Do you shoot...

[Hydra]

Film...

And if so, what are you shooting. I mean, digital cameras are cool too, but something about film gives me the wompelshwams.

This includes Overlord Will, but only because I like seeing big ole glass and cine lenses are super swell.

[calvynandhobbs]

I only shoot guns

[Hydra]

Damn...

This is my everyday (usually) carry

[Buffalo Phil]

I'm not cool enough to shoot on film. Photoshop is life.

[Hydra]

Where's the digital than? I'm not slandering Digital, I shoot it for work and pleasure. Film is just about the anticipation, like waiting for a package in the male.

The center camera is my digital camera. Fuji X-Pro, it's fantastic and I'd recommend Fuji's new X-mount cameras to anyone. Not the hottest for video, but take great photos, have absolutely stellar lenses, and has film simulations/bracketing built into the camera.

[Buffalo Phil]

I feel like shooting macro on film would just be a waste. 99% of the pictures would be worthless. I have nothing against film, just isnt my thing and digital just makes it easier.

[Hydra]

I'm confused... why would 99% of the pictures be worthless?

I won't argue about the ease of use with digital.

[Buffalo Phil]

I meant to say 'as of now with macro, 99% of my pictures are worthless'. It has nothing to do with film, it has to do with the trial and error of macro photography. I'm not a real photographer, I just bought a nice camera one day and learned how to use it. Macro Photography specifically is dealing with a ridiculously narrow depth of field and you're photographing things that don't like to sit still; it is a lesson in futility. If they walk a mere 1/32nd of an inch they are wildly out of focus and you have to keep on trying.

Lets take for example the last, more successful, time I went out. I found a wasp nest. I shot about 450 pictures. Here are some of those 99% worthless pictures. Now, take into account that I'm sitting outside of a wasp nest, I'm guessing the manual focus by using pictures I take and reviewing them on the lcd screen and trying not to get stung because the flash is actually blocking the entrance to the nest itself.

http://i.imgur.com/Z8K5aVs.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/gedUL8x.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/9HQBUYh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/X8lxISh.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/B5z0Em3.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/jqqbf7R.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/W7SEIYa.jpg

It's pot luck. You put the camera where you want it, you adjust the settings and you push the button and hope all goes well. And once in a while you'll strike a small nugget of gold.



So for me, it would be a waste of film, where as a sandisk 32 gb CF card can hold well over 4000 pictures.

I also like being able to plug my CF card into my computer, upload a bunch of shallow DoF pictures, running them through photoshop and focus stacking them.

Like this big fucking Root Borer, which is a combination of 6 different images.

[Hydra]

You just need to find bigger bugs, like the size of a van

[Buffalo Phil]

So like, a Volkswagen beetle?

[Hydra]

^^^ Bam, ya got me.

But why not increase the depth of field and not have to stitch? Looks like you're using flash anywhos? I am not a photoshop person at all, I like the inconsistencies in photos. But, I bet having them in Macro work must be frustrating.

[Lycaon]

[Buffalo Phil]

^^^ Bam, ya got me.

But why not increase the depth of field and not have to stitch? Looks like you're using flash anywhos? I am not a photoshop person at all, I like the inconsistencies in photos. But, I bet having them in Macro work must be frustrating.

F/10 on a macro lens has about the same depth of field as F/2.8 on a 50mm.

[Hydra]

Really? Hmmm.

I never noticed, if I'm being honest. I use the 100/f4 medium format macro lens all the time because its such a perfect portrait length on a 6x4.5 negative.

[Buffalo Phil]

At 1:1 or 1:10? I'm talking about when the lens is at 1:1-1:2 range.

And that's being generous. At 1:1 F/2.8 is about the thickness of a sheet of paper.