[SI] New mandate needed

[Alan Browne]

ideas? Please post here for the committee to consider.

--
The Committee.

[Alfred Molon]

In article <jMudndXxq5WdAvrS...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
says...

>
> ideas? Please post here for the committee to consider.

Given the shrinking number of posts it would make sense to consolidate
all rec.photo.digital subgroups into rec.photo.digital. It might even
make sense to consolidate all rec.photo subgroups, since all photography
nowadays is digital.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

[PeterN]

Abstractions.
the abstraction must be created from a photograph, with the image
recognizable, or be a pure abstraction with nothing recognizable.

e.g. solarizations that show the essential character of the object.



--
Peter

[Robert Coe]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:02:56 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
:
: ideas? Please post here for the committee to consider.

I'm always a day late and a dollar short. :^| We're starting a project at
work to photograph (Are you ready for this?) *people* *working* for our
internal Web site. But of course it didn't start in time to do me any good for
*this* SI!

OTOH, there's a group in Community Development that's getting one of our
subsidiary sites ready for the big biotechnology convertion that takes place
across the river in June. And they liked a couple of my stock photos of our
waterfront skyline. ;^)

Bob

[Robert Coe]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:41:05 +0100, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
: In article <jMudndXxq5WdAvrS...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne

: says...
: >
: > ideas? Please post here for the committee to consider.
:
: Given the shrinking number of posts it would make sense to consolidate
: all rec.photo.digital subgroups into rec.photo.digital. It might even
: make sense to consolidate all rec.photo subgroups, since all photography
: nowadays is digital.

Mein Gott, Alfred!! You're going to start another civil war here if you're not
careful.

Bob

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:41:05 +0100, Alfred Molon
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <jMudndXxq5WdAvrS...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
>says...
>>
>> ideas? Please post here for the committee to consider.
>
>Given the shrinking number of posts it would make sense to consolidate
>all rec.photo.digital subgroups into rec.photo.digital. It might even
>make sense to consolidate all rec.photo subgroups, since all photography
>nowadays is digital.

The SI is already cross-posted into all three groups. That does the
same thing.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

[Robert Coe]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 20:20:04 -0400, PeterN <pete...@nospam.verizon.net>
wrote:

I guess that has possibilities, if interpreted broadly enough.

Bob

[Noons]

On Mar 20, 9:41 am, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Given the shrinking number of posts it would make sense to consolidate
> all rec.photo.digital subgroups into rec.photo.digital. It might even

<psssst!.....>
all the real amateur photographers left ages ago.
only the Usenet "pros" left. Nuff said...
</psssst!.....>

[Charles E. Hardwidge]

"tony cooper" <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8gsfm7h1dat795dkb...@4ax.com...

Consolidating groups and crossposting are two entirely different things.

FU trimmed:

rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

[Eric Stevens]

What have you got against <alt.photography> that nobody else has?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[philo]

On 03/19/2012 05:41 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article<jMudndXxq5WdAvrS...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> says...
>>
>> ideas? Please post here for the committee to consider.
>
> Given the shrinking number of posts it would make sense to consolidate
> all rec.photo.digital subgroups into rec.photo.digital. It might even
> make sense to consolidate all rec.photo subgroups, since all photography
> nowadays is digital.

I would not go so far as to say that *all* photography is digital...
there are still plenty of people using film...
however it is certainly a minority.

Side note: I have just heard that one of the big, local art colleges
here in town is shutting down all of their dark rooms!

--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686

[Pete A]

I think it would soon degrade to being uncivil.

[RichA]

Sounds like a good idea.

[RichA]

On Mar 19, 10:54 pm, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:41:05 +0100, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> : In article <jMudndXxq5WdAvrSnZ2dnUVZ_rCdn...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> : says...
> : >

> : > ideas?  Please post here for the committee to consider.

> :
> : Given the shrinking number of posts it would make sense to consolidate
> : all rec.photo.digital subgroups into rec.photo.digital. It might even
> : make sense to consolidate all rec.photo subgroups, since all photography
> : nowadays is digital.
>
> Mein Gott, Alfred!! You're going to start another civil war here if you're not
> careful.
>

> Bob

Maybe one photo group, and one group devoted to Indian and Chinese
spammers?

[Annika1980]

On Mar 19, 5:02 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
wrote:

> ideas?  Please post here for the committee to consider.
>
> --
> The Committee.

"The End"

[Bruce]

That already happened.

The problem is that the participants haven't realised it yet. ;-)

[Alfred Molon]

In article <jk9jnq$bai$1...@dont-email.me>, philo says...

> I would not go so far as to say that *all* photography is digital...
> there are still plenty of people using film...

Can you still buy film? If yes, for how long? Kodak is bankrupt.

[Alfred Molon]

In article <84sfm71fmkfsron52...@4ax.com>, Robert Coe
says...

> Mein Gott, Alfred!! You're going to start another civil war here if you're not
> careful.

Quite possibly, but that does not alter the fact that film photography
ha essentially died off and the number of posts in photography
newsgroups has considerably shrunk.

If you really want to have several photography newsgroups consider a
newsgroup dedicated to equipment and software and one dedicated to
techniques.

[Pete A]

My realization has been growing. After spending some time attempting to
write comments on the current SI, I've deleted them. I have nothing
even marginally useful to contribute in the way of either feedback or
photos.

The three suggestions I thought of for new mandates have already been
done and I noticed while checking that there were many more
contributors in the past than there are now.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> writes:

> In article <jk9jnq$bai$1...@dont-email.me>, philo says...
>> I would not go so far as to say that *all* photography is digital...
>> there are still plenty of people using film...
>
> Can you still buy film? If yes, for how long? Kodak is bankrupt.

Yes. And Fuji is not, Adox is not, Arista is not, Efke is not, Foma is
not, Ilford is not, Kentmere is not....
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[Alfred Molon]

In article <ylfkhaxj...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet says...

> Adox is not, Arista is not, Efke is not, Foma is
> not, Ilford is not, Kentmere is not....

I've never heard these companies make film, so if they exist they must
be extremely niche, making film for a few afcionados. For the
overwhelming majority of people film is dead.

Also vacuum tubes were replaced by transistors 50 years ago, but in some
areas (for instance TVs) vacuum tubes survived longer but where
eventually replaced by something else.

[Eric Stevens]

Perhaps we should conduct a survey "What is preventing or discouraging
you from contributing to the SI?"

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Alan Browne]

It has a certain ring to it.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

[Alan Browne]

All for it. I have my opinion on the matter, but it'll keep for now.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-03-19 18:41 , Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article<jMudndXxq5WdAvrS...@giganews.com>, Alan Browne
> says...
>>
>> ideas? Please post here for the committee to consider.
>
> Given the shrinking number of posts it would make sense to consolidate
> all rec.photo.digital subgroups into rec.photo.digital. It might even

What part of "new mandate" after the [SI] prefix was so hard to grasp?

[tony cooper]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:07:39 -0000, "Charles E. Hardwidge"
<nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>"tony cooper" <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8gsfm7h1dat795dkb...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:41:05 +0100, Alfred Molon
>> <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>Given the shrinking number of posts it would make sense to consolidate
>>>all rec.photo.digital subgroups into rec.photo.digital. It might even
>>>make sense to consolidate all rec.photo subgroups, since all photography
>>>nowadays is digital.
>>
>> The SI is already cross-posted into all three groups. That does the
>> same thing.
>
>Consolidating groups and crossposting are two entirely different things.

Putting your socks on before you put your shirt on or putting your
shirt on before you put your socks on, are two different methods of
getting dressed. But, they both result in the same thing.

[Pete A]

In my case, poor dress sense either way :-)

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> writes:

> In article <ylfkhaxj...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
>> Adox is not, Arista is not, Efke is not, Foma is
>> not, Ilford is not, Kentmere is not....
>
> I've never heard these companies make film, so if they exist they must
> be extremely niche, making film for a few afcionados. For the
> overwhelming majority of people film is dead.

For the overwhelming majority of people, film is no longer *of any
interest*. Very different statement. It's fine if you're one of them.

And if you've never heard that Ilford makes film, then you're remarkably
ignorant, since they are the other company that split the B&W film
market with Kodak, and have made important films since I was in my early
years of photography in the 1970s.

[James Silverton]

On 3/20/2012 4:37 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article<ylfkhaxj...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
>> Adox is not, Arista is not, Efke is not, Foma is
>> not, Ilford is not, Kentmere is not....
>
> I've never heard these companies make film, so if they exist they must
> be extremely niche, making film for a few afcionados. For the
> overwhelming majority of people film is dead.
>
> Also vacuum tubes were replaced by transistors 50 years ago, but in some
> areas (for instance TVs) vacuum tubes survived longer but where
> eventually replaced by something else.

Some people (not me) believe that sound produced by tube electronics is
"better" than that from solid state. I think they just like the
distortions they were accustomed to.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

[Dallas]

Alfred Molon wrote:

> Can you still buy film? If yes, for how long? Kodak is bankrupt.

No one cares. I switched to Fuji Film 25 years ago.

But I do remember not being able to buy film at retail stores... it
happened all at once... one day everyone had film, the next week it
was gone forever.

--
Dallas

[Alfred Molon]

In article <ylfkaa3b...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet says...

> And if you've never heard that Ilford makes film, then you're remarkably
> ignorant,

Or maybe I'm not as old as you are ;-)

> since they are the other company that split the B&W film
> market with Kodak, and have made important films since I was in my early
> years of photography in the 1970s.

It's really the first time I hear a company named "Ilford" makes film
and I do know quite a lot about photography. But I'm sure that I have
never, ever seen film branded "Ilford" on this side of the Atlantic and
in all 50 countries I've visited. They must be very niche.

[philo]

On 03/20/2012 03:37 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article<ylfkhaxj...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
>> Adox is not, Arista is not, Efke is not, Foma is
>> not, Ilford is not, Kentmere is not....
>
> I've never heard these companies make film, so if they exist they must
> be extremely niche, making film for a few afcionados. For the
> overwhelming majority of people film is dead.
>
> Also vacuum tubes were replaced by transistors 50 years ago, but in some
> areas (for instance TVs) vacuum tubes survived longer but where
> eventually replaced by something else.

Vacuum tubes are still being used...especially by musicians for their
guitar amplifiers.

Don't forget Xray tubes


Anyway...film will be around for a long time

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2011-06-04-film-camera-digital_n.htm

--
https://www.createspace.com/3707686

[philo]

On 03/20/2012 06:00 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article<ylfkaa3b...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
>> And if you've never heard that Ilford makes film, then you're remarkably
>> ignorant,
>
> Or maybe I'm not as old as you are ;-)
>
>> since they are the other company that split the B&W film
>> market with Kodak, and have made important films since I was in my early
>> years of photography in the 1970s.
>
> It's really the first time I hear a company named "Ilford" makes film
> and I do know quite a lot about photography. But I'm sure that I have
> never, ever seen film branded "Ilford" on this side of the Atlantic and
> in all 50 countries I've visited. They must be very niche.
>

Hard to believe someone has not heard of Ilford film

[George Kerby]

On 3/20/12 6:40 PM, in article jkb4gl$c4m$2...@dont-email.me, "philo"

<ph...@privacy.net> wrote:

> On 03/20/2012 06:00 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article<ylfkaa3b...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
>>> And if you've never heard that Ilford makes film, then you're remarkably
>>> ignorant,
>>
>> Or maybe I'm not as old as you are ;-)
>>
>>> since they are the other company that split the B&W film
>>> market with Kodak, and have made important films since I was in my early
>>> years of photography in the 1970s.
>>
>> It's really the first time I hear a company named "Ilford" makes film
>> and I do know quite a lot about photography. But I'm sure that I have
>> never, ever seen film branded "Ilford" on this side of the Atlantic and
>> in all 50 countries I've visited. They must be very niche.
>>
>
>
>
> Hard to believe someone has not heard of Ilford film
>

You never know...

>
> http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2011-06-04-film-camera-
> digital_n.htm

[Bowser]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:02:56 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>
>ideas? Please post here for the committee to consider.

Taxis
On the Road
Album Cover
Man's man

[Savageduck]

On 2012-03-20 16:00:24 -0700, Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> said:

> In article <ylfkaa3b...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
>> And if you've never heard that Ilford makes film, then you're remarkably
>> ignorant,
>
> Or maybe I'm not as old as you are ;-)
>
>> since they are the other company that split the B&W film
>> market with Kodak, and have made important films since I was in my early
>> years of photography in the 1970s.
>
> It's really the first time I hear a company named "Ilford" makes film
> and I do know quite a lot about photography. But I'm sure that I have
> never, ever seen film branded "Ilford" on this side of the Atlantic and
> in all 50 countries I've visited. They must be very niche.

By acknowledging a lack of knowledge of the existence of Ilford you are
acknowledging ignorance of the history of film and photography in
general.

...and it is headquartered on your side of the Atlantic.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilford_Photo >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[tony cooper]

On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:02:56 -0400, Alan Browne
<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>
>ideas? Please post here for the committee to consider.

Don't forget the old stand-by: Open

I like the challenge of shooting-to-mandate, but Open, or no mandate,
might suit some.

[Annika1980]

On Mar 20, 4:57 pm, Eric Stevens <eric.stev...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Perhaps we should conduct a survey "What is preventing or discouraging
> you from contributing to the SI?"
>

The biggest thing preventing me is the fact that I rarely come here
any more and don't really keep up with the mandates. I still take as
many pics as I ever did, maybe even more. But I post them other
places like on Facebook.

[Alfred Molon]

In article <2012032017361843658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
says...

> ...and it is headquartered on your side of the Atlantic.
> < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilford_Photo >

Very strange. When film was still sold, in the shops you could find
Kodak, Fuji or Agfa, but not Ilford.

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 08:19:39 +0100, Alfred Molon
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <2012032017361843658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
>says...
>> ...and it is headquartered on your side of the Atlantic.
>> < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilford_Photo >
>
>Very strange. When film was still sold, in the shops you could find
>Kodak, Fuji or Agfa, but not Ilford.

What part of the world do you live in?

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Pete A]

On 2012-03-20 23:37:52 +0000, philo said:

> On 03/20/2012 03:37 PM, Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article<ylfkhaxj...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
>>> Adox is not, Arista is not, Efke is not, Foma is
>>> not, Ilford is not, Kentmere is not....
>>
>> I've never heard these companies make film, so if they exist they must
>> be extremely niche, making film for a few afcionados. For the
>> overwhelming majority of people film is dead.
>>
>> Also vacuum tubes were replaced by transistors 50 years ago, but in some
>> areas (for instance TVs) vacuum tubes survived longer but where
>> eventually replaced by something else.
>
> Vacuum tubes are still being used...especially by musicians for their
> guitar amplifiers.

Also still used in some radio receivers and transceivers because of
their immunity to electromagnetic pulses.

[Pete A]

On 2012-03-20 23:00:24 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

> In article <ylfkaa3b...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
>> And if you've never heard that Ilford makes film, then you're remarkably
>> ignorant,
>
> Or maybe I'm not as old as you are ;-)
>
>> since they are the other company that split the B&W film
>> market with Kodak, and have made important films since I was in my early
>> years of photography in the 1970s.
>
> It's really the first time I hear a company named "Ilford" makes film
> and I do know quite a lot about photography. But I'm sure that I have
> never, ever seen film branded "Ilford" on this side of the Atlantic and
> in all 50 countries I've visited. They must be very niche.

I hardly ever used Ilford film until I discovered XP1 during the
1980's: a black and white film that could be processed in a high-street
colour lab (C41 process).

XP1 allowed the photographer to change the ISO rating between shots on
the same roll. Its latest incarnation, XP2 Super, is still quite
popular.

[Noons]

Annika1980 wrote,on my timestamp of 21/03/2012 3:11 PM:

> many pics as I ever did, maybe even more. But I post them other
> places like on Facebook.

Ah, now I know why you need a 5dm2!
Heck, all those 400X600 images must stress the resolution of the blessed thing.
You should really think of upgrading to a Mavica.

[Richard]

Eric Stevens wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 08:07:39 -0000, "Charles E. Hardwidge"
> <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "tony cooper" <tony.co...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:8gsfm7h1dat795dkb...@4ax.com...

>>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 23:41:05 +0100, Alfred Molon
>>> <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Given the shrinking number of posts it would make sense to
>>>> consolidate all rec.photo.digital subgroups into
>>>> rec.photo.digital. It might even make sense to consolidate all
>>>> rec.photo subgroups, since all photography nowadays is digital.
>>>
>>> The SI is already cross-posted into all three groups. That does the
>>> same thing.
>>
>> Consolidating groups and crossposting are two entirely different
>> things.
>>

>> FU trimmed:
>>
>> rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital
>
> What have you got against <alt.photography> that nobody else has?
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens

No, you've got it wrong. It inhabits alt.photography. Probably thinks it's
being superior in some way...

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> writes:

> In article <ylfkaa3b...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
>> And if you've never heard that Ilford makes film, then you're remarkably
>> ignorant,
>
> Or maybe I'm not as old as you are ;-)

That's true of a considerable number of people, I must admit. (57)

>> since they are the other company that split the B&W film
>> market with Kodak, and have made important films since I was in my early
>> years of photography in the 1970s.
>
> It's really the first time I hear a company named "Ilford" makes film
> and I do know quite a lot about photography. But I'm sure that I have
> never, ever seen film branded "Ilford" on this side of the Atlantic and
> in all 50 countries I've visited. They must be very niche.

You'd find them in any actual camera store in the USA or Canada any time
in the last 30 years or more, and even in consumer processing places
like Proex back when those existed. Since they're not an American
company, I believe they'd be widely found throughout Europe as well, but
I can't testify to that from personal experience (I mostly took film
with me when I was in Europe to save money, so I wasn't paying attention
so much to what was for sale). ("Save money" because I bought 100-foot
rolls and bulk loaded.)

However, they made only B&W film, not color; that might also have made a
difference as to whether you noticed them, perhaps. Perhaps that
qualifies as "very niche" -- though during part of that time period, B&W
was the "serious" film.

They're also a major photographic paper manufacturer, and they made the
"Ilfochrome" color reversal paper (originally "Cibachrome") that was one
of the most popular ways to make exhibition prints from slides back in
the film era. They also make a line of B&W photo chemicals.

Really, they're one of the giants of the industry.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Pete A <pete3....@nospam.ntlworld.com> writes:

> On 2012-03-20 23:00:24 +0000, Alfred Molon said:
>
>> In article <ylfkaa3b...@dd-b.net>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
>>> And if you've never heard that Ilford makes film, then you're remarkably
>>> ignorant,
>>
>> Or maybe I'm not as old as you are ;-)
>>
>>> since they are the other company that split the B&W film
>>> market with Kodak, and have made important films since I was in my early
>>> years of photography in the 1970s.
>>
>> It's really the first time I hear a company named "Ilford" makes film
>> and I do know quite a lot about photography. But I'm sure that I have
>> never, ever seen film branded "Ilford" on this side of the Atlantic and
>> in all 50 countries I've visited. They must be very niche.
>
> I hardly ever used Ilford film until I discovered XP1 during the
> 1980's: a black and white film that could be processed in a
> high-street colour lab (C41 process).

A couple of rolls of XP1 pretty much ruined my first-ever nude photo
shoot, and I haven't forgiven it yet. (Yeah, stupid of me to experiment
on two things at once.)

> XP1 allowed the photographer to change the ISO rating between shots on
> the same roll. Its latest incarnation, XP2 Super, is still quite
> popular.

But I did get some nice XP2 negatives, and some nice 4x5s, more recently.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

I bought film at Target within the last 18 months. (There wasn't much
selection.)

[George Kerby]

On 3/21/12 2:19 AM, in article
MPG.29d39f79a...@news.supernews.com, "Alfred Molon"

<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> In article <2012032017361843658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
> says...
>> ...and it is headquartered on your side of the Atlantic.
>> < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilford_Photo >
>
> Very strange. When film was still sold, in the shops you could find
> Kodak, Fuji or Agfa, but not Ilford.

Did you ever shoot B&W. They made (and still maybe) some of the best black &
white 120 film around. FP4 ran circles around Plus X and in the darkroom,
Ilford Multigrade outperformed anything in a yellow box.

[Bruce]

Pete A <pete3....@nospam.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>I hardly ever used Ilford film until I discovered XP1 during the
>1980's: a black and white film that could be processed in a high-street
>colour lab (C41 process).
>
>XP1 allowed the photographer to change the ISO rating between shots on
>the same roll. Its latest incarnation, XP2 Super, is still quite
>popular.

I used a lot of XP1 when it first came out but very few rolls of XP2.
Kodak's competing chromogenic (C41) emulsion, sold here as BW400CN, is
much better. Whether it will survive is of course moot.

[Bruce]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>You'd find them in any actual camera store in the USA or Canada any time
>in the last 30 years or more, and even in consumer processing places
>like Proex back when those existed. Since they're not an American
>company, I believe they'd be widely found throughout Europe as well, but
>I can't testify to that from personal experience (I mostly took film
>with me when I was in Europe to save money, so I wasn't paying attention
>so much to what was for sale). ("Save money" because I bought 100-foot
>rolls and bulk loaded.)
>
>However, they made only B&W film, not color; that might also have made a
>difference as to whether you noticed them, perhaps.

I have a few hundred negatives that were shot on Ilford's "Ilfacolor"
negative film in the 1960s.

But Ilfacolor film was short-lived and I think the brand name may have
been re-used more recently for something else entirely.

The Ilford brand has also appeared on slide film. However, the film
was manufactured by others; research suggested Ferrania of Italy
(formerly 3M) and/or Konica of Japan.

[RichA]

On Mar 21, 11:30 am, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:

XP1 was very flat, even when used with filters when enlarging. It
required a good contrast scene to really work well. BW400CN is
better.

[RichA]

On Mar 21, 3:19 am, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <2012032017361843658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
> says...
>
> > ...and it is headquartered on your side of the Atlantic.
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilford_Photo>
>
> Very strange. When film was still sold, in the shops you could find
> Kodak, Fuji or Agfa, but not Ilford.
> --

In Canada, shops always had Ilford (still do) B&W and thank goodness.
It was much better than most Kodak (except Tech Pan) and their
printing a papers (resin or fibre) were better too.

[Pete A]

I'd forgotten XP1 was very flat. I suppose it had to be because of its
variable ISO, which required a low value of gamma (more precisely, a
reasonably linear and shallow D-logH curve).

I always used the services of a pro lab because the lab was owned by a
friend. I thought the XP1 prints were more than good enough for most
purposes. I've never used Kodak BW400CN, but I do remember the awesome
results from T-MAX 100 during the 1980's/90's.

Can't remember the Agfa B&W film I once tried: it had a low ISO and
extremely high contrasts so it was a sort of black or white film, which
gave eerie results to pictures taken on foggy days.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> writes:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>You'd find them in any actual camera store in the USA or Canada any time
>>in the last 30 years or more, and even in consumer processing places
>>like Proex back when those existed. Since they're not an American
>>company, I believe they'd be widely found throughout Europe as well, but
>>I can't testify to that from personal experience (I mostly took film
>>with me when I was in Europe to save money, so I wasn't paying attention
>>so much to what was for sale). ("Save money" because I bought 100-foot
>>rolls and bulk loaded.)
>>
>>However, they made only B&W film, not color; that might also have made a
>>difference as to whether you noticed them, perhaps.
>
>
> I have a few hundred negatives that were shot on Ilford's "Ilfacolor"
> negative film in the 1960s.

Oops! My ignorance comes around to bite me on the ass.

> But Ilfacolor film was short-lived and I think the brand name may have
> been re-used more recently for something else entirely.

Or at least nip.

> The Ilford brand has also appeared on slide film. However, the film
> was manufactured by others; research suggested Ferrania of Italy
> (formerly 3M) and/or Konica of Japan.

I've used some 3M branded slide film, especially the 640T. It wasn't
fast enough AND wasn't good enough :-) . (I'm spoiled by my D700.)

[Bruce]

David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:

>Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>You'd find them in any actual camera store in the USA or Canada any time
>>>in the last 30 years or more, and even in consumer processing places
>>>like Proex back when those existed. Since they're not an American
>>>company, I believe they'd be widely found throughout Europe as well, but
>>>I can't testify to that from personal experience (I mostly took film
>>>with me when I was in Europe to save money, so I wasn't paying attention
>>>so much to what was for sale). ("Save money" because I bought 100-foot
>>>rolls and bulk loaded.)
>>>
>>>However, they made only B&W film, not color; that might also have made a
>>>difference as to whether you noticed them, perhaps.
>>
>>
>> I have a few hundred negatives that were shot on Ilford's "Ilfacolor"
>> negative film in the 1960s.
>
>Oops! My ignorance comes around to bite me on the ass.

Not at all. Ilford's short lived excursions into a world of colour
photography were not a success and not widely known. Alfred Molon's
complete ignorance of the Ilford brand would be far more serious if it
wasn't so funny. ;-)

>> But Ilfacolor film was short-lived and I think the brand name may have
>> been re-used more recently for something else entirely.
>
>Or at least nip.
>
>> The Ilford brand has also appeared on slide film. However, the film
>> was manufactured by others; research suggested Ferrania of Italy
>> (formerly 3M) and/or Konica of Japan.
>
>I've used some 3M branded slide film, especially the 640T. It wasn't
>fast enough AND wasn't good enough :-) .

Well, there was GAF 500 which we discussed fairly recently. A
horrible emulsion even by the low standards of its day.


>I'm spoiled by my D700.


As I was by mine, and by the beat-up D3 that followed it. ;-)

[Eric Stevens]

That and his habit of net-bossing on the subject of cross-posting.

Still, I don't know why he has taken it upon himself to protect the
residents of alt.photography from news about S.I.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Alfred Molon]

In article <4v3jm7lcb36kkhrcq...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
says...

> >Very strange. When film was still sold, in the shops you could find
> >Kodak, Fuji or Agfa, but not Ilford.
>
> What part of the world do you live in?

Europe

[Alfred Molon]

In article <CB8F5270.83C4D%ghost_...@hotmail.com>, George Kerby
says...

> Did you ever shoot B&W.

Nope...

BTW, my 8 year old daughter has never seen a roll of film. Film
disappeared before she was old enough to remember things.

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:34:32 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
wrote:

THey did make color film. See
http://www.ilford.com/en/pdf/prods/ilfochrome/CC_CT.pdf

>
>They're also a major photographic paper manufacturer, and they made the
>"Ilfochrome" color reversal paper (originally "Cibachrome") that was one
>of the most popular ways to make exhibition prints from slides back in
>the film era. They also make a line of B&W photo chemicals.

See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilfochrome for more about Ilford
color and history than you are likely to want to know. :-)

>
>Really, they're one of the giants of the industry.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-03-20 23:17 , tony cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:02:56 -0400, Alan Browne
> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> ideas? Please post here for the committee to consider.
>
> Don't forget the old stand-by: Open

Then I'd suggest to the committee that it nominate a letter based open.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-03-20 17:27 , tony cooper wrote:

> Putting your socks on before you put your shirt on or putting your
> shirt on before you put your socks on, are two different methods of
> getting dressed. But, they both result in the same thing.

I recall a fellow who put his underwear on after he put his pants on.

He was dressed, I suppose.

[tony cooper]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 16:55:23 -0400, Alan Browne

<alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:

>On 2012-03-20 23:17 , tony cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 17:02:56 -0400, Alan Browne
>> <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> ideas? Please post here for the committee to consider.
>>
>> Don't forget the old stand-by: Open
>
>Then I'd suggest to the committee that it nominate a letter based open.

Whatever the mandate, "fresh" should requested (but not required).

[Pete A]

On 2012-03-21 20:17:04 +0000, Bruce said:

> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>
>> Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
>>>> You'd find them in any actual camera store in the USA or Canada any time
>>>> in the last 30 years or more, and even in consumer processing places
>>>> like Proex back when those existed. Since they're not an American
>>>> company, I believe they'd be widely found throughout Europe as well, but
>>>> I can't testify to that from personal experience (I mostly took film
>>>> with me when I was in Europe to save money, so I wasn't paying attention
>>>> so much to what was for sale). ("Save money" because I bought 100-foot
>>>> rolls and bulk loaded.)
>>>>
>>>> However, they made only B&W film, not color; that might also have made a
>>>> difference as to whether you noticed them, perhaps.
>>>
>>>
>>> I have a few hundred negatives that were shot on Ilford's "Ilfacolor"
>>> negative film in the 1960s.
>>
>> Oops! My ignorance comes around to bite me on the ass.
>
>
> Not at all. Ilford's short lived excursions into a world of colour
> photography were not a success and not widely known. Alfred Molon's
> complete ignorance of the Ilford brand would be far more serious if it
> wasn't so funny. ;-)

I'm not so sure about that. The Ilford packaging that I remember was so
distinctive (literally, setting it apart) that I wouldn't have
recognized it as camera film unless someone/an advert had previously
pointed it out to me. E.g. a white box with black lettering disappears
from view in a sea of brightly-coloured attention-grabbing boxes of the
same size. Marketing psychology always trumps product excellence in
terms of revenue.

>>> But Ilfacolor film was short-lived and I think the brand name may have
>>> been re-used more recently for something else entirely.
>>
>> Or at least nip.
>>
>>> The Ilford brand has also appeared on slide film. However, the film
>>> was manufactured by others; research suggested Ferrania of Italy
>>> (formerly 3M) and/or Konica of Japan.
>>
>> I've used some 3M branded slide film, especially the 640T. It wasn't
>> fast enough AND wasn't good enough :-) .
>
>
> Well, there was GAF 500 which we discussed fairly recently. A
> horrible emulsion even by the low standards of its day.

I remember trying GAF - it's name was only one "F" short of it's
reputation. Perhaps its only selling point was being the master of
grain at each ISO. I happily "deleted" everything I took on it.

>> I'm spoiled by my D700.
>
> As I was by mine, and by the beat-up D3 that followed it. ;-)

Have you tried the new Nikon Picture Controls available in Capture NX2
version 2.3.0/1 for the D700/D3? They are brutal in showing noise that
you hoped wasn't there, but with a fair amount of editing work they can
render awesome chroma in deep shadows.

I've spent nearly three months re-editing some of my night and heavily
overcast daylight shots using the new Picture Controls. They have
enabled me to explore my surreal/abstracted art in the direction I've
always dreamed of going.

The new Picture Controls are not enabled by default. To get them,
launch the Picture Control Utility; click the bottom left "Preferences"
button and you will see two options plus explanatory text.

[Alan Browne]

I'm not happy with the high number of archive shots in the recent SI.

[Pete A]

On 2012-03-21 20:56:43 +0000, Alan Browne said:

> On 2012-03-20 17:27 , tony cooper wrote:
>
>> Putting your socks on before you put your shirt on or putting your
>> shirt on before you put your socks on, are two different methods of
>> getting dressed. But, they both result in the same thing.
>
> I recall a fellow who put his underwear on after he put his pants on.
>
> He was dressed, I suppose.

The order and method of dressing is irrelevant. The only thing that
matters is to totally understand the correct order of undressing: it's
either turn-on or turn-off, so choose wisely according to the situation.

[Alan Browne]

On 2012-03-21 18:03 , Pete A wrote:
> On 2012-03-21 20:56:43 +0000, Alan Browne said:
>
>> On 2012-03-20 17:27 , tony cooper wrote:
>>
>>> Putting your socks on before you put your shirt on or putting your
>>> shirt on before you put your socks on, are two different methods of
>>> getting dressed. But, they both result in the same thing.
>>
>> I recall a fellow who put his underwear on after he put his pants on.
>>
>> He was dressed, I suppose.
>
> The order and method of dressing is irrelevant. The only thing that
> matters is to totally understand the correct order of undressing:

You've never seen a girl remove her bra from under her sweater?

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 21:33:36 +0100, Alfred Molon
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <4v3jm7lcb36kkhrcq...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
>says...
>> >Very strange. When film was still sold, in the shops you could find
>> >Kodak, Fuji or Agfa, but not Ilford.
>>
>> What part of the world do you live in?
>
>Europe

I'm astonished that you have _never_ encountered Ilford.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Bruce]

Thanks, Pete. I don't use Capture NX, but I will take a look at one
of the copies that came with the D800 and D800E. This is an
exceptionally busy time as we are setting up our office on the new
construction site, but I will take a look as soon as I can.

[Pete A]

On 2012-03-21 20:37:57 +0000, Alfred Molon said:

> In article <CB8F5270.83C4D%ghost_...@hotmail.com>, George Kerby
> says...
>> Did you ever shoot B&W.
>
> Nope...
>
> BTW, my 8 year old daughter has never seen a roll of film. Film
> disappeared before she was old enough to remember things.

I don't understand that - it would appear that I'm still not old enough
to remember things :-)

[Robert Coe]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 09:45:13 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980 <annik...@aol.com>
wrote:
: On Mar 19, 5:02 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>

: wrote:
: > ideas?  Please post here for the committee to consider.

: >
: > --
: > The Committee.
:
: "The End"

I don't recall you being that sarcastic when you were a regular contributor.
If your point is that we can't continue without you, get over it. In many
respects you may be the best photographer in the group; but no one is
indispensable, not even you.

Bob

[Robert Coe]

On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 16:57:26 +0000, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
: Annika1980 <annik...@aol.com> wrote:
:
: >On Mar 19, 5:02 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
: >wrote:
: >> ideas?  Please post here for the committee to consider.
: >>
: >> --
: >> The Committee.
: >
: >"The End"

:
:
: That already happened.
:
: The problem is that the participants haven't realised it yet. ;-)

But when that point is raised by people who have never participated, those who
raise it will have to forgive us for questioning its relevance.

Bob

[Robert Coe]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 09:57:47 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
wrote:
: On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 19:28:06 +0000, Pete A
: <pete3....@nospam.ntlworld.com> wrote:
:

: >On 2012-03-20 16:57:26 +0000, Bruce said:
: >
: >> Annika1980 <annik...@aol.com> wrote:
: >>
: >>> On Mar 19, 5:02 pm, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
: >>> wrote:
: >>>> ideas?  Please post here for the committee to consider.
: >>>>
: >>>> --
: >>>> The Committee.
: >>>
: >>> "The End"
: >>
: >>
: >> That already happened.
: >>
: >> The problem is that the participants haven't realised it yet. ;-)

: >
: >My realization has been growing. After spending some time attempting to
: >write comments on the current SI, I've deleted them. I have nothing
: >even marginally useful to contribute in the way of either feedback or
: >photos.
: >
: >The three suggestions I thought of for new mandates have already been
: >done and I noticed while checking that there were many more
: >contributors in the past than there are now.
:
: Perhaps we should conduct a survey "What is preventing or discouraging
: you from contributing to the SI?"

In my case it's mostly the 24-hour day. I'm a strong advocate for a 28-hour
day (and an eight-day week), but I understand that it's unlikely to happen in
my lifetime.

That said, what I've found most frustrating when I have participated is the
time it takes to get my pictures down to the maximum accepted size while
maintaining a level of quality sufficient to make the effort worthwhile.

Bob

[Eric Stevens]

This time I wasn't going to be first to make this last point, but I
have said it previously. The maximum image size (what is it, 1200 x
800?) is fine by me but depending on the subject, this can lead to
JPEGs ranging from 200kB to around 2MB. If you don't believe me, try
it. I have a continual battle with file size and image quality and
frequently many trials are required to get images (just) down to size.

Another thing which bugs me is the use of archival photographs. A
number of times the rules have said 'no archival images' and then
blatantly archival images have been accepted. I'm happy with archival
images and would prefer to be able to use them but, if they are not
allowed, they should be not allowed from anyone.

My other problem is the weather. For the last two years its been
lousy. Almost never have I been able to get out on the few good
shooting days we have had. I don't expect anyone can fix this for me.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Savageduck]

I don't understand why you are having such a hard time with resizing.

With Photoshop (CS5 in my case) using the crop tool I make the
appropriate crop to establish edge ratio.
Retaining proportionality adjust image size to 1200 pixels along the long edge.
Then a simple "save as" reducing quality to about "9" you should have a
file size somewhere between 255-330 MB.

I would imagine you would go through a similar process with most other
editing software.

For those folks with Macs it is even simpler using Preview and the
"adjust size" tool.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Trevor]

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2012032122350077923-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...

> On 2012-03-21 19:37:43 -0700, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> said:
>> That said, what I've found most frustrating when I have participated is
>> the
>> time it takes to get my pictures down to the maximum accepted size while
>> maintaining a level of quality sufficient to make the effort worthwhile.
>>

> I don't understand why you are having such a hard time with resizing.
> With Photoshop (CS5 in my case) using the crop tool I make the appropriate
> crop to establish edge ratio.
> Retaining proportionality adjust image size to 1200 pixels along the long
> edge.
> Then a simple "save as" reducing quality to about "9" you should have a
> file size somewhere between 255-330 MB.

I sure hope you mean 255-330kB!

> I would imagine you would go through a similar process with most other
> editing software.
> For those folks with Macs it is even simpler using Preview and the "adjust
> size" tool.

It seems you missed the key words "maximum accepted size while maintaining a
level of quality sufficient to make the effort worthwhile". I imagine he
knows how to resample, but would prefer larger files/better quality pictures
to compare.

Trevor.

[Noons]

On Mar 21, 7:37 am, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Adox is not, Arista is not, Efke is not, Foma is
> > not, Ilford is not, Kentmere is not....
>
> I've never heard these companies make film, so if they exist they must

That proves beyond any doubt you know didley squat about film and its
use.
As such, you should not be commenting about things you obviously know
nothing about.

[Noons]

On Mar 21, 10:40 am, philo <ph...@privacy.net> wrote:

> > It's really the first time I hear a company named "Ilford" makes film
> > and I do know quite a lot about photography. But I'm sure that I have
> > never, ever seen film branded "Ilford" on this side of the Atlantic and
> > in all 50 countries I've visited. They must be very niche.
>

> Hard to believe someone has not heard of Ilford film


Oh puhleaze! Spot the obvious troll?

[Savageduck]

On 2012-03-21 22:47:48 -0700, "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> said:

>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2012032122350077923-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2012-03-21 19:37:43 -0700, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> said:
>>> That said, what I've found most frustrating when I have participated is
>>> the
>>> time it takes to get my pictures down to the maximum accepted size while
>>> maintaining a level of quality sufficient to make the effort worthwhile.
>>>
>> I don't understand why you are having such a hard time with resizing.
>> With Photoshop (CS5 in my case) using the crop tool I make the appropriate
>> crop to establish edge ratio.
>> Retaining proportionality adjust image size to 1200 pixels along the long
>> edge.
>> Then a simple "save as" reducing quality to about "9" you should have a
>> file size somewhere between 255-330 MB.
>
> I sure hope you mean 255-330kB!

...er yup!
That was a phinfgr phawlt, brain fart. 255-3330 KB

>
>
>> I would imagine you would go through a similar process with most other
>> editing software.
>> For those folks with Macs it is even simpler using Preview and the "adjust
>> size" tool.
>
> It seems you missed the key words "maximum accepted size while maintaining a
> level of quality sufficient to make the effort worthwhile". I imagine he
> knows how to resample, but would prefer larger files/better quality pictures
> to compare.
>
> Trevor.

Following the work flow I described above quality is more than OK for
the display viewing required for the SI.

For example here is a 7.8 MB 2520 x 3720 image:
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Bugatti-3979.jpg >
and the same image reduced to 298 KB 867 x 1280:
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Bugatti-3979w2.jpg >


--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

On 2012-03-21 23:47:58 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:

> On 2012-03-21 22:47:48 -0700, "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> said:
>
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2012032122350077923-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2012-03-21 19:37:43 -0700, Robert Coe <b...@1776.COM> said:
>>>> That said, what I've found most frustrating when I have participated is
>>>> the
>>>> time it takes to get my pictures down to the maximum accepted size while
>>>> maintaining a level of quality sufficient to make the effort worthwhile.
>>>>
>>> I don't understand why you are having such a hard time with resizing.
>>> With Photoshop (CS5 in my case) using the crop tool I make the appropriate
>>> crop to establish edge ratio.
>>> Retaining proportionality adjust image size to 1200 pixels along the long
>>> edge.
>>> Then a simple "save as" reducing quality to about "9" you should have a
>>> file size somewhere between 255-330 MB.
>>
>> I sure hope you mean 255-330kB!
>
> ...er yup!
> That was a phinfgr phawlt, brain fart. 255-3330 KB

Damn! I did it again!! 255-330 KB.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Alfred Molon]

In article <l2lkm7h3h7655dpin...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
says...

> >> What part of the world do you live in?
> >
> >Europe
>
> I'm astonished that you have _never_ encountered Ilford.

It is not sold here.

[Trevor]

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message

news:2012032123475864440-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...

> Following the work flow I described above quality is more than OK for the
> display viewing required for the SI.

For you, but perhaps not for him by the sound of what he posted.

> For example here is a 7.8 MB 2520 x 3720 image:
> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Bugatti-3979.jpg >
> and the same image reduced to 298 KB 867 x 1280:
> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Bugatti-3979w2.jpg >

Your point being that the 298kB file is just as good for comparing image
quality, or just as good if you only want to see a small screen image amd
don't care about image quality?
Is that what the SI is about?

Trevor.

[Alfred Molon]

In article <2012032123261392358-pete3attkins@nospamntlworldcom>, Pete A
says...

> I don't understand that - it would appear that I'm still not old enough
> to remember things :-)

Kids start remembering things at the age of 4-5, i.e. later in life they
can't remember things which happened when they were less than 4 years
old.

[Alfred Molon]

In article <2e19da47-a8c0-44ad-bee6-
69879c...@n9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Noons says...

> That proves beyond any doubt you know didley squat about film and its
> use.
> As such, you should not be commenting about things you obviously know
> nothing about.

I've never claimed to be a film expert. Besides, film is irrelevant
these days.

[Trevor]

"Alfred Molon" <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.29d4eba03...@news.supernews.com...

> Kids start remembering things at the age of 4-5, i.e. later in life they
> can't remember things which happened when they were less than 4 years
> old.

Rubbish, some people at least can remember incidents long before they were
4YO. My earliest memories are less than 2YO, because we moved houses before
I was 2, and I can remember clearly incidents before we moved. Just not very
many :-)

Trevor.

[Savageduck]

The loss of image quality when viewed on a computer display is
negligible, and the sizing recommendations for the SI allows for some
uniformity of size and file size reduction for pbase for all
submissions.
With contemporary displays certainly larger dimensions could be
considered, perhaps 1920 x 1300 & 580 KB.
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Bugatti-3979w3.jpg >

The SI is about the challenge of capturing an image to meet a
particular mandate.
In many cases it draws some of us out of our comfort zones. The
landscape shooter pushed to take portraits, or macros. The camera used
is irrelevant, use a compact, super-zoom, or DSLR. Hell use a view
camera. Having a good quality image is nice, but participation, subject
meeting the mandate and composition are more relevant.
The SI is not a competition. All skill levels are welcome to submit
images, learn from mistakes and be inspired by the better submissions.
It then becomes a learning experience for many who choose to play.
Obviously if it were a pixel peeping competition larger files would be
required. The SI was intended to be entertaining and fun.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Savageduck]

I can say the same.
I distinctly remember many details of the house we lived in until we
moved in 1952 when I was 3, as well as some experiences at that early
age. Like you I did not maintain a daily journal, but I have some
distinct memories at that age.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Richard]

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <4v3jm7lcb36kkhrcq...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
> says...
>>> Very strange. When film was still sold, in the shops you could find
>>> Kodak, Fuji or Agfa, but not Ilford.
>>

>> What part of the world do you live in?
>
> Europe

Which country?

[Bruce]

The SI has a long history of "losing" its best contributors, many of
whom quote the same reason why they felt they could not continue.

[Bruce]

Alfred lives in Germany. Apparently he has selective blindness when
it comes to the very distinctive packaging of Ilford products.

Of course this is the very same man who refused to find the money for
a postage stamp when that was all he needed to resolve an issue
concerning an alleged theft of his images ...

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 07:56:52 +0100, Alfred Molon
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <2012032123261392358-pete3attkins@nospamntlworldcom>, Pete A
>says...
>> I don't understand that - it would appear that I'm still not old enough
>> to remember things :-)
>
>Kids start remembering things at the age of 4-5, i.e. later in life they
>can't remember things which happened when they were less than 4 years
>old.

I remember events which occurred when I was 2 or slightly less.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

But that's the type of image you use and what you look for in it.

>
>I would imagine you would go through a similar process with most other
>editing software.
>
>For those folks with Macs it is even simpler using Preview and the
>"adjust size" tool.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Eric Stevens]

My complaint relates to the way the same compression algorithm (in
this case JPG) can result in vastly different sizes of JPG files.

Here are two I have plucked from my (dirty word) archives.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC02101-FACE.jpg is 135 kB and
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC02102.JPG is 2.27 MB. If you have
a preference for taking the second category of phototographs you are
faced with an enormous struggle to get within the size limits.

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[Noons]

On Mar 22, 5:59 pm, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I've never claimed to be a film expert.

What you claimed demonstrates you don't even make it to beginner, much
less expert.

> Besides, film is irrelevant
> these days.

To you. That doesn't make it irrelevant to everyone: you are not the
universal conscience.

[Pete A]

I reduce sharpening and often apply selective noise reduction to obtain
a good looking 300 KB file. It's surprising how much the file size is
increased by even low levels of noise, especially noise in the expanse
of the sky.

It's obvious from the comments on the SI images that there are some who
don't bother to look at the "original", they view only the default
"large" image. Therefore there's little point in submitting a 1200x800
of reduced quality, just send an 800x600 at 300 KB.

> Another thing which bugs me is the use of archival photographs. A
> number of times the rules have said 'no archival images' and then
> blatantly archival images have been accepted. I'm happy with archival
> images and would prefer to be able to use them but, if they are not
> allowed, they should be not allowed from anyone.

I'm guilty of posting old images because I'm so rarely fit enough to
take pictures.

> My other problem is the weather. For the last two years its been
> lousy. Almost never have I been able to get out on the few good
> shooting days we have had. I don't expect anyone can fix this for me.

My "better" days hardly ever coincide with suitable weather. When they
do, it's usually a case of having to do a bit of gardening or get the
laundry hanging on the line.

[Savageduck]

...and that is a characteristic of JPEG compression with varying
content detail and contrast.

>
> Here are two I have plucked from my (dirty word) archives.
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC02101-FACE.jpg is 135 kB and
> http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC02102.JPG is 2.27 MB. If you have
> a preference for taking the second category of phototographs you are
> faced with an enormous struggle to get within the size limits.
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens

My propensity is to work with full size & full detail images. Resizing
of your large image to 294 KB & 1280 x 856, took me all of 30 seconds.
I believe it retains the detail & character of your image without the
introduction of JPEG artifacts at that size and compression. Obviously
it is meant to be viewed at that size without pixel peeping.
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/EricS-C1.jpg >




--
Regards,

Savageduck

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> writes:

> In article <2e19da47-a8c0-44ad-bee6-
> 69879c...@n9g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, Noons says...
>> That proves beyond any doubt you know didley squat about film and its
>> use.
>> As such, you should not be commenting about things you obviously know
>> nothing about.
>
> I've never claimed to be a film expert. Besides, film is irrelevant
> these days.

Yes, being ignorant about film says nothing about somebody as a
photographer these days.

And I don't, really, mean to insult people still using film, either.
Use what works for you!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

[David Dyer-Bennet]

Alfred Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> writes:

> In article <2012032123261392358-pete3attkins@nospamntlworldcom>, Pete A
> says...
>> I don't understand that - it would appear that I'm still not old enough
>> to remember things :-)
>
> Kids start remembering things at the age of 4-5, i.e. later in life they
> can't remember things which happened when they were less than 4 years
> old.

It varies, I have a friend who remembers things from 18 months. But
that's unusual.

[Pete A]

I can't remember what I did the day before yesterday, last week, or
last month, but I can remember a few things from when I was 3 and have
several recollections of being in my cot/crib (the failed escape
attempt is a vivid memory).

[James Silverton]

It's very hard to tell whether or not your earliest memories are
reinforced by others. I seem to remember the details and reasons for my
first walking at an early age but it was noticed by my relatives and
recalled later several times.

--
Jim Silverton (Potomac, MD)

Extraneous "not" in Reply To.

[Savageduck]

That is true. However as a somewhat adventurous and terrible 2 year old
I distinctly remember at least three events not reinforced by family
legend.
One of those I live with to this day. At about 18 months I was bitten
by a Black Widow spider on my left small toe. The resulting trauma
destroyed the nail bed and to this day I have no toe nail on my left
small toe. I guess that could be called reinforcement of a type.
I also remember an incident, when on my 2 year old adventures, I found
myself sitting on one of several bee hive boxes in our garden. Bees
were buzzing around me as I blithely sat there oblivious to the risk,
and my mother was going through a major demonstration of parental
panic. I survived that without being stung and baffled by all the fuss.

To keep this OT here is a shot of yours truly with my two larger
cousins, taken back in those days.
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/LGJ-Afw.jpg >

...and come to think about it, I even had big hands as a baby.

--
Regards,

Savageduck