Re: Wonderfull New year message.
David Savage wrote: > I pity his dogs. At least she knew what she was getting into. Those > poor creatures had no choice. Actually, that dog snap, so proudly displayed, tells me all I need to know about Ken's abilities and taste as a photographer. [shudder] -- Christopher Oliver, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Inside every good dog is a terrier trying to get out.
Re: Bye Bye Luminos
I am led to believe that Luminos was just a US importer for Kentmere's line of papers now carried by Freestyle and others. On this subject, I just did some prints from PlusX onto Kentmere's Bromide Grade 4 and run in Dektol 1:2 with a few minutes in selenium 1:20 and think it's quite tasty. What paper are you mourning? I might know Kentmere's name for it. -- Christopher Oliver, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Inside every good dog is a terrier trying to get out.
Re: Tokina 80-200 f/2.8 questions
On Thu, Aug 18, 2005 at 11:07:49PM +0100, Cotty mused: > I used to have the manual focus Tokina 80-200 2.8 and that was a really > nice lens. > > In fact on the MX with a winder attached, it was a killer combo :-) Who did you bludgeon with it? -- Christopher Oliver, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Inside every good dog is a terrier trying to get out.
Re: My Adorama order's here! And guess what.......
On Tue, Jul 05, 2005 at 07:15:53PM -0500, Don Sanderson wrote: > It was the only size/flavor Adorama had. > About the same price as Microdol, about 75% more than > D-76. > Never used it before but a list member recommended it > and I like the idea of getting the full ISO from Tri-X. > > Want to try some T-Max 100 too. ;-) Actually TMY in XTOL 1:2 isn't too awful either. Is there are particular reason why you went with the non-rapid fix? T-Grains and Deltas will take a seemingly interminable time to fix with sodium-thio. -- Christopher Oliver, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Inside every good dog is a terrier trying to get out.
Re: Professional Courtesy
I can easily see two side in this case. As others have mentioned, the photographer and hosting club may have entered into an exclusive contract; she may have seen this as taking money out of her purse, and she may indeed be carrying a heavy debt. This would justify a refusal, but on the other hand, there she can still be tactful about it. It sounds as though she was rude in how she turned you down, and that strikes me as unprofessional. I got bitten by the other side of this a while back. I was offered an opportunity to shoot at an agility trial by the head organizer who knew I shot seriously, and though I understood that I wasn't functioning as the photographer-of-record, I was intending to submit shots to "Clean Run" as a way of establishing some credibility with a broader audience. I had in- vested in an fast tele prime to use along with my 80-200/2.8. This same organizer later left me a message that I could shoot only for my own photo album for contract reasons, but not for sale; though she did not specific- ally state this, the prohibition would exclude any photo in the magazine since they pay though not that much. At this point, this organizer is on my permanent s--- list. -- Christopher Oliver, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Inside every good dog is a terrier trying to get out.
Re: PESO: Friday Night Blues
On Tue, May 31, 2005 at 07:09:45AM +0200, Boris Liberman wrote: > Paul, I am distracted by two things - I don't see the eyes of the > musician and that hand on the right... > > If I were to bring this to my photo club, they would probably say - this > is good, but you need to try again until the two problems above are fixed... I'd tend to agree about the hand, and aside from maybe burning it down, I don't see much to do. It's just an unhappy fact of the picture. The eyes, on the other hand, are great. The musician has that sly "lookin' to the side where I'm not s'posed to be lookin'" expression. The direction of his glance is perfectly clear on my screen. If one follows a rule re- quiring fully open eyes, there will be a number of wonderful human express- ions that will never be photographed. What a shame! Maybe you've outgrown your camera club if they are that doctrinaire. -- Christopher Oliver Inside every good dog is a terrier trying to get out.
Re: PESO -- Portrait 1
On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 10:35:55AM -0500, Jim Hemenway wrote: > H... a pretty girl. That may be the problem in that you forgot to > focus on the eye closest to you. ;-) I've often heard this advice about focusing, but as far as closest eyes, I can't figure out how to get a lens to focus just behind the camera. -- Christopher Oliver Inside every good dog is a terrier trying to get out.
Re: PESO: Pete Leans into the Turn
On Thu, Feb 24, 2005 at 07:44:01PM -0500, frank theriault wrote: > Anyone out there know why the lights appear in the pan as four dots? > Suggestions? Theories? Those light are gas discharge lights being driven with a frequency four times your shutter speed perhaps? Were you at 1/30th? -- Christopher Oliver Inside every good dog is a terrier trying to get out.
Re: Someone on the list has a virus
On Wed, Feb 09, 2005 at 05:13:18PM -0500, Mark Roberts wrote: > Just got an email with a virus sent to me. Because these things > automatically forge their headers there's no way of knowing who it came > from but the "From" line had one PDML member, I noticed that also shortly after my first post to PDML, I started to get a lot of spam bounces to my virtual domain but prefixed with a random recipient. I've no idea if this is a mere coincidence or a virus which sends mortgage spam. Could we have an e-mail harvester as a subscriber? I'm running a fairly tightly configured mail server under Linux, and after a check through the system logs, I'm strongly doubting I am the originator. Hm. -- Christopher Oliver Inside every good dog is a terrier trying to get out.
Re: Film Hardeners
Why is it that there is such a cacophony of contradictory ideas regarding what is and isn't archival fixing. I poke around and find arguments about hardeners, number of fixer baths, water and acid stops, wash length. It seems given how long we have been processing film that there should be a rigorously defined best practice for post-development processing with image stability as its essential aim and resource efficiency as a secondary aim. All I can say is I have a method, but I can't point to anything which says in believable terms it's good or not. So let me run over my understandings. 1) Two bath fix beats single bath fixation for amount of film fixed for a given volume of fixer. I believe Kodak to have issued a bulletin on this. 2) Hardening fixer is preferable. I have read stories that pre-hardened films aren't all they're cracked up to be. 3) Sodium sulfite rinse aids solve any mordanting problems with the hardners. 4) 0.7ug/cm^2 is a good residual thiosulfate. I would like a real number for image film, but found only a definition for microfiche. Anyhow, it seems there should be a single rigorous answer we can carve in stone for all time rather than lots of contradictory received wisdom. Post- development is not an aesthetic decision, but a decision about permanence; and so we should all be on the same page. What gives? -- Christopher Oliver Inside every good dog is a terrier trying to get out.
Re: Landscapes (was: Re: Ken Rockwell's review of the istDs ...)
On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 01:48:08PM +0100, Frantisek wrote: > quoted from article on why most landscapes 'hoover': Truthfully, I am not sure which I find more annoying: Rockwell's gear head tendencies and lack of integrity in reviewing or Sulonen's preachy and didactic art criticism. The second reminds me too much of bad high school lit. classes. -- Christopher Oliver Inside every good dog is a terrier trying to get out.
