On 10/14/2011 6:31 PM, Tom C wrote:
From: William Robb
On 14/10/2011 1:00 PM, Tom C wrote:
But I must ask, despite your over emotional reaction, why do you have,
how many DSLR's is it? When's the last time you've spent a substantial
amount of time in a wet darkroom vs. frying your eyeballs out
On 14/10/2011 4:31 PM, Tom C wrote:
I was just trying get a rise out of you. You're just like my wife...
you react when I least expect it and ignore me when I expect
attention.
:-)
Naw, your wife is way nicer.
You do realize that you are really obvious when you are trying to get a
rise ou
> From: William Robb
> On 14/10/2011 1:00 PM, Tom C wrote:
>
>>
>> But I must ask, despite your over emotional reaction, why do you have,
>> how many DSLR's is it? When's the last time you've spent a substantial
>> amount of time in a wet darkroom vs. frying your eyeballs out looking
>> at the com
On 14/10/2011 1:00 PM, Tom C wrote:
A
But I must ask, despite your over emotional reaction, why do you have,
how many DSLR's is it? When's the last time you've spent a substantial
amount of time in a wet darkroom vs. frying your eyeballs out looking
at the computer monitor?
Too many DSLRs.
>>> And digital is perfect?
>>> Actually, in the real world, what rules is the media that the artist
>>> feels most comfortable working with. This may be digital, it may equally
>>> be oil paint or macrame.
>>>
>>> William Robb
>>
>> What 'digital' has done is put the entire range of the photograph
On 14/10/2011 12:31 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
If you're doing street photography at night, it's always a matter of
blown highlights and no shadow detail. If the data is in the capture,
either digital or film, then there's a way to get it into a print. If
it's not, then you have to cheat.
Note whe
If you're doing street photography at night, it's always a matter of
blown highlights and no shadow detail. If the data is in the capture,
either digital or film, then there's a way to get it into a print. If
it's not, then you have to cheat.
On 10/14/2011 2:09 PM, William Robb wrote:
On 14
On 14/10/2011 10:47 AM, P. J. Alling wrote:
That kind of depends on the film. I believe that slide film has a
narrower DR than even straight from camera Jpegs. But I don't have any
hard numbers on that.
Last time I checked (which was something like 20 years ago), slide film
was 5-6 stops, colo
On 14/10/2011 7:56 AM, Tom C wrote:
And digital is perfect?
Actually, in the real world, what rules is the media that the artist
feels most comfortable working with. This may be digital, it may equally
be oil paint or macrame.
William Robb
What 'digital' has done is put the entire range of the
That kind of depends on the film. I believe that slide film has a
narrower DR than even straight from camera Jpegs. But I don't have any
hard numbers on that.
On 10/14/2011 3:17 AM, David Savage wrote:
In terms of DR film still rules over digital.
On 14/10/2011, Paul Stenquist wrote:
On O
On 10/14/2011 3:07 AM, William Robb wrote:
On 13/10/2011 7:21 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
BW film might still rule if film didn't curl, and if the enlarger
and/or scanner were perfect. But in the real world, digital rules.
And digital is perfect?
Actually, in the real world, what rules
Rulers rule!
Of course, it's B&W film. Color world last time I looked. Digital
brought that kind of control to color photography for the typical
photographer and that is the biggest advance for me.
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 9:56 AM, Tom C wrote:
>> And digital is perfect?
>> Actually, in the rea
> And digital is perfect?
> Actually, in the real world, what rules is the media that the artist
> feels most comfortable working with. This may be digital, it may equally
> be oil paint or macrame.
>
> William Robb
What 'digital' has done is put the entire range of the photographic
process (captu
On 14 October 2011 20:58, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
> That forthcoming N 36mp body, full frame. Sony sensor. That's 5k x 7k
> pixels. 5K pixels over 24mm == roughly 200 pixels / mm. That begins to
> match the resolving power of 100 line pairs / mm. And with reduced CofC
> issues (point
>BW film might still rule if film didn't curl, and if the enlarger and/or
>scanner were perfect. But in the real world, digital rules.
There is a reason I do not do 135 film, but still do sheet film. It's nice to
be able to burn in low-contrast detail, something that cannot be done with
digit
In terms of DR film still rules over digital.
On 14/10/2011, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> On Oct 13, 2011, at 9:15 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
>
>> Well, I enjoy both PS and chemicals.
>> I might be tempted, though, by the new 36mp Nikon.
>> That is 200 pixels per mm, roughly the resolution of a v
On 13/10/2011 7:21 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
BW film might still rule if film didn't curl, and if the enlarger and/or
scanner were perfect. But in the real world, digital rules.
And digital is perfect?
Actually, in the real world, what rules is the media that the artist
feels most com
On Oct 13, 2011, at 9:15 PM, Collin Brendemuehl wrote:
> Well, I enjoy both PS and chemicals.
> I might be tempted, though, by the new 36mp Nikon.
> That is 200 pixels per mm, roughly the resolution of a very good lens.
> But at this point bw film still rules.
BW film might still rule if film
Well, I enjoy both PS and chemicals.
I might be tempted, though, by the new 36mp Nikon.
That is 200 pixels per mm, roughly the resolution of a very good lens.
But at this point bw film still rules.
Sincerely,
Collin Brendemuehl
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he canno
It is my memory of the hours spent in the darkroom that makes me so
appreciate tools like lightroom. I suppose that I could set a scanner
up under my enlarger, analyze the print and bypass about 20 minutes of
work with test strips etc.
35 years ago, I think I enjoyed darkroom work more than tak
On 10/13/2011 7:19 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
On Oct 13, 2011, at 6:48 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
Shooting at ASA 800 bordered on irresponsible?
As far back as 1975, I was shooting at 3200 with my TLR Mamiya and Royal X film
-- and getting nice results.
Paul
You medium format guy's were a
> And for all that, I still prefer making prints in a darkroom rather than
> sitting hunched over a computer tablet and having my eyeballs getting
> slow roasted like some sort of zombified junk food by a computer monitor.
>
> --
>
> William Robb
Mark!
Slow roasted eyeballs, pickled liver... perf
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 6:48 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
> Shooting at ASA 800 bordered on irresponsible?
That was Tuesday, with my K10D.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly
On Oct 13, 2011, at 6:48 AM, Steven Desjardins wrote:
> Shooting at ASA 800 bordered on irresponsible?
As far back as 1975, I was shooting at 3200 with my TLR Mamiya and Royal X film
-- and getting nice results.
Paul
>
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 5:38 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
>> From: William
Shooting at ASA 800 bordered on irresponsible?
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 5:38 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
> From: William Robb
>>
>> And for all that, I still prefer making prints in a darkroom rather than
>> sitting hunched over a computer tablet and having my eyeballs getting
>> slow roasted like som
From: William Robb
And for all that, I still prefer making prints in a darkroom rather than
sitting hunched over a computer tablet and having my eyeballs getting
slow roasted like some sort of zombified junk food by a computer monitor.
Testify brother!!
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pd
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:31:38 -0600
Tom C wrote:
> Use or waste the remainder of a roll if we desperately needed to
> change light sensitivity,
related:
changing in mid roll and blackout bags trying to get the lead
out of a canister and put it back in the camera.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail L
And for all that, I still prefer making prints in a darkroom rather than
sitting hunched over a computer tablet and having my eyeballs getting
slow roasted like some sort of zombified junk food by a computer monitor.
--
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.n
On Oct 11, 2011, at 7:31 PM, Tom C wrote:
> we had to:
>
> Use a bulky non-renewable medium called film,
> Worry because it was temperature sensitive,
> Worry that it would get accidentally exposed to light,
> Worry that it wouldn't bind in the camera and strip the sprocket holes,
> Purchase it
Do I remember... Dude, yer describing last weekend! :-)
You forgot about film expiring (even in the freezer), your fingers
smelling like sulfate, the inevitable accidents you have while
developing film (that cost your the whole roll), the completely
inexcusable accidents that labs have while d
On Oct 11, 2011, at 8:15 PM, John Francis wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 07:55:57PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote:
>> Tom C wrote:
>>
>>> we had to:
>>>
>>> Use a bulky non-renewable medium called film,
>>> Worry because it was temperature sensitive,
>>> Worry that it would get accidentally expos
On Tue, Oct 11, 2011 at 07:55:57PM -0400, Mark Roberts wrote:
> Tom C wrote:
>
> >we had to:
> >
> >Use a bulky non-renewable medium called film,
> >Worry because it was temperature sensitive,
> >Worry that it would get accidentally exposed to light,
> >Worry that it wouldn't bind in the camera an
Tom C wrote:
>we had to:
>
>Use a bulky non-renewable medium called film,
>Worry because it was temperature sensitive,
>Worry that it would get accidentally exposed to light,
>Worry that it wouldn't bind in the camera and strip the sprocket holes,
>Purchase it at additional cost for each photo out
we had to:
Use a bulky non-renewable medium called film,
Worry because it was temperature sensitive,
Worry that it would get accidentally exposed to light,
Worry that it wouldn't bind in the camera and strip the sprocket holes,
Purchase it at additional cost for each photo outing,
Make a trip to g
34 matches
Mail list logo
