software.



#9
tonyste

tonyste

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Country Flag

Thanks for the heads-up, I'll have a look into Phot Ninja.

I built my current all singing and dancing computer with hi-spec parts going on for two and a half years ago with dual SSDs plus dual HDDs with the intention of once again returning to photography so I installed editing software like Raw Therapee and Gimp, plus I transferred over my original copy of CS2 which while very dated, is still ok for general editing after raw conversion and I also use an old piece of software called RawShooter which still works.

 

Having so many drives and high spec components in my computer means it virtually runs like the wind and I have plenty of storage space as I still have three external hard drives from days gone by on which I store my old images and film scans and it's a pain finding individual frames on them.

 

I still have my old lighting including flash heads, soft boxes and umbrellas and flash meter somewhere up in the loft but whether or not I get to use them again is dependent upon whether or not I go back to people photography which presently seems unlikely, 

 

I also have three serviceable Metz 45 hammerheads which I used to trigger wirelessly off-camera with good effect when needed but I'm now leaning toward having a more serious attempt at  reportage / scenic and general urban photography which was never my scene so would be completely new to me and will mean a huge change in my approach to photography from my old rather formulaic style of shooting mostly people with the camera mounted on a tripod and cable release but it could present interesting challenges in learning new genres.

 

It will certainly be interesting to see where it takes me.



#10
tonyste

tonyste

    New Member

  • Forum Member
  • Pip
  • 6 posts
  • Country Flag

Welcome Tony

 

My only film camera of note was a Praktica MTL3 which I bought sometime in the 1980s. I found the printing exercise very engaging. Ah - the smell of stop bath!

I still have all the negatives, one day I'll go through them & digitize worthy examples. I can't say when that day will be though.

 

We'd be interested to some of your work.

 

I think that many early SLR users in the UK cut their teeth on a Practica. A very reliable camera by all accounts and an excellent introduction into more serious photography.

 

I was never into 35mm when I first took up photography, I liked 6 x 6cm for printing big and started with a used Yashica 24 6 x 6 which was their top of the range TLR at that time before the 124G came along. I later got a Rolleilex and found the Yashica I owned had a lens on par with it.

 

My first enlarger was an ancient Gnome 3 1/4 x 2 1/4 with a Wray lens and I still marvel at some of the shots that old enlarger produced. Like you, I still have thousands of negatives to digitise which I suspect I'll never get around to doing.



#11
fallout666

fallout666

    Nikonian

  • Forum Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,098 posts
  • Country Flag
  • Locationcfl area of space coast

hello