Volkswagen Passat Forum banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'm looking to get a couple of filters for my camera. I have a Canon Rebel 2000. One lens has a screw diameter of 58mm the other I can't tell (bought all this stuff used).

Probably a polarizer filter and a filter for B&W (haven't decided yet).

The Canon filters seem expensive. Are there other more reasonably priced filters?

I looked at B&H Photo. Is this a decent website for photo gear?

Lastly, B&H seems like it also has film for a pretty decent price. About what I pay in the shops around here. Any other good sources for film?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,124 Posts
HalfGreek said:
I'm looking to get a couple of filters for my camera. I have a Canon Rebel 2000. One lens has a screw diameter of 58mm the other I can't tell (bought all this stuff used).

Probably a polarizer filter and a filter for B&W (haven't decided yet).

The Canon filters seem expensive. Are there other more reasonably priced filters?

I looked at B&H Photo. Is this a decent website for photo gear?

Lastly, B&H seems like it also has film for a pretty decent price. About what I pay in the shops around here. Any other good sources for film?
1. Get a circular polarizer.
2. Tiffen filters are OK and fairly reasonable.
3. I have probably spent over a grand at B&H in the last few years and everythin has worked perfectly.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,213 Posts
HalfGreek said:
The Canon filters seem expensive. Are there other more reasonably priced filters?
As a4passata6 recommends, Tiffen.

HalfGreek said:
I looked at B&H Photo. Is this a decent website for photo gear?
Are you kidding? B&H is THE place for photo gear. I can spend a whole day in B&H.

Other websites I have found:
http://www.cameraworld.com/
http://www.digitalfotoclub.com/ - Just ordered some stuff from them yesterday. First time I'm dealing with them. No feedback to provide yet but they do have lots of stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,330 Posts
I always keep a clear uv filter on all of my lenses, especially when going to crowded places (travelling, etc). Those $10 filters have saved my expensive glass numerous times. They're practically disposable.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,653 Posts
Another vote for Tiffen, but when I had my cameras I used square filters with adapter rings for the different barrel sizes. It's alot cheaper that way since you don't have to buy 2x (or more) of each filter.

As for B&W film filters start with a red 090 filter and then add a blue 081 and a deep yellow #15. I used the 090 more than any other B&W filter I had. Of course alot depends on what you shoot, so a green filter may be more useful to you that ne deep yellow.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
Darter said:
I always keep a clear uv filter on all of my lenses, especially when going to crowded places (travelling, etc). Those $10 filters have saved my expensive glass numerous times. They're practically disposable.
aka, 'lens protectors'.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
thanks everyone for the comments.

I was wondering about what to do with the multiple sized lenses and buying multiple of the same filter. However, I'm not a big fan of bulk so I'm not sure if I want to go the route of an adapter. I don't know, I'll have to look around some and see what I end up with.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
its usually better to POST process things than pre-process them.

filters in front of lenses are pre-processors. not always good, IF you have the option of post processing (scanning and editing digitally).

the only exceptions are when you can't post-process and are going wet-chem directly. OR, if the pre-processing helps capture more image (detail, exposure, etc). like if there's glare and using a polarizer helps get the detail in better. that kind of thing is better done at the pre- stage.

but realize that once you pre- something - you can't easily undo it. otoh, if you capture 'raw' and then play around after the fact, you can always undo things with no harm.

I use to use a film scanner (nikon ls2000) when I did film. it has the advantage of capturing every bit of detail in the film and letting me have control after the shot. with wet chem, you have very little control compared to digital.

fwiw.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,105 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Linux,

I agree with you from an overview of the process.

However, since I'm new with learning the trade I want to learn the basics first. I feel like I need to start at the beginning of all of this.

I'm in the middle of taking various classes. Of which I will be taking darkroom classes. Therefore I think this kind of stuff is necessary.

Basically, my eventual goal is to get a good digital SLR and do all photoshop processing. Over the years I've really gotten used to digital point and shoots. However, I don't want to go that route until I feel like I'm decent at photography. Basically, I don't want to "cheat".

Sort of like learning math. Sure it is easier and more flexible to do math on a calculator. However, you need learn your multiplication tables to really understand the foundations of math. Right now I just learned that 8 - 3 = 5. :)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,653 Posts
Sorry, Linux, but digitally post processing from film is wrong. That's fine if you are full digital, but if you are going from film to digital via scanner you introduce all sorts of things like compression loss, color space compression, artifacting, solarization in dmax areas, etc.

If you are shooting film, keep it film, end of story. You can do all sorts of the fun post shoot things when you're processing the film and printing but some things you need to take care of up front, like compensating for tungsten/flourescent lighting, contrast compensation in B&W shooting, avoiding lens flares or other lighting abberations, etc.

There is no substitute for a good set of filters in front of your glass if you're serious about this.

Halfgreek, the darkroom stuff is the most fun. I worked in a pro darkroom (SubiaColor in AZ) for 5 years and I miss doing it to this day. The B&W stuff still has endless options for creativity, you'll have a lot of fun with it I'm sure. :thumbup:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
HalfGreek said:
Linux,

I agree with you from an overview of the process.

However, since I'm new with learning the trade I want to learn the basics first. I feel like I need to start at the beginning of all of this.

I'm in the middle of taking various classes. Of which I will be taking darkroom classes. Therefore I think this kind of stuff is necessary.

Basically, my eventual goal is to get a good digital SLR and do all photoshop processing. Over the years I've really gotten used to digital point and shoots. However, I don't want to go that route until I feel like I'm decent at photography. Basically, I don't want to "cheat".
I know exactly what you mean. but I'm not sure I agree. wet/film is dead! its archaic. there's almost zero reason for it anymore, really, truly, honestly. everyone said 'when digital gets to film (10mpix level) film will be dead'. and its true. today you can get 5 and 10megapix sensor cameras and equal 35mm film. with NO problems due to changes between labs (even inside labs), temp exposure to the film (from start to end) - just everything about film is, well, analog! and I do mean that in a bad way ;) seriously, though - analog is dead for all but purists. a serious state of the art digital can compare 1 for 1 in blind tests these days. digital is -here-, for a 35mm replacement, for consumer thru pro level.

you do not have to waste time, even if yoda says so, on old out-dated things.

some skills that apply to film don't map to the digital paradigm. (vice versa also, of course). since you will be doing your work 'digital', I say go there now and skip the obligatory 'I must first learn wet/chem/film'. blech! screw that. that's a luxury you can mess with later on, if you want, if you still have more time on your hands ;)

get good glass. get a reasonably modern digital body. almost any current photo inkjet produces miraculous output. photo editing software is free (for basic stuff, like gimp). go to town, man!

but skip film. its dead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
ok, prove me wrong. how is film still relevant, given a choice between a modern film and a modern digital slr body and equal glass?

I've been a film user for the last 30 or so years. I've done darkroom work (admittedly, home black/white only, not color) and wet chemistry just plain sucks compared to being able to do the whole thing from your desktop. unless you are doing the darkroom work yourself, and the cropping and enlarging/printing, then you have WAY more control if you went all digital.

the physical skills of darkroom don't payback a whole lot when you do the same thing in pshop or gimp. I don't see how investing in that now will help any, other than being able to say "I did that".

show me why you think I'm wrong.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,653 Posts
Where should I even begin? Well, you are running on the basic assumption that 35mm is where people stop, and that it is the only format that matters. Wrong, 35mm is the low end of pro photography, an there are many other formats (i.e. 545, 645, 4x5, etc) that are primarily still film based.

Secondly, your glass is only part of the equation. And not even the most significant part for some forms of photography. Film has a far wider range in both speed and type with special applications that digital still cannot touch. How on earth are you going to replicate the look of 1 stop pushed Ilford 1600 on your digital? Now while this may be esoteric creative stuff, you don't know that isn't what Halfgreek is shooting. Also, how do you know what that looks like if you haven't shot it?

Starting with film, at least for experimentation, will give you an understanding of what an different film types do and what they look like, as well as giving a potential photographer a basic understanding of metering, lighting, composition, filtering and post processing techniques that you don't get with digital. Please feel free to ask a pro, a real pro, photographer what he/she thinks about film and I'd be willing to bet money that the majority agree it's still a vital learning and creative tool.

Digital is convenient, it's quick, and it's easy. But it's also sanitary. The images are always perfectly exposed and evenly lit and have perfect color saturation. They are also tremendously boring for the most part.

The things I learned in the darkroom, about colorspaces, and the interaction of film, paper, lens, filter, process, etc have been absolutely invaluable for my understanding of reprographics. Which by the way has been my chosen line of work for the last 15 years. Now I shoot digital, but with a much better understanding of what to expect in the final print, or a better understanding of what I need to do to setup the camera to get the good picture.

BTW, you cited 10mpix as the level that digital rivals film. For the price of one 10mpix camera body (I think there's only one SLR at that res) I could buy a Nikon F5 with four lenses. So to get a camera that just equals a 35 year old Nikkormat, in a "blind comparison", I need to spend $8500? Please.

Film may not be mainstream, but it's far from dead.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,683 Posts
linux-works said:
I don't see how investing in that now will help any, other than being able to say "I did that".
But isn't that why people enjoy photography (or any hobby for that matter) regardless of format? The "I did that" factor is a big part of it, whether you're a photographer, a woodworker, painter, etc.

I don't see how someone new to photography is making a mistake starting with film or digital. For me, learning the fundamentals seems to be much less expensive with a film SLR. That's not something that a point and shoot digital camera is good for and digital SLRs are still relatively expensive.

Living in a digital world is great but not living in it at times isn't necessarily a bad thing. From a photography point of view, there lot's to learn on both sides.

Just my $.02.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,095 Posts
mr.bouton said:
linux-works said:
I don't see how investing in that now will help any, other than being able to say "I did that".
But isn't that why people enjoy photography (or any hobby for that matter) regardless of format? The "I did that" factor is a big part of it, whether you're a photographer, a woodworker, painter, etc.

I don't see how someone new to photography is making a mistake starting with film or digital. For me, learning the fundamentals seems to be much less expensive with a film SLR. That's not something that a point and shoot digital camera is good for and digital SLRs are still relatively expensive.

Living in a digital world is great but not living in it at times isn't necessarily a bad thing. From a photography point of view, there lot's to learn on both sides.

Just my $.02.
I disagree with your statement about cost. I could prove it, too. do the math. buy film. that's about $2/roll, give or take. have it processed - that's $2/roll (for 'develop only, no prints' which is what you'd tell the guy at the drug store 1hour minilab). add in the cost of the film scanner ($1k or so, to REALLY compete with decent digital slr) and your time to scan in and clean up all those scratches (very very tiny ones, simply due to processing the film, physically) and adjust the color and stuff for THAT minilab (sigh).. it adds up in your hourly time, alone.

the money cost and the time cost are not worth it.

a decent digital body is $1k or so. $2k tops, for a 'learning pro-sumer' guy. not a huge investment. and you save the $500 to $1k for the film scanner, don't forget that.

lenses are the same either way.

its NOT cheaper to go film! unless you have free material and chemistry (and your time to correct all the images you want to keep, from the rolls); if you have to pay for your materials, film is NOT cheaper!

also, don't forget cost of storage. film is annoying to care for. keeping it dust-free and damage-free. and all the damage to the environment for wet chemistry (I'm no tree hugger, but wet chem does use very nasty chemicals - that have to eventually be disposed of). digital is 'clean' up to the point where you finally print it ;)

and the time delay between creating the photo and finally getting the negs or image files to play with. even in a 1hour lab, you still have to get there, wait, then get home before you can scan the negs or whatever. and also worry about the lab losing or destroying your negs. no worries of that kind with digital.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,653 Posts
Man, could you slant you math a little more in your favor? YOU said 10mpix = film, therefore that is the apples to apples comparison gold standard. $1k for a digital body gets you into (at best) a Nikon D70 that doesn't have the the shutter speed, or film sensitivity of even a $400 Nikon F3hp. So lets just throw out the argument of image clarity at 8x10 enlargement just to make that compromise work.

Then you add in $1k for a film scanner. Why? Who said anything about a film scanner? I said shoot film keep it film. So that leaves processing. I guess your digital camera comes with free prints for life, eh?

Man, you don't want to know what the per print cost is on the digital photo printers (hint: it equals the cost of traditional film processing, if not a bit more). :roll:
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top