Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
It finally showed up in my email the next message after this. Is kind of funny, considering the content, heh? -- Rob Studdert wrote: On 28 Aug 2004 at 0:48, graywolf wrote: Now, couldn't we discuss this for a while? GRIN! Most folks seem to think they are directly connected to the list server. LOL. I just received this message (along with another 70 or so dating from the 28th) Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998 -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: I enjoy film
Nope, on football/soccer. Alex Sarbu - Original Message - From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 28, 2004 11:09 AM Subject: Re: I enjoy film > > Hi, > > > I recall Valentin complaints were generated when he lived in Romania > > as well. > > Perhaps it is a cultural thing. > > A culture of compaining, or a culture of bad labs? Romania is a poor > country. There are not enough wealthy photographers around to support > decent labs. > > They spend all their money on gymnasts. > > -- > Cheers, > Bob > > > > --- > http://www.videomax.ro/ - Cautam cinefili pentru premiere! > --- http://www.videomax.ro/ - Cautam cinefili pentru premiere!
Re: I enjoy film
- Original Message - From: "Bob W" Subject: Re: I enjoy film > > A culture of compaining, or a culture of bad labs? Romania is a poor > country. There are not enough wealthy photographers around to support > decent labs. That hasn't entered into the conversation until now. Running a good photo lab costs money. All the little things that are done that keep the standards up add up to a significant outlay of money. The customer has to be both rich enough to be able to afford, and also willing to afford the quality that they want. > > They spend all their money on gymnasts. That explains much. William Robb
Re: I enjoy film
Bob W wrote: A culture of complaining, or a culture of bad labs? Both.
Re: I enjoy film
Hi, > I recall Valentin complaints were generated when he lived in Romania > as well. > Perhaps it is a cultural thing. A culture of compaining, or a culture of bad labs? Romania is a poor country. There are not enough wealthy photographers around to support decent labs. They spend all their money on gymnasts. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
Now, couldn't we discuss this for a while? GRIN! Most folks seem to think they are directly connected to the list server. E-mail is weird. I remember getting a e-mail from a friend who lived a few blocks away (in Charlotte, NC, USA) and seeing by the routing info that it had come to me via Australia, and a few points in between. Sometimes you can get a message from both directions at the same time. For instance I could send you an e-mail there in Norway, and it would propagate around the world and arrive almost simultaneously from England via Canada and Iceland, and from Germany via Russia, Japan, and the Phillipines. When that happens the mail server is supposed to note that they both have the same message number and toss one in the bit bucket. Sometimes that does not happen. If your e-mail client is smart enough it will refuse the extra, but sometimes it fails to do that. Then there are those messages that some server somewhere in the world for God only knows what reason decides to change the message number. Need I go on, and on, and on...? Yes, I know you know all this, Jostein, but maybe it well get through to some of the less knowledgeable list members that e-mail is really complicated system. -- Jostein wrote: Tom, I agree that spam filtering is a very likely cause for messages to disappear, but then again there's the problem of repeated messages. I think there must be more than one problem at work here... If a mail router close to PDML (say two hops away) has problems with eg. flooding, that could explain many of the problems we observe on the list in one go. Messages can be delayed for a variable amount of time, depending on the load of the victim server, and may loose messages while flooded. If it uses Sendmail to propagate the messages, it may also loose track (during floods) of which messages are sent, and start all over again from the top of the queue. Resends can also occur if the victim server fails to send a confirmation of reception back to the previous server in the chain. Then the previous server will assume it lost and resend it after a while. Then, when the server gets on top of the load again, both messages are propagated. This may of course happen with messages destined TO the PDML server as well. It would give much the same results, but to fewer users. I'm also sure Doug is aware of this and keeps the path clean as far into cyberspace as he can. Jostein I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to overly aggressive SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this. My webhost labels anything it thinks is SPAM as such and sends it along. I would guess I would miss fewer messages if I were to switch PDML over to there. -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Thanks for the reminder, Steve, although there have been numerous instances here recently in which messages have not shown up on the list at all, even after a couple of days. Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: I enjoy film
- Original Message - From: "Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu" Subject: Re: I enjoy film > Don't forget I live in Romania. You should see how they treat the films, and > how the prints looks like (yup, even with those x$ Frontiers). We may > have few acceptable minilabs, but that's all (and you still can't obtain > what you want). I recall Valentin complaints were generated when he lived in Romania as well. Perhaps it is a cultural thing. William Robb
RE: I enjoy film
Whose lap was it? > -Original Message- > From: Mark Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 5:44 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: I enjoy film > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >William Robb wrote: > >I am starting to disbelieve all the horror stories regarding photo > >labs on this list. It is just as likely that there is a large group > >of boneheads with cameras as boneheads running photo labs. > >Perhaps the dependance on auto everything cameras making people think > >they don't need to know anything is causing as many problems as it is > >solving. > > > >>Again, another reason to shoot slide film. > > I've only had a lap screw up my processing once in the past 10 years. > It was slide film. > Ruined most of the roll. I was able to salvage a few shots in Photoshop. > > -- > Mark Roberts > Photography and writing > www.robertstech.com >
Re: I enjoy film
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >William Robb wrote: >I am starting to disbelieve all the horror stories regarding photo >labs on this list. It is just as likely that there is a large group >of boneheads with cameras as boneheads running photo labs. >Perhaps the dependance on auto everything cameras making people think >they don't need to know anything is causing as many problems as it is >solving. > >>Again, another reason to shoot slide film. I've only had a lap screw up my processing once in the past 10 years. It was slide film. Ruined most of the roll. I was able to salvage a few shots in Photoshop. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
RE: I enjoy film
Barnes and Noble, here I come. Hope I can pick your brain a bit too Paul. After 25+ years I might be a tad rusty. ;-( Not to mention no clue as to what chemistry/paper is available now. Don > -Original Message- > From: Paul Stenquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 4:09 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: I enjoy film > > > >> Shel wrote: > > >> My first suggestion would be to get two books by Ansel Adams: The > >> Negative > >> and The Print. Those books are a great starting place, even if you > >> don't > >> like Adams' work or accept some of his theories. > > I couldn't agree more. When I returned to darkroom work after a twenty > year hiatus, I read those books cover to cover, then reread them. Like > Shel said, even if you don't subscribe to all of the zone system > particulars, you will understand the exposure/darkroom equation if you > fully comprehend Adams' writings. And you'll find that you incorporate > elements of his thinking in your work. You'll find yourself analyzing > shadow and highlight areas of a scene with a new understanding of how > they will transfer to film. In the darkroom, you'll develop a strategy > for dodging and burning a print that might never have occurred to you > had you not been exposed to the Adams methodology. > Paul >
RE: I enjoy film
Great post Shel, I'm getting inspired to do BW again. All the way from exposure to final print. Fortunately all I'll need is film, paper and chemistry. The rest just fell in my lap the other week in the form of 6 big boxes of darkroom stuff and a decent enlarger. It was given to a friend and he didn't want it! I used to have the Adams books, they were lost in a flood. Time to replace them. Hope I can pick your brain once in a while, I've forgotten an awful lot in 25+ years. Don > -Original Message- > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 2:50 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: I enjoy film > > > My first suggestion would be to get two books by Ansel Adams: The Negative > and The Print. Those books are a great starting place, even if you don't > like Adams' work or accept some of his theories. Then go see some > exhibition quality work by the great photogs and printers. And just > because a work is on exhibition does not mean it's exhibition quality. See > real prints. Reproductions in books are not even close to good quality. > You MUST know what a good print looks like (and you must be familiar with > the various styles and types of printing) before you can start making your > own prints and start developing (literally) your own style. > > You must also learn how to properly expose your film. Just getting a > "perfect" exposure based on meter readings is not good enough. You must be > able to understand light well enough to be able to creatively over or under > expose based on meter readings, and to be able to properly develop the film > for those modified exposures. This takes a little experience and practice. > It's not rocket science, but a proper exposure is paramount in obtaining > the results you want. > > > Shel>
Re: I enjoy film
Shel wrote: My first suggestion would be to get two books by Ansel Adams: The Negative and The Print. Those books are a great starting place, even if you don't like Adams' work or accept some of his theories. I couldn't agree more. When I returned to darkroom work after a twenty year hiatus, I read those books cover to cover, then reread them. Like Shel said, even if you don't subscribe to all of the zone system particulars, you will understand the exposure/darkroom equation if you fully comprehend Adams' writings. And you'll find that you incorporate elements of his thinking in your work. You'll find yourself analyzing shadow and highlight areas of a scene with a new understanding of how they will transfer to film. In the darkroom, you'll develop a strategy for dodging and burning a print that might never have occurred to you had you not been exposed to the Adams methodology. Paul
Re: I enjoy film
Vic ... Time to burst your bubble: not every lab is going to give you the same quality results when processing slide film. As with all labs, there are those that are poor, those that are good, and those that are superior. Try this experiment: get a few short rolls of your favorite slide film, all from the same emulsion batch. Expose each frame on every roll in the same manner (you may need a neutral or controlled lighting environment for this). Include a Kodak grey Card or Macbeath Color Chart in the scene. Bracket your exposures as fine as you can within a two (or preferably, three) stop spread. 1/4 or 1/3 stop brackets are best for this little test. Be sure the camera is mounted on a tpod or a secure, solid base. Use no filters, but use a good lens hood. Now take the rolls of slide film and deliver it to several labs, including your favorite lab. Pick the other labs at random, although try to include any lab you've heard is great or awful. Do not have the slides mounted. View them thru a good quality loupe on a properly calibrated and color corrected light pad or box, or thru a slide projector on a quality screen in a properly dark room. Then decide for yourself if there's no difference in lab quality and results. Experience here tells me that there can be substantial differences in the results. Substantial is, BTW, subjective. My substantial may be your inconsequential. However, I'll bet you a couple of rolls of your favorite slide film that you will see differences. One other thing: if all you shoot is slide film, you may well be losing the creative opportunities available from other types of emulsions. maybe that's a non-issue for you, but it is something to consider. Shel > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Again, another reason to shoot slide film. You get what you shoot. If the > images don't come out right, 99 per cent of the time it's your fault... No need > to blame the printer. It's also the one of the best ways (along with shooting > digital) to learn proper exposure. Too many negative shooters just get close > enough and then blame the prints on the printer... > Vic
Statistics (was Re: I enjoy film)
Hmmm. Let's do some statistics. Supposing that 80% of the camera owners are boneheads (in respect to photography) and 50% of the lab operators are boneheads (in respect to their work). What is the probability that when a customer enters a random lab, at least one of them client/operator is a bonehead ? > It is just as likely that there is a large group of boneheads with cameras as boneheads running photo labs.
Re: I enjoy film
You are a class act Shel. Glad you're still around. Robert - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 2:21 PM Subject: Re: I enjoy film > For me the issue is quality results in conventional B&W and quality > processing and achieving a certain look and feel from the color work that I > do. The digital workflow does not give me what I want, and those mini-labs > don't come close to what I consider is good color work. And while some of > the pro labs here do much better work - some of it exquisite and beyond > reproach - some of them are not much better than the cheap mini labs. But > at least I have a choice, some people don't, or not a choice that's as > easily made or attainable. > > By the time I scan a neg and then have the results processed and printed, > I've spent way too many hours for too little result. The current crop of > high end consumer scanners suck, I don't care what any techie and > digi-workflow proponent on this or any other list or web site says. The > ONLY scans I've ever gotten that meet my standards (and I'll admit they are > high) have come from the higher end Imacon and even higher end Tango drum > scanners. Truth is, I don't even find the new Nikon scanners satisfactory > for posting images to the web in many instances. But I use the scanner to > share what is some semblance of my work with others, and it provides some > fun and diversion during the small hours of the night when I can't sleep. > > So, what the hell am I doing jerking around trying to conform to the new > technology and photographic workflow if i can't get the results I want? > Makes no sense whatsoever. back to doing more conventional work, and > refreshing those skills. > > If you think digital will give you what you want, then by all means, make > the move. I'm not one to tsalk because I may get a "baby" istD, or pick up > a used istD Grande, at some point. I like the digi stuf for some things, > and want more than what my Sony camera will give me. I think the > CONVENIENCE of digital is wonderful, but, speaking as a B&W shooter, > there's nothing in the digital marketplace that will replace film. > > Don't waste your time trying to make your own chemicals, at least not in > the beginning. Learn - really learn - the process first. While it's easy, > there are many layers of subtlety that you may wish to explore. Once you > really know what you're doing, and really know what results you want and > how to achieve them, then it may be a lot of fun to mix your own chemicals, > even make your own paper. > > My first suggestion would be to get two books by Ansel Adams: The Negative > and The Print. Those books are a great starting place, even if you don't > like Adams' work or accept some of his theories. Then go see some > exhibition quality work by the great photogs and printers. And just > because a work is on exhibition does not mean it's exhibition quality. See > real prints. Reproductions in books are not even close to good quality. > You MUST know what a good print looks like (and you must be familiar with > the various styles and types of printing) before you can start making your > own prints and start developing (literally) your own style. > > You must also learn how to properly expose your film. Just getting a > "perfect" exposure based on meter readings is not good enough. You must be > able to understand light well enough to be able to creatively over or under > expose based on meter readings, and to be able to properly develop the film > for those modified exposures. This takes a little experience and practice. > It's not rocket science, but a proper exposure is paramount in obtaining > the results you want. > > > Shel > > > From: Alexandru-Cristian Sarbu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Ok, Shel... I've read your mail and I understand what you're saying. > > But try to think from my point of view... First, I'm a programmer. I work > > with computers every day, downloading/printing/CD burning/whatever is > > trivial for me (well... Photoshop processing is not... but I could learn > > that easily if I want to). I have a computer; however, it needs an upgrade > > (already planned). As my old printer doesn't work anymore, I may as well > buy > > another one... just fine for digital prints. > > I have a film camera, because I couldn't afford a good digital one... but > > Baby-D will appear soon. I'm tired of scratched films and dull prints I > get > > from minilabs. I pay a
Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
Tom, I agree that spam filtering is a very likely cause for messages to disappear, but then again there's the problem of repeated messages. I think there must be more than one problem at work here... If a mail router close to PDML (say two hops away) has problems with eg. flooding, that could explain many of the problems we observe on the list in one go. Messages can be delayed for a variable amount of time, depending on the load of the victim server, and may loose messages while flooded. If it uses Sendmail to propagate the messages, it may also loose track (during floods) of which messages are sent, and start all over again from the top of the queue. Resends can also occur if the victim server fails to send a confirmation of reception back to the previous server in the chain. Then the previous server will assume it lost and resend it after a while. Then, when the server gets on top of the load again, both messages are propagated. This may of course happen with messages destined TO the PDML server as well. It would give much the same results, but to fewer users. I'm also sure Doug is aware of this and keeps the path clean as far into cyberspace as he can. Jostein > I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to overly aggressive > SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this. My webhost labels anything it > thinks is SPAM as such and sends it along. I would guess I would miss fewer > messages if I were to switch PDML over to there. > > -- > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > Thanks for the reminder, Steve, although there have been numerous instances > > here recently in which messages have not shown up on the list at all, even > > after a couple of days. Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet > > > > > -- > graywolf > http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html > > >
Re: I enjoy film
> > Shel Wrote: Someone in an earlier thread likened many current photographers > as camera > operators, and I felt myself coming to that same conclusion about my work. > I point, I shoot, and give the balance of the creative process over to > someone else, to some further technology, to some expensive machine, make > the final interpretation. More and more the control and creativity moved > from my vision and my hands to someone else's, to a machine in a dark part > of a lab, where the "magic" occurs. Unfortunately, that magic all to often > was a trick created and played by another magician, one with a different > sensibility and a different audience. > > > I respond: It's why I shoot slides: I get what I shoot and then I scan what I > like.. > Vic Regaining that control over my images was why I started down the digital path. I've never enjoyed messing around with the wet chemicals, so I never did that for myself except for black-and-white while I was at college. I did try to find labs that wouldn't scratch my film, and that changed their chemicals on a regular basis. I doubt if I could have improved much on their processing. The first step was to get myself a film scanner, and one of the first home photo-quality printers. That setup gave way to a better scanner (which let me switch to slide film). Now I'm digital all the way. It's funny how practically the same motivation has moved me to my current all-digital position, while Shel has returned to hands-on black-and-white.
Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:46:48 -0700, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet We have one. It's called the Gossip Fence. :-) TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
RE: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
Unfortunately I'm quite familiar with DOS attacks and we have certainly implemented safeguards. As far as the list and I are concerned, the only servers involved should be mail.donsauction.com and mail.pdml.net. Both of these are "virtual" servers, simply meaning one server is shared by many domains, and goes by many names. It's easy to overload this type of setup if the domains/server ratio is allowed to get too high. We try to have no more than 250 domains on one server, less if many of them are very active. Filtering shouldn't really play a part in my messages getting lost, unless it's in the implementation on the pdml.net server. Don > -Original Message- > From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 5:08 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] > > > I am not talking about filtering locally, Don. I am talking about > filtering at > many mailservers across the internet. Denial of service attacks > were abounding > and something had to be done. I know that the amount of spam I > was receiving > dropped to almost nothing a couple of months back, and I am > getting very little > now, only one or two a day. I used to get about 100/day on this account. > > Generally it is a good thing, but I think some of them went a > little overboard > on it and are trashing ordinary email as well. > > -- > > Don Sanderson wrote: > > > My problem seems to be something other than Anti-SPAM, > > many of the messages I send don't get to the list and many > > other folks messages don't get to me. > > I control my filtering and it is all off on this account > > since I set this account up for PDML traffic only. > > It seems more that the list server gets too busy sometimes > > to recieve mail from, or forward mail to, list subscribers. > > (This could also be router overloads in between, but less likely.) > > This happens to our servers on occasion (I work for an ISP), > > that's always an indication that it's time to upgrade existing > > servers or add another server to the cluster. > > > > Don > > > > > > > >>-Original Message- > >>From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:35 PM > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] > >> > >> > >>I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to > >>overly aggressive > >>SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this. My webhost labels > >>anything it > >>thinks is SPAM as such and sends it along. I would guess I would > >>miss fewer > >>messages if I were to switch PDML over to there. > >> > >>-- > >> > >>Shel Belinkoff wrote: > >> > >> > >>>Thanks for the reminder, Steve, although there have been > >> > >>numerous instances > >> > >>>here recently in which messages have not shown up on the list > >> > >>at all, even > >> > >>>after a couple of days. Perhaps we need an analog version of > >> > >>the internet > >> > >>> > >> > >> > >>-- > >>graywolf > >>http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html > >> > >> > > > > > > > > -- > graywolf > http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html > >
Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
I am not talking about filtering locally, Don. I am talking about filtering at many mailservers across the internet. Denial of service attacks were abounding and something had to be done. I know that the amount of spam I was receiving dropped to almost nothing a couple of months back, and I am getting very little now, only one or two a day. I used to get about 100/day on this account. Generally it is a good thing, but I think some of them went a little overboard on it and are trashing ordinary email as well. -- Don Sanderson wrote: My problem seems to be something other than Anti-SPAM, many of the messages I send don't get to the list and many other folks messages don't get to me. I control my filtering and it is all off on this account since I set this account up for PDML traffic only. It seems more that the list server gets too busy sometimes to recieve mail from, or forward mail to, list subscribers. (This could also be router overloads in between, but less likely.) This happens to our servers on occasion (I work for an ISP), that's always an indication that it's time to upgrade existing servers or add another server to the cluster. Don -Original Message- From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:35 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to overly aggressive SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this. My webhost labels anything it thinks is SPAM as such and sends it along. I would guess I would miss fewer messages if I were to switch PDML over to there. -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Thanks for the reminder, Steve, although there have been numerous instances here recently in which messages have not shown up on the list at all, even after a couple of days. Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
RE: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
My problem seems to be something other than Anti-SPAM, many of the messages I send don't get to the list and many other folks messages don't get to me. I control my filtering and it is all off on this account since I set this account up for PDML traffic only. It seems more that the list server gets too busy sometimes to recieve mail from, or forward mail to, list subscribers. (This could also be router overloads in between, but less likely.) This happens to our servers on occasion (I work for an ISP), that's always an indication that it's time to upgrade existing servers or add another server to the cluster. Don > -Original Message- > From: graywolf [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 4:35 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] > > > I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to > overly aggressive > SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this. My webhost labels > anything it > thinks is SPAM as such and sends it along. I would guess I would > miss fewer > messages if I were to switch PDML over to there. > > -- > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > Thanks for the reminder, Steve, although there have been > numerous instances > > here recently in which messages have not shown up on the list > at all, even > > after a couple of days. Perhaps we need an analog version of > the internet > > > > > -- > graywolf > http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html > >
Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
Does that explain why so many of my posts are not even making it to the archives (leading me to believe that they aren't getting to the list at all?). Besides, on both Yahoo and Hotmail, spam is supposed to go into a spam box, so one can decide whether to delete or open (and then advise the mail server to let future stuff through from that address). I haven't gotten anything in my spam boxes from PDML yet... cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 17:35:07 -0400 I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to overly aggressive SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this. My webhost labels anything it thinks is SPAM as such and sends it along. I would guess I would miss fewer messages if I were to switch PDML over to there. -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Thanks for the reminder, Steve, although there have been numerous instances here recently in which messages have not shown up on the list at all, even after a couple of days. Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html _ Powerful Parental Controls Let your child discover the best the Internet has to offer. http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines Start enjoying all the benefits of MSN® Premium right now and get the first two months FREE*.
Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
I think a lot of e-mail hits the bit buckets at ISP's due to overly aggressive SPAM filtering. Charter seems to be doing this. My webhost labels anything it thinks is SPAM as such and sends it along. I would guess I would miss fewer messages if I were to switch PDML over to there. -- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Thanks for the reminder, Steve, although there have been numerous instances here recently in which messages have not shown up on the list at all, even after a couple of days. Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
I think it's called the telephone. Amazing what they think of... Shel Belinkoff wrote: Thanks for the reminder, Steve, although there have been numerous instances here recently in which messages have not shown up on the list at all, even after a couple of days. Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet Shel From: Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: 8/26/2004 8:41:03 AM Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] Peter J. Alling wrote: This is my third copy of this one as well, Shel's prose is deathless but this is ridicules. Again, this is because the poster (Shel in this case) assumed that because they hadn't received a copy of their message, the list wasn't working. So they sent it several times. Guys - there is *no* guaranteed delivery time for internet email. The probability of a message never arriving is much less than the probability of it being delayed, and just because *you* haven't received it doesn't mean that nobody else has. So be patient. Please. :-) S -- Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs. P. J. O'Rourke
RE: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
No worries, Shel. I've been having the same problem. I unsubbed then re-subbed with my YahooMail account, and got no response to either request. I subbed from this Hotmail account, and got a response, plus about 3 posts from other people (I hadn't received a post on Yahoo since last night). I posted two myself, and still don't see them. I have no idea if they're in the archives or not. I wondered if the problem was with yahoo, but now that it's still happening on Hotmail, it's obviously something wrong with the list. I'm just going to chuck it, unsub for the weekend (I'm going away tomorrow anyway - biking to Kingston to see the kids - 200km on a bike!), so I'll just try subscribing when I get back to see how things are going... cheers, frank "The optimist thinks this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it is true." -J. Robert Oppenheimer From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 08:28:33 -0700 Odd, it's not shown up once on my copy of the list. I sent a couple figuring it was lost in cyberspace. Didn't see it in the archives either, although subsequent posts appeared there. Sorry for any annoyance I may have caused. > From: Peter J. Alling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > This is my third copy of this one as well, Shel's prose is deathless but > this is ridicules. > > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > >After a long hiatus from the darkroom _ Don't just Search. Find! http://search.sympatico.msn.ca/default.aspx The new MSN Search! Check it out!
Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film]
Thanks for the reminder, Steve, although there have been numerous instances here recently in which messages have not shown up on the list at all, even after a couple of days. Perhaps we need an analog version of the internet Shel > From: Steve Jolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: 8/26/2004 8:41:03 AM > Subject: Re: Multiple messages was [Re: I enjoy film] > > Peter J. Alling wrote: > > This is my third copy of this one as well, Shel's prose is deathless but > > this is ridicules. > > Again, this is because the poster (Shel in this case) assumed that > because they hadn't received a copy of their message, the list wasn't > working. So they sent it several times. > > Guys - there is *no* guaranteed delivery time for internet email. The > probability of a message never arriving is much less than the > probability of it being delayed, and just because *you* haven't received > it doesn't mean that nobody else has. > > So be patient. Please. :-) > > S
Re: I enjoy film
After a long hiatus from the darkroom and doing my own film processing - shooting more color than B&W, scanning and using labs more than printing - I'm returning to what has given me the greatest satisfaction and creative control. Last evening I began setting things up to start processing B&W film again, and later on I'll finish straightening up the darkroom. For too long I've concentrated on scanning negs, working with color film, and playing with digital. It was a good experience, and I learned a lot, most of all that I like B&W. I like the control of processing my own negs, the joy of seeing the results of MY skill and handiwork, and the superior quality of a silver B&W print on fiber (heck, even some RC) paper. I'm not giving up on the other aspects of photography - color will now have a place, as will scanning and digital output - but I feel I must make room for more B&W. There are still, - and I believe there will be for quite a long while - quite a few B&W emulsions available in many different sizes, including those long discontinued sizes like 127 and 620. http://www.efkefilm.com/ is an example. I just can't completely get around the idea of shooting color and "converting" the results to B&W as has been done by many people lately. It just ain't the same. The tonality is different, the grain patterns are, well, nonexistant, and the printing process that many use (from scanner to the Lightjet or Frontier to be printed on Crystal Archive or some such similar paper) seems to be the lazy and roundabout way to get a print which is far from the quality and the look of a true B&W silver print. Likewise, the limited range of choices and creativity that's available with the use of chromogenic B&W emulsions. The more I used them the more they were found lacking on many levels. Over the last couple of years I've tried to accept the mediocre results from the new technologies, and while there is some nice work being done there are too many layers between the photographer's - this photographer's - vision and the final print. Too many zeros and ones between the initial vision and the final print. Too many flashing diodes and glowing LCD screens, too much reliance on histograms to determine what is the correct exposure. The histogram shall be the bane of photography, for reliance on it detracts from the flow of photography. Make an exposure, check the histogram. If the histogram doesn't look right, make another exposure, repeat as necessary. meanwhile, with each repetition of the cycle the subject changes, the light changes, a cloud moves, something small and subtle enters or leaves the scene, a fleeting expression is lost. Technology leaves a cold and souless result, immediacy is lost. A photographer should KNOW how to make an accurate exposure for any given scene. One must understand light, not how a light meter, works, and a histogram is little more than an overly complicated light meter, showing you what you did after the fact, not helping you beforehand. Someone in an earlier thread likened many current photographers as camera operators, and I felt myself coming to that same conclusion about my work. I point, I shoot, and give the balance of the creative process over to someone else, to some further technology, to some expensive machine, make the final interpretation. More and more the control and creativity moved from my vision and my hands to someone else's, to a machine in a dark part of a lab, where the "magic" occurs. Unfortunately, that magic all to often was a trick created and played by another magician, one with a different sensibility and a different audience. Just a final thought: as photographers it's your show. You create the score and the performance. Shel Belinkoff > Pat White and Vic wrote: > > My 2001 MZ-S, my constant companion, is loaded with 2004 film, and in 2010, > > when today's digital wonders are considered laughably obsolete, I'll be > > using it with the amazing new 2010 films. Am I in denial, living in a dream > > world? I sure hope not! > > > Pat White > > I don't think so Pat. I think you're on the right track. As long as you are > happy shooting film continue to do so until you either no longer can or don't > want to. By then, DSLRs will be much better and much cheaper. > Vic
Re: I enjoy film
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My 2001 MZ-S, my constant companion, is loaded with 2004 film, and in 2010, when today's digital wonders are considered laughably obsolete, I'll be using it with the amazing new 2010 films. Am I in denial, living in a dream world? I sure hope not! Pat White I don't think so Pat. I think you're on the right track. As long as you are happy shooting film continue to do so until you either no longer can or don't want to. By then, DSLRs will be much better and much cheaper. Vic Yes, but you missed what he said, "when _today's_ digital wonders are obsolete" -- Politicians are interested in people. Not that this is a virtue. Fleas are interested in dogs. P. J. O'Rourke
Re: I enjoy film
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >My 2001 MZ-S, my constant companion, is loaded with 2004 film, and in 2010, >when today's digital wonders are considered laughably obsolete, I'll be >using it with the amazing new 2010 films. Am I in denial, living in a dream >world? I sure hope not! > >I don't think so Pat. I think you're on the right track. Except for the part about "amazing new 2010 films". -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: I enjoy film
My 2001 MZ-S, my constant companion, is loaded with 2004 film, and in 2010, when today's digital wonders are considered laughably obsolete, I'll be using it with the amazing new 2010 films. Am I in denial, living in a dream world? I sure hope not! Pat White I don't think so Pat. I think you're on the right track. As long as you are happy shooting film continue to do so until you either no longer can or don't want to. By then, DSLRs will be much better and much cheaper. Vic
Re: I enjoy film
Bruce penned:> Hello Billy, > > My experience over the years has not been that great. Fast, > inexpensive labs have problems with squeegee scratching, chemical > deposits, bad chemistry and cutting negs poorly. I have tons of > examples of all the above. > > Just hang around and watch the staff handling of film for awhile and > get sick to your stomach as they handle the film with bare hands > putting finger marks on the emulsion side or dropping the film onto > the floor to get scratched or watch them slice through portions of > your negatives when rushing to get the orders done. > > Better labs will treat your film with more care and respect. If you > just have develop only and no prints made, you may find the cost > difference per roll quite small between a good lab and a poor lab. > The best way to pick is to watch their film handling for awhile to see > how well the film gets treated. > > -- > Best regards, > Bruce Bruce, i did that not long ago,standing in line at the local drug mart waiting to do a purchase. The film machine is next to the cash and i watched the young kids do their thing. Rolling up negs,bare hands and stuffing them into those paper envelopes we get our prints in. No plastic sleeves to protect. I was thinking of using them for my quicky film prints after my local mini went &^&* up but nope, not now. I lucked out having the Rapid Photo lab in Stouffville.He is a photographer,can talk the talk and walk the walk.He could handle B&W and even sold the film.(Probably all to me LOL) Many a day i walked in with some film,only to stand and talk shop for quite awhile.But he's gone now.Sig I'll stick to the pro lab around the corner from work. Price is a tad more but i get sleeved negs.:-) Dave
Re: I enjoy film
Pat White said: > > > Some of my photographically casual friends ask why I don't use Wal-Mart or > Costco for processing, since it's cheaper. They seem to find the quality > acceptable. Perhaps they actually are the voice of the masses. Sometimes > they can see the difference when I point it out, but often they don't care. > So many people just want to see a tiny image on the LCD screen of their > digicam, or just email their happy snaps to their friends. They don't seem > to care about prints anymore. That may be the real cause for the decline in > film use. e not! > > Pat White > > Pat, I think you hit the nail on the head with that statement. I have people ask me the same question. Obvioulsly cheaper is better. The prints must only be for quick viewing then stored. My local Shoppers Drug Mart sells 4x6's for $0.29 and the quality,at least in my opinion after several try's,was crap. Major dust spots, muddy colours in both sRGB and RGB. i now use Future shop at $0.39 per 4x6. That $0.10 makes a world of difference. Probably because they have hired people like Bill Robb,Bill Owens and Butch Black that know what they are doing.To these dedicated print pushes,I salute you. Dave
Re: I enjoy film
Many folks seem to have had bad luck with their film processing. In over 25 years of shooting with an SLR (Pentax since 1980), I don't think I've had more than 1% of my pictures messed up by a lab. I've found labs that gave consistently bad results (greenish color cast at one, dust spots at another), so I stopped using those ones. For many years, I used Qalex for my everyday 4x6s, then last year I kept getting unuseably contrasty prints. Now I use London Drugs (only found in western Canada) for my everyday pix, and I'm fairly pleased nearly all the time. They print on Fuji Crystal Archive, and the prints are ready within hours. For enlargements, the local pro labs give good results, and aren't that expensive. Some of my photographically casual friends ask why I don't use Wal-Mart or Costco for processing, since it's cheaper. They seem to find the quality acceptable. Perhaps they actually are the voice of the masses. Sometimes they can see the difference when I point it out, but often they don't care. So many people just want to see a tiny image on the LCD screen of their digicam, or just email their happy snaps to their friends. They don't seem to care about prints anymore. That may be the real cause for the decline in film use. All the same, there's usually a line-up at London Drugs, and I sometimes see folks bringing in half-a-dozen or more 35mm films at a time. At least here in Victoria, film is still alive and well. My 2001 MZ-S, my constant companion, is loaded with 2004 film, and in 2010, when today's digital wonders are considered laughably obsolete, I'll be using it with the amazing new 2010 films. Am I in denial, living in a dream world? I sure hope not! Pat White
RE: I enjoy film
I too enjoy film. I just haven't shot any in nearly a year. More than film, I enjoy being able to take a single shot or a few shots, go right to the computer with the files, and print a nice enlargement immediately, with no film or processing costs and no delays. The irony and sad part (to me) is that we are in such a floresence of wonderful films. I love Provia 100F and 400F, and rather like E100G. Velvia 100F and Agfa Ultra 100 have given me some nice results, as have Reala, NPZ 800, and Portra 400 UC (now Ultra Color 400). I would love to try the new Kodak Ultra 100. I haven't yet tried Astia 100F. I may never try either of these, and certainly will never use them much. I give presentations at conferences several times a year. I usually illustrate them with great slides taken with Pentax gear. Suddenly I am finding that old-fashioned slide projectors are disappearing from conferences. One has to fight to get one. Everyone uses PowerPoint. I thought I would continue using slide film at least for presentation material, but it now appears that I have little reason to. It is, for me, bittersweet to own the *ist D. I love film. I love digital differently, but also more than I love film. In about a month I will reach my first anniversary of my last roll of film. I honestly don't know if I'll ever shoot another. Joe
Re: I enjoy film
even then, they can screw up. going digital has put me in charge of all phases of the workflow and i know exactly where something went wrong if things don't turn out the way i want. Herb - Original Message - From: "Bruce Dayton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Billy Abbott" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 12:01 PM Subject: Re: I enjoy film > Better labs will treat your film with more care and respect. If you > just have develop only and no prints made, you may find the cost > difference per roll quite small between a good lab and a poor lab. > The best way to pick is to watch their film handling for awhile to see > how well the film gets treated.
Re: I enjoy film
Huh? On Aug 25, 2004, at 4:33 PM, Robert Woerner wrote: What it boils down to is that the masses of men not only lead lives of quiet desperation but they settle for mediocrity en masse.
Re: I enjoy film
Hello Billy, My experience over the years has not been that great. Fast, inexpensive labs have problems with squeegee scratching, chemical deposits, bad chemistry and cutting negs poorly. I have tons of examples of all the above. Just hang around and watch the staff handling of film for awhile and get sick to your stomach as they handle the film with bare hands putting finger marks on the emulsion side or dropping the film onto the floor to get scratched or watch them slice through portions of your negatives when rushing to get the orders done. Better labs will treat your film with more care and respect. If you just have develop only and no prints made, you may find the cost difference per roll quite small between a good lab and a poor lab. The best way to pick is to watch their film handling for awhile to see how well the film gets treated. -- Best regards, Bruce Wednesday, August 25, 2004, 5:50:55 AM, you wrote: BA> On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> If I get a nice snapshot that is printed poorly (often the case) I scan >> it myself... BA> This leads nicely into a question i;ve been meaning to ask for a while - BA> does the development of the negatives by minilabs vary as much as the BA> printing? BA> ie. does it matter a huge amount where i get my film developed (as long as BA> i choose somewhere that isn;t going to destroy my film) if i;m going to BA> scan the negatives and just use the prints as big contact print BA> equivalents? BA> billy
Re: I enjoy film
Hey Billy: I don't think it matters much where you get your negs developed. My experience has been that when I get some brutal prints back (shots I would have normally just thrown away and think that I screwed up) if I scan them I can get them to look the way I wanted them to in the first place. I shoot my daughter's skating team often and find that the minilabs want to darken the prints way too much because of the white ice that is so prevalent in the images. As soon as I bring the ice to near white, everything else falls into place Vic
Re: Re:Working wth slides was: I enjoy film
Hi Dave: I scan my favourite slides as well as negs with a Canon FS2710 slide scanner. In the past, it was difficult to get good prints from slides but one of the great things about digital (and I don't mean digital cameras) is that it really no longer matters if you shoot slides or negs. By scanning them and printing them on inkjet, the results are the same I have got internegs made in the past with success but it gets very costly. The slide scanner made it all so simple. I am also noticing that as everyone goes digital, there are more and more good slide scanners showing up used at camera stores for giveaway prices... Vic
Re: I enjoy film
On Wed, 25 Aug 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If I get a nice snapshot that is printed poorly (often the case) I scan it myself... This leads nicely into a question i;ve been meaning to ask for a while - does the development of the negatives by minilabs vary as much as the printing? ie. does it matter a huge amount where i get my film developed (as long as i choose somewhere that isn;t going to destroy my film) if i;m going to scan the negatives and just use the prints as big contact print equivalents? billy -- Awa an raffle yersel, ya wee shite! Ye couldnie fite yer grannie fur a puddin supper. Billy Abbott billy at cowfish dot org dot uk
Re:Working wth slides was: I enjoy film
Vic penned: > > I agree entirely. That's why I shoot slides for most of my serious work. As > far as print film goes, if they're snaps I go for fast and cheap. If it's more > serious stuff, I go for quality. If I get a nice snapshot that is printed > poorly (often the case) I scan it myself... > Vic > Vic, what do you do after your receive your slides.Do you scan and print those you like yourself or from a lab,or do you mainly do slide shows in the livingroom. I only ask as i love what i get from not only 35mm but from the 6x7, however my forray into interneg still is not very satisfactory(specially from the 35mm,the 6x7 is better),and my epson 2450 does not scan the 35's very well,but the 6x7's pretty good. Dave
Re: I enjoy film
William Rob wrote by going fast and cheap they gave up the right to expect quality. I agree entirely. That's why I shoot slides for most of my serious work. As far as print film goes, if they're snaps I go for fast and cheap. If it's more serious stuff, I go for quality. If I get a nice snapshot that is printed poorly (often the case) I scan it myself... Vic
Re: I enjoy film
You're not alone. Yes digital is fun and is probably the future. I have a point and shoot that I enjoy very much, but am not about to give up my film bodies when I can have the best of both worlds- shoot film, scan the best ones... Vic
Re: I enjoy film
the camera shop around my corner has the choice between fast (1 hour) and quality, or slow (2 days) and cheap. I always used the first option, but I don't know what the majority chooses. On Wednesday 25 August 2004 06:06, William Robb wrote: FJW> FJW> - Original Message - FJW> From: "Caveman" FJW> Subject: Re: I enjoy film FJW> FJW> FJW> > The success of digital is largely due to the failure of the FJW> industry to FJW> > provide adequate film printing services to the consumer. FJW> > FJW> FJW> The failure of the minilab is largely due to the consumer insisting FJW> that the bottom line is paramount. FJW> When I started in minilabs 20 years ago, prices were approximately FJW> triple what they are now. FJW> The consumer has the choice of any two of the following : good, fast FJW> or cheap. FJW> By choosing fast and cheap, they gave up the right to ask for FJW> quality. FJW> FJW> William Robb FJW> FJW> FJW> FJW> -- Frits Wüthrich
Re: I enjoy film
Robert Woerner felt lonesome in his filmness and wrote: "You digital guys are bringing me down." Non illegitimi carborundum. The digitalphiles are a bunch of pinheaded geeks who would rather waste countless hours in Photoshop trying to fix their awful contrast inhibited detailess soulless abomination digital captures than they would taking incredibly lush, so sharp they cut your eye when you look at them honest film based pictures. "I really enjoy shooting film. Changing film after 24 or 36 exp is not a "hassle" for me. I like the results I get from film. I can use an all manual body like my Spotmatic or my MZ-S. Fun. It really is too bad that film is on the wane in the world. My lab's film business is booming and they are a start-up lab(opened approx 2 yrs ago). They also process REAL black and white and 120/220 and, holy moly, SLIDE FILM." I really enjoy shooting film too. I shoot slide film. I finish the roll, mail it off and get it back in a week. I love slide film. I love the incredibly sharp (resolution and acutance) slides I get. I love the awesome color. I love the fact that I don't need a computer to look at them. 20 slides to a page in my books. Easy to sort through. Easy to find what I want. Not like those stupid cds that require a computer to even view. "Digital is way too clean and technology intense for me right now. With my film cameras I don't have to worry about how good my pc is." Digital photography sucks. The cameras suck. The images suck. The software sucks. The digital shooters have been bamboozled and hornswoggled into paying $$ for inferior results. "Sorry, just felt the need to rant." That really wasn't much of a rant. A good rant requires insults, gross exagerations, many mispelings and has to be outrageous beyond belief. Tom (a film shooter) Reese
Re: I enjoy film
And finally William accepts the arguments put to him. U-turn? Antonio On 25/8/04 7:55 am, "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My lab could. > My lab closed in 1997. > The one I work for now can do very good on occassion, but not > consistently. > Excellence hasn't existed in my industry for quite a while, with a > few exceptions, and those exceptions are getting fewer all the time. > > William Robb
Re: I enjoy film
You seem to be in denial William. The point is that the majority of the labs were bad, and that they failed the consumer en-masse. With the technology available to them 1 hour cheap and fast was entirely acheivable. The problem was that the industry got greedy and lazy. Not just a few labs, but the entire industry. Antonio On 25/8/04 7:52 am, "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > However, the demise of quality processing was a consumer choice, not > an industry choice. > And yes, there are a lot of really bad labs out there. > But there are a lot of really bad businesses in any industry. > > William Robb
Re: I enjoy film
In a way this is all to the good. We get so many who are enamored with their new digital cameras on the list that it is easy to get the idea that no one is using film any more. Not so! Many of us still like the old way. But we do need to speak up, or soon we will be forgotten, and then there will actually be no more film. So no need to apologize for your post, in fact I thank you for it. -- Robert Woerner wrote: You digital guys are bringing me down. I really enjoy shooting film. Changing film after 24 or 36 exp is not a "hassle" for me. I like the results I get from film. I can use an all manual body like my Spotmatic or my MZ-S. Fun. It really is too bad that film is on the wane in the world. My lab's film business is booming and they are a start-up lab(opened approx 2 yrs ago). They also process REAL black and white and 120/220 and, holy moly, SLIDE FILM. Digital is way too clean and technology intense for me right now. With my film cameras I don't have to worry about how good my pc is. Sorry, just felt the need to rant. YMMV. Robert -- graywolf http://graywolfphoto.com/graywolf.html
Re: I enjoy film
- Original Message - From: "Caveman" Subject: Re: I enjoy film > The success of digital is largely due to the failure of the industry to > provide adequate film printing services to the consumer. > The failure of the minilab is largely due to the consumer insisting that the bottom line is paramount. When I started in minilabs 20 years ago, prices were approximately triple what they are now. The consumer has the choice of any two of the following : good, fast or cheap. By choosing fast and cheap, they gave up the right to ask for quality. William Robb
Re: I enjoy film
Just waiting for WfieldW's reply. Norm Caveman wrote:
Re: I enjoy film
The success of digital is largely due to the failure of the industry to provide adequate film printing services to the consumer. Same industry that pushed smaller and crappier film formats (anyone remember disc film, APS, etc). Same industry that was interested in printing each and every frame from your films, even the blank ones, in order to get more of your money. Same industry that scratched, improperly processed and lost your films. And now Joe Sixpack got an alternative. And he's getting his revenge, royally screwing the guys that screwed him for so many years. Look ma' no more prints. I can view them pics on the screen. F... the minilabs. David Madsen wrote: I feel the same way! Film is fun to shoot, no question, and there are some advantages to it like exposure latitude. The only problem is that when I started shooting with the istD I noticed that my 8x10 prints were superior to the ones I got from film
RE: I enjoy film
I feel the same way! Film is fun to shoot, no question, and there are some advantages to it like exposure latitude. The only problem is that when I started shooting with the istD I noticed that my 8x10 prints were superior to the ones I got from film and, being a portrait shooter, I quickly became addicted to the retouching capabilities of digital. I decided that I would shoot both for a while, just to make sure. I shot my MZ-S at one photo shoot since getting the istD and it was not as fun as I remembered it to be and the results paled in comparison to similar shots taken on digital at the same shoot. I just shipped the MZ-S away to it's new owner. I will miss owning it, but I will not miss shooting it. For what I shoot - portraits, fashion, editorial, etc. - digital gives me better results and results are more important to me than the process. Film is fun to shoot. That's why I still have my medium format. My 2 cents. -Original Message- From: Robert Woerner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 8:56 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: I enjoy film You digital guys are bringing me down. I really enjoy shooting film. Changing film after 24 or 36 exp is not a "hassle" for me. I like the results I get from film. I can use an all manual body like my Spotmatic or my MZ-S. Fun. It really is too bad that film is on the wane in the world. My lab's film business is booming and they are a start-up lab(opened approx 2 yrs ago). They also process REAL black and white and 120/220 and, holy moly, SLIDE FILM. Digital is way too clean and technology intense for me right now. With my film cameras I don't have to worry about how good my pc is. Sorry, just felt the need to rant. YMMV. Robert
I enjoy film
You digital guys are bringing me down. I really enjoy shooting film. Changing film after 24 or 36 exp is not a "hassle" for me. I like the results I get from film. I can use an all manual body like my Spotmatic or my MZ-S. Fun. It really is too bad that film is on the wane in the world. My lab's film business is booming and they are a start-up lab(opened approx 2 yrs ago). They also process REAL black and white and 120/220 and, holy moly, SLIDE FILM. Digital is way too clean and technology intense for me right now. With my film cameras I don't have to worry about how good my pc is. Sorry, just felt the need to rant. YMMV. Robert
