Re: OT: How things change so quickly
--- William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: - Original Message - From: Rob Studdert Subject: Re: OT: How things change so quickly On 24 Feb 2003 at 21:35, Ryan K. Brooks wrote: So, on how big a sensor to you see these gigapixel images coming from? I see no problems, foot square sensors will be commonplace :-) I figure Sinar is poised to make a killing once these Gigabacks hit the market. WW __ Gigapixel backs, if at all possible, will show up in Medium format first. Even then, Afford ability will be the catch. And then, only for those who buy 3-pass, $100,000+ Medium format digital backs today. Ed I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: PayPal fees (was: Re: FS: MZ-S, KX, lots of lenses)
--- Gary L. Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Paul Franklin Stregevsky wrote: This sounds like the rationale that many use to illegally copy software: Bill Gates is rich enough. Hey, I'm a PayPal Business member. I became one in order to be able to accept payments from overseas. I don't like giving PayPal 3% of my selling price, but those are the rules I agreed to. Not at all. Any merchant that takes plastic has included that cost in the price of their goods or services. Maybe I'm drawing a blank, but I don't see your comparision Later, Gary ___ Not always true. The cost of doing business is factored in for sure, but never 3%, which is usury on its face. Some small (small) retailers/wholesalers may do as you suggest. *No matter what eBay charges me, I've previously agreed to accept those terms. I'm mystified as to how or why I can or should, in good conscience, pass that fee along on an item I no longer want or need? The Internet is where I do business and since the IRS lets me deduct any and all legitimate fees, charges and expenses from my income taxes, at minimum it's at least a wash. But your statement infers that I or Sears or Walmart raise prices in anticipation that the item will be sold to credit card holders or people who buy with checks or money orders. No corporation uses that kind of reasoning in their sales strategies. Besides, for corporations, or people like myself doing D/B/A business, and unlike individuals who do business as individuals (ala eBay) and are not companies (for IRS purposes), any fees the company incurs as the cost of doing business or any charges or fees by anyone for whatever reason-are whole dollar deductible. So why would any legitimate merchant charge the purchaser fees for what they will take off anyway? The most usury part of doing business on the Internet or off television informerical programs is the outrageous SH fees being charged. Thats the real rip-off. *Like the guy selling computer training. He offers Free computer lessons on CDs, lessons that ostensibly cost $60 or more, for just the cost of SH. Whats the SH to the client? $6.95 for a CD! No matter how many people ask for the SH refund, hes still banking tens of thousands of dollars a month. And since SH is covered under IRS rules regarding the cost of doing business, his (and others) profits from SH charges amount to hundreds of millions every year. *A CD in a protective mailer costs me less than $1.50 to mail first class. Even if I factored in 100% more as the cost of doing business, if I charged the same shipping and handling fee as the Video Professor, I'd be knocking down $3.95 per CD! What a rip-off! = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: FS: MZ-S, KX, lots of lenses
--- Gary L. Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Jeff wrote: I have purchased and sold many items using Paypal and CC's, and I would refuse to deal with someone who insists on charging me fee. But you do exactly that each time you use your plastic at a store. Of course, the charge is hidden, so that might make a difference to you. Doesn't matter, you are still paying it. -- Later, Gary Offering to pay cash instead of using your credit cards works more often than not towards getting a discount. Asking for a discount works more times than you might guess. When you use your plastic, the merchant pays a fee ranging from 1.75% for the Wal-Marts, to upwards of 6% for Mom and Pop stores. Asking for a 10% discount, or even 5% in small stores works more often than not. The thing about the Internet is people/stores that sell there have made SH and transactions fees a cash cow. Some Internet purveyors have raised SH charges to an art form. Ive often passed on purchases when I see SH charges of $15-20 for an item weighing 2 pounds at most. So as long as you use the Internet, you have succumbed to their BS charges. *When you buy a whatchamacallit for $75 and have to pay transaction fees ($3-5) plus shipping and handling ($10) you're helping to send them on a Bermuda vacation. All of which makes buying locally (when you can) more practical than ever. Ed I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: New 67-frugality
--- Pål_Jensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sylwester wrote: And what would you say if all new KAF3 patents including IS and USM drives would be engineered exlusively for new 67 AF??? :-) There's one problem with this interpretation: the 67 doesn't use K-mount! Anyway, my guess is that the67 has experienced the same fate as the K1000; it may be discontinued because it simply is too expensive to manufacture. The 67 stems from a 1968 construction and its internal bits and pieces and it chassis design are probably not optimal with current production methods and materials. Also, the camera, and not at least lenses, are basically beyond their commercial lifespan. By this I mean that many of the lenses have been so long in production and so abundant on the used market, that selling new ones is getting harder and harder. Here in Norway, I've seen some of the more common 67 lenses at used prices around 2000-3000Nkr, while their new prices are 1-15000Nkr. I usually buy all my equipment new, but if was to buy into the 67 system I obviously would check the used market. I believe many do just that. I believe the whole 67 system may be completely exhausted as a commercial venture; Pentax need to supply reason for the consumer to update. Hence, I see the news of a new 67 as likely provided Pentax would want to continue with the system at all. New lenses and a completely new body would give the reasons both new customers would need and old customers would need to upgrade. Obviously a new body may be built of modern lightweight materials, like magnesium, and be designed for low weight and small size from ground up. The same goes for the lenses. Although some thinks that AF for 67 is a waste, I disagree and find it just as useful, if nor more due to the limited DOF, as for the 645 format. The latter has been a huge sucess in AF form. Also, since mostly only nearsighted boring old farts use the 67 systems anyway, AF would help a lot for focusing :o) All of the above is just speculations with probably no bearing on reality whatsoever. Pål __ An acute, if premature observation. Bury the 67 indeed! Nothing, nothing shouts PENTAX AND professional like the 67 class! It may be the most recognizable of the 6 x 7 class worldwide. The other 6 x 7s look like cookie cutter replicas of each other or are hulking monsters. Updates? Sure, but not the oblivion of discontinuance. One other observation, strictly mine, mind you: are PDML members just frugal, or not so wealthy? There is a lot of talk about how much this or that costs. You could easily outfit yourself with a top-notch 35mm camera (PZ1pprofessionalrofesssional lenses (F/2.8 28-70/F/2.8 70-200) and a professional flash for what one (1) serious digital SLR body (sans lens) costs other fans of other makes. *And no talk about the PZ1ps' #3auto focusd autofocus. With F/2.8 or faster lenses, the PZ1p makes shot for shot what the others do. Won boardFT500FTZ onboard, the PZ1p makes short work of weddings and other candid shots. What makes us so frugal? = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: New 67-frugality
Some of us are just poor. I'd have to take out a loan to outfit myself with the kit above. Hey, I have to take out a loan just to exist before I even get to the point of taking out a loan to cover buying photo gear! Messy divorce you see (con't on p. 94)... Cotty _ The kit I suggested took me five (5) years to acquire. The PZ1p @ $800 right off, the f/2.8 70-200 another 19 months of saving for it, the f/2.8 28-70 saving for 5 months plus a slice of an income tax refund. Matt I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
For the love of an LX
I have never even seen an LX, (I don't think). But there are those who rhapsodize about the feel, fit form factorctor of the LX. My Dad, a Canon man, died this past June. After having raised and put all of us through college, he had money to burn so to speak. He bought (spot cash) one of the very first Canon F1s. He then bought another F1 (old), then an F1 (new). He was so picky about the F1s that at the first opportunity, he bought an AE-1 to keep from shooting the F1s. I inherited all of them. Would someone tell me how they (the F1 Vs. the LX) compare? In fit? In function?form factorctor? The F1 is heavy but tactile in the hand. It has features I cannot operate (Mom threw out the manuals!!) so I can't wring the best out of them. Ed I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: OT: Okefenokee Swamp (GA)
--- jerome [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has anyone on the list been to Okefenokee (Alligator) Swamp / Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge in Folkston, Georgia? I'm considering a camping trip in that direction in about 2 or 3 weeks. The acreage is huge and I'd never cover it all, so I'm looking for tips to make the most of my time there. Just thought I'd ask. Thanks... jerome PS... I'm bringing my Bogen as both a tripod and a weapon... I just hope that I can swing it (preferably without the camera attached) faster than an alligator can lunge. An Alligator can lunge at least twice the length of their heads from the edge of the water, the assumption being you're at the edge of the pond/lake/river. It takes mili-seconds. Ed = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: OT: [wanted] thoughts on Adams's Negative
_ I am one who subscribes to the notion that Adams' real genius was not in his subjects, nor his exposure techniques, but his mastery of and in the darkroom. And so, The Negative speaks to that end. +Imagine how busy he must have been, bracketing with a field camera! Ed Iget it done with YAHOO! DSL! --- Lukasz Kacperczyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmmm, the problem is, in Poland we don't have these books as easily available as in the States (or just *available* for that matter). I have an opportunity to buy The Negative, and I though I'd ask here before doing it. Regards, Lukasz Re: OT: [wanted] thoughts on Adams's Negative In that case you might be more interested in: *Examples: The Making of 40 Photographs* instead of *The Negative* Hi there, I'm mostly interested in the contents of the book. How much of the book is about the zone system, developing and exposing negatives, and how much is about taking pictures (philosophy and all)? I'd buy it if the taking pictures part were the longest. Thanks in advance. Regards, ?ukasz = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: Digital VS Film the debate continues
--- Bob Walkden [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this, to be quite blunt, is ridiculous. Plenty of people print full-frame on whatever the dimensions of the paper happen to be. It's on a par with Pal's silly claim about square format being wasteful. When I used to print black whites I always printed full-frame on 10x8 paper, or larger. When I now occasionally make a digital print from a 35mm slide or neg. I print full frame on A4 or A3. So you lose a bit of paper? Big deal! When you're taking the picture you're looking through a 2:3 frame, and this is a far more accurate, more important and more natural way of framing than trying to imagine it's 4:5. --- Bob Bob, in your experience, how often do you print to frame size as opposed to printing to standard paper sizes (whichever)? That is, in your experience, how many negatives/slides are shot so they can be printed/masked to the exact dimension of standard paper/frame sizes and how many in reality absolutely /beg/ to be printed to the frame edge, (or even in panorama)? Ed I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: While we were on tubes and flowers
--- Pat White [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt, thanks for sharing practical and useful info. It's stuff you wouldn't pick up in a weekend or two of taking flower pictures. Pat White __ Hey Pat! Have a good shoot this next flower show! Load up on film and get ready to make a trip to your nearest Botanica and shoot their upcoming Tulip season. One thing I forgot: an automatic monopod sure helps when you have to squat down to shoot macros. Heck, monopods make everything better! Matt I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: End of K-mount?
--- Keith Whaley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The autofocus actuator requires an Ultra Small Motor to drive it! keith whaley Gregory L. Hansen wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Certainly not. According to Pentax KAF3 patents, both IS and USM will work without sacrificing compatibility. IS=Image Stabilization, but what is USM? The correct name for the USM feature in Canon EF lenses is: UltraSonic Motor. = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: Coating on Filters?
nothing (except dirt and grease from touching the front element of the lens). G. A filter reduces the incidences of cleaning the front element, which might harm the multi-coating on the front element. H. The filter also helps protect the filters screw-in threads and the front element itself from impact damage. I. Any light that strikes the filter/lens elements at such an angle that lets light into the interior surfaces of the lens might cause flare. J. Light striking the film plane will cause flare. *Some people say flare as if its always a bad thing. Many photographers shoot in a manner that deliberately introduces flare. In my unscientific measurements, taking a set of readings, filter on and filter off, there was no discernable differences in the two sets of readings: none. If there were, tunnoticeablell, unnoticeable even to my not so agile eyes. As I changed angles of attack on the wall, the light and camera meters kept in quantitative (light value) sync. I shoot a lot of 100mm and up telephoto. At 200mm and more, I always have an impeccably clean multi-coated filter (usually a Hoya 1b) screwed onto the lens, then a steel lens hood (usually a HAMA). Why my lens hood fetish? To increase saturation and block stray light. --- Bob Blakely [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: All air/glass interfaces are an abrupt change in impedance for the electromagnetic energy impinging on/passing through the interface. A portion of the light must be reflected at each interface. In fact, the same amount of light will be reflected at the inner interface as from the outer interface. Lost light is not really the problem for a single glass. What would you loose, a third of a stop at most? Light reflected from the inner interface, reaches the outer interface and a portion of that is reflected back toward the film. Some is transmitted. If the light is bright, such as a sun reflection off chrome, the reflection will be seen because it's now bright compared to the image. This is flair. You may try single coated optics, but by their very nature, they can perform a perfect impedance transformation at only one wavelength. For this reason, single coated optics must have some affect on color, that is, demonstrate some color cast, however mild. The reason for multi-coated optics is broad band impedance transformation. Whatever, since this simple mind cannot comprehend that. I know some filters have filter factors (alters or slows down light transmission) bby one to four and half stops. Some filters alter color rendition as in blue, 80 series filters letting in more blorangeblocking red-orLikege (or something lke that). BW filters almost always have filter factors. But UV, Skylight and a few others do what they do without altering anything other than maybe color. Matt I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! ___ From: Gregory L. Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] How important is it to have a coatings on all your filters? A plain UV filter might cost $10 while an SMC filter would cost $35. I can't see how it would matter much on the outer surface, a little bit of light would just be lost. But on the inner surface? = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: While were on tubes and flowersg
--- Doug Brewer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At 04:08 PM 2/11/03, Mafud/Matt/Kirkland/Whoever wrote: Make friends with your local Florist**. **With the caution that many of them are Gay and may take your approach as a come-on. Keep it business-like inthat case or just back-off. Do heterosexual florists also regard requests for access to flowers for photography as a sexual advance? And how you know gay florists do so? curious, Doug ___ I used to be a photographer at dog shows. It took about two shows for me to discover that most of the male professional handlers and groomers, even a vet or two, were homosexuals. A lot of Hair Stylists, barbers and Cosmetologists are Gay; but you already knew that, didn't you? You failed to comprehend the intent of my statement I quote here: **With the caution that many of them are Gay and may take your approach as a come-on. The words and phraseology in the sentence should have given you a clue. You decided to ignore what you read to make a snide comment. My comments on Gay florists spoke a truth you probably knew already but also chose to ignore. here's something else you already know: some Gays, just like other men, are aggressive. A single man drifting around in a warehouse full of flowers taking pictures would draw attention, as if the person was cruising. You ought to try going around florists, see if it what I observed is true. You might get thrill. Nothing like making an issue of an innocent observation. Matt I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: Vs: Coating on Filters?
--- Raimo Korhonen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: No, it´s the other way round, skylight blocks blue light - like the light coming from the blue sky . All the best! Raimo Personal photography homepage at http://www.uusikaupunki.fi/~raikorho -Alkuperäinen viesti- Lähettäjä: Matt Greene [EMAIL PROTECTED] Vastaanottaja: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Päivä: 12. helmikuuta 2003 18:10 Aihe: Re: Coating on Filters? snip some skylight filters stop UV and some pink/red rays. snip Yep! = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: Hands up who crops? (was: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?)
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Most of the time I try very hard to compose exactly what I want in the viewfinder, but a) I'm sometimes unable to do so because of not being able to change my location quickly enough or not having quite as long a lens as I needed at that moment, and b) sometimes when I get the film developed I change my mind about what the framing should be. And as I get more picky about my work (and start remembering that cropping is one of the available tools), (b) happens more often. When I put an image on a web page, I nearly always crop, trying to get the Important Part of the image into as few bytes as possible, but that's probably not relevant here because that sort of trimming doesn't affect the required pixel count as much as making an 8x10 print would. -- Glenn __ A:How do you carve an Elephant? B:I don't know, how? A: You get a large block of stone, a hammer and a chisel and chip away everything that doesn't look like an Elephant. The same goes for the final print. The carving starts in the viewfinder. While many denigrate zooms, even F 2.8, or even F 1.8 zooms because they are not primes, zooming with ones feet might not be practical and so the birth of pro zooms. If it is a macro shot I would always understand. But to pass up a shot, or take one even when the composition is not to your liking means you can't carve that Elephant; or you won't like it if you do. Matt I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: While were on tubes and flowersg
--- David Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Last week i caught the tail end of a local cable show, in wicth a local photographer was giving macro flower shooting tips.I missed most of it but did manage to hear 1-2 of them. He was obvioulsy in a large green house doing this and it got me a thinkun. We have several large green house's in the area and was wondering if any of the macro shooters on the list ever contacted a facility like these and get permmisson to shoot for an hour or so at a not to busy for them time. Thanks Dave Brooks __ All you usually have to do is ask. Ask the florist which is their favorites and shoot a 1/2 roll just on them. When you come back, give them prints and they'll invite you back to see new flowers/blooms as they arrive, especially rare items like flowering bromeliads. A working relationship (sucking up to) the director/manager of the local greenhouse or Botanica can be a boon to those who shoot flowers. Make friends with your local Florist**. **With the caution that many of them are Gay and may take your approach as a come-on. Keep it business-like inthat case or just back-off. 1. Be sure to have at least a 500FTZ flash for your macro TTL shots. You will find that TTL shots on isolated flowers/clutches of flowers will blow out the background, isolating the flower/blooms in a field of dramatic blackness. Even better for this job, especially for close ups, is an AF400T Broomhandle flash because you have the flash head over and to the side of the bloom, giving you a little contours and shadows and you can depress the head for close-ups/macros. 2. Shooting flowers sometimes take two people: one to shoot and one to position the flash just so. You could try (try) to talk them into letting you set up two flashes, one on a tripod but warehoused flowers usually are tightly spaced on the floor, making setting up a tripod a PITA. As you familiarize yourself with the process, you'll want to shoot two flashes, one held just so by that assistant (whoever). You could use two AF500FTZ flashes using the remote slave capability or wire in the off camera AF400T through via hotshoe grip and sync cords. Warning: people (women) don't like to see distorted flowers in photos. They like to see as accurate a presentation as you can produce. The distortions produced by wide to ultra wide angle lenses are not pleasing to women. Remember, women stick their noses directly into flowers to smell them. Thus, they like to see the photo represent the flower as they would see it in their hands. 3. You will see that one bloom you want to shoot but if you are wedded to prime lenses, you'll often find composing to also be a PITA because that bloom is just outside the range of the primes you bought along. An F 2.8 zoom (or two) will stand you well in that case. 4. Watch the hell out for Bees! Dont panic if one approaches too close. Stand still or back away slowly, remebering not to swat atthem. Remember, youre standing in his/her feeding grounds and all they want is flowers, not you. But p*ss them off and you know the rest of the story. Matt I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
RE: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
Thus, my current mantra is if you desire prints, use film; if you want to view using the computer, use digital. Even today you must still ask yourself What am I going to do with this image? before you trip the shutter. Personally, I think it will remain that way for the next few decades. Cheers! James Carpenter Agreed James. I shoot film exclusively... lies. I shoot digital for my e bay sales. Set up the item, shoot download and done. *But my digital only cost $179. And unless things have changed, aren't the limitations still 72-usableable) pixels per inch on a monitor? I usually shoot at 300 x 40? ppi and take that down to 150 x 150. = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: How to beat a $8000 DSLR for $300
--- Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I payed $125 for mine, but that was 25 years ago. Paul J. C. O'Connell wrote: http://jcoconnell.com/temp/sg2.jpg Actually I did it for only $150, but that was about 15 years ago. :) :) :) This thread has me kind of mystified. In what way does a press camera beat an $8000 DSLR for $300? Unless for some reason you _want_ to shoot a job with eight sheets of film--and then be stuck with developing sheet film. Historically, the Rollei TLR beat the press camera and the 35mm camera beat the Rollei, in each case rather decisiviely. Or do you see guys shooting with press cameras and Rolleiflexes at the jobs _you_ go on?? I'd say having 140 shots on one card with no film costs, no developing chores, and no need to wait to see the results is light years away from the era of the press camera. You're welcome to go back if you prefer, but shooting with a press camera is no picnic. --Mike The last job I worked on paid me $37.41 and hour. I have no idea of how long it would take or what it might cost an experienced person to download, fix (manipulate) 140 digital shots, adjust for RGB, Gamma-etc., then do the test prints, color match them to the monitor, (presuming they two have been color synced), then print 140 acceptable prints. I might be able to do it in two whole working days but who knows? I also wonder how much 140 regular + test prints (say 200) tests and final prints cost. I do know printer ink cartridges are the most expensive components of digital (color) printing. Time is money and I smell a lot of time involved here. Meanwhile, I can go to the lab at 8 AM Monday, give them the film and come back at 1PM to pick them up. OR, if I buy the paper (and I usually do), I can get them to print 140 semi-custom prints by 5PM @ 67 cents per copy. So I can shoot, print and distribute for far less than my day's pre-sold Each presold print costs $19.95 at fairs so I gross $2800 and net, after expenses and salaries, maybe $750 for the weekend. Do that twice a month like we sometimes do and boy, you can slice huge chunks of principle off your mortgage with that kind of extra income. When I look at your investment and money in time, paper, printing, printing cartridges, computer time, I fail to see any benefit or advantage in do it yourphoto-realistic4;photorealistic imaging. And sheet film, while far costlier than 35mm, can and does produce end use products worth sometimthousandseds, or thosands of dollars each. So an old, out of date 4x5 Speed Graphic can and does kick all but large format digital images to the curb, then backs up and runs them down again. Finally, an $8,000 DSLR is good for professional photographers with massive support systems behind them. They are not for ordinarypeople: who dare not dream of owning two of them (which most pros do) (or three if you work for a major publication) like National Geographic. Any ordinary citizen with an $8,000 DSLR can NEVER recover their investment. (They'll look good, but they'll be as broke as Humpty-Dumpty). Matt I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
--- Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One last thing about making digital prints: One of the nice things about digital is that if you have a computer and an inkjet printer, you can see for yourself how many megapixels you need to make an 8x10 print. Just go to the web, pull down a full image file from a 3-mp camera, and print it. Then print a 5-mp file and a 6-mp. See what your own printer will do. See the difference with your own eyes. --Mike Purely my opinion here: I have found you can make marvelous images with an under $400 digital camera, but you need a $500+ printer/or a lab-to bring out the best in most images. Home printers that sell for under $500 usually are not up to the task of making photorealistic prints. Of course someone wil point out how well their under $500 printer works but then, I did say it was my opinion. Matt I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
--- Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While making a 16X20 may be a snap for 35mm film, I would submit that it is painfully obvious when compared to MF or LF. I personally don't think 35mm generally looks that good beyond 11X14 - even there the difference is obvious. Yeah, I totally agree with you there, Bruce. Granted, Tri-X is not the most enlargeable of films, but the largest prints I ever make from 35mm are 8x12. Mostly, my standard size is a 7x10.5 print on an 11x14 sheet. And while I like the way that looks, because I like 35mm and I like a small amount of grain, there's no way anybody would not be able to pick out which is which comparing 35mm and medium format at that size. I generally get really suspicious of people who say things like I make outstanding 16x20s from 35mm negatives and whatnot. It's one thing to say it, it's quite another to back it up. The difficulty in making a really good large print increases exponentially over making a good smaller one. It amplifies everything--not only the film's grain structure and the lens characteristics, but the photographer's technique at every level--camera technique and enlarging technique. The bigger the print, the more obvious the plane of exact focus relative to the almost good enough d.o.f. Poor focus and camera shake are amplified. Negative defects are amplified. Enlarger lens quality becomes more apparent. Enlarger rigidity, negative stage flatness, and especially enlarger alignment all become more critical. Making a _really good_ 16x20 from _any_ 35mm negative is not at all a trivial skill. As John Szarkowski once said of Ansel Adams's large prints--paraphrasing here--he's such a skilled printer that if he lavishes inordinate care and effort on his large prints, they look almost as good as his smaller ones. s --Mike While it may be obvious that one 35mm print or another may be discernable from Medium Format, a properly exposed, properly focused 35mm negative, say Portra 160, when properly printed, can easily rival a poorly exposed, poorly focused medium format negative. As you noted, the enlarger easel and enlarger head must be properly aligned to get the maximaboutom either. The talk aobut grain always bothers me. Grain is purely subjective. Some prints are absolutely horrid (most BW images) without grain. Then again, printing on textured paper defeats grain argument every time. Grain, like saturated colors is, for all intents and purposes, an affectation of purists and slide film shooters. Print film users tend not to make such a fuss about grain. Besides, a little grain never hurt an ugly Bride. = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
RE: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
--- Mike Johnston [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Part of the problem here is that area increases so dramatically with relatively small increases in dimensions. For instance, a 5x7 print is 35 square inches. If you increase that size by just one inch in every direction--make it 7x9--you add another 28 sq. in., almost (not quite) doubling the area. That means almost (not quite) doubling the amount of pixels you need to cover that area. So small increases in dimensions mean you need large additional numbers of pixels to cover the increase in print area. --Mike Yes, but aren't you first and foremost applying slide film protocols and/or digital terms to prints, three entirely different genres? Slide photographers *expect to see their images at 20 x 30 at least. Moreover, slides are many times shown at wall size, where poorly focused or poorly exposed slides can produce headaches and acembarrassmentment. And the whole idea of saying pixels seems somehow odd, since the discussion is about film and not digital images and slide or print film, by their very nature, do not have pixels, though I understood what you meant. Since the advent of digital imaging, slide terminology has been generally applied to digital images too. So print only photographers, having long ago lost the power to direct terminologylogy and tenordiscussingsing photography to fit prints, now find themselves arguing slterminologyolgy over digital images or prints. That Tht kind of discussion is not only patently unfair, invidiousdous on its face. Talk about mixed metaphors! _ So small increases in dimensions mean you need large additional numbers of pixels to cover the increase in print area. --Mike Yes, but your inference is that the image suffers by the increase. If the image or scene is intimate, it might, but generally such a small increase in size does not affect the image (or grain) at all. Matt I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: Megapixels required for an 8X10 print?
--- Bruce Dayton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Matt, While making a 16X20 may be a snap for 35mm film, I would submit that it is painfully obvious when compared to MF or LF. I personally don't think 35mm generally looks that good beyond 11X14 - even there the difference is obvious. Bruce I agree. But by looks that good you must mean poorly shot, poorly composed, poorly developed negatives/prints. Any wedding photographer/portraitist, whether they shoot 35mm (and most (or their assistants) still do for their candids) or medium format for their formals, use print film. A lot of 35mm prints end up as 16 x 20 wall prints of Brides and/or executives or Business owners. With a Portra-etc., the slight fuzziness therein is not only acceptable, but expected and not even noticeable at 12 to 15 feet. Much of the present discussion regarding grain of sharpness does not factor in the astonishing leaps in grain control made by print film manufacturers. While the terminology being used in this dicussion may have fit the print films of say, 1995, today's ISO 800 print film easily rivals 1998s ISO 100 in grain and sharpness. You can easily take a properly exposed, properly focused Portra 800 print up to 11 x 14 and hardly notice. OK, maybe you and me might notice, but the average viewer? No way. *Here's the caveat: 11 x 14 and 16 x 20 prints have a proper (never agreed upon) viweing distance. When viewed from say 10 feet, a properly exposed, properly focused 16 x 20 print made with ISO 800 film cannot be said to be grainy and most times, unsharp. **You already know that judging an 11 x 14 print at only arm's length or with a loupe does not represent any degree of fairness in the judging as to sharpness, composition or exposure. Remember, grain is the best friend an ugly Bride or heavily wrinkled executive has. Matt I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
Re: Superior Pentax
--- Sylwester Pietrzyk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday, Feb 9, 2003, at 12:53 Europe/Warsaw, Heiko Hamann wrote: The experience of success was, that my pictures stick out regarding best sharpness, contrast and brilliance. The difference was significant! As I had used AF and matrix metering, this success cannot be attibuted to the photographer, but the camera system itself. The other pictures were taken with Canon SLRs (afair) which were equipped similar or even better. I wouldn't have thought that there might be any difference between SLRs of different manufacturers at all. But in this case I can clearly say: Pentax is superior! I must admit, that it happened, that I was taking pictures head to head with my friend, who uses EOS-300. Canon tends to have awfull cooperation with flash in program mode - sync time is just set to standard sync (in this case 1/90) and it doesn't change with focal length or available light. Pentax' dynamic flash sync system allows you to go down as slow as 1/30 at 28 mm (1/60 at 50 mm, 1/90 at 90 mm and so on), thus allowing to expose background as much as it is possible, not blurring the picture. In Canon you would have to go to not-so-convenient manual mode, or AV (it meters available light only in this mode) - where you would desperately need to use tripod, to avoid image shake at slow sync times in this mode. So the difference was big, and pictures from my MZ-S looked much, much nicer... Regards Sylwek I have no idea of what film sped you were using. But Iimprovesilm inproves your chances over any other speeds. Nearly any camera/flash combination does well with ISO 800 because it allows a greater amount of ambient light to be exposed. Kodak Portra 800 excels at indoor flash pictures. I get it done with YAHOO! DSL! = Matt Greene I get it done with YAHOO! DSL!
