SterlingBjorndahl

Lives in Canada Regina / SK, Canada
Joined on Sep 10, 2006
About me:

I like to shoot medium format film on occasion, usually with a Pentax 67 and sometimes with a Graflex Century Graphic.

Comments

Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article 12 Things Not To Do When Buying Your First Film Camera (237 comments in total)
In reply to:

IdM photography: BUY ONLY MEDIUM FORMAT CAMERAS!!! if you're gonna make the effort to shoot film, do the real thing... Buy a camera without electronics, without AF (but a split focusing screen helps...), develop your films yourself, and with medium format you will also achieve results of good quality...

Instead of shooting quickly your 36-fotos roll, put more effort for each of the 12 photos of your medium formal roll... A good Hassy may be expensive, but a Yashica Mat 124G TLR is a nice alternative!! Pentax 67 are also divine cameras!!

PAntues - same price per roll but drastically different price per shot. My Pentax 67 gets only 10 shots on a roll. It makes me slow down and think a bit more carefully before squeezing the shutter.

Link | Posted on May 29, 2020 at 17:56 UTC
On article 12 Things Not To Do When Buying Your First Film Camera (237 comments in total)
In reply to:

IdM photography: Another tip... In order to shoot wide open with a film camera, buy 25 ISO film (e.g. Rollei RPX 25 B&W film...)...

A follow-up tip: Most lenses for film cameras don't produce their best quality when wide open. Especially so for medium format. Sometimes the difference can be quite dramatic. You may want to take a few test shots with it on a digital camera to get an idea of what kind of results to expect.

Link | Posted on May 29, 2020 at 17:53 UTC
In reply to:

psartman: I used the W67 with 55mm lens almost exclusively for several decades on documentary projects. I loved the camera, but the film advance was its Achilles heal- it just wasn't reliable. So I ended up always having two of them so I'd have a backup. There were also very few places that could repair them. The one place in NY (DOI I think?) would sometimes send the camera back with the rangefinder out of whack, so I ended up having to figure out how to adjust the rangefinder myself. My final straw with it was when I tested it against my Pentax 67 55mm lens. I discovered that the Nikkor lens on the Plaubel was just as sharp, but had horrendous falloff compared to the Pentax. I've been a happy Sony full frame user for years now, but wish I had kept one of the Plaubels as a keepsake.

Agreed about the Pentax 67 55/4. A stunning lens at the time and still holds up well.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2020 at 15:34 UTC

Which 3D lens is that? It doesn't look like the standard Lumix 12.5/12, which has a lot of limitations.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2020 at 16:06 UTC as 27th comment | 10 replies

I'm not at all tempted to go back to 35mm film, but I enjoy shooting the occasional roll of 120 medium format film in my Pentax 67 or "baby" Graflex. Especially slide film - the images are large enough that you can see the impact even without a loupe or projector.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2020 at 15:59 UTC as 50th comment
In reply to:

DGrinb: Here is what I found on ebay for $35 all included:
Fujica ST801 35mm SLR Film Camera - Incl. 135m f/2.8, 200mm f/3.5, 55mm f/1.8

The only disadvantage is that those lens cannot be filled with water...

But I guess I win.

Yeah but 35mm film is boring. Try some 120.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2019 at 22:04 UTC

I thought the term "chrome" was used for positive transparency film, e.g., Kodachrome, Ektachrome, Fujichrome. Am I wrong? Are there other colour negative films called "chrome"? I love shooting 120-sized slides and was hoping this would be one based on the name. :(

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2019 at 14:40 UTC as 10th comment | 5 replies

Meh, if it's not available in 120 medium format I'm not interested. Don't got no time for 35mm any more.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2018 at 18:07 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Bgfreeman: So this new film will exit the wrong side of the cassette and only have sprocket holes on one side?

Interesting. Wonder what sort of camera this is intended for.

The tongue is wrapped around the back of the cassette.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2018 at 16:05 UTC
On article Photokina 2018: Hands-on with Panasonic Lumix S1R (653 comments in total)
In reply to:

Espen B: It's funny to se all the LumixG ambassadors, previously known for the praise of compacness, now singing the praise for the FF LumixS.

Not "all".

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2018 at 19:59 UTC

When I specified Olympus it gave me Olympus lenses; when I specified Panasonic it gave me Panasonic lenses. It should have a "Micro Four Thirds" option that will let me mix and match - I have lenses and bodies from both brands.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2017 at 17:43 UTC as 10th comment
On article Humor: The 'horrifying' truth about radioactive lenses (185 comments in total)

As far as I can tell, no one has posted this helpful information yet. It puts things in perspective. https://xkcd.com/radiation/

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2017 at 22:56 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

falconeyes: The service by EXIF.co has no real value. I am disappointed by the "smart watermark" feature too.

I thought about a similiar service years ago. And it would have embedded a dynamic, invisible watermark (steganography) into every image served by the image host. It would contain timestamp and download IP and a searchable attribute. Plus a service to scan the net for such images and automatically go after those who download and share. BTW, the same is possible for music and movies. Much better solution than DRM.

Are you familiar with Digimarc? Check Photoshop's Filter menu.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2017 at 14:34 UTC
On article Erez Marom: On causality in landscape photography (106 comments in total)
In reply to:

PhotoUniverse: Is this a web infomercial?
It seems the "cause" of this article is to promote Ereze's work!

There's an old saying, "If you're not paying for a product, you are the product".

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 15:10 UTC
In reply to:

cdembrey: More non-sence from the forum-istas. And more click-bait from DPReview.

"Everybody has a right to be stupid, but some people abuse the privilege." All-day, everyday right here on DPR.

Wow, irony. The word you're looking for is 'nonsense'. I can see where you're coming from with 'forum-istas' but 'non-sence' is nonsense.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 01:39 UTC

I was under the impression that in most of the English-speaking world, people don't have the right to control how their image is used. If it's used in a defamatory way they can sue, but not for general usage or a portion of the profits. A release form simply demonstrates that the model understands this. IANAL (I am not a lawyer) and am not from the U.S.A., so I may be wrong, but I believe if she is successful in this lawsuit it will overturn precedent.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2017 at 21:01 UTC as 111th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

peevee1: People deciding US prices for Panasonic lenses are simply incompetent. 45/2.8 macro for $900, 12-35/2.8 for $1,300, 35-100/2.8 for $1,500, now this one for $1,600? They are simply counting up, expecting higher profits with higher prices, like there is no competition out there?
Somebody, please teach them about price-demand curves.

@BarnET: 50mm on full frame is not a portrait lens. Compare this Leica to a FF 85mm.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2014 at 22:35 UTC
In reply to:

DaSigmaGuy: This is a total miscarriage of justice in my book because the Copyright of a work belongs solely to the Photographer, in this case John Alli, and no one else. A photographer can licence his work out for a fee but as the creator of the work he will always retain his original Copyright rights. If he dies the Copyright dies with him and subsequently anyone will have right to use his work for whatever use. If anyone should be paid for the infringement then it is John Alli, unless of course he is dead, in which case Gaylord should get nothing at all.

@Lin: Copyrights expire after a certain time.

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2013 at 00:31 UTC
In reply to:

DaSigmaGuy: This is a total miscarriage of justice in my book because the Copyright of a work belongs solely to the Photographer, in this case John Alli, and no one else. A photographer can licence his work out for a fee but as the creator of the work he will always retain his original Copyright rights. If he dies the Copyright dies with him and subsequently anyone will have right to use his work for whatever use. If anyone should be paid for the infringement then it is John Alli, unless of course he is dead, in which case Gaylord should get nothing at all.

Great! Can I take some photographs of your photographs and sell them? I would be, after all, the Photographer, in your definition.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2013 at 03:24 UTC
In reply to:

dblues: So if I shoot an image of Mount Rushmore and sell thousands of copies, who do I have to pay???

@dblues - if you're the one buying the photo for commercial purposes, it's your responsibility to find that out. Not the photographer's.

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2013 at 02:13 UTC
Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »