[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 2/6/2006 2:10:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I unsubscribed when I went on my honeymoon in June '02 and when I came back
I found that I had this extra hour every day that I didn't have before...
What's yer point?
-fr
On Feb 7, 2006, at 8:59 AM, frank theriault wrote:
Yeah, I read fast.
Either that or delete liberally.
Yes, that too.
-Aaron
On 2/7/06, Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yeah, I read fast.
Either that or delete liberally.
-frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
On Feb 7, 2006, at 1:41 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Only an hour?!?
Yeah, I read fast.
-Aaron
In a message dated 2/6/2006 2:10:13 PM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> I unsubscribed when I went on my honeymoon in June '02 and when I came back
I found that I had this extra hour every day that I didn't have before...
What's yer point?
-frank
===
Only an hour?!?
Mar
Heh, that for three years I had an extra hour every day.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: frank theriault <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: Hi, Aaron! WAS Re: question about chromes
Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 5:08 pm
Size: 306 bytes
To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net
On 2/5/06, Aaron Re
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: misc lighting - no longer question about chromes
Date: Mon Feb 6, 2006 1:05 pm
Size: 385 bytes
To:
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: misc lighting - no longer question about chromes
> Any light that you h
Mark Roberts wrote:
>
> Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >My father was an artist who worked in oils. He frequently had to send
> >in slides for show entries. Generally, the galleries didn't seem to be
> >too fussy about the quality of the chromes.
>
> My experience has been the sam
Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>My father was an artist who worked in oils. He frequently had to send
>in slides for show entries. Generally, the galleries didn't seem to be
>too fussy about the quality of the chromes.
My experience has been the same. In fact, since a surprising numb
On 2/5/06, Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I unsubscribed when I went on my honeymoon in June '02 and when I came back I
> found that I had this extra hour every day that I didn't have before...
What's yer point?
-frank
--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresso
n lights at thos angles and a polarizer on the camera.
It gave me new respect for people who do that stuff for a
living - the purely
technical aspect of shooting. It was hard work and an
interesting tactical
exercise.
As to the original question about chromes - the lab I plan
to use felt
Provia
I admit to similar misrepresentations. I shot some tools on a workbench for
stock. I used flash units in my studio but simulated the shadows that would
have resulted from light through a paned window.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Aaron Reynolds <[EMAIL PROTE
I agree. There are plenty of ways to make flash lighting diffuse, but it's not
needed for a job like this where perfectly flat lighting is ideal and shutter
speed isn't a factor.
Paul
-- Original message --
From: Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Bob Shell wrote
- Original Message -
From: "Shel Belinkoff"
Subject: Re: misc lighting - no longer question about chromes
Any light that you have is available ... you must mean natural light.
How natural are four foot florescent tubes?
Available light is that which is available withou
Natural light, as opposed to unnatural light, supernatural light,
invisible light, coke light, light beer, light weight etc.
DagT
PS: Sorry .-)
Den 6. feb. 2006 kl. 18.33 skrev Shel Belinkoff:
Any light that you have is available ... you must mean natural light.
Shel
[Original Messag
Den 6. feb. 2006 kl. 18.16 skrev Ann Sanfedele:
Bob Shell wrote:
On Feb 5, 2006, at 11:13 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Yes, don't even think about using flash. You'll have a white spot
in the middle of a painting.
Paul
You can use flash in a pinch if the room has a white ceiling. Bounce
the
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
>
> Any light that you have is available ... you must mean natural light.
>
> Shel
Um, no, Shel- I do mean available light as opposed to
flash.
Forgot who wrote it, but I picked up the term from a book
called
"Shooting with Avaiable light"
It was used pretty much to mean
Any light that you have is available ... you must mean natural light.
Shel
> [Original Message]
> From: Aaron Reynolds
> I've been known to spend a lot of time faking available light. Frank
> Theriault and Dave "too bald" Chang-Sang saw it firsthand at Christmas.
On Feb 6, 2006, at 12:16 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
I belong to the society for prevention of flash photography
- only to
be used in extreme circumstances
I've been known to spend a lot of time faking available light. Frank
Theriault and Dave "too bald" Chang-Sang saw it firsthand at Christmas
Bob Shell wrote:
>
> On Feb 5, 2006, at 11:13 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> > Yes, don't even think about using flash. You'll have a white spot
> > in the middle of a painting.
> > Paul
>
> You can use flash in a pinch if the room has a white ceiling. Bounce
> the flash off the ceiling and it w
I have shot hundreds of paintings using two flashes at 45 degrees with
daylight slide film. Oils, acrylics, and glazed prints and water colours.
It works very well thank you.
Working hand held is much faster than using a tripod. The flash exposure is
less than 1/1000 sec. and the images are very
In a message dated 2/5/2006 10:15:43 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
writes:
Yup - I agree - and I put the smiley in but fully intended
to ask them.
Duggal is a major custom processing place in NYC and Spectra
is a later
comer - I'll be speaking to both of them.
ann
===
They wil
On Feb 5, 2006, at 11:13 PM, Paul Stenquist wrote:
Yes, don't even think about using flash. You'll have a white spot
in the middle of a painting.
Paul
You can use flash in a pinch if the room has a white ceiling. Bounce
the flash off the ceiling and it will resemble diffuse sunlight.
On Feb 5, 2006, at 10:47 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
I recently sold an 80 slide carousel to an artist who was
submitting work to schools togo back for a masters. They
wanted not only slides, but for her to send or bringthem IN
a carousel. Quite specifically, those that fit on the Kodak
Carouse
Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> Yes, don't even think about using flash. You'll have a white spot in
> the middle of a painting.
> Paul
I wouldn't dream of it. I never even owned a flash (except
a macro ring light)
until a few years ago.
ann available light are us san
> On Feb 5, 2006, at 10:41 P
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> Cant have Theraultian blur > for artwork :)
>
> I cana' hold on any longer cap'n. She''ll blow.:-0
>
> Dave
God, your irrepressable, you wag! :)
but it's true - why do you think none of you saw that shot
of
Mark on the mountain in my GFM nostalgia gallery??? :)
Duggal is a major custom processing place in NYC and Spectra
is a later
comer - I'll be speaking to both of them.
ann
>
> -Original Message-
>
> From: Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subj: Re: question about chromes
> Date: Sun Feb 5, 2006 4:02 pm
> Siz
Yes, don't even think about using flash. You'll have a white spot in
the middle of a painting.
Paul
On Feb 5, 2006, at 10:41 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
Powell Hargrave wrote:
These aren't being shot for reproduction as far as I know,
just for galleries
to review his work. It may be that absolu
>
>I have a portable level to use on the camera and the arwork
>itself. once ive set up for the
>first painting, nothing will change for all that are the
>same size.
If they are different sizes it can be quite fiddley getting tripod and
easel aligned properly for each slide. With digital a bit
Cant have Theraultian blur > for artwork :)
I cana' hold on any longer cap'n. She''ll blow.:-0
Dave
>
> ann
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Powell Hargrave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Digital Imaging http://members.shaw.ca/hargravep
> > Nanai
While you say that jokingly, it's always a great idea to ask what your lab is
most comfortable handling. It's the best way to ensure strong results.
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Re: question about chromes
Date: Sun Feb 5, 2
Juey Chong Ong wrote:
>
> Ann, it's relatively inexpensive to rent an old Hasselblad to do
> larger images but I think your impression is correct. It probably
> involves people at the gallery gathering around a 35mm projector to
> review the slides. In which case, color accuracy might not matter
>
Jack Davis wrote:
>
> Not that hasn't been considered, but be certain to do a three exposure
> 'braket' of each.
>
> Jack
>
I wouldn't think of doing it any other way, Jack.
ann
> --- Carlos Royo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ann Sanfedele wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > >>Close, but not quite
Powell Hargrave wrote:
>
> >These aren't being shot for reproduction as far as I know,
> >just for galleries
> >to review his work. It may be that absolutely precise color
> >is not going to swing
> >the viewers one way or the other - but I'd certainly like to
> >get as close as possible to
> >rea
I unsubscribed when I went on my honeymoon in June '02 and when I came back I
found that I had this extra hour every day that I didn't have before...
-Aaron
-Original Message-
From: "E.R.N. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subj: Hi, Aaron! WAS Re: question abou
Paul Stenquist wrote:
>
> My father was an artist who worked in oils. He frequently had to send
> in slides for show entries. Generally, the galleries didn't seem to be
> too fussy about the quality of the chromes. I shot some for him once in
> a while. I generally used outdoor light diffused thro
> Aaron Reynolds wrote:
>
> >
> > On Feb 5, 2006, at 1:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >>Oh Oh Ann. You've woken the Brother hood up.:-)
> >>
> >> Hey Aaron.
> >
> >
> > No one had said anything about not being able to hand-hold a Pentax 67
> > la
Ann, it's relatively inexpensive to rent an old Hasselblad to do
larger images but I think your impression is correct. It probably
involves people at the gallery gathering around a 35mm projector to
review the slides. In which case, color accuracy might not matter
that much either, dependin
Not that hasn't been considered, but be certain to do a three exposure
'braket' of each.
Jack
--- Carlos Royo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ann Sanfedele wrote:
>
>
> >
> >>Close, but not quite as neutral, is Fuji Astia 100. All of the
> other
> >>Fuji chrome films exaggerate color.
> >>
> >
>These aren't being shot for reproduction as far as I know,
>just for galleries
>to review his work. It may be that absolutely precise color
>is not going to swing
>the viewers one way or the other - but I'd certainly like to
>get as close as possible to
>reality.
>
> ann
I'm always amazed how ba
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
Close, but not quite as neutral, is Fuji Astia 100. All of the other
Fuji chrome films exaggerate color.
Bob
I don't know that one at all -- Marnie suggested PRovia and
someone else did...
These aren't being shot for reproduction as far as I know,
just for galleries
My father was an artist who worked in oils. He frequently had to send
in slides for show entries. Generally, the galleries didn't seem to be
too fussy about the quality of the chromes. I shot some for him once in
a while. I generally used outdoor light diffused through a window. A
room with whi
mike wilson wrote:
>
> Ann Sanfedele wrote:
>
> > mike wilson wrote:
> >
> >>Ann Sanfedele wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>HI gang,
> >>>I've hardly been here - though didn't actually unsub -
> >>>but it looks like I might have a job where I will need to
> >>>shoot chromes
> >>>instead of digital - draggin
Bob Shell wrote:
>
> On Feb 5, 2006, at 12:07 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
>
> > I don't know that one at all -- Marnie suggested PRovia and
> > someone else did...
> > These aren't being shot for reproduction as far as I know,
> > just for galleries
> > to review his work. It may be that absolutely
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > As recently as May, Fuji was still
> producing Astia 100f, which I preferred
> to Provia
> because it was a little snappier and also much less sensitive to the ph of
> the water used
> for developing it, which made Provia a r
Aaron Reynolds wrote:
On Feb 5, 2006, at 1:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh Oh Ann. You've woken the Brother hood up.:-)
Hey Aaron.
No one had said anything about not being able to hand-hold a Pentax 67
lately, so I figured I wasn't needed.
-Aaron
Good to see you again. I think
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
mike wilson wrote:
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
HI gang,
I've hardly been here - though didn't actually unsub -
but it looks like I might have a job where I will need to
shoot chromes
instead of digital - dragging out the ole LX --
But it has been a few years since I shot slid
On Feb 5, 2006, at 12:07 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote:
I don't know that one at all -- Marnie suggested PRovia and
someone else did...
These aren't being shot for reproduction as far as I know,
just for galleries
to review his work. It may be that absolutely precise color
is not going to swing
the v
On Feb 5, 2006, at 1:02 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh Oh Ann. You've woken the Brother hood up.:-)
Hey Aaron.
No one had said anything about not being able to hand-hold a Pentax 67
lately, so I figured I wasn't needed.
-Aaron
> As recently as May, Fuji was still
producing Astia 100f, which I preferred
to Provia
because it was a little snappier and also much less sensitive to the ph of the
water used
for developing it, which made Provia a real pain in the butt to develop. If
yo
Recommend Fuji Astia 100 or Provia f100. Astia slightly finer grain
(finest of all slide films, per Fuji) and Provia marginally more
saturated.
Jack
--- Tom Reese <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since it's artwork, I assume that you're looking for accurate color
> reproduction. My favorite chrome
As recently as May, Fuji was still producing Astia 100f, which I preferred to
Provia because it was a little snappier and also much less sensitive to the ph
of the water used for developing it, which made Provia a real pain in the butt
to develop. If your local lab has blue/magenta issues with
Bob Shell wrote:
>
>
> You want the most neutral and accurate rendering. None of the
> Ektachromes will give you that.
>
> In my testing the most neutral and accurate E-6 film was the recently
> discontinued Agfachrome RSX 100. There may still be dealers with
> stock, though.
>
I think I'll p
mike wilson wrote:
>
> Ann Sanfedele wrote:
>
> > HI gang,
> > I've hardly been here - though didn't actually unsub -
> > but it looks like I might have a job where I will need to
> > shoot chromes
> > instead of digital - dragging out the ole LX --
> >
> > But it has been a few years since I sho
Gautam Sarup wrote:
>
> Ann,
>
> My favourite after trying out a few is Kodachrome 64.
> Takes about 2 weeks for processing though.
>
> Cheers,
> Gautam
Certainly was mine - but forget that - finding a place with
k14
processing ... can't do it.
a
>
> On 2/4/06, Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Ann Sanfedele wrote:
HI gang,
I've hardly been here - though didn't actually unsub -
but it looks like I might have a job where I will need to
shoot chromes
instead of digital - dragging out the ole LX --
But it has been a few years since I shot slides and I'd like
some opinions
on Elitechrome
> In a message dated 2/5/2006 5:28:29
AM Pacific Standard Time,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >anyone have a favorite that is still being made for this
> >kind of stuff?
>
> I go with Provia 100F
>
>
> --
> Mark Roberts
> ==
> Yeah.
>
> Marnie
In a message dated 2/5/2006 5:28:29 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>anyone have a favorite that is still being made for this
>kind of stuff?
I go with Provia 100F
--
Mark Roberts
==
Yeah.
Marnie aka Doe
Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
HI gang,
I've hardly been here - though didn't actually unsub -
but it looks like I might have a job where I will need to
shoot chromes instead of digital - dragging out the ole LX --
But it has been a few years since I shot slides and I'd like
some opi
Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>HI gang,
>I've hardly been here - though didn't actually unsub -
>but it looks like I might have a job where I will need to
>shoot chromes instead of digital - dragging out the ole LX --
>
>But it has been a few years since I shot slides and I'd like
>some
Since it's artwork, I assume that you're looking for accurate color
reproduction. My favorite chrome is the Elite Extra Color but it's not the
right film for your job.
I too think Kodachrome might be the right choice but processing is a pain. You
might also consider E100G:
http://www.kodak.com
Ann,
My favourite after trying out a few is Kodachrome 64.
Takes about 2 weeks for processing though.
Cheers,
Gautam
On 2/4/06, Ann Sanfedele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> HI gang,
> I've hardly been here - though didn't actually unsub -
> but it looks like I might have a job where I will need to
HI gang,
I've hardly been here - though didn't actually unsub -
but it looks like I might have a job where I will need to
shoot chromes
instead of digital - dragging out the ole LX --
But it has been a few years since I shot slides and I'd like
some opinions
on Elitechrome for photoing artwork...
63 matches
Mail list logo
