East Meet Pics

Ambermile

Ambermile

A Whole Lot of Sparkle..
Messages
4,125
Name
Arthur
Edit My Images
No
Like it says - not seen any pics from the East meet yet, unless I missed something?

If not then here's a few of mine, all in Centuria 200 through the R2 using either the Industar 28mm f2.8, the Nikon 50mm f1.4 or the Tele-Annalyt 135mm f3.5. The bw one is a blatant conversion from colour - so shoot me :p

tp-CNV0001_zpsd0b13109.jpg



tp-CNV00048_zps7b27da3e.jpg


tp-CNV00015_zps7b17bbe5.jpg


tp-CNV00025_zps3e467b8d.jpg


tp-CNV00033_zps29559d85.jpg


tp-bw_zps0b1907c7.jpg



Lots of others but they all feel a little cliched though. Still - a most excellent day with good company :D

I did take the Taron Chic but even now it still has frames left - 72 on a roll takes some using up :eek:

I also took the RD1 but won't put those here...
 
I thought I saw some earlier, including one wrongly purporting to include your car? I have a couple of cans ready to take to the post office on Monday, specially if I get the last shot on another roll finished, and even better if I can finish the roll in my Oly mju II... postal charges so high, need to batch them up!
 
Very nice shots Arthur, looks like you had an excellent day.
 
I got back the roll of expired Pan F (gift from [EDIT: @srichards ] , many thanks) from Peak, and have been scanning it. The first few frames, I thought I'm in love! Just magic. Maybe I should have shot at 50 rather than 40, and it's a bit annoying to find evidence of the sprocket holes in the sky (which was a bit featureless that day), but the graded tones are just lovely. Probably tomorrow before any go up, after checking against the POTY14 filter, etc!
 
Last edited:
Hm, "evidence of the sprocket holes in the sky" could perhaps have been phrased better!
 
I thought that was Pink Floyd...
 
Good to see some shots from the day, I'm ashamed to say mine are still siting in my camera bag :(
 
Here are some from the roll of Pan F from @srichards (many thanks)...

1) Shed near the wharves at Woodbridge



2) Back of Orford Church; weird columns and arches



3) The shore at Orford (I just like the textures in this)



4) Boat, rope, chain, pebbles



5) Enclosure on the foreshore?



There are a few more, one of a gravestone from 1731 that I suspect someone else has better, and a couple that I'm saving as "anything else" candidates for POTY14 (which does sadly have a chilling effect on showing pics)...
 
#3 indeed weird - the arches really do go through each other!

Nice little set Chris.
 
Here are some colour shots, all on expired Reala 100 rated at 80, using my black Pentax MX with Pentax-M lenses. The first set are in Woodbridge:

1) The tide was high when we arrived, and these folk were preparing to sail away. Pretty boring shot but it shows the light we had...



2) At least there was some colour about...



3) Lots wrong with this but I still like the joint concentration on the task at hand...



4) I thought this pic of @RaglanSurf worked better in black and white!



5) There were plenty of weird things hanging round to shoot...

 
This lot were from Orford, once the adrenaline levels from the drive there had reduced enough to actually take a pic!

6) The castle, from the embankment. I thought of increasing the contrast on this, but it went rather red, and anyway it WAS low contrast!



7) The tide was going out by this time, exposing this sad wreck...



8) I have no idea what this double line of stakes leading to that boat was for!



9) Another dead boat, this time on dry land



10) Complicated bits of dead boat...



Enough for now, I think!
 
That's a really nice set Chris, I particularly like the one of me :D
 
^^^^ I don't....:confused: The others are great though.

Andy
 
Thanks guys, quite a few missed focus or perhaps depth of field. It always seems the actual depth of field in the flat photo result is much less than what I seem to see through the viewfinder, let alone when pressing the depth of field preview lever. I wonder if perhaps the eye focuses forward and back in the viewfinder image, thus givig a false impression?
 
ChrisR said:
Thanks guys, quite a few missed focus or perhaps depth of field. It always seems the actual depth of field in the flat photo result is much less than what I seem to see through the viewfinder, let alone when pressing the depth of field preview lever. I wonder if perhaps the eye focuses forward and back in the viewfinder image, thus givig a false impression?
Click to expand...

Perceived depth of field is a function of the image size and viewing distance from the image (as well as the actual image, of course) - so I guess it's possible that a tiny viewfinder held even that close to the eye is deceiving. Circles of confusion and all that.
 
abdoujaparov said:
Perceived depth of field is a function of the image size and viewing distance from the image (as well as the actual image, of course) - so I guess it's possible that a tiny viewfinder held even that close to the eye is deceiving. Circles of confusion and all that.
Click to expand...

Not sure if that's quite the point I was trying to make, Keith, but it might help illustrate the difference. If, for example I were looking at an EVF then I would be seeing the flat image, and my eye would do nothing but look at that image as a plane, and your circles of confusion etc would come into operation. But the optics of the OVF presumably render the scene to some extent in 3D. Perhaps if I could discipline myself to look at the horizon I might see that the sides of the frame are out of focus via peripheral vision. But if I look at the sides (the out of focus bit in this example), I suspect my eye is adapting its focus, as it would viewing the image directly (ie not seeing the image as a plane), and I tend to see it as more in focus than it actually turns out, despite being wide open.

Which is basically my rambly excuse for having missed focus on the stern in no 9.:confused::confused::confused:
 
I'm talking b*ll*cks here I'm sure; I forgot that through a SLR viewfinder I'm looking at an image on ground glass screen (unlike the image in a rangefinder window, I think). So I still have no real clue why I consistently get surprised by the extent of OOF areas, or perhaps the comparatively limited depth of field, in the pics compared with *my memory of* the viewfinder...

Which, when I think about it, ought to raise more alarm bells. I should be enough of a scientist not to reust memories of subjective views.
 
ChrisR said:
I'm talking b*ll*cks here I'm sure; I forgot that through a SLR viewfinder I'm looking at an image on ground glass screen (unlike the image in a rangefinder window, I think). So I still have no real clue why I consistently get surprised by the extent of OOF areas, or perhaps the comparatively limited depth of field, in the pics compared with *my memory of* the viewfinder...

Which, when I think about it, ought to raise more alarm bells. I should be enough of a scientist not to reust memories of subjective views.
Click to expand...

It piqued my interest enough to Google it. This thread is interesting, although I can't vouch for any of it.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/26326234
 
Thanks Keith, that was interesting and goes a fair bit beyond my strong feeling towards evidence that there really is a difference between depth of field senn through viewfinder and dof on the final pic! So I'm not toally barmy (well, not in that respect, anyway).
 
ChrisR said:
Thanks Keith, that was interesting and goes a fair bit beyond my strong feeling towards evidence that there really is a difference between depth of field senn through viewfinder and dof on the final pic! So I'm not toally barmy (well, not in that respect, anyway).
Click to expand...

That's interesting Chris as I've never thought about it, what about focusing on the subject and set the lens for hyperfocal distance....of course you would have know what the depth of field is (from a printed sheet which you can download ) after and before the subject that you have focused on..for the fstop. But you can remember a few DOF\hyperfocus if you use a regular fstop and lens.
 
Last edited:
Just bumping this so it's near the top, I'm sure I've got some shots of this somewhere.
 
Thanks Nick. Now I know why my search didn't turn it up; the word "Suffolk" doesn't appear anywhere! (Until now, of course...) [EDIT: Why has no-one else posted shots? ] Anyway, I wanted to post this one here rather than just the generic film shots thread...



I like the range of tones and shapes, but I do get annoyed by that shaft coming in bottom left (I know there's no other direction it could go, but I'd rather it didn't!).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top