Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Cesar Subject: Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later) I am still holding the line on just one 67 :-) For now... Get a few more lenses, that'll change your mind. William Robb Bill, You are an evil man :-) I am having fun 'testing' lenses that a certain list member lent to me ;-P I have not had as much time as I would have liked at this point to really do some testing with the 67. But there is still time before the lenses have to go back... César Panama City, Florida
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
- Original Message - From: Cesar Subject: Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later) I have not had as much time as I would have liked at this point to really do some testing with the 67. But there is still time before the lenses have to go back... I would venture a guess that when that list member wants them back, he will ask for them, and until then, he knows that they will be used well and enjoyed. William Robb
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
I can agree with you regarding the computer. You can get sufficient power from an old and cheap computer. My 3 years old iMac with 800MHz processor and 512MB RAM handled 60MB scans in PS CS without much problem. But, you make some strange assumptions regarding the camera requirements. As I see Franks pictures they often rely on timing and often shallow DOF. None of these are available with PS cameras. Just because they are seldom sharp does not mean that small sensors and low resolution is OK. Unsharpness in one of the reasons why I still use film, especially medium format. DagT fra: Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] dato: 2005/11/29 ti AM 03:16:09 CET til: pentax-discuss@pdml.net emne: Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later) i go on vacation and come back to this. has it occurred to any of you to work out how much it costs Frank to shoot each year doing what he does today? how many rolls do you think he shoots in a year? you can figure that out just by counting the times he posts and his discourses on the rolls he has shot. how much does a roll of film, processing, and printing cost him? do the arithmetic and you will find he is spending a fair fraction of that $600 already. wait until the cost of materials goes up. so i have every reason to ask if saving $600 over a year is a hardship, why isn't what he spends already a hardship? as for the actual dollar figure, $600 is the most possible that Frank needs to spend. he has a scanner and scans his BW prints to show us. that means he has an adequate image editing program on a good enough computer right now. if his scanner is a USB scanner, he is done. no computer upgrade needed for BW. the monitor quality isn't so important because he's doing BW. if his computer doesn't have a USB port, he has a couple of options. looking for a hand-me-down from a friend that has a USB port for perhaps $100, go to a refurbished computer place that takes them off-lease and resells them for perhaps $150 for an older but adequate system unit (on occasion, i've seen some refurbished desktops for $80 that will do the job.), go to PC Connection or some similar place and configure a new system unit for $250. i walk around computer shows and see some new system units for $200 and under. getting a laptop like Rob suggests is about the least cost-effective way of buying computing power. even then, i see refurbished laptops at computer shows for $200 that will do what Frank needs doing. then the camera. if you pay attention to what Frank posts, you'll see that sharpness isn't especially important. neither is high resolution since he doesn't go beyond 8x10 often. he can get a more than adequate camera that will take 80% of the shots he shows by looking for a used 4 megapixel PS camera set to BW mode. that's assuming that he doesn't have a friend looking to upgrade and letting him have their old one for next to nothing. if Frank really were interested in getting into digital, he could do it for about mostly likely no more than $150, $250 at the outside if he has to buy another computer, and at close to the same quality he shoots today. that camera would cover about 80% of his shooting that he shows us, all except the indoor shots. the rest of you who responded with all those negatives, i thought i saw plenty of group no-think on other mailing lists, but this takes the cake. just about no-one questioned whether Frank needed a new computer to go digital or not. only a few people questioned the cost. just about no-one questioned whether Frank needed a DSLR or not. just about no-one questioned whether he even needed a new anything. i do 5 seconds of arithmetic in my head and conclude that Frank spends a fair amount of the actual cost needed to go digital on his photography already and would save a lot of that by buying a small digital camera and not printing as much. some of you thought of this, but none of the negative responses did. Frank's $6000 figure was disingenuous posturing for not going digital. my system didn't cost $6000, including the *istD. if he had just stayed with just saying he didn't like digital or didn't want to spend the time, he would have been like a bunch of other people on this list, agreeing to disagree. instead, he spouted a nonsensical figure and you swallowed it all. next thing i know, the lot of you will cheer Frank's heroic sacrifice for refusing to save up for a car because he'll never afford $100K for a decent BMW. Herb...
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
In a message dated 11/28/2005 6:17:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Frank's $6000 figure was disingenuous posturing for not going digital. my system didn't cost $6000, including the *istD. if he had just stayed with just saying he didn't like digital or didn't want to spend the time, he would have been like a bunch of other people on this list, agreeing to disagree. instead, he spouted a nonsensical figure and you swallowed it all. next thing i know, the lot of you will cheer Frank's heroic sacrifice for refusing to save up for a car because he'll never afford $100K for a decent BMW. Herb... I think I missed something here. Part of a thread or something. Okey, dokey. There is one thing Herb you may have forgotten, having been poor a large portion of my adult life (no more, thankfully), or having limited funds, anyway, I haven't forgotten it. It is MUCH, MUCH harder to come up with $1000 or so in one lump sum than to come up with $10 a week. Or whatever. Sure, over time, the bit by bit may actually cost more, but the funds may only be available in bit by bit amounts, not in large lump sum. That is just the way it is. I am really finding some of your comments lately too elitist, sorry. Not everyone has the financial resources to do what you think they should. And why should you care, really, what others do? Or how they spend their own money? I don't. And I don't care if finances are not their only reason, either. I've personally spent a lot on digital. Camera, cards, printer, paper, inks, PS, Spyder, etc. I don't even want to look at the total figure. But it certainly doesn't stop just with the camera. It can be a little cheaper if one wants to compromise, or it can be quite expensive. Oh, well, the above really rubbed me wrong. Seems sort of silly to argue against someone else's decision. Or whatever explanations they offer for their own decisions. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
On 29/11/05, [EMAIL PROTECTED], discombobulated, unleashed: Unsharpness in one of the reasons why I still use film, especially medium format. Mark! Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
Windows and Mac utilize memory differently. Photoshop CS may work well on a Mac with the memory you've described, but it may not run well on a Windows machine with similar memory - and then again, it might. Depends on how the memory, scratch disks, paging file are configured. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can agree with you regarding the computer. You can get sufficient power from an old and cheap computer. My 3 years old iMac with 800MHz processor and 512MB RAM handled 60MB scans in PS CS without much problem.
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
I know. The previous PC I used at work had the same data, but chrashed each time I tried to load pictures larger than 40MB DagT fra: Shel Belinkoff [EMAIL PROTECTED] Windows and Mac utilize memory differently. Photoshop CS may work well on a Mac with the memory you've described, but it may not run well on a Windows machine with similar memory - and then again, it might. Depends on how the memory, scratch disks, paging file are configured. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can agree with you regarding the computer. You can get sufficient power from an old and cheap computer. My 3 years old iMac with 800MHz processor and 512MB RAM handled 60MB scans in PS CS without much problem.
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 11/28/2005 6:17:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Frank's $6000 figure was disingenuous posturing for not going digital. my system didn't cost $6000, including the *istD. if he had just stayed with just saying he didn't like digital or didn't want to spend the time, he would have been like a bunch of other people on this list, agreeing to disagree. instead, he spouted a nonsensical figure and you swallowed it all. next thing i know, the lot of you will cheer Frank's heroic sacrifice for refusing to save up for a car because he'll never afford $100K for a decent BMW. Herb... I think I missed something here. Part of a thread or something. Okey, dokey. There is one thing Herb you may have forgotten, having been poor a large portion of my adult life (no more, thankfully), or having limited funds, anyway, I haven't forgotten it. It is MUCH, MUCH harder to come up with $1000 or so in one lump sum than to come up with $10 a week. Or whatever. Sure, over time, the bit by bit may actually cost more, but the funds may only be available in bit by bit amounts, not in large lump sum. That is just the way it is. I am really finding some of your comments lately too elitist, sorry. Not everyone has the financial resources to do what you think they should. And why should you care, really, what others do? Or how they spend their own money? I don't. And I don't care if finances are not their only reason, either. I've personally spent a lot on digital. Camera, cards, printer, paper, inks, PS, Spyder, etc. I don't even want to look at the total figure. But it certainly doesn't stop just with the camera. It can be a little cheaper if one wants to compromise, or it can be quite expensive. Oh, well, the above really rubbed me wrong. Seems sort of silly to argue against someone else's decision. Or whatever explanations they offer for their own decisions. Marnie aka Doe Marnie's right here. It's something that kept (and keeps) me shooting film. Regular low costs are an easier burden than a high up front cost even for someone not on a fixed income. I got lucky in that I had all the necessary bits other than the camera already due to previous investments when I lucked across an incredible deal on an *istD. That puchase still has my budget in tatters 3 months later though. -Adam
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
On Nov 29, 2005, at 5:04 AM, Adam Maas wrote: ...Regular low costs are an easier burden than a high up front cost even for someone not on a fixed income. ... Sorry, i run my finances a little differently. At the peak of my film photography, I was spending $2800/year, more or less, on film and negative processing. Once digital camera prices for cameras capable of producing comparable quality were reasonable, it was an easy decision for me to save up enough money to buy a good digital camera. A DSLR like the *ist DS with a few lenses cost me $2000 and will last 3-6 years in use, which nets quite a bit less expenditure than $2800/ year. Even putting it on my credit card and paying it off over a year a 11% interest netted a worthwhile savings. Printing costs for me didn't change appreciably as I have been printing digitally for many years, so I don't factor that into my cost analysis. Same for computer equipment costs: I buy new systems every 2-4 years, upgrading capability along the way, and have been doing that since 1983, because I use my computers for a lot more than just photographic work. Godfrey
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
On Mon, 28 Nov 2005, Herb Chong wrote: then the camera. if you pay attention to what Frank posts, you'll see that sharpness isn't especially important. neither is high resolution since he doesn't go beyond 8x10 often. he can get a more than adequate camera that will take 80% of the shots he shows by looking for a used 4 megapixel PS camera set to BW mode. that's assuming that he doesn't have a friend looking to upgrade and letting him have their old one for next to nothing. if Frank really were interested in getting into digital, he could do it for about mostly likely no more than $150, $250 at the outside if he has to buy another computer, and at close to the same quality he shoots today. that camera would cover about 80% of his shooting that he shows us, all except the indoor shots. So, you are suggesting dumping the features of his DSLR system and his Leica in favour of low-res, small-and-crappy sensor, single-lens piece of crap. You may want to ask yourself why does he not use single-use cameras, or even Pentax-110?. No, it's not cost. nonsensical figure and you swallowed it all. next thing i know, the lot of you will cheer Frank's heroic sacrifice for refusing to save up for a car because he'll never afford $100K for a decent BMW. His heroic sacrifice is not giving up his old, usable Jaguar for a new Trabant[1]. And mine too. But the backlash you got, you thoroughly earned. This wording below is unacceptable, irrespective of the point you want to put through: if that is a hardship, should you be shooting anything? Kostas [1] Conscious choice not to denigrate an existing, low-cost marque.
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
CS2 runs fine on my 900mhz, 512mb Winblows box. Of course I am not used to running anything on a high-end gaming machine so my expectations are probaby lower than most. I find it adequate for most things; it seems that some where around there performance-wise things became adequate unlike previously when the machine just did not quite do what you wanted it to and you were glad to see every little improvement come along. In fact he only upgrades since I built it as a middle of the line machine 5 years ago are doubling the ram, and doubling harddrive capacity by putting in a second 40gig. So, I would say that a decent 1000mhz, 512mb, machine with as much harddrive space as you can afford is all that is needed (as opposed to wanted) for photography. Compared to the TRS-89 Model 3 I started on in 1980 this thing is a speed demon. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Shel Belinkoff wrote: Windows and Mac utilize memory differently. Photoshop CS may work well on a Mac with the memory you've described, but it may not run well on a Windows machine with similar memory - and then again, it might. Depends on how the memory, scratch disks, paging file are configured. Shel You meet the nicest people with a Pentax [Original Message] From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] I can agree with you regarding the computer. You can get sufficient power from an old and cheap computer. My 3 years old iMac with 800MHz processor and 512MB RAM handled 60MB scans in PS CS without much problem.
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
with such a PC, just use win2000 instead of XP to lost less power. So, I would say that a decent 1000mhz, 512mb, machine with as much harddrive space as you can afford is all that is needed (as opposed to wanted) for photography.
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
Not that I am a film afficionado, especially when it comes to medium format - I tend to use what is readily available For 35mm: Slide 100 asa - Kodak Elite Chrome (I like the rendition of people's skin tones) Slide 400 asa - Fuji Sensia (less noisy than the Kodak I have tried) Slide 100 asa - Fuji Velvia (?) when I was not going to be shooting people - vivid colors; bought a few bricks from a photographer who went digital BW 100 asa - Kodak TMax I have not tried out too many bw films BW 400 asa - Kodak Tri-X is versatile enough for lack of grain when shooting low-light when 100 asa will not do Print 160 asa - Kodak Portra, recommended when I started shooting weddings. Print 400 asa - Kodak Portra, as above I tend to use NC rather than VC (colors more to my taste) Print 3200 asa - Ilford Delta, much less grain than Kodak. Best compliment I can give it, an available light shot of a couple leaving down the aisle taken from the balcony is soon to grace their mantle in a poster size. For 120/220: Most of the film I have was purchased from another professional photographer who went digital, along with some gear. BW 100/400 asa - Kodak TMax, the only one I have ever used so no experience otherwise. I have not seen any reason to dislike this film. Slide 100 asa - Kodak Elite Chrome for the same reason as above, but I have run out and now have the bricks of film below to try out. Slide 100 asa - Fuji Reala, highly recommended my first roll is ready to go to the lab. Slide 400 asa - Fuji Provia gotten for a great price and I am assuming the same characteristics as stated in the 35mm film. Print 160/400 - Kodak Portra NC and Fuji NPC/NPS used for bridal portraits and I have not done a serious comparison but have been happy with the results especially when using an external meter and getting the exposure the way I want it. Print 800 - Fuji NHGII, I have yet to try it out, purchased for a song... Not that clinical, nor technical, but this is what I have at the moment... César Panama City, Florida Scott Loveless wrote: We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite film, and why? Give us details, such as which films you use for what subjects. Or do you use certain films with certain lenses or cameras? Etc. -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- You have to hold the button down -Arnold Newman
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
frank theriault wrote: On 11/28/05, Chan Yong Wei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's true, though MF gear does allow you to use interchangeable film backs to literally change film types in mid-roll. :) Certainly not all MF give you that capability. Old 120 tlr's don't. Pentax 67's don't (I don't think, anyway). -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson The Pentax medium formats do not. I don't see it as much of a problem unless you are shooting 220 film. But then again, I do have two 645n cameras so I can have two different films available. I am still holding the line on just one 67 :-) For now... César Panama City, Florida
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
- Original Message - From: Cesar Subject: Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later) I am still holding the line on just one 67 :-) For now... Get a few more lenses, that'll change your mind. William Robb
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
On Nov 28, 2005, at 7:22 AM, Glen wrote: For the record, I would love to shoot with a large format view camera--if only I could afford to purchase and use one. That's the only sort of film camera I can work up any serious amount of lust for these days. Same here and that's only because I've seen 6x7 slides and want more :) Of the formats I've looked at (35mm, 6x7, 4x5, 8x10), 6x7 is the most economical in dollars-per-film-area. For me, the running costs of anything larger would be prohibitive. - Dave
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
On 11/28/05, Glen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One thing I love about my digital Pentax *istDS, is the fact that I can change film types in mid-roll, by changing the contrast, saturation, ISO setting, etc, whenever I feel like it. Each frame I shoot can have its own personality, if I want. The only film camera that I know of which can compete with this, is a view camera or other large sheet-film camera. You certainly won't get this flexibility from 35mm or medium format gear. That's true, though MF gear does allow you to use interchangeable film backs to literally change film types in mid-roll. :) YW
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
On 11/28/05, Chan Yong Wei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's true, though MF gear does allow you to use interchangeable film backs to literally change film types in mid-roll. :) Certainly not all MF give you that capability. Old 120 tlr's don't. Pentax 67's don't (I don't think, anyway). -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
My bad... I meant to say *some* MF gear does allow you to do so. YW On 11/28/05, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/28/05, Chan Yong Wei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's true, though MF gear does allow you to use interchangeable film backs to literally change film types in mid-roll. :) Certainly not all MF give you that capability. Old 120 tlr's don't. Pentax 67's don't (I don't think, anyway). -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
Nor do Mamiya 6 7 rangefinders. Jack --- frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/28/05, Chan Yong Wei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's true, though MF gear does allow you to use interchangeable film backs to literally change film types in mid-roll. :) Certainly not all MF give you that capability. Old 120 tlr's don't. Pentax 67's don't (I don't think, anyway). -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
On 11/28/05, Chan Yong Wei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My bad... I meant to say *some* MF gear does allow you to do so. Now ~that~ I'll agree with. g -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/28/05, Chan Yong Wei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: My bad... I meant to say *some* MF gear does allow you to do so. Now ~that~ I'll agree with. I have to say that I find this the most-overrated and least-used feature of MF. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
On Nov 28, 2005, at 8:21 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: I have to say that I find this the most-overrated and least-used feature of MF. I don't know about that. Working with a Hassy 500 or SWC on a tripod, the interchangeable backs were quite handy to allow me to shoot both BW and color film on various subjects. Godfrey
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
Well, my camera allows me to change film shot by shot. In fact it requires it. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Jack Davis wrote: Nor do Mamiya 6 7 rangefinders. Jack --- frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/28/05, Chan Yong Wei [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That's true, though MF gear does allow you to use interchangeable film backs to literally change film types in mid-roll. :) Certainly not all MF give you that capability. Old 120 tlr's don't. Pentax 67's don't (I don't think, anyway). -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson __ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
I would agree with that, in fact my Mamiya Universal let me change formats with the backs. I preferred 6x9 for trannies, 6x7 for negatives, and 3x4 for Polaroid. Also it was a great backup. If the film wind mechanism went belly up, switch backs. If the shutter went belly up, switch lenses. If the rangefinder went belly up focus by scale. In fact I think that remains my favorite to use camera of all. I have owned two ot them at different times, almost bought a third (it was sold out from under me), and keep thinking I should still get another one sigh. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: On Nov 28, 2005, at 8:21 AM, Mark Roberts wrote: I have to say that I find this the most-overrated and least-used feature of MF. I don't know about that. Working with a Hassy 500 or SWC on a tripod, the interchangeable backs were quite handy to allow me to shoot both BW and color film on various subjects. Godfrey
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
i go on vacation and come back to this. has it occurred to any of you to work out how much it costs Frank to shoot each year doing what he does today? how many rolls do you think he shoots in a year? you can figure that out just by counting the times he posts and his discourses on the rolls he has shot. how much does a roll of film, processing, and printing cost him? do the arithmetic and you will find he is spending a fair fraction of that $600 already. wait until the cost of materials goes up. so i have every reason to ask if saving $600 over a year is a hardship, why isn't what he spends already a hardship? as for the actual dollar figure, $600 is the most possible that Frank needs to spend. he has a scanner and scans his BW prints to show us. that means he has an adequate image editing program on a good enough computer right now. if his scanner is a USB scanner, he is done. no computer upgrade needed for BW. the monitor quality isn't so important because he's doing BW. if his computer doesn't have a USB port, he has a couple of options. looking for a hand-me-down from a friend that has a USB port for perhaps $100, go to a refurbished computer place that takes them off-lease and resells them for perhaps $150 for an older but adequate system unit (on occasion, i've seen some refurbished desktops for $80 that will do the job.), go to PC Connection or some similar place and configure a new system unit for $250. i walk around computer shows and see some new system units for $200 and under. getting a laptop like Rob suggests is about the least cost-effective way of buying computing power. even then, i see refurbished laptops at computer shows for $200 that will do what Frank needs doing. then the camera. if you pay attention to what Frank posts, you'll see that sharpness isn't especially important. neither is high resolution since he doesn't go beyond 8x10 often. he can get a more than adequate camera that will take 80% of the shots he shows by looking for a used 4 megapixel PS camera set to BW mode. that's assuming that he doesn't have a friend looking to upgrade and letting him have their old one for next to nothing. if Frank really were interested in getting into digital, he could do it for about mostly likely no more than $150, $250 at the outside if he has to buy another computer, and at close to the same quality he shoots today. that camera would cover about 80% of his shooting that he shows us, all except the indoor shots. the rest of you who responded with all those negatives, i thought i saw plenty of group no-think on other mailing lists, but this takes the cake. just about no-one questioned whether Frank needed a new computer to go digital or not. only a few people questioned the cost. just about no-one questioned whether Frank needed a DSLR or not. just about no-one questioned whether he even needed a new anything. i do 5 seconds of arithmetic in my head and conclude that Frank spends a fair amount of the actual cost needed to go digital on his photography already and would save a lot of that by buying a small digital camera and not printing as much. some of you thought of this, but none of the negative responses did. Frank's $6000 figure was disingenuous posturing for not going digital. my system didn't cost $6000, including the *istD. if he had just stayed with just saying he didn't like digital or didn't want to spend the time, he would have been like a bunch of other people on this list, agreeing to disagree. instead, he spouted a nonsensical figure and you swallowed it all. next thing i know, the lot of you will cheer Frank's heroic sacrifice for refusing to save up for a car because he'll never afford $100K for a decent BMW. Herb... - Original Message - From: Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 1:15 AM Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later Herb Chong wrote: as Rob said it earlier, $600, not $6K. if that is a hardship, should you be shooting anything? Herb... What a very bigoted comment , Herb. How sad. ann, to whom $600 is a hell of a lot of money
Re: Close to Zero IQ (was Shoot now, focus later)
I'd disagree about the camera costs. With what I've seen from Frank, he seems to shoot spur of the moment grab shots, with an emphasis on quickly getting the shot, which a 4MP consumer PS will not do due to shutter lag. He's either looking at a high-end PS like the Canon G6 or a DSLR unless he wants to spend the ridiculous amount Epson wants for the RD1. -Adam Herb Chong wrote: i go on vacation and come back to this. has it occurred to any of you to work out how much it costs Frank to shoot each year doing what he does today? how many rolls do you think he shoots in a year? you can figure that out just by counting the times he posts and his discourses on the rolls he has shot. how much does a roll of film, processing, and printing cost him? do the arithmetic and you will find he is spending a fair fraction of that $600 already. wait until the cost of materials goes up. so i have every reason to ask if saving $600 over a year is a hardship, why isn't what he spends already a hardship? as for the actual dollar figure, $600 is the most possible that Frank needs to spend. he has a scanner and scans his BW prints to show us. that means he has an adequate image editing program on a good enough computer right now. if his scanner is a USB scanner, he is done. no computer upgrade needed for BW. the monitor quality isn't so important because he's doing BW. if his computer doesn't have a USB port, he has a couple of options. looking for a hand-me-down from a friend that has a USB port for perhaps $100, go to a refurbished computer place that takes them off-lease and resells them for perhaps $150 for an older but adequate system unit (on occasion, i've seen some refurbished desktops for $80 that will do the job.), go to PC Connection or some similar place and configure a new system unit for $250. i walk around computer shows and see some new system units for $200 and under. getting a laptop like Rob suggests is about the least cost-effective way of buying computing power. even then, i see refurbished laptops at computer shows for $200 that will do what Frank needs doing. then the camera. if you pay attention to what Frank posts, you'll see that sharpness isn't especially important. neither is high resolution since he doesn't go beyond 8x10 often. he can get a more than adequate camera that will take 80% of the shots he shows by looking for a used 4 megapixel PS camera set to BW mode. that's assuming that he doesn't have a friend looking to upgrade and letting him have their old one for next to nothing. if Frank really were interested in getting into digital, he could do it for about mostly likely no more than $150, $250 at the outside if he has to buy another computer, and at close to the same quality he shoots today. that camera would cover about 80% of his shooting that he shows us, all except the indoor shots. the rest of you who responded with all those negatives, i thought i saw plenty of group no-think on other mailing lists, but this takes the cake. just about no-one questioned whether Frank needed a new computer to go digital or not. only a few people questioned the cost. just about no-one questioned whether Frank needed a DSLR or not. just about no-one questioned whether he even needed a new anything. i do 5 seconds of arithmetic in my head and conclude that Frank spends a fair amount of the actual cost needed to go digital on his photography already and would save a lot of that by buying a small digital camera and not printing as much. some of you thought of this, but none of the negative responses did. Frank's $6000 figure was disingenuous posturing for not going digital. my system didn't cost $6000, including the *istD. if he had just stayed with just saying he didn't like digital or didn't want to spend the time, he would have been like a bunch of other people on this list, agreeing to disagree. instead, he spouted a nonsensical figure and you swallowed it all. next thing i know, the lot of you will cheer Frank's heroic sacrifice for refusing to save up for a car because he'll never afford $100K for a decent BMW. Herb... - Original Message - From: Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 1:15 AM Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later Herb Chong wrote: as Rob said it earlier, $600, not $6K. if that is a hardship, should you be shooting anything? Herb... What a very bigoted comment , Herb. How sad. ann, to whom $600 is a hell of a lot of money
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
35mm: Tri-X Provia 400 120: HP5+ Fuji NPS-160 I actually haven't really experimented around with film to find the one that I really, really like yet. Tri-X and HC-110 at 1+100 worked for me, so I used that almost exclusively for awhile, until my M645 came along and discovered that there was no TX available from local shops in 120 format. One thing I love about film photography is the fact that there are so many different types of film, each with its unique colour palette and footprint. Maybe the next thing I'll try is Kodachrome in 120. Want to see those MF transparencies that everyone else has been raving about. :) On 11/26/05, Ann Sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Tom Reese wrote: Scott Loveless asked: We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite film, and why? Give us details, such as which films you use for what subjects. Or do you use certain films with certain lenses or cameras? Etc. I almost exclusively shoot Elite Chrome Extra Color (EBX-100). I do infrequently use regular Elite Chrome. I know I'm giving up better greens by not using Velvia but I use American made products whenever possible. I just went to the Kodak website to see if they still list EBX (I had heard that they were going to drop it) and they've changed the names of all the Elite Chromes to Kodak Professional Elite Chrome. I don't know if they've improved the films or if it's just a marketing gimmick. The EBX is still listed as being current. Tom Reese I always shot Tri-x and devloped in Microdol x 1:3. Color wise, it was pkr 64 - until that elite chrome stuff came out I discovered it in 1994. Still preferred PKR 64 but after Fairlawn went away I wasn't happy with any of the processing I got. The last time I shot a roll of Kodachrome I couldn't get it developed in Manhattan. Yeah, I'm sure, I could have taken it SoMEWHERE but my usual haaunts wouldn't do it. Then I got the digital cam :) ann, who is trying to remember who it was who predicted my swing to digital within a year um, well over a year ago. Someday I'll learn never to say never.
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
At 08:39 AM 11/27/2005, Chan Yong Wei wrote: One thing I love about film photography is the fact that there are so many different types of film, each with its unique colour palette and footprint... One thing I love about my digital Pentax *istDS, is the fact that I can change film types in mid-roll, by changing the contrast, saturation, ISO setting, etc, whenever I feel like it. Each frame I shoot can have its own personality, if I want. The only film camera that I know of which can compete with this, is a view camera or other large sheet-film camera. You certainly won't get this flexibility from 35mm or medium format gear. For the record, I would love to shoot with a large format view camera--if only I could afford to purchase and use one. That's the only sort of film camera I can work up any serious amount of lust for these days. take care, Glen
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
On 11/25/05, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So, Frank, how exactly do you load Roman Holiday into your Minolta.er, Leica? vbg Smart ass. :) Yup. g -frank the smartass -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
RE: Shoot now, focus later
Herb is like Marie Antoinette. Qu'ils mangent de la brioche! -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25 November 2005 06:33 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later Hi! Herb Chong wrote: as Rob said it earlier, $600, not $6K. if that is a hardship, should you be shooting anything? Herb... What a very bigoted comment , Herb. How sad. ann, to whom $600 is a hell of a lot of money Pardon my appearance here, but Ann is *absolutely right*. How to put it politely, Herb? But $600 is very significant piece of my monthly salary although mine is considerably above average locally. Boris
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
On 24/11/05, Scott Loveless, discombobulated, unleashed: We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite film, and why? Give us details, such as which films you use for what subjects. Or do you use certain films with certain lenses or cameras? My favourite film is a roll of FP4 that's sitting (exposed) in the bottom of my desk drawer. It's been there for some years and I have absolutely no idea what's on it. Since I stopped shooting film about 2 years ago (a year into digital for me) it has bee pleading with me to develop it, but I am a cruel master. Occasionally I open the drawer and taunt it with a bottle of Ilfosol S. It must beg. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
fra: Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite film, and why? Give us details, such as which films you use for what subjects. Or do you use certain films with certain lenses or cameras? Etc. I still use film. In the LX mainly because they still haven't managed to repair the *istD (I'll try not to say what I think about Pentax service in the Netherlands), but in medium format bw is so totally different from digital pictures that I still use film. The fiber based Ilford paper combined with the DOF and tonality, as well as the work flow of course, is another world. To the question: Provia 100F on the LX. Neutral colours and good but not too much saturation. Ilford HP5+ on the 6x6 Bronica. A very tolerant film for exposure variations and nice tonal qualities. DagT
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
At 07:31 PM 11/24/2005, Scott Loveless wrote: We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite film, and why? Give us details, such as which films you use for what subjects. Or do you use certain films with certain lenses or cameras? Etc. All the following are 35mm films: Kodak Technical Pan - Developed in Technidol, for normal pictorial use. - Its heightened sensitivity to deep red / near infrared gives it a special look, as does it near-total lack of grain. Of course, it's discontinued. Ilford XP2 - C-41 compatible, BW negative film - extremely wide exposure latitude with fine grain - scans well Kodak Ektar 25 - Wonderful, extremely fine-grained color print film. It was so good, they killed it off years ago! Kodak Daylight-Balanced Slide Duplicating Film - Terrific to shoot nighttime cityscapes with! - This was a special order product, in 100 ft rolls. - This particular emulsion is also discontinued Kodachrome 25 - Great color - Very good archival keeping properties - No longer available. Kodak Portra 160 NC - Nice accurate colors, wide exposure latitude, scans well, very fine grain. My absolute favorite films are discontinued. I'm left with Ilford XP-2 and Kodak Portra 160 NC. I don't really have a favorite slide film anymore, largely because I haven't shot any slide film in years. Of the two films remaining, both can be processed to a negative by a local 1-hour lab. I can then scan them myself for editing in my digital darkroom. That is, if I decide to shoot film instead of digital -- which isn't too likely to happen these days. take care, Glen
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite film, and why? Give us details, such as which films you use for what subjects. Or do you use certain films with certain lenses or cameras? Kodak Elite Color 200 (ex Supra): the finest grain I've ever seen with a colour negative film. Scans great, too. Incredible shadow detail. Pity they don't make it as rollfilm. Agfa Optima 200: my favourite rollfilm for industrial night shots. Needs far less tweaking after scanning than Kodak Portra. Kodak Portra 160VC: great general-purpose medium-format film. Finer grain that the Optima. Yes, I do prefer the VC over the NC. If I find there is too much saturation I can always reduce it after scanning, without an increase in noise. Cranking up the saturation from an NC scan will inevitably lead to higher noise. Konica 750IR: while stocks last. Still keeping a bunch of it in the freezer. Ralf -- Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Jan. 10, 2005 Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On Thu, 24 Nov 2005, Herb Chong wrote: as Rob said it earlier, $600, not $6K. Well I tried to find the notebook he was talking about in the UK and the model is NA. Perhaps if I knew the spec I could judge. The cheapest Compaq I found in my quick search was 450 GBP (800 USD?). http://www.technoworld.com/productdisplay.asp?ProductID=27993 If its monitor is like my Dell D500, it's pointless. if that is a hardship, should you be shooting anything? That's awful Herb. Kostas
Re: Shoot now, focus later
graywolf wrote: Your wish is my command. http://www.graywolfphoto.com/digital/_images/lathe.jpg I am in the processing of researching and documenting it. It will probably wind up as a display, as I am waiting for a newer one to use that I also bought on ebay. This one is smaller than the ones made more recently and required accessories are hard to find. http://www.graywolfphoto.com/digital/_images/lathe-size.jpg graywolf Does it use a drawbar and collets? Seems a _lot_ of accessories are needed. Really neat! keith
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Herb Chong wrote: as Rob said it earlier, $600, not $6K. if that is a hardship, should you be shooting anything? Herb... Now, THAT's an irrational and elitist statement if I ever heard of one! keith - Original Message - From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 3:58 PM Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later It may come as a surprise to you, Herb, but some folks simply do not have the up front money to pay now. It is cheaper for a lot of us to pay bit by bit even if it costs us twice as much in the long run. An I believe Frank is like me in that he no longer believes in credit cards.
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Rob Studdert wrote: I have two main concerns/observations WRT to this type of competition photography, first I believe it tends to artificially unify photographers perspectives of what makes a good image. That's an interesting idea and I think there would be some truth in it if the same people always judged the competitions. The judging panel is never the same in the competitions I've seen or entered. Different judges have different opinions. There are certainly trends in photography as in all of art. I think the leaders in the field are driving those trends not the judges in competitions. John Shaw and Galen Rowell have been enormous influences in nature photography. And secondly I have never found those in competition to be willing at all to share techniques/locations etc, it's all a big secret with the potential to loose competition points if too much information is given up to the enemy. I think that's really bizarre. There just aren't that many secrets to be kept in photography. I've never met any photographer who wouldn't happily discuss technique and location. That's part of the fun IMO. I can see the need to keep a location secret when it comes to protecting a rare species. I don't participate in club competitions though I do still visit occasionally, there are some excellent photographers there but few of the really good ones compete regularly. Some people like to compete and some don't. shrug Tom Reese http://groups.msn.com/stgeorgephotographicsociety Nature photography does indeed make you aware of how intrusive man has become in the natural world. Yes, I have a photographer friend who is very aware of the local botany and he often blows away my notions of untouched wilderness by identifying weeds and plants not endemic to the locale. 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
Re: Shoot now, focus later
William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: From: Paul Stenquist I'm no artist, but I like working in PhotoShop g. Lots of fun. I don't feel like I'm doing anything much different than what I did in the darkroom, except that I have a lot more control. It's a different set of skills, and it is a more democratic one. It's more likely now that if you can imagine it, you can put it on paper. Some of the things that can be done easily and routinely in Photoshop are incredibly time consuming, and require far more patience and skill to acomplish when one is working with a conventional photographic process Ever do an unsharp mask in the darkroom? Me neither, but I've seen prints done that way. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Godfrey DiGiorgi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 24, 2005, at 1:48 PM, Tom Reese wrote: I have a different opinion. Manipulated images are fake and I think it's wrong to deceive the viewer. I don't want to start another argument. It's a difference of opinion and we've already covered this ground in previous threads. Define what you mean by manipulated image. I'd be more interested in what is meant by deceiving the viewer. Some have complained that Ansel Adams' wasn't truthful because of all the darkroom manipulation he did. They were mistaken because of a fundamental misunderstanding: Adams wasn't trying to convey what he *saw* in his photographs, he was trying to express what he *felt* when looking at the scene. His works were less deceptive than straight prints would have been. An unmanipulated image is not inherently better (or worse) than a manipulated one than any more than a non-fiction piece of writing is better than a novel or a poem. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
On 11/24/05, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amen! We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite film, and why? snip Roman Holiday. Because Audrey Hepburn was gorgeous, and there was real chemistry between her and Gregory Peck. The location shooting in Rome was pretty cool, too. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
On Nov 25, 2005, at 12:30 AM, Cotty wrote: My favourite film is a roll of FP4 that's sitting (exposed) in the bottom of my desk drawer. It's been there for some years and I have absolutely no idea what's on it. Since I stopped shooting film about 2 years ago (a year into digital for me) it has bee pleading with me to develop it, but I am a cruel master. Occasionally I open the drawer and taunt it with a bottle of Ilfosol S. It must beg. Its spiritual sibling, a roll of Minox format APX25, resides in my drawer ... ;-) That's my favorite film, BTW. Godfrey
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Well, you'll get there. It'll just take time. I stored my darkroom in boxes in 1980 when I moved from Chicago to New Jersey. I never set it up in Jersey because I didn't have a basement. Moved to Michigan in 1992. Finally got around to putting the darkroom back together sometime around 1998. It's quite nice now with one enlarger for MF and one for 35mm, with Schneider and Nikon lenses respectively. I bought a nice Schneider lens for 4x5 as well -- a 135 I believe. But I'm still missing the correct mounting plate. I do want to make some prints from 4x5 one of these days. I can go to 16 x 20 with my current setup and have done so with MF negs. That's a lot of fun. 4x5 printing should be a real trip. Paul On Nov 25, 2005, at 1:07 AM, William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: Paul Stenquist Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later You're still allowed to have a darkroom. There's no law that says a digital shooter can't do some film work. Do you still have your darkroom equipment? Set it up and get to work. Get all the stuff I have stored in the basement into rented offsite storage, use the space I am creating to set up a woodworking shop so that I can complete a few projects (bathroom cabinetry, etc) upstairs, then get all those tools into storage and completely gut my basement and deal with the mold problem that has developed since we had the roof off the place in 2003 and it got rained on several times. After that, I can start to think of a new darkroom. In the meantime, I have two bathroom gut and rebuild projects coming up, plus I will most likely be changing careers, more than likely going to work as an overhead door installer (excellent money, hard work). I'm hoping that my darkroom will happen within the next year. Last winter, I bought myself a baby blue Beseler 45 Dichroic, a host of Nikkor enlarging lenses, and several boxes of miscellaneous brick brac that I would like to use. William Robb
Re: Shoot now, focus later
At 01:35 AM 11/25/2005, Ann Sanfedele wrote: FWIW, your picture wouldn't qualify as a nature print in our club and interclub competitions. And even with digital, a nature stock agency won't take manipulated stuff... at least mine won't. If all that was done, was to remove a single vapor trail from an otherwise perfect sky, how on earth will the stock agency, or anyone else for that matter, ever know about the retouching? Even if they did know, I don't see why they would care at all. (This is assuming a flawless retouching job was done.) take care, Glen
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
You're a cruel man... Cotty wrote: On 24/11/05, Scott Loveless, discombobulated, unleashed: We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite film, and why? Give us details, such as which films you use for what subjects. Or do you use certain films with certain lenses or cameras? My favourite film is a roll of FP4 that's sitting (exposed) in the bottom of my desk drawer. It's been there for some years and I have absolutely no idea what's on it. Since I stopped shooting film about 2 years ago (a year into digital for me) it has bee pleading with me to develop it, but I am a cruel master. Occasionally I open the drawer and taunt it with a bottle of Ilfosol S. It must beg. Cheers, Cotty ___/\__ || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche ||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com _ -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
- Original Message - From: Cotty Subject: Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later) My favourite film is a roll of FP4 that's sitting (exposed) in the bottom of my desk drawer. It's been there for some years and I have absolutely no idea what's on it. Since I stopped shooting film about 2 years ago (a year into digital for me) it has bee pleading with me to develop it, but I am a cruel master. Occasionally I open the drawer and taunt it with a bottle of Ilfosol S. It must beg. At some point, it will be age damaged enough to have the last laugh. William Robb
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/24/05, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amen! We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite film, and why? snip Roman Holiday. Because Audrey Hepburn was gorgeous, and there was real chemistry between her and Gregory Peck. The location shooting in Rome was pretty cool, too. sigh Someone slap Frank for me, OK? (I was going to give soap bubbles as my answer...) -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Shoot now, focus later
- Original Message - From: Mark Roberts Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later Ever do an unsharp mask in the darkroom? Me neither, but I've seen prints done that way. Actually, I have. Sadly, Kodak deleted Pan Masking Film, and I don't know if there is something suitable out there as a replacement. William Robb
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On Nov 25, 2005, at 9:54 AM, William Robb wrote: Ever do an unsharp mask in the darkroom? Me neither, but I've seen prints done that way. Actually, I have. Sadly, Kodak deleted Pan Masking Film, and I don't know if there is something suitable out there as a replacement. I still have this weird gadget I picked up years ago. It is a piece of glass about 2 X 2 inches. It is made of the same stuff as those eyeglasses that darken when you go out in the sun. You tape your original to it, and zap it a few times with an electronic flash, and it makes a mask. It actually works really well. Of course you have to figure out a way to make the sandwich fit in your negative carrier. I used to use it when printing Cibachrome from contrasty slides. I think it is called Minute Mask or something like that. It was much easier to use than Pan Masking Film. Bob
Re: Shoot now, focus later
- Original Message - From: Bob Shell Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later I think it is called Minute Mask or something like that. It was much easier to use than Pan Masking Film. I always wondered how well those things worked William Robb
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On Nov 25, 2005, at 10:24 AM, William Robb wrote: I think it is called Minute Mask or something like that. It was much easier to use than Pan Masking Film. I always wondered how well those things worked Wanna buy mine and find out??? ;-) Bob
Re: Shoot now, focus later
- Original Message - From: Bob Shell Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later Wanna buy mine and find out??? ;-) Check back with me after I have a darkroom again William Robb
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
On 11/24/05, Tom Reese [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I tend to ignore digital threads. There doesn't seem to be much else on this list lately. Amen! We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite film, and why? Hmmm... I think my favourite colour film right now is the new Kodak Elite Colour 400UC that I started using a little while back, but I've only shot about three rolls of it... I rather like it's colour rendering, and it seems to have quite fine grain for ISO400 - which is what I mostly use because it seems to be too dark for slower films in most of the situations I'm taking pictures. I'm not sure if this is really a new film, by-the-way; it seems to be a replacement for Royal Supra or something, and I wouldn't know if anything except the name was actually updated. For BW, I'd probably go for the FP4 or HP5... No wait, make that an APX100 with expiry date in 2001. Someone gave 8 or 9 of these to me (i.e. a pack of 10 where only 1 or 2 was used) a while back. I've shot and developed 5 rolls so far, and I'm not able to find any obvious differences from films that are not out of date... - T
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
On 11/24/05, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amen! We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite film, and why? Give us details, such as which films you use for what subjects. Or do you use certain films with certain lenses or cameras? Etc. Okay, seriously: Tri-X. I like the look, especially in my Leica. There's just something about that film with my (only Leica lens) 40mm Summicron C: it's nicely contrasty, a bit of grain (but not too much), but still sharp (believe it or not). It's just got a look. Of course, I like it with my other lenses as well. I also like that it's steeped in tradition, that it has a history. I don't know why that should matter, but it does. It's so freaking flexible. I can push it to 1600 if I have to, and get acceptable results (it's not my first choice if I need 1600 film, but sometimes in a pinch, it's all I have). I haven't tried it, but I've heard it's quite nice exposed at 320 (apparently HCB did that quite often) or 200, as well. One of the great (if not the greatest) films of all time, IMHO. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Glen wrote: At 01:35 AM 11/25/2005, Ann Sanfedele wrote: FWIW, your picture wouldn't qualify as a nature print in our club and interclub competitions. And even with digital, a nature stock agency won't take manipulated stuff... at least mine won't. If all that was done, was to remove a single vapor trail from an otherwise perfect sky, how on earth will the stock agency, or anyone else for that matter, ever know about the retouching? Even if they did know, I don't see why they would care at all. (This is assuming a flawless retouching job was done.) take care, Glen Well I'm not thinking so much about a jet trail in the sky when I'm talking about stuff for a nature stock agency that sells a lot of stuff to Scientific publications. I will say that I think (maybe I'm wrong) that anyone who is really photoshop savvy (not me) can probably instantly tell if something has been cleaned up extensively. It isn't that working on images in photoshop is inherently evil, just that it is more interesting and impressive if you know what you are looking at hasn't been worked over in either the darkroom or photoshop. Otoh, I do like to play in photoshop and do totally abstract stuff and such, making entirely different things out of what started as a photo or a scanned piece of fabric or the like. I'm not very good at it, but I think it is fun, much as I thought it was fun to make paper negs in the darkroom and solarize stuff even played with double exposures and such - but it is all like a tour de force of technique and not much to do with substance. I want to capture what I saw and point to it with my prints or jpgs, so there is no joy in it for me if I were to be out in the field shooting and thinking well, I wish that guy in the red jacket wasn't there but, oh hell, I can take him out in photoshop. What I do like about the computer is the priints i get from just my old 820 Epson in color and the way the color stuff of mine I like the best looks on the screen. I don't think the medium is the message, and someone mentioned that what mattered was the skill or talent or whathaveyou of the photographer, not whether or not that person is shooting digital, using a toss away camera, shooting with a large format or a polaroid sx-70. so there :) ann
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
On Fri, 25 Nov 2005, frank theriault wrote: but sometimes in a pinch, it's all I have). I haven't tried it, but I've heard it's quite nice exposed at 320 (apparently HCB did that quite often) or 200, as well. (in both cases) With or without pulling? 320 but processed as 400 is just 1/3 overexposure, to lighten the mood. I (used to) do it with colour film. I also like Tri-X; I push it to 800 for my indoor, available (?) light piccies of the kids. For colour, as I have said many times, I struggle to discern between Superia 400 and Centuria Super 400; I occasionally use Reala in the summer, but in general there is just not enough light in Scotland. I have discounted Supra in the past (found it too orange), but I liked the one UC I shot last month; need to assess if it's worth the extra money. The one roll of NPH (or was it NPS) I shot I found too green. As I usually print small and for me and the family, colour is my only interest; not that I know enough to discern contrast or such-like. Kostas
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
I usually expose my Tri-X at 200-250 or so. Gives me nice dense negatives with plenty of shadow detail, and I have yet to have it block up on highlights. I develop it in D76 1:1, and I get nice smooth midtones. It's probably my favorite people film, though, depending on the situation, I'll usually use something slower (PlusX, TMax 100) for place or thing photography. Too bad Kodak stopped making the polymax RC paper. I liked that, especially with TriX. Usually had the contrast nailed without any adjustments, unless I was pushing the film. -Mat On 11/25/05, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Okay, seriously: Tri-X. ... It's so freaking flexible. I can push it to 1600 if I have to, and get acceptable results (it's not my first choice if I need 1600 film, but sometimes in a pinch, it's all I have). I haven't tried it, but I've heard it's quite nice exposed at 320 (apparently HCB did that quite often) or 200, as well.
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
Ansco Super Hypan. Unfortunately it hasn't been available for quite awhile, so maybe that should be What was my favorite film. These days it is what ever I can get cheapest in the 100 speed range. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof ---
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
Another ancient, discontinued favorite. Agfachrome 64. Bill
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
In a message dated 11/24/2005 5:32:24 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 1. Velvia 50. Love those saturated colours! 3. Provia 400F. Low reciprocity failure and a lack of colour shift during long exposures makes it good for astronomy. 4. Provia 100F. For those times when Velvia is just too slow, though I will be switching to Velvia 100 when my current stock needs replenishing. Ditto, 1, 3, 4. I don't shoot film at all anymore, but I liked Velvia for the colors. When shooting less green landscapes I used Provia 100 and when shooting animals I used Provia 400. Finally I ended up using just Provia (either speed) because, in the end, it scanned better. Marnie aka Doe
Re: Shoot now, focus later
In a message dated 11/24/2005 4:51:49 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I've recently read Ansel Adams in Color. The reason Ansel didn't like color photography was the lack of control he had over it. He would have LOVED Photoshop. -Adam === Yes, I read that book also. And that was exactly my impression, too. He would have LOVED Photoshop. Marnie aka Doe ;-)
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite film, and why? I've got Konica VX-200 colour print film in my MZ-7. I bought it because it was cheap... :-) AU$40 for 10 rolls on eBay. I also like Konica's colours. I've got some Kodak Black and White 400 ISO C41 BW film in my MZ-M. I like the end result I get from this film, and it 'cos it's easy to get developed - I can put it in with my colour print film. I get both developed, and the negatives scanned to CD. No prints any more. Ciao, Peter in Sydney
RE: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
I've been speed hungry lately, shooting 400 speed exclusively both BW and Color Neg. Im using TMAX400 rated at 250 (I use Tmax developer) and Kodak high definition 400 rated at 250 (c41). They are both excellent films IMHO. jco
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On 24 Nov 2005 at 20:30, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: BTW: The magazine Digital Photo Pro's measurement of the R2400 showed it achieved a higher black density in monochrome printing than any of the wet lab papers available today that they tested against, which at least demonstrates that the capability for high quality BW printing is there. The current issue on the newsstands also has an interesting take on BW rendering technique. I think it's too complicated, personally, but will be experimenting with it when I return home ... want to see how it measures up against my home-grown BW rendering technique. That's interesting, I'll keep a look out, apparently the gamut is wider than virtually any other print medium too. 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
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On 25 Nov 2005 at 18:00, David Mann wrote: In fact, for best results I know I'd be better off giving someone else my slides. Having absolute control is one thing, but actually being able to use it is another. Unfortunately I can't afford to pay someone else to scan/process/print my work so it ends up getting the second-rate treatment it probably deserves ;) Try it, I guarantee you'll likely be disappointed. 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
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On 25 Nov 2005 at 10:57, Kostas Kavoussanakis wrote: Well I tried to find the notebook he was talking about in the UK and the model is NA. Perhaps if I knew the spec I could judge. The cheapest Compaq I found in my quick search was 450 GBP (800 USD?). http://www.technoworld.com/productdisplay.asp?ProductID=27993 It's pretty much the same model, http://www.nintek.com.au/x/scripts/prodView.asp?idproduct=1408 + AU$100 refund If its monitor is like my Dell D500, it's pointless. Well this one's monitor has been hardware calibrated and is currently in transit around Australia and being successfully used to manage the 11000 (so far) RAW images that my friend has shot (including pano stitching). Work that out in film/processing value. 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
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On 25 Nov 2005 at 12:17, Tom Reese wrote: That's an interesting idea and I think there would be some truth in it if the same people always judged the competitions. The judging panel is never the same in the competitions I've seen or entered. Different judges have different opinions. Competition nights are always judged externally in our clubs too, and yes images that didn't rate a mention one month may receive a prize the next however they still all tend to judge using similar criterion which leads to a similar style being presented for competition. There are certainly trends in photography as in all of art. I think the leaders in the field are driving those trends not the judges in competitions. John Shaw and Galen Rowell have been enormous influences in nature photography. Not here. I think that's really bizarre. There just aren't that many secrets to be kept in photography. I've never met any photographer who wouldn't happily discuss technique and location. That's part of the fun IMO. I can see the need to keep a location secret when it comes to protecting a rare species. Well I've experienced such behaviour first hand on many occasions in club environments, it's nothing like the PDML where people go out of their ways to assist others. Some people like to compete and some don't. shrug And some simply see the lack of value in the way that the competitions are structured and despise what they lead to. Cheers, 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
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
So, Frank, how exactly do you load Roman Holiday into your Minolta.er, Leica? vbg Smart ass. :) On 11/25/05, frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 11/24/05, Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Amen! We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite film, and why? snip Roman Holiday. Because Audrey Hepburn was gorgeous, and there was real chemistry between her and Gregory Peck. The location shooting in Rome was pretty cool, too. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- Scott Loveless http://www.twosixteen.com -- You have to hold the button down -Arnold Newman
Re: New Poll -- Favorite film (was -- Shoot now, focus later)
Tom Reese wrote: Scott Loveless asked: We're past due for a new poll, aren't' we? So what's your favorite film, and why? Give us details, such as which films you use for what subjects. Or do you use certain films with certain lenses or cameras? Etc. I almost exclusively shoot Elite Chrome Extra Color (EBX-100). I do infrequently use regular Elite Chrome. I know I'm giving up better greens by not using Velvia but I use American made products whenever possible. I just went to the Kodak website to see if they still list EBX (I had heard that they were going to drop it) and they've changed the names of all the Elite Chromes to Kodak Professional Elite Chrome. I don't know if they've improved the films or if it's just a marketing gimmick. The EBX is still listed as being current. Tom Reese I always shot Tri-x and devloped in Microdol x 1:3. Color wise, it was pkr 64 - until that elite chrome stuff came out I discovered it in 1994. Still preferred PKR 64 but after Fairlawn went away I wasn't happy with any of the processing I got. The last time I shot a roll of Kodachrome I couldn't get it developed in Manhattan. Yeah, I'm sure, I could have taken it SoMEWHERE but my usual haaunts wouldn't do it. Then I got the digital cam :) ann, who is trying to remember who it was who predicted my swing to digital within a year um, well over a year ago. Someday I'll learn never to say never.
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On 11/23/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: alternate scenario - to get Robert's services, Frank has to pay twice as much, plus pay more for BW film. Twice as much? Right now I have 5 film bodies that I use on a regular basis. They've long since been paid for. How many digital bodies would I need to replace them? How much would that cost? I'd like to have not just a dslr (I'd prefer two), but a digital rangefinder (that Epson ain't cheap). I wouldn't even bother thinking of replacing my old Yashicamat, so I'm looking at minimum three bodies. My computer at home is a dinosaur. It would cost thousands to upgrade it to a point where it would be an efficient tool for processing/post processing/storage device. I don't have a photo-quality printer, so tack on hundreds more. I'm figuring that it's gonna cost me at least $6,000 to put me in a position where my digital capabilities are equivalent to what I now have in film - and that's likely an low estimate. Even if it's argued that I could get away with one body, the cost of that plus computer upgrades would be minimun $3,000 Add to that the fact that going digital will take many hours per week of my time doing PS crap that I really don't like doing (and there's got to be a cost consideration to that), and I think I'm saving big-time by sticking with film. I really don't see how you can say that film is costing me twice as much as going digital. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On 11/23/05, Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip Frank, what if G-d forbid Robert quits. Further, say his replacement is not as good as Robert was. In fact so much not as good as to make it impossible for you to deal with this lab. snip Well, Robert won't be around forever, that's for sure. Luckily, here in Toronto there are at least two other labs that specialize in black and white wet process developing and printing for pros. One of them is called Toronto Black and White, and they've been around for years. I hear they do a very good (professional quality) job. It's not a sole proprietorship as my guy Robert is (his business is called BW Labs), so it's not like someone from Toronto Black and White will retire and shut the place down. From what I hear, they (Toronto Black and White) is still quite busy. Lots of the smaller labs, or those who didn't specialize in bw, have shut down or stopped doing black and white, so I guess the few remaining labs have picked up those customers. If I run out of labs, I can get into digital fast enough, I guess. It's not like I have to make the move now, or get caught flat-footed without product to buy in the future. On the contrary, by waiting, I'm likely going to have better/cheaper options when I am forced to go digital (note, I said when, not if...). cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Re: Shoot now, focus later
From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 2005/11/24 Thu PM 02:26:15 GMT To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later On 11/23/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: alternate scenario - to get Robert's services, Frank has to pay twice as much, plus pay more for BW film. Twice as much? Right now I have 5 film bodies that I use on a regular basis. They've long since been paid for. How many digital bodies would I need to replace them? How much would that cost? I'd like to have not just a dslr (I'd prefer two), but a digital rangefinder (that Epson ain't cheap). I wouldn't even bother thinking of replacing my old Yashicamat, so I'm looking at minimum three bodies. My computer at home is a dinosaur. It would cost thousands to upgrade it to a point where it would be an efficient tool for processing/post processing/storage device. I don't have a photo-quality printer, so tack on hundreds more. I'm figuring that it's gonna cost me at least $6,000 to put me in a position where my digital capabilities are equivalent to what I now have in film - and that's likely an low estimate. Even if it's argued that I could get away with one body, the cost of that plus computer upgrades would be minimun $3,000 Add to that the fact that going digital will take many hours per week of my time doing PS crap that I really don't like doing (and there's got to be a cost consideration to that), and I think I'm saving big-time by sticking with film. I really don't see how you can say that film is costing me twice as much as going digital. But Frank, everyone _knows_ that digital is free. You just need to keep changing the apparatus to keep up, selling the old stuff to get your money back. At least, I think that's how it works. - Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Op Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:26:15 +0100 schreef frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 11/23/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: alternate scenario - to get Robert's services, Frank has to pay twice as much, plus pay more for BW film. snip and I think I'm saving big-time by sticking with film. I think you're right: I did the math a while ago, and the time to recover the expenses for _one_ digital body was about 3 years, based on the amount of pictures I currently take. Since I'm quite sure a DSLR would need upgrading after such a period, just like a PC, I don't see any cost savings... I really don't see how you can say that film is costing me twice as much as going digital. He didn't say that, I think. I read the comment as a prediction that it will be twice as expensive in the future as it is now. That might very well be correct: I'm not in a city like Toronto, and it's hard to get color done right locally, let alone black and white. Black and white is being sent to the big Kodak plant in Belgium for years. And their output quality is way below even my meagre standards, if they don't cut up the negatives :( -- Regards, Lucas
Re: Re: Shoot now, focus later
On 24 Nov 2005 at 15:49, mike wilson wrote: From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] I really don't see how you can say that film is costing me twice as much as going digital. But Frank, everyone _knows_ that digital is free. You just need to keep changing the apparatus to keep up, selling the old stuff to get your money back. At least, I think that's how it works. Lets face it, it's not as bad as it's being made out to be either. In our neck-o-the-woods a new *ist DL can be purchased for AU$867.00 and a new Compaq Presario M2045AP notebook can be had for AU$1082. So lets say just under AU$2000 (CAD$1730 or USD$1480) all up for a very capable camera/post processing kit (assuming the use of freeware which is valid) and a 1GB memory card. AU$2000 doesn't really buy a great deal of good film and processing around here, I don't know what it's like for everyone else but I'm revelling in the fact that I no am longer having to purchase film. Printing at home? Well it's up to the individual if they wish to set up to print themselves. Me, I've elected not to print at home I send it out, it's much cheaper than printing from film and I always get back what I expect, IOW correct colour balance and cropping and no dust or scratches etc. That said I will say that I have a friend (I've mentioned before) that is just about computer illiterate but who is winning prizes in the local areas inter- camera club competitions using a DSLR and plugging her CF card straight into a little AU$300 Epson inkjet printer, not my cup-o-tea but it shows that it's plausible. I find it interesting that so few people seem to pine for the film process after they become aware of and appreciate the advantages of a digital work- flow. 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
Re: Re: Shoot now, focus later
On 11/24/05, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I find it interesting that so few people seem to pine for the film process after they become aware of and appreciate the advantages of a digital work- flow. Actually, they're pining for the fjords... -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On 11/23/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right now I have 5 film bodies that I use on a regular basis. They've long since been paid for. The only justifications I've ever been able to come up with for having multiple bodies are a) backup in the field against the event of failure and b) to have multiple emulsions available simultaneously (BW, Color neg and slide, different speeds). Backup is still important, there is no need on the second count. So you need two bodies, maybe three if you're the kind of person who breaks things a lot. I bought a second DS body for backup. That's what it gets used for. I really only 'need' one. Godfrey
Re: Re: Shoot now, focus later
But Frank, everyone _knows_ that digital is free. You just need to keep changing the apparatus to keep up, selling the old stuff to get your money back. At least, I think that's how it works. Lets face it, it's not as bad as it's being made out to be either. In our neck-o-the-woods a new *ist DL can be purchased for AU$867.00 and a new Compaq Presario M2045AP notebook can be had for AU$1082. So lets say just under AU$2000 (CAD$1730 or USD$1480) all up for a very capable camera/post processing kit (assuming the use of freeware which is valid) and a 1GB memory card. AU$2000 doesn't really buy a great deal of good film and processing around here, I don't know what it's like for everyone else but I'm revelling in the fact that I no am longer having to purchase film. Rob, You're not factoring in the time that's spent learning and using (and swearing at) the software. Some of you enjoy the process and it's recreation for you. I can't stand it and I'd rather pay the $10 per roll for 36 slides, avoid the aggravation and do other much more enjoyable things with my time. The once a month ordeal of scanning a slide and resizing it for the PUG is more than I can stand. I'm in a bad mood for three days afterwards. Some like the digital process and some don't. Tom Reese
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Fred wrote: quoting Frank... Well, in all seriousness, I'm not much for post-processing. For me, the fun is getting the shot in the camera, with nothing more than printing it full frame. Of course, sometimes a bit of burning and dodging and even cropping may be necessary. ann sez My attitude about shooting whether film or digital somebody said But fiddling in PS or whatever isn't what I enjoy. So, I can't see using post focusing. Still, it's nice to know that such a tool may soon be out there, just in case... This pretty much sums up my own thoughts. Photography is fun with a camera. Lots of post-processing is not fun (for me). It's nice to know that I can salvage some poor photos in a pinch, but a minimum of processing is my ideal. Fred ann again What I want is something that fixes camera shake without changing DOF :) Fred, you probably didn't mean quite what you said about poor photos - unless it is necessary for imparting information to a viewer, no amount of fiddling using Frank's word, is going to turn a poor photo into a good one. OF course if you captured something in part of a frame that is wonderful and something weird happen way over to one side, or at the bottom,well, that's what cropping is for, right? I've got much to learn about post processing that is necessary to do, and I can't easily wrap my mind around some of the terms used, but if I have to do more than slightly brighten or lighten, slightly adjust color or add a border and my (c) or crop for how the photo will be presented on paper or the web, I tend not to bother with the image. Exceptions happen, of course - but it seems to me there are too many manicured images out there - much too much fiddling that take away the life of the photo. well, I'm sure I'll regret leaping into the fray - but with two thanksgiving dinner invites I'm home nursing a cold and sipping chicken soup so I might as well chat a bit. ann
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On Nov 24, 2005, at 8:13 AM, Tom Reese wrote: ... Some of you enjoy the process and it's recreation for you. ... Some of us find it a liberating, flexible, high quality way of making photographs, which is our life's work AND enjoyment. Godfrey
Re: Shoot now, focus later
twice as much per roll adds up. it may not hit you soon, but it will. pay now or pay later. Herb - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 9:26 AM Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later Add to that the fact that going digital will take many hours per week of my time doing PS crap that I really don't like doing (and there's got to be a cost consideration to that), and I think I'm saving big-time by sticking with film.
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Fred, you probably didn't mean quite what you said about poor photos - unless it is necessary for imparting information to a viewer, no amount of fiddling using Frank's word, is going to turn a poor photo into a good one. OF course if you captured something in part of a frame that is wonderful and something weird happen way over to one side, or at the bottom,well, that's what cropping is for, right? Hi, Ann. When I said poor photo I was specifically referring to one that might be a bit over- or underexposed (and I didn't make that very clear, did I? - g). I agree with your main point - a poor photo (in most ways that a photo can be considered to be poor) will not be helped to being a good one, but will only end up as a manipulated poor photo - g. Even before having a digital camera body, I'd done some print scans, and I learned early on that a little tweaking with the gamma setting helped a number of my photos, bringing otherwise hidden details out of the near-mud in some shadows. Of course, reprinting the photos from the negs would also help here, but I've never been really happy with any of the local labs here. Fred
Re: Shoot now, focus later
I bought a second DS body for backup. That's what it gets used for. I really only 'need' one. I'd like a 2nd DS to use along with the 1st - it cuts down the number of times that I have to change lenses (which, depending on the situation, may or may not be of significant help). And, if one did ever poop out on me (perhaps even due to batteries or a full card), I'd have the other one ready to go. (Yes, I know that batteries and memory cards can be changed, but sometimes it'd be quicker to switch bodies and lenses than to swap batteries or cards.) And, of course, this would also be true if the failure was more serious than a full card or empty batteries. Fred
Re: Shoot now, focus later
On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 09:26:15AM -0500, frank theriault wrote: My computer at home is a dinosaur. It would cost thousands to upgrade it to a point where it would be an efficient tool for processing/post processing/storage device. Hardly. Even allowing for the fact that you're thinking in Canadian $$, you can get a perfectly adequate setup while staying in the hundreds.
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Actually the fnords, ah Fnordia: http://www.rawilson.com/ frank theriault wrote: On 11/24/05, Rob Studdert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: snip I find it interesting that so few people seem to pine for the film process after they become aware of and appreciate the advantages of a digital work- flow. Actually, they're pining for the fjords... -frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Yup. When I went on holidays in 2004, I regularly used 2 bodies. Long lens on one, short lens on the other. Made it a whole lot easier to capture the shot (seems with the one DS body, I always have the wrong lens). dk On 11/24/05, Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I bought a second DS body for backup. That's what it gets used for. I really only 'need' one. I'd like a 2nd DS to use along with the 1st - it cuts down the number of times that I have to change lenses (which, depending on the situation, may or may not be of significant help). And, if one did ever poop out on me (perhaps even due to batteries or a full card), I'd have the other one ready to go. (Yes, I know that batteries and memory cards can be changed, but sometimes it'd be quicker to switch bodies and lenses than to swap batteries or cards.) And, of course, this would also be true if the failure was more serious than a full card or empty batteries. Fred
Re: Shoot now, focus later
I bought a second body (D), because I sometimes have to do an out of town shoot. You can't ask a client for travel expenses, then tell him your camera broke. But I've found that having two bodies can be great when shooting events or athletic contests where two distinctly different focal lengths are desirable. I shot a car show for a mag last summer and used the DA 16-45 on one camera and the DA 50-200 on the other. It was perfect. I was covered from very wide to very long, and both lenses deliver excellent results. Paul On Nov 24, 2005, at 2:33 PM, Dave Kennedy wrote: Yup. When I went on holidays in 2004, I regularly used 2 bodies. Long lens on one, short lens on the other. Made it a whole lot easier to capture the shot (seems with the one DS body, I always have the wrong lens). dk On 11/24/05, Fred [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I bought a second DS body for backup. That's what it gets used for. I really only 'need' one. I'd like a 2nd DS to use along with the 1st - it cuts down the number of times that I have to change lenses (which, depending on the situation, may or may not be of significant help). And, if one did ever poop out on me (perhaps even due to batteries or a full card), I'd have the other one ready to go. (Yes, I know that batteries and memory cards can be changed, but sometimes it'd be quicker to switch bodies and lenses than to swap batteries or cards.) And, of course, this would also be true if the failure was more serious than a full card or empty batteries. Fred
Re: Shoot now, focus later
You could do what I did, Frank. Get a used highend digital PS for when it is most expedient to use. I paid $200 for the Oly C-5050Z and $29 for a 512mb CF card (68 raw, 400+ jpg). I admit it has not supplanted the film cameras, but it has pretty much done so for the scanner. BTW, I never did get my lenscap in the mail. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- frank theriault wrote: On 11/23/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: alternate scenario - to get Robert's services, Frank has to pay twice as much, plus pay more for BW film. Twice as much? Right now I have 5 film bodies that I use on a regular basis. They've long since been paid for. How many digital bodies would I need to replace them? How much would that cost? I'd like to have not just a dslr (I'd prefer two), but a digital rangefinder (that Epson ain't cheap). I wouldn't even bother thinking of replacing my old Yashicamat, so I'm looking at minimum three bodies. My computer at home is a dinosaur. It would cost thousands to upgrade it to a point where it would be an efficient tool for processing/post processing/storage device. I don't have a photo-quality printer, so tack on hundreds more. I'm figuring that it's gonna cost me at least $6,000 to put me in a position where my digital capabilities are equivalent to what I now have in film - and that's likely an low estimate. Even if it's argued that I could get away with one body, the cost of that plus computer upgrades would be minimun $3,000 Add to that the fact that going digital will take many hours per week of my time doing PS crap that I really don't like doing (and there's got to be a cost consideration to that), and I think I'm saving big-time by sticking with film. I really don't see how you can say that film is costing me twice as much as going digital. cheers, frank -- Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Shoot now, focus later
I feel very sympathetic to Godfrey on this issue. People who use Photoshop (or other programs) as yet another creative tool, like a different camera, or a different lens, often feel somewhat insulted by such phrases. The insult isn't quite a blunt and literal statement, but just a subtle implication that using Photoshop is something to be avoided, especially by serious photographers. This is total nonsense. Unless it's something like a police forensics image, it's only the final image that matters. I don't care very much what technique was used to arrive at that final image when I am judging the relative merits of the image. take care, Glen At 10:18 AM 11/23/2005, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Fiddling in Photoshop is such a disparagement. Fun with a camera is a hobbyist point of view. I do my *work* in Photoshop. That work is the effort required to render what my 'fun with a camera' has produced into expressive forms of representation. It's what I used to do with chemistry and an enlarger. My 'fun with a camera' is just the other part of my photographic work. I don't 'fiddle in Photoshop' ... I render my photographs into reality.
Re: Shoot now, focus later
I bought a second body (D), because I sometimes have to do an out of town shoot. You can't ask a client for travel expenses, then tell him your camera broke. But I've found that having two bodies can be great when shooting events or athletic contests where two distinctly different focal lengths are desirable. I shot a car show for a mag last summer and used the DA 16-45 on one camera and the DA 50-200 on the other. It was perfect. I was covered from very wide to very long, and both lenses deliver excellent results. Paul As luck would have it, i don't need to buy a second D body. I 'll just borrow Erins when she is not looking.LOL I usually have the DA 16-45 on the D,and now the DA 50-200 close by, and the 28-105 on the PZ-1 for BW shots. I have an xtend- a- cab truck, so i just lay out the extra goodies in the back for easy access to lens changes. If i need to stop in a hurry, i throw the 6x7 out and it stops me pretty quick.vbg Dave
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Rob Studdert wrote: On 24 Nov 2005 at 15:49, mike wilson wrote: From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] I really don't see how you can say that film is costing me twice as much as going digital. But Frank, everyone _knows_ that digital is free. You just need to keep changing the apparatus to keep up, selling the old stuff to get your money back. At least, I think that's how it works. Lets face it, it's not as bad as it's being made out to be either. In our neck-o-the-woods a new *ist DL can be purchased for AU$867.00 and a new Compaq Presario M2045AP notebook can be had for AU$1082. So lets say just under AU$2000 (CAD$1730 or USD$1480) all up for a very capable camera/post processing kit (assuming the use of freeware which is valid) and a 1GB memory card. AU$2000 doesn't really buy a great deal of good film and processing around here, I don't know what it's like for everyone else but I'm revelling in the fact that I no am longer having to purchase film. Printing at home? Well it's up to the individual if they wish to set up to print themselves. Me, I've elected not to print at home I send it out, it's much cheaper than printing from film and I always get back what I expect, IOW correct colour balance and cropping and no dust or scratches etc. That said I will say that I have a friend (I've mentioned before) that is just about computer illiterate but who is winning prizes in the local areas inter- camera club competitions using a DSLR and plugging her CF card straight into a little AU$300 Epson inkjet printer, not my cup-o-tea but it shows that it's plausible. I find it interesting that so few people seem to pine for the film process after they become aware of and appreciate the advantages of a digital work- flow. They are too busy sitting in front of a computer to notice. 8-)) 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
Re: Shoot now, focus later
Yes, and many folks go back to film after the new wears off. I think it depends a lot upon whether you are more interested in photography, or images. To some messing around in the darkroom is fun, to others it is obnoxious, just as messing around with computers is to others. I am comfortable with both. If the final image is all that is important, and it is going to be used in digital form (Web, pre-press, etc) digital is the way to go because you save a bunch of intermediate steps. If you want an exhibition print film is the way to go because you save a bunch of intermediate steps. One is not quicker than the other IF you are set up to do the process immediately. That said my darkroom is knocked down and has to be set up in the bathroom for each session, which means I have to seriously want to make prints before doing so. But notice that would not be so if all I had to do was pour chemicals into the trays and print (permanent darkroom). The same applies to all my other hobbies except the computer which I use all the time (I have to set up before I can do them). Of course folks will have to read this with the knowledge that I really do prefer to us my 4x5 Graphic with flashbulbs at $5 a shot for snapshots. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Rob Studdert wrote: On 24 Nov 2005 at 15:49, mike wilson wrote: From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] I really don't see how you can say that film is costing me twice as much as going digital. But Frank, everyone _knows_ that digital is free. You just need to keep changing the apparatus to keep up, selling the old stuff to get your money back. At least, I think that's how it works. Lets face it, it's not as bad as it's being made out to be either. In our neck-o-the-woods a new *ist DL can be purchased for AU$867.00 and a new Compaq Presario M2045AP notebook can be had for AU$1082. So lets say just under AU$2000 (CAD$1730 or USD$1480) all up for a very capable camera/post processing kit (assuming the use of freeware which is valid) and a 1GB memory card. AU$2000 doesn't really buy a great deal of good film and processing around here, I don't know what it's like for everyone else but I'm revelling in the fact that I no am longer having to purchase film. Printing at home? Well it's up to the individual if they wish to set up to print themselves. Me, I've elected not to print at home I send it out, it's much cheaper than printing from film and I always get back what I expect, IOW correct colour balance and cropping and no dust or scratches etc. That said I will say that I have a friend (I've mentioned before) that is just about computer illiterate but who is winning prizes in the local areas inter- camera club competitions using a DSLR and plugging her CF card straight into a little AU$300 Epson inkjet printer, not my cup-o-tea but it shows that it's plausible. I find it interesting that so few people seem to pine for the film process after they become aware of and appreciate the advantages of a digital work- flow. 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
Re: Shoot now, focus later
none of the pros around here will ever go back to wet prints. inconsistent and lesser quality aren't useful to them. nowadays, even BW is only better from a wet print some of the time. Herb... - Original Message - From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 3:15 PM Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later If the final image is all that is important, and it is going to be used in digital form (Web, pre-press, etc) digital is the way to go because you save a bunch of intermediate steps. If you want an exhibition print film is the way to go because you save a bunch of intermediate steps.
RE: Shoot now, focus later
I use 2 or 3 bodies because I don't like changing lenses while I'm shooting. It's quite common (or used to be) for photographers to have a body with each of a wide, normal and long lens. Of course, they also act as backups for each other. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Godfrey DiGiorgi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 24 November 2005 16:11 To: PDML Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later On 11/23/05, Herb Chong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Right now I have 5 film bodies that I use on a regular basis. They've long since been paid for. The only justifications I've ever been able to come up with for having multiple bodies are a) backup in the field against the event of failure and b) to have multiple emulsions available simultaneously (BW, Color neg and slide, different speeds). Backup is still important, there is no need on the second count. So you need two bodies, maybe three if you're the kind of person who breaks things a lot. I bought a second DS body for backup. That's what it gets used for. I really only 'need' one. Godfrey
Re: Shoot now, focus later
And the digi-heads put down wet process users. Why is it alright for them to do that but not all right the other way around. Turn about is fair play. I use both processes, neither is better or cheaper or easier than the other. However, I am sure that to someone who does not have both skills the one they do have looks easier to them. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Glen wrote: I feel very sympathetic to Godfrey on this issue. People who use Photoshop (or other programs) as yet another creative tool, like a different camera, or a different lens, often feel somewhat insulted by such phrases. The insult isn't quite a blunt and literal statement, but just a subtle implication that using Photoshop is something to be avoided, especially by serious photographers. This is total nonsense. Unless it's something like a police forensics image, it's only the final image that matters. I don't care very much what technique was used to arrive at that final image when I am judging the relative merits of the image. take care, Glen At 10:18 AM 11/23/2005, Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: Fiddling in Photoshop is such a disparagement. Fun with a camera is a hobbyist point of view. I do my *work* in Photoshop. That work is the effort required to render what my 'fun with a camera' has produced into expressive forms of representation. It's what I used to do with chemistry and an enlarger. My 'fun with a camera' is just the other part of my photographic work. I don't 'fiddle in Photoshop' ... I render my photographs into reality.
Re: Shoot now, focus later
And the digi-heads put down wet process users. Why is it alright for them to do that but not all right the other way around. Turn about is fair play. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof Not me. I probably will take the darkroom class one more time this winter, just cause its such a hassle setting up in the bathroom. I do like to play with digital colour to BW, but at this point i do a better job in the darkroom.gWhich is not saying much. I'll prove it with my portfolio next June. You'll have a good laugh at least.:-) But i do like getting into the darkroom and playing around with ideas and sepia etc. Its fun to live in the stone age.LOL Dave
Re: Shoot now, focus later
what is clear is that you haven't use any good digital process yet. Herb... - Original Message - From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 3:32 PM Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later And the digi-heads put down wet process users. Why is it alright for them to do that but not all right the other way around. Turn about is fair play.
Re: Shoot now, focus later
No, Herb, what is clear is that once again you have proven that you are an ass. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Herb Chong wrote: what is clear is that you haven't use any good digital process yet. Herb... - Original Message - From: graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 3:32 PM Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later And the digi-heads put down wet process users. Why is it alright for them to do that but not all right the other way around. Turn about is fair play.
Re: Shoot now, focus later
I recently acquired a used watchmaker lathe on ebay. Turns out to be about 120 years old. Ever see a 120 year old digital camera that still works? grin graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: And the digi-heads put down wet process users. Why is it alright for them to do that but not all right the other way around. Turn about is fair play. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof Not me. I probably will take the darkroom class one more time this winter, just cause its such a hassle setting up in the bathroom. I do like to play with digital colour to BW, but at this point i do a better job in the darkroom.gWhich is not saying much. I'll prove it with my portfolio next June. You'll have a good laugh at least.:-) But i do like getting into the darkroom and playing around with ideas and sepia etc. Its fun to live in the stone age.LOL Dave
Re: Shoot now, focus later
It may come as a surprise to you, Herb, but some folks simply do not have the up front money to pay now. It is cheaper for a lot of us to pay bit by bit even if it costs us twice as much in the long run. An I believe Frank is like me in that he no longer believes in credit cards. graywolf http://www.graywolfphoto.com Idiot Proof == Expert Proof --- Herb Chong wrote: twice as much per roll adds up. it may not hit you soon, but it will. pay now or pay later. Herb - Original Message - From: frank theriault [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 9:26 AM Subject: Re: Shoot now, focus later Add to that the fact that going digital will take many hours per week of my time doing PS crap that I really don't like doing (and there's got to be a cost consideration to that), and I think I'm saving big-time by sticking with film.
