PHOTOGRAPHY TIPS FOR NEWCOMERS
CAMERA EXPERT
SURE TO LEARN THE FOLLOWING TIPS TO PREVENT DISASTER:
1)Never buy a Minolta 35mm SLR. Minolta is a sub-standard camera
manufacturer. They had some respect in the 1980's, but that is
history. They make some OK point and shoot APS cameras, but that is
about it. If you buy a Minolta SLR, you will be getting a camera with
poor build construction. You will be limited as far as lenses and
accessories go. You will be stuck with a non-standard flash mount.
Minolta AF lenses are not as good as lenses made by Nikkor, Canon,
Zeiss, or Leica. If you are buying your first 35mm SLR, get a Canon or
Nikon system. They have the best selection of lenses and accessories
and much better quality bodies than Minolta or Pentax. Canon is
slightly better than Nikon. Leica and Contax are great systems too if
you can afford it.
2)Do not buy a digital camera until they are available with 20
megapixel resolution if you intend to print your pictures. That is
what the equivalent to 35mm film would be. If you are snapping pics
for the web, then a lower resolution may be acceptable.
3)Never buy a point and shoot 35mm camera with a zoom longer than 90.
Even better, try to stick to point and shoots with a fixed focal
length like the Contax T3, Leica Minilux, or Olympus Stylus Epic QD.
4)Never buy any color negative film other than Kodak or Fuji. Kodak is
generally better. If you are shooting black and white film, then you
can use Kodak, Fuji, or Ilford with good results.
5)Never shoot any chromogenic (C-41) black and white films. They are
garbage and have very little contrast.
6)Never shoot any slide films other than Kodachrome Professional. This
is the only truly archival slide film. Other slide films (E-6) may
look good when they are first processed, but give it a year or 2 and
they will start to fade dramatically.
7)Never print Kodak film onto Fuji paper, or vice versa. Print film
only on paper of the same manufacturer.
8)Never clean your lenses with anything other than a blower brush.
9)Do not use flash for children under 6 months old. It could
permanently damage the child's vision.
10)Keep professional film in the refrigerator until you are ready to
use it. Take it out 1 hour before and allow it to adjust to room
temperature before you remove the film from the plastic container and
load it into the camera. DO NOT keep consumer film in the
refrigerator...it could slow down the aging process and prevent the
film from ripening. NEVER STORE ANY FILM IN THE FREEZER DESPITE WHAT
ANYONE TELLS YOU.
I OFFER THIS ADVICE TO YOU NEWCOMERS SO YOU DON'T MAKE THE SAME
MISTAKES TOO MANY PHOTOGRAPHERS MAKE.
Paul Heslop
> I OFFER THIS ADVICE TO YOU NEWCOMERS SO YOU DON'T MAKE THE SAME
> MISTAKES TOO MANY PHOTOGRAPHERS MAKE.
Thanks... BUT YOU SHOUT TOO MUCH!!!
--
Paul. (I never agreed to be Your holy one)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Not what it seems...
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Gavin Cato
I believe after carefully assessing what you wrote, particulaarly the bit
about printing digital, that you are in fact an idiot, and certainly not a
camera expert. I'd be hesitant about having you teach photography to a 5yr
old let alone a usenet audience.
"CAMERA EXPERT" <camera...@muchomail.com> wrote in message
news:3926cede.03080...@posting.google.com...
WB3FUP (Mike Hall)
TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT
--
73 es cul
wb3fup
a Salty Bear
"CAMERA EXPERT" <camera...@muchomail.com> wrote in message
news:3926cede.03080...@posting.google.com...
Cheryl Wells
Paul Larson
news:3926cede.03080...@posting.google.com:
> IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PHOTOGRAPHY BUT NEED SOME HELP,
PLEASE BE
> SURE TO LEARN THE FOLLOWING TIPS TO PREVENT DISASTER:
>
Bravo.... arthor arthor!
Hickster0711
Charlie D
camera...@muchomail.com (CAMERA EXPERT) wrote:
> IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PHOTOGRAPHY BUT NEED SOME HELP, PLEASE BE
> SURE TO LEARN THE FOLLOWING TIPS TO PREVENT DISASTER:
snip drivel
> I OFFER THIS ADVICE TO YOU NEWCOMERS SO YOU DON'T MAKE THE SAME
> MISTAKES TOO MANY PHOTOGRAPHERS MAKE.
--
Charlie Dilks
Newark, DE USA
Polytone
accepted that 35mm film still prints better than any resoluon digital
available yet? Doesn't Minolta have less accessories and lenses than Canon
or Nikon? Don't Kodakcrome slides last longer than E6? Yes his "pointer"
carry some strong opinions, but not all of it is exactly false.
"Charlie D" <cdi...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:cdilks-A6F352....@news.fu-berlin.de...
Charlie D
"Polytone" <poly...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> Yes his "pointer"
> carry some strong opinions, but not all of it is exactly false.
That's why I said, "snip drivel" and not "snip pure drivel" as I was
going to.
Excellent photographs have been made by not following most of the
poster's points.
I, for one had great success with Illford XP-1, their first chromogenic
B&W film. Everyone loved the tonality of the prints I made from it.
Polytone
"Charlie D" <cdi...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:cdilks-53B3B5....@news.fu-berlin.de...
Polytone
> Charlie, do you like Konica Monochrome 400?
The reason I ask is because this is the only C41 B&W film I ever used. I had
it processed C41 and printed on Konica Impresa color paper at the minilab
and they came back Sepia.
stan
Paul Heslop wrote:
CAMERA EXPERT wrote:> I OFFER THIS ADVICE TO YOU NEWCOMERS SO YOU DON'T MAKE THE SAME
> MISTAKES TOO MANY PHOTOGRAPHERS MAKE.
What the hell is with the trolls around here? Who's feeding them and why?
We need some troll-icide to rid this group of the ever growing numbers
of these insidious creatures. And they yell a lot too!
Stan
Visual Arts Photography
Charlie D
"Polytone" <poly...@prodigy.net> wrote:
I never heard of it.
The XP-1 I used was in the '80s and I developed the film and made the
prints myself. I shot a fashion show and a wedding with it. It was
amazing for the wedding. It captured velvety blacks and didn't blow out
the whites.
The fashion show was a benefit that I shot for the American Cancer
Society. When the models saw the prints a lot of them bought copies for
themselves. Another branch of the ACS bought a set of prints to convince
their sponsors to have a fashion show.
Mike
"stan" <vis...@mc.net> wrote in message news:3F2DD341...@mc.net...
PTRAVEL
here goes . . .
"CAMERA EXPERT" <camera...@muchomail.com> wrote in message
news:3926cede.03080...@posting.google.com...
> IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PHOTOGRAPHY BUT NEED SOME HELP, PLEASE BE
> SURE TO LEARN THE FOLLOWING TIPS TO PREVENT DISASTER:
>
> 1)Never buy a Minolta 35mm SLR. Minolta is a sub-standard camera
> manufacturer. They had some respect in the 1980's, but that is
> history. They make some OK point and shoot APS cameras, but that is
> about it. If you buy a Minolta SLR, you will be getting a camera with
> poor build construction. You will be limited as far as lenses and
> accessories go. You will be stuck with a non-standard flash mount.
> Minolta AF lenses are not as good as lenses made by Nikkor, Canon,
> Zeiss, or Leica. If you are buying your first 35mm SLR, get a Canon or
> Nikon system. They have the best selection of lenses and accessories
> and much better quality bodies than Minolta or Pentax. Canon is
> slightly better than Nikon. Leica and Contax are great systems too if
> you can afford it.
Everything depends on which camera you buy, and where in the line it is
situated. It is, frankly, ridiculous to say, "All Minoltas stink," "all
Canons are great," etc.
>
> 2)Do not buy a digital camera until they are available with 20
> megapixel resolution if you intend to print your pictures. That is
> what the equivalent to 35mm film would be. If you are snapping pics
> for the web, then a lower resolution may be acceptable.
Completely wrong. Everything depends on how large you want to print. With
a 5+ megapixel camera, you can do prints up to 16" x 20" that will be
indistinguishable, when viewed with the naked eye, from prints made by a
chemical process. Given that it is much, much easier to control the final
output of a digital print than a chemical print, particularly for a
newcomer, the digital camera is a much better option.
>
> 3)Never buy a point and shoot 35mm camera with a zoom longer than 90.
I agree with that, though the OP doesn't say why. P&S cameras have very
small lenses which result in a rather dramatic fall-off in light
transmission at higher focal lengths. Because there is less light, longer
exposures are necessary. Quite quickly, you reach a point of diminishing
returns, where the shutter speed is so slow that it guarantees a blurred
image from camera shake and subject movement.
> Even better, try to stick to point and shoots with a fixed focal
> length like the Contax T3, Leica Minilux, or Olympus Stylus Epic QD.
Good cameras, all. However, moderate zoom, particularly one that gives you
a choice between wide angle (28mm is best), normal (between 45 and 55mm) and
portrait (between 70 and 135mm) will give you the most flexibility. I
recommend the Olympus Stylus D80 Wide, which has a 28mm to 80mm zoom lens.
>
> 4)Never buy any color negative film other than Kodak or Fuji. Kodak is
> generally better.
Strictly personal preference. I far prefer Fuji, which is a 4-layer film
and generally gives more saturated, "snappier" colors than Kodak. This is
absolutely true at the higher speeds. 800-speed Fuji is virtually
indistinguishable from its 400-speed brother, whereas Kodak "Max," Kodak's
general purpose 800-speed film, is grainy and washed out.
> If you are shooting black and white film, then you
> can use Kodak, Fuji, or Ilford with good results.
Again, it depends on what you are doing. Kodak makes some very fine grain
film intended for the T-Max system. However, some people like grain in b&w.
>
> 5)Never shoot any chromogenic (C-41) black and white films. They are
> garbage and have very little contrast.
Well, I agree with that. B&W C-41 is a sop to the 1-hour photofinishers.
>
> 6)Never shoot any slide films other than Kodachrome Professional. This
> is the only truly archival slide film. Other slide films (E-6) may
> look good when they are first processed, but give it a year or 2 and
> they will start to fade dramatically.
Who cares about archival, if they're amateurs? E-6 has considerably more
exposure latitutde than Kodachrome Professional, can be developed virtually
anywhere, is available in faster emulsions, is cheaper and much, much easier
to handle.
>
> 7)Never print Kodak film onto Fuji paper, or vice versa. Print film
> only on paper of the same manufacturer.
Utter nonsense. Papers vary, but they're not matched to film emulsions. A
good lab can pull a good print based on whatever they're optimized for.
>
> 8)Never clean your lenses with anything other than a blower brush.
Why? Microfiber cloth is fine if the lens has dirt deposits that can't be
blown away.
>
> 9)Do not use flash for children under 6 months old. It could
> permanently damage the child's vision.
I wouldn't know.
>
> 10)Keep professional film in the refrigerator until you are ready to
> use it.
Amateurs rarely, if ever, use professional film. It is expensive (unless
bought in bulk), should be refrigerated, as you've indicated, and won't
produce better results than the more rugged amateur emulsions. The point of
professional film is consistency of results from roll to roll. Amateurs
don't care about that at all. They're much more concerned with getting good
results from film they bought 6 months before, or that was left in the glove
compartment of their car, etc.
>Take it out 1 hour before and allow it to adjust to room
> temperature before you remove the film from the plastic container and
> load it into the camera.
Well, yes.
> DO NOT keep consumer film in the
> refrigerator...it could slow down the aging process and prevent the
> film from ripening.
"Ripening"? Give me a break.
> NEVER STORE ANY FILM IN THE FREEZER DESPITE WHAT
> ANYONE TELLS YOU.
There's no benefit to doing so, but I don't see the harm.
>
> I OFFER THIS ADVICE TO YOU NEWCOMERS SO YOU DON'T MAKE THE SAME
> MISTAKES TOO MANY PHOTOGRAPHERS MAKE.
The best advice is never listen to someone who says, "Never . . ."
Skip Middleton
WhizzzzzzSploidt!
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Hickster0711" <hickst...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030803230539...@mb-m15.aol.com...
Skip Middleton
to be kind, were arguable. For instance, Minolta does indeed have fewer
lenses and accessories than some of their competitors, but their build
quality and lens quality are on a par with Canon and Nikon, if not, in some
cases, superior. It IS generally accepted that it doesn't take a resolution
in excess of 20mp to equal the quality of film printed in sizes up to 16x20.
Agfa, among others, makes some very good color negative film.
I could go on, but that would be pointless.
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Polytone" <poly...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:h8kXa.3013$HL2...@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
PTRAVEL
"Polytone" <poly...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:h8kXa.3013$HL2...@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
See my post.
> Isn't it universally
> accepted that 35mm film still prints better than any resoluon digital
> available yet?
Yes and no. Up to 11 x 14, with a 5 megapixel camera and a good printer you
won't be able to see the difference without a loupe. A 6+ megapixel camera,
like Canon's 10D, should take you up to 16 x 20 without a noticeable
difference. Remember, too, that amateurs have their film developed at
1-hour photo labs. The best of them are quite good, and the worst of them
are hideous, but it's hit or miss, depending on how good the lab is about
temperatures, contamination and replenishment. For the darkroom amateur, it
is far, far easier to fine-tune a shot for good results digitally than
through filtration, paper selection and temperature control. It's also a
lot easier to get consistently good shots through digital processing than
chemical -- the latter requires a fair amount of discipline to get
consistent results.
> Doesn't Minolta have less accessories and lenses than Canon
> or Nikon?
How many lenses and accessories does a beginner need?
> Don't Kodakcrome slides last longer than E6?
Yes, they do (Kodachrome, that is). They're also far more difficult and
expensive to have processed, and the emulsions are far less forgiving of
exposure errors. Why would beginners want to work with Kodachrome? for
that matter, why would beginners want to work with slides?
> Yes his "pointer"
> carry some strong opinions, but not all of it is exactly false.
Some are false, and others are just plain misleading. The point, though, is
they're offered as fact, rather than opinion.
Skip Middleton
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Polytone" <poly...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:hkkXa.3015$yM2....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
Skip Middleton
example, poorly printed.
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Polytone" <poly...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:omkXa.3016$_L2....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
Polytone
"Skip Middleton" <shadow...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:HLkXa.24769$ff.21418@fed1read01...
Stacey
I didn't have good results with it.
--
Stacey
Stacey
That's the problem. It looks sorta OK on color paper but is too low in
contrast IMHO to print well on B&W paper.
--
Stacey
Charlie D
"PTRAVEL" <PTRAVEL...@cox.net> wrote:
> why would beginners want to work with slides?
For learning.
I shot B&W and developed my own film and made my own prints. I wasn't
capable of printing color, so all my color work was with slides.
How can you learn photography by having a lab do the work on print film?
I remember, I did shoot some color negs and experimented with exopsure
compensation. The automatic printing machine removed all differences in
exposure.
This was back in the "old days" when color printing was, IMO very
technical and required expensive equipment. I tried Cibachrome once and
my mind just doesn't work in CYMK.
Nowadays we can have our print film developed by a lab, scan the negs
and print them using photoshop and RGB thinking.
Charlie D
Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That's the problem. It looks sorta OK on color paper but is too low in
> contrast IMHO to print well on B&W paper.
They looked fine to me and many others printed on Illford grade 3 resin
coated.
Stacey
>
>> Don't Kodakcrome slides last longer than E6?
>
> Yes, they do (Kodachrome, that is). They're also far more difficult and
> expensive to have processed, and the emulsions are far less forgiving of
> exposure errors. Why would beginners want to work with Kodachrome? for
> that matter, why would beginners want to work with slides?
>
To learn photography? Using print film they learn nothing except that the
lab decides what their prints will look like. Until someone can produce
nice slides, they have no leg to stand on complaining about a labs prints.
Nor will they really understand exposure, color balance ect.
--
Stacey
PTRAVEL
> In article <bgkl65$pigc1$1...@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> "PTRAVEL" <PTRAVEL...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > why would beginners want to work with slides?
>
> For learning.
>
> I shot B&W and developed my own film and made my own prints. I wasn't
> capable of printing color, so all my color work was with slides.
>
> How can you learn photography by having a lab do the work on print film?
> I remember, I did shoot some color negs and experimented with exopsure
> compensation. The automatic printing machine removed all differences in
> exposure.
Everything you say is true, but . . .
I have friends who are professional photographers and sometimes use a lab (a
commerical lab, not a 1-hour joint) for prints. They've worked with the lab
for some time, get consistent results and quite good quality.
If someone was just starting out and wanted to learn, I'd recommend doing
only b&w to begin with -- learn composition, light and shadow first, then
move into color. I think slides could be quite frustrating for beginners
because they're so unforgiving.
>
> This was back in the "old days" when color printing was, IMO very
> technical and required expensive equipment. I tried Cibachrome once and
> my mind just doesn't work in CYMK.
I've been doing my own darkroom work for more than 40 years, but its only
the last 5 or so that I've ventured into color printing. The process has
become far more simplified, and there are room-temperature formulae which
make temperature control a snap.
>
> Nowadays we can have our print film developed by a lab, scan the negs
> and print them using photoshop and RGB thinking.
That's what I've been doing, up until this week when I bought a Canon 10D.
Now, the darkroom stuff is on eBay and I'm pricing wide-carriage printers.
Polytone
slides are more mainstream. Velvia is only sold as a Pro film in North
America, I think.
Gavin Cato
you
> won't be able to see the difference without a loupe.
Megapixels aren't everything either, the quality of the sensor is important,
i.e. the nikon d1h at 2.7mpixels will make a more detailed print at 8x12"
than the majority of digital cameras with higher megapixel ratings.
Gav
.
PTRAVEL
circumstances. Nice emulsion! Then again, I generally prefer Fuji.
"Polytone" <poly...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:XelXa.3023$sE2...@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
Charlie D
"PTRAVEL" <PTRAVEL...@cox.net> wrote:
> I think slides could be quite frustrating for beginners
> because they're so unforgiving.
Learning is tough. You can't learn unless you can see your mistakes.
I began photography dabbling with a Kodak Pocket folding camera with
which I got a shot of Venus through a 3" fiberboard tubed reflecting
telescope in which you could see what phase it was.
After that, my dad gave me his Argus C. I shot K 64 with that and using
the instructions packaged with the film got 50 % or more keepers. That's
with no light meter or coupled rangefinder.
PTRAVEL
I started with a Kodak Brownie, shooting 127 film, though I used b&w
exclusively. My first "real" camera was a Ricoh, a slight evolutionary
improvement over the Argus (it had a coupled rangefinder). I fooled around
with color slides with an old Instamatic -- did the development myself. As
I recall, it was something like a 13-step process. Ugh!
I used to shoot slides with my Ricoh, and learned a lot doing it, but the
best education, I think, was shooting, developing and printing black and
white. When I finally switched to color (40 years later), the transition
was a snap (having fooled around with video for 6 or 7 years didn't hurt).
Stacey
>
>>
>> 2)Do not buy a digital camera until they are available with 20
>> megapixel resolution if you intend to print your pictures. That is
>> what the equivalent to 35mm film would be. If you are snapping pics
>> for the web, then a lower resolution may be acceptable.
>
> Completely wrong. Everything depends on how large you want to print.
> With a 5+ megapixel camera, you can do prints up to 16" x 20" that will be
> indistinguishable, when viewed with the naked eye, from prints made by a
> chemical process.
16X20's from 5 megapixels? Compared to what kind of camera used for the
chemical print and how far away do you have to stand? IMHO 35mm isn't good
enough for 16X20, how could a digicam be acceptable? I suppose if you're
comparing them to a mega zoom P&S they look OK....
>
>>
>> 6)Never shoot any slide films other than Kodachrome Professional. This
>> is the only truly archival slide film. Other slide films (E-6) may
>> look good when they are first processed, but give it a year or 2 and
>> they will start to fade dramatically.
>
> Who cares about archival, if they're amateurs? E-6 has considerably more
> exposure latitutde than Kodachrome Professional,
More exposure latitude? Where did you come up with that?
http://wwwth.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/service/faqs/faq0100.shtml
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e27/e27.jhtml
Looks like both are to be metered to the nearest 1/2 stop. I know all the
E-6 film I've shot has no exposure latitude to speak of given you can see a
1/2 stop change. Kodachrome is no better and no worse.
I don't buy that modern E-6 fades anywhere near as quickly as this guy says,
if at all. I've got lots of slides shot on E-6 that are 15 years old and
look fine. The E-4 was bad stuff but the newer E-6 isn't the same thing.
>
>> DO NOT keep consumer film in the
>> refrigerator...it could slow down the aging process and prevent the
>> film from ripening.
>
> "Ripening"? Give me a break.
Yes ripening. Consumer film is sent out before it has aged into correct
color balance as they assume consumers won't cold store their film, nor do
the stores cold store them. Ever wonder why pro films are stored in a
fridge?
http://wwwth.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/service/faqs/faq0059.shtml
http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/photomicrography/filmbasics.html
"Films whose boxes are marked professional, are those that have been brought
to their correct stage of "ripening" and then kept under refrigeration (by
dealers and micrographers) until use. Such films should be allowed to come
to room temperature for an hour or so before use in the camera. Ordinary
"off the shelf" films are sold with the assumption that they will be on the
dealers' shelves for some time and thus "ripen" after a while."
--
Stacey
PTRAVEL
"Stacey" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bgko9k$p3uig$1...@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de...
> PTRAVEL wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> 2)Do not buy a digital camera until they are available with 20
> >> megapixel resolution if you intend to print your pictures. That is
> >> what the equivalent to 35mm film would be. If you are snapping pics
> >> for the web, then a lower resolution may be acceptable.
> >
> > Completely wrong. Everything depends on how large you want to print.
> > With a 5+ megapixel camera, you can do prints up to 16" x 20" that will
be
> > indistinguishable, when viewed with the naked eye, from prints made by a
> > chemical process.
>
> 16X20's from 5 megapixels?
5 +. I'm specifically thinking of the Canon 10D.
> Compared to what kind of camera used for the
> chemical print and how far away do you have to stand?
Far enough away to see the entire print in your field of vision.
> IMHO 35mm isn't good
> enough for 16X20, how could a digicam be acceptable?
Well, IMHO 35mm _is_ good enough for 16 x 20. I've got a wall full of 'em
in the room that I'm writing this in.
> I suppose if you're
> comparing them to a mega zoom P&S they look OK....
No, I don't use mega zoom point-and-shoots. I use a Canon EOS 1000n with
Canon glass. I've also gotten some very nice images from an Olympus Stylus
Wide D80.
>
> >
> >>
> >> 6)Never shoot any slide films other than Kodachrome Professional. This
> >> is the only truly archival slide film. Other slide films (E-6) may
> >> look good when they are first processed, but give it a year or 2 and
> >> they will start to fade dramatically.
> >
> > Who cares about archival, if they're amateurs? E-6 has considerably
more
> > exposure latitutde than Kodachrome Professional,
>
>
> More exposure latitude? Where did you come up with that?
You think Kodachrome has more latitude than Ekatchrome?
>
> http://wwwth.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/service/faqs/faq0100.shtml
>
> http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e27/e27.jhtml
>
> Looks like both are to be metered to the nearest 1/2 stop. I know all the
> E-6 film I've shot has no exposure latitude to speak of given you can see
a
> 1/2 stop change. Kodachrome is no better and no worse.
Okay, confession time. My Kodachrome experience is limited Kodachrome 25
and, later, Kodachrome 64. I haven't used Kodachrome professional.
However, my experience was that Ektachrome, in its various formulations, was
more forgiving than Kodachrome. However, neither of them are more forgiving
than negative emulsions.
>
> I don't buy that modern E-6 fades anywhere near as quickly as this guy
says,
> if at all. I've got lots of slides shot on E-6 that are 15 years old and
> look fine. The E-4 was bad stuff but the newer E-6 isn't the same thing.
Could be. I've got E-4 stuff that's unviewable. However, as I said, do
amateurs really care that much about archiving?
>
> >
> >> DO NOT keep consumer film in the
> >> refrigerator...it could slow down the aging process and prevent the
> >> film from ripening.
> >
> > "Ripening"? Give me a break.
>
> Yes ripening. Consumer film is sent out before it has aged into correct
> color balance as they assume consumers won't cold store their film, nor do
> the stores cold store them. Ever wonder why pro films are stored in a
> fridge?
For stability and consistency.
PTRAVEL
"Stacey" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bgko9k$p3uig$1...@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de...
> PTRAVEL wrote:
<sorry, missed your last point>
> > "Ripening"? Give me a break.
>
> Yes ripening. Consumer film is sent out before it has aged into correct
> color balance as they assume consumers won't cold store their film, nor do
> the stores cold store them. Ever wonder why pro films are stored in a
> fridge?
>
> http://wwwth.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/service/faqs/faq0059.shtml
>
> http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/photomicrography/filmbasics.html
>
> "Films whose boxes are marked professional, are those that have been
brought
> to their correct stage of "ripening" and then kept under refrigeration (by
> dealers and micrographers) until use. Such films should be allowed to come
> to room temperature for an hour or so before use in the camera. Ordinary
> "off the shelf" films are sold with the assumption that they will be on
the
> dealers' shelves for some time and thus "ripen" after a while."
The extent to which "ripening" of consumer film will have any perceptable
impact on image is neglgible. Consumer films are specifically formulated to
provide relative consistency when stored in a variety of conditions and for
a varying periods of time.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Stacey
Polytone
a troll because you do not agree with everything he said. OK, he does not
seem to like Minolta or Pentax very much, but many people in this group have
brand loyalty.
"Stacey" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bgko9k$p3uig$1...@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de...
Tony Spadaro
puffed up little dweeb who calls his ignorant self CAMERA EXPERT. He knows
nothing about photography, and is really in the dark when it comes to film -
I doubt he even knows how Kodachrome Professional differs from the amateur
version, and he obviously does not know that the pro version of that film is
no more archival than any other version, nor does he know that Kodachrome
will fade much faster than Ektachrome if you project it. The other things he
does not know could fill a book or two.
CAMERA EXPERT - does know how to cross-post, however, which means he's
another common garden variety brain dead troll.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
New email - Contact on the Menyou page.
"CAMERA EXPERT" <camera...@muchomail.com> wrote in message
news:3926cede.03080...@posting.google.com...
> IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PHOTOGRAPHY BUT NEED SOME HELP, PLEASE BE
> SURE TO LEARN THE FOLLOWING TIPS TO PREVENT DISASTER:
>
> 1)Never buy a Minolta 35mm SLR. Minolta is a sub-standard camera
> manufacturer. They had some respect in the 1980's, but that is
> history. They make some OK point and shoot APS cameras, but that is
> about it. If you buy a Minolta SLR, you will be getting a camera with
> poor build construction. You will be limited as far as lenses and
> accessories go. You will be stuck with a non-standard flash mount.
> Minolta AF lenses are not as good as lenses made by Nikkor, Canon,
> Zeiss, or Leica. If you are buying your first 35mm SLR, get a Canon or
> Nikon system. They have the best selection of lenses and accessories
> and much better quality bodies than Minolta or Pentax. Canon is
> slightly better than Nikon. Leica and Contax are great systems too if
> you can afford it.
>
> 2)Do not buy a digital camera until they are available with 20
> megapixel resolution if you intend to print your pictures. That is
> what the equivalent to 35mm film would be. If you are snapping pics
> for the web, then a lower resolution may be acceptable.
>
> 3)Never buy a point and shoot 35mm camera with a zoom longer than 90.
> Even better, try to stick to point and shoots with a fixed focal
> length like the Contax T3, Leica Minilux, or Olympus Stylus Epic QD.
>
> 4)Never buy any color negative film other than Kodak or Fuji. Kodak is
> generally better. If you are shooting black and white film, then you
> can use Kodak, Fuji, or Ilford with good results.
>
> 5)Never shoot any chromogenic (C-41) black and white films. They are
> garbage and have very little contrast.
>
> 6)Never shoot any slide films other than Kodachrome Professional. This
> is the only truly archival slide film. Other slide films (E-6) may
> look good when they are first processed, but give it a year or 2 and
> they will start to fade dramatically.
>
> 7)Never print Kodak film onto Fuji paper, or vice versa. Print film
> only on paper of the same manufacturer.
>
> 8)Never clean your lenses with anything other than a blower brush.
>
> 9)Do not use flash for children under 6 months old. It could
> permanently damage the child's vision.
>
> 10)Keep professional film in the refrigerator until you are ready to
> use it. Take it out 1 hour before and allow it to adjust to room
> temperature before you remove the film from the plastic container and
> load it into the camera. DO NOT keep consumer film in the
> refrigerator...it could slow down the aging process and prevent the
> film from ripening. NEVER STORE ANY FILM IN THE FREEZER DESPITE WHAT
> ANYONE TELLS YOU.
>
CAMERA EXPERT
> TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT
Just because you disagree with my content you accuse me of being a
troll? What has happened to usenet?
Abrasha
Abrasha
>
> Don't Kodakcrome slides last longer than E6?
No! Kodachrome is a type of film. E6 is a slide developing process.
Abrasha
http://www.abrasha.com
Jim Phelps
>
> I started with a Kodak Brownie, shooting 127 film, though I used b&w
> exclusively. My first "real" camera was a Ricoh, a slight evolutionary
> improvement over the Argus (it had a coupled rangefinder). I fooled
around
> with color slides with an old Instamatic -- did the development myself.
As
> I recall, it was something like a 13-step process. Ugh!
>
> I used to shoot slides with my Ricoh, and learned a lot doing it, but the
> best education, I think, was shooting, developing and printing black and
> white. When I finally switched to color (40 years later), the transition
> was a snap (having fooled around with video for 6 or 7 years didn't hurt).
>
> >
> > --
> > Charlie Dilks
> > Newark, DE USA
>
>
13-Step Slide film processing. Must have been E-4. If I remember, one of
those step was a 'reversal' exposure to a (in my case) photo flood bulb.
Reticulation was a major fear as I didn't have anything for temp control
other than my Mom's laundry sink and a basin as a water bath. I would only
do one roll at a time so I wouldn't screw up more than one roll, and I used
Unicolor Chemical kits. Wow, what an improvement E-6 is!
______________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Still Only $9.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
Jim Phelps
I agree with Stacey. Working with slide from the beginning helped me
understand exposure more, and more importantly, develop the discipline to
control it in the camera. I would not recommend this for everyone
although... Only the serious need apply.
Polytone
slides like Velvia, Elite Chrome, Sensia, Asia, etc.? This rumor is all over
the photo.net site.
"Abrasha" <abr...@abrasha.com> wrote in message
news:3F2E004E...@abrasha.com...
John O.
poly...@prodigy.net says...
an image I think anyone will be interested in after 200 years. I'm not
that vain.
--
John O.
There is no slack in light attack.
William Graham
John O. <onewir...@NOyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1997b66f4...@news.west.earthlink.net...
Oh, I don't know.....People today are sure interested in the images that
were made 200 years ago.....
Paul Heslop
>
>
>
> Paul Heslop wrote:
>
> > CAMERA EXPERT wrote:
> >
> > > I OFFER THIS ADVICE TO YOU NEWCOMERS SO YOU DON'T MAKE THE SAME
> > > MISTAKES TOO MANY PHOTOGRAPHERS MAKE.
> >
>
> why? We need some troll-icide to rid this group of the ever growing
> numbers of these insidious creatures. And they yell a lot too!
> Stan
> Visual Arts Photography
It's the silly season... school's out :O)
--
Paul. (I never agreed to be Your holy one)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Not what it seems...
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
John O.
poly...@prodigy.net says...
> OK, So the guy has some good info in his post and you guys all labelled him
> a troll because you do not agree with everything he said. OK, he does not
> seem to like Minolta or Pentax very much, but many people in this group have
> brand loyalty.
Isn't it obvious to you it's the way the guy comes off that aroused the groups ire?
His post could have been about puppies and kittens, and he still would
have been labeled a troll. Not to mention that the stuff in his post
that is true (and not opinion or just stupidly wrong) is just very, very
obvious. Lets break it down, shall we?
> IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PHOTOGRAPHY BUT NEED SOME HELP, PLEASE BE
> SURE TO LEARN THE FOLLOWING TIPS TO PREVENT DISASTER:
Rude. Don't shout.
>
> 1)Never buy a Minolta 35mm SLR. Minolta is a sub-standard camera
> manufacturer. They had some respect in the 1980's, but that is
> history. They make some OK point and shoot APS cameras, but that is
> about it. If you buy a Minolta SLR, you will be getting a camera with
> poor build construction. You will be limited as far as lenses and
> accessories go. You will be stuck with a non-standard flash mount.
> Minolta AF lenses are not as good as lenses made by Nikkor, Canon,
> Zeiss, or Leica. If you are buying your first 35mm SLR, get a Canon or
> Nikon system. They have the best selection of lenses and accessories
> and much better quality bodies than Minolta or Pentax. Canon is
> slightly better than Nikon. Leica and Contax are great systems too if
> you can afford it.
Much of this is opinion. Needs to be better qualified.... Ever hear of
the Pentax LX? People do buy used, you know. How about some of the
Minotla XD and X series? Great machines. And you can still find the X-
700 new.
>
> 2)Do not buy a digital camera until they are available with 20
> megapixel resolution if you intend to print your pictures. That is
> what the equivalent to 35mm film would be. If you are snapping pics
> for the web, then a lower resolution may be acceptable.
Debatable and needs to be qualified. Or better qualified. And besides,
if you aren't making moves to learn something about digital now, you are
going to be well below the curve when your magical 20 million pixels do
arrive.
>
> 3)Never buy a point and shoot 35mm camera with a zoom longer than 90.
> Even better, try to stick to point and shoots with a fixed focal
> length like the Contax T3, Leica Minilux, or Olympus Stylus Epic QD.
What if you need one with a big zoom? Can't your limited imagination
grasp that someone might just *need* a big zoom on a p/s camera?
>
> 4)Never buy any color negative film other than Kodak or Fuji. Kodak is
> generally better. If you are shooting black and white film, then you
> can use Kodak, Fuji, or Ilford with good results.
Rubbish. I can't think of a more subjective topic than film selection. To
lay down the law on the matter is just obtuse.
>
> 5)Never shoot any chromogenic (C-41) black and white films. They are
> garbage and have very little contrast.
LOL. Even if that were true, to say "never" is stupid. Can't you imagine
a use for a low contrast film? And I think XP2 has plenty of contrast.
>
> 6)Never shoot any slide films other than Kodachrome Professional. This
> is the only truly archival slide film. Other slide films (E-6) may
> look good when they are first processed, but give it a year or 2 and
> they will start to fade dramatically.
2 Years? That is just silly. I've got Ektachrome slides that are over
20 years old that haven't noticeably faded. If they've faded at all.
And non-pro Kodachrome has the same archival life as Pro. I almost
stopped reading his post after that one.
>
> 7)Never print Kodak film onto Fuji paper, or vice versa. Print film
> only on paper of the same manufacturer.
Why not? He never qualifies what he says. Doesn't matter though. It's
rubbish on its face.
>
> 8)Never clean your lenses with anything other than a blower brush.
I've been cleaning my lenses with an optical cloth for years, because I
can't get smudges, finger prints, mist, etc. off of my lens with a
blower-brush.
> 9)Do not use flash for children under 6 months old. It could
> permanently damage the child's vision.
Show me an AMA article. I think this is an "old wives tale".
>
> 10)Keep professional film in the refrigerator until you are ready to
> use it. Take it out 1 hour before and allow it to adjust to room
> temperature before you remove the film from the plastic container and
> load it into the camera. DO NOT keep consumer film in the
> refrigerator...it could slow down the aging process and prevent the
> film from ripening. NEVER STORE ANY FILM IN THE FREEZER DESPITE WHAT
> ANYONE TELLS YOU.
I'll give him that one. Except for the yelling part.
>
> I OFFER THIS ADVICE TO YOU NEWCOMERS SO YOU DON'T MAKE THE SAME
> MISTAKES TOO MANY PHOTOGRAPHERS MAKE.
Keep your advice to yourself, and stop shouting.
Hickster0711
stuff. Never know where it'll end. Bob Hickey
A bit more than
Jim Phelps
> OK, I will change my wording. Are Kodakcrome slides more archival than E6
> slides like Velvia, Elite Chrome, Sensia, Asia, etc.? This rumor is all
over
> the photo.net site.
>
Kodachrome (K-14) dyes are more stable than those used in the 'modern' E-6
process emulsions. These dyes will begin to break down in both films when
exposed to strong light. Whether that light comes from the 250 watt bulb in
a projector or the same in a Dichro colorhead is really unimportant to the
slide. The rate and degree of fading will be influenced by other factors in
the storage environment. It is theoretically possible to have E-6 process
slides outlive K-14 process slides IF the K-14 slides have been projected a
lot more and stored in the same room as you process your film and paper and
thereby subjected to continual chemical baths (airborne).
Given all things equal, K-14 slides still look good far longer than their
E-6 cousins.
Michael Scarpitti
> IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PHOTOGRAPHY BUT NEED SOME HELP, PLEASE BE
> SURE TO LEARN THE FOLLOWING TIPS TO PREVENT DISASTER:
>
> manufacturer. They had some respect in the 1980's, but that is
> history. They make some OK point and shoot APS cameras, but that is
> about it. If you buy a Minolta SLR, you will be getting a camera with
> poor build construction. You will be limited as far as lenses and
> accessories go. You will be stuck with a non-standard flash mount.
> Minolta AF lenses are not as good as lenses made by Nikkor, Canon,
> Zeiss, or Leica. If you are buying your first 35mm SLR, get a Canon or
> Nikon system. They have the best selection of lenses and accessories
> and much better quality bodies than Minolta or Pentax. Canon is
> slightly better than Nikon. Leica and Contax are great systems too if
> you can afford it.
People are cheap! So what's new?
>
> 2)Do not buy a digital camera until they are available with 20
> megapixel resolution if you intend to print your pictures. That is
> what the equivalent to 35mm film would be. If you are snapping pics
> for the web, then a lower resolution may be acceptable.
Who cares?
>
> 3)Never buy a point and shoot 35mm camera with a zoom longer than 90.
> Even better, try to stick to point and shoots with a fixed focal
> length like the Contax T3, Leica Minilux, or Olympus Stylus Epic QD.
Who cares?
>
> 4)Never buy any color negative film other than Kodak or Fuji. Kodak is
> generally better. If you are shooting black and white film, then you
> can use Kodak, Fuji, or Ilford with good results.
Who craes about CN?
>
> 5)Never shoot any chromogenic (C-41) black and white films. They are
> garbage and have very little contrast.
Who cares?
>
> 6)Never shoot any slide films other than Kodachrome Professional. This
> is the only truly archival slide film. Other slide films (E-6) may
> look good when they are first processed, but give it a year or 2 and
> they will start to fade dramatically.
Agreed.
>
> 7)Never print Kodak film onto Fuji paper, or vice versa. Print film
> only on paper of the same manufacturer.
Who cares?
>
> 8)Never clean your lenses with anything other than a blower brush.
Modern lenses can take windex.
>
> 9)Do not use flash for children under 6 months old. It could
> permanently damage the child's vision.
Diubtful.
>
> 10)Keep professional film in the refrigerator until you are ready to
> use it. Take it out 1 hour before and allow it to adjust to room
> temperature before you remove the film from the plastic container and
> load it into the camera. DO NOT keep consumer film in the
> refrigerator...it could slow down the aging process and prevent the
> film from ripening. NEVER STORE ANY FILM IN THE FREEZER DESPITE WHAT
> ANYONE TELLS YOU.
Agreed.
>
> I OFFER THIS ADVICE TO YOU NEWCOMERS SO YOU DON'T MAKE THE SAME
> MISTAKES TOO MANY PHOTOGRAPHERS MAKE.
This stuff is old hat.
Randall Ainsworth
> manufacturer. They had some respect in the 1980's, but that is
> history. They make some OK point and shoot APS cameras, but that is
> about it. If you buy a Minolta SLR, you will be getting a camera with
> poor build construction. You will be limited as far as lenses and
> accessories go. You will be stuck with a non-standard flash mount.
> Minolta AF lenses are not as good as lenses made by Nikkor, Canon,
> Zeiss, or Leica. If you are buying your first 35mm SLR, get a Canon or
> Nikon system. They have the best selection of lenses and accessories
> and much better quality bodies than Minolta or Pentax. Canon is
> slightly better than Nikon. Leica and Contax are great systems too if
> you can afford it.
I can't remember that Minolta ever made anything that wasn't shit.
> 2)Do not buy a digital camera until they are available with 20
> megapixel resolution if you intend to print your pictures. That is
> what the equivalent to 35mm film would be. If you are snapping pics
> for the web, then a lower resolution may be acceptable.
Bullshit
> 3)Never buy a point and shoot 35mm camera with a zoom longer than 90.
> Even better, try to stick to point and shoots with a fixed focal
> length like the Contax T3, Leica Minilux, or Olympus Stylus Epic QD.
Who cares?
> 4)Never buy any color negative film other than Kodak or Fuji. Kodak is
> generally better. If you are shooting black and white film, then you
> can use Kodak, Fuji, or Ilford with good results.
Kodak is definitely better.
> 5)Never shoot any chromogenic (C-41) black and white films. They are
> garbage and have very little contrast.
Never tried 'em.
> 6)Never shoot any slide films other than Kodachrome Professional. This
> is the only truly archival slide film. Other slide films (E-6) may
> look good when they are first processed, but give it a year or 2 and
> they will start to fade dramatically.
I wouldn't use anything but the yellow box anyway.
> 7)Never print Kodak film onto Fuji paper, or vice versa. Print film
> only on paper of the same manufacturer.
It's all made together to work together.
> 8)Never clean your lenses with anything other than a blower brush.
Oh, come on now.
> 9)Do not use flash for children under 6 months old. It could
> permanently damage the child's vision.
I don't think so.
> 10)Keep professional film in the refrigerator until you are ready to
> use it. Take it out 1 hour before and allow it to adjust to room
> temperature before you remove the film from the plastic container and
> load it into the camera. DO NOT keep consumer film in the
> refrigerator...it could slow down the aging process and prevent the
> film from ripening. NEVER STORE ANY FILM IN THE FREEZER DESPITE WHAT
> ANYONE TELLS YOU.
Bullshit.
Ralf R. Radermacher
> Agfa, among others, makes some very good color negative film.
Which one exactly?
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Apr. 11, 2003
Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
PTRAVEL
"Jim Phelps" <Jim.P...@MI.com> wrote in message
news:3f2e0...@news5.uncensored-news.com...
>
>
> >
> > I started with a Kodak Brownie, shooting 127 film, though I used b&w
> > exclusively. My first "real" camera was a Ricoh, a slight evolutionary
> > improvement over the Argus (it had a coupled rangefinder). I fooled
> around
> > with color slides with an old Instamatic -- did the development myself.
> As
> > I recall, it was something like a 13-step process. Ugh!
> >
> > I used to shoot slides with my Ricoh, and learned a lot doing it, but
the
> > best education, I think, was shooting, developing and printing black and
> > white. When I finally switched to color (40 years later), the
transition
> > was a snap (having fooled around with video for 6 or 7 years didn't
hurt).
> >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Charlie Dilks
> > > Newark, DE USA
> >
> >
>
> 13-Step Slide film processing. Must have been E-4.
Definitely E-4. This was long before E-6.
> If I remember, one of
> those step was a 'reversal' exposure to a (in my case) photo flood bulb.
Yep.
> Reticulation was a major fear as I didn't have anything for temp control
> other than my Mom's laundry sink and a basin as a water bath.
Some call it "reticulation," some call it "art." ;) We didn't have a
laundry room, so I used the bathtub for a water bath. I distinctly remember
spilling one of the chemicals on the toilet seat. My recollection was that
it was something with a formaldehyde base. Whatever it was, it made nice
green splotches that wouldn't come off all over my mother's spotless white
seat.
Alan Browne
PTRAVEL wrote:
> My recollection was that
> it was something with a formaldehyde base. Whatever it was, it made nice
> green splotches that wouldn't come off all over my mother's spotless white
> seat.
Now THERE's a line that can be taken out of context!
Cheers,
Alan.
Marv Soloff
CAMERA EXPERT wrote:
> IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PHOTOGRAPHY BUT NEED SOME HELP, PLEASE BE
> SURE TO LEARN THE FOLLOWING TIPS TO PREVENT DISASTER:
>
SNIP
Sigh!
Another one of the pointy-headed mob has learned (somewhat) to use his
WebTV.
Keep that advice coming - we all need a laugh now and then.
Marv
Bob Crownfield
we recognize complte idiots when we see them.
Simon Stanmore
Simon
CAMERA EXPERT
DELETED.
Hey Michael, your name sounds Italian. Are you a greaseball?
CAMERA EXPERT
> IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PHOTOGRAPHY BUT NEED SOME HELP, PLEASE BE
> SURE TO LEARN THE FOLLOWING TIPS TO PREVENT DISASTER:
>
> 1)Never buy a Minolta 35mm SLR. Minolta is a sub-standard camera
> manufacturer. They had some respect in the 1980's, but that is
> history. They make some OK point and shoot APS cameras, but that is
> about it. If you buy a Minolta SLR, you will be getting a camera with
> poor build construction. You will be limited as far as lenses and
> accessories go. You will be stuck with a non-standard flash mount.
> Minolta AF lenses are not as good as lenses made by Nikkor, Canon,
> Zeiss, or Leica. If you are buying your first 35mm SLR, get a Canon or
> Nikon system. They have the best selection of lenses and accessories
> and much better quality bodies than Minolta or Pentax. Canon is
> slightly better than Nikon. Leica and Contax are great systems too if
> you can afford it.
>
> 2)Do not buy a digital camera until they are available with 20
> megapixel resolution if you intend to print your pictures. That is
> what the equivalent to 35mm film would be. If you are snapping pics
> for the web, then a lower resolution may be acceptable.
>
> 3)Never buy a point and shoot 35mm camera with a zoom longer than 90.
> Even better, try to stick to point and shoots with a fixed focal
> length like the Contax T3, Leica Minilux, or Olympus Stylus Epic QD.
>
> 4)Never buy any color negative film other than Kodak or Fuji. Kodak is
> generally better. If you are shooting black and white film, then you
> can use Kodak, Fuji, or Ilford with good results.
>
> 5)Never shoot any chromogenic (C-41) black and white films. They are
> garbage and have very little contrast.
>
> 6)Never shoot any slide films other than Kodachrome Professional. This
> is the only truly archival slide film. Other slide films (E-6) may
> look good when they are first processed, but give it a year or 2 and
> they will start to fade dramatically.
>
> 7)Never print Kodak film onto Fuji paper, or vice versa. Print film
> only on paper of the same manufacturer.
>
> 8)Never clean your lenses with anything other than a blower brush.
>
> 9)Do not use flash for children under 6 months old. It could
> permanently damage the child's vision.
>
> 10)Keep professional film in the refrigerator until you are ready to
> use it. Take it out 1 hour before and allow it to adjust to room
> temperature before you remove the film from the plastic container and
> load it into the camera. DO NOT keep consumer film in the
> refrigerator...it could slow down the aging process and prevent the
> film from ripening. NEVER STORE ANY FILM IN THE FREEZER DESPITE WHAT
> ANYONE TELLS YOU.
>
Dallas D
Oops.
--
"I smile mostly everywhere. Well, there's some people might disagree. But
hey, I'm playin' with the Stones, man. You know, I mean why shouldn't I
smile?"
- Keith Richards
.
"CAMERA EXPERT" <camera...@muchomail.com> wrote in message
news:3926cede.03080...@posting.google.com...
bay area dave
Ken Johnsen
"CAMERA EXPERT" <camera...@muchomail.com> wrote in message
news:3926cede.03080...@posting.google.com...
Dennis O'Connor
spammed... It is not the fault of the regulars on either ng... Yelling at
the trolls who are spamming only makes them feel powerful and important...
Simply go to your message blocking utility and block the spam... A good
PLONK is the only thing they understand... Silence is golden...
Denny
Polytone
"Ken Johnsen" <kjoh...@si.rr.cccom> wrote in message
Jon Wordsworth
> megapixel resolution if you intend to print your pictures.
Wow. The word I hear seems to be that 4 megapixles is fine for even 8x10
prints. I seen pictures printed from cheap $100 cameras now that look
really nice. And why I have to replace my old $800 .3 megapixel camera
(note decimal point)
> That is
> what the equivalent to 35mm film would be.
If you blew it up to poster size, but I don't even make 8x10 prints that
often.
When I had a 35mm film camera, I hardly ever took pictures. The only
time really, was on vacation. Ever since I had a digital camera, I take
pictures of everything all the time because I don't have to worry about
the cost of film or developing. No more "should I use up a picture to
shoot this?" I just photo everything now, and delete what I don't want
later. Not being a professional photographer with my own dark room,
now I can take and print my own pictures myself. I take so many
pictures now that it is time to upgrade to a better quality camera for me
like the Canon G3. Perhaps one day I will be into it enough to get an
SLR quality digital camera. But I will probably never use my film
camera again, except perhaps on vacations, which I take very seldom.
Telling someone not to get a digital camera because it is not as good
quality as film, is disregarding the reason many people get digital
cameras. Having thousands of digital photos is a lot better than having
a dozen or none at all film photos.
You also know if you picture came out right away. With a film camera, by
the time you figure out the picture didn't take, it is too late.
I can also take and email a photo of anything right away. Can't do that
with film.
Jon Wordsworth
> Stan, there wouldn't be many trolls IF people wouldn't reply.
That is a very good point. But look how long this thread is! People can
not resist replying to trolls.
Polytone
"Jon Wordsworth" <jword...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F2EC3FC...@hotmail.com...
Jon Wordsworth
> > TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT - DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS - TROLL ALERT
> > TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT
>
> Just because you disagree with my content you accuse me of being a
> troll? What has happened to usenet?
I will have to strongly agree with you on this. Even I disagreed with many of
your statements, but the way people jump and call people trolls just because the
statements disagree with one's own thinking does not make one a troll. And
the disagreements I had with your statements were not necessarily that your
statements were false in a technical sense, but the disagreement I had were
because there are other reasons people want and get digital cameras, not just
because they want to take pictures as good as 35mm film. Digital can never
get as good as analog, whether it is photo or audio. It can always get closer
and closer, but it can never achieve it exactly. But most people don't even
take pictures to make 8x10 photos, even when film cameras were all we had, so
the 4 and 5 megapixel quality we have now is really just fine to replace the
film cameras people were using before.
Remember a lot of people used 110 film pocket cameras before, and digital
cameras are starting to surpass that quality already.
John O.
kjoh...@si.rr.cccom says...
> don't you people look to see where the hell you are cross posting too?
Yeah, but we don't really care.
--
Jon Wordsworth
> don't you people look to see where the hell you are cross posting too?
No, I never look at that. I just hit reply. Besides, how would anyone know
which of the groups listed the person would be on to read the reply?
Eliminating all but the one you are on, means the poster of a question may
never get to see or read your response.
Anyway, no, most people don't look to see how many newsgroups or what
newsgroups a message is going to go to, they just hit reply. And why do
you think that the newsgroups readers or browsers are made to be able to post
to more than one group at a time? Because it saves the time to typing out
the same message and posting the same thing on each group, you can do it all
in one step.
Joel M. Eichen D.D.S.
On 4 Aug 2003 11:58:20 -0700, camera...@muchomail.com (CAMERA
EXPERT) wrote:
--
Joel M. Eichen, D.D.S.
Philadelphia PA
www.phillyducks.com
We’re Just A Duck Call Away!
STANDARD DISCLAIMER applies ~
meaning no one IN PENNSYLVANIA
has seen the tooth or teeth in
question so take this advice in
proper context ~ its the internet!
We is guessin'!
Joel M. Eichen D.D.S.
when too much junk mail shows up in their box!
--
Alan Browne
I can't see the original posting, except on Google. Quite a laugh.
camera...@muchomail.com (CAMERA EXPERT) wrote in message
news:<3926cede.03080...@posting.google.com>...
> IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PHOTOGRAPHY BUT NEED SOME HELP, PLEASE BE
> SURE TO LEARN THE FOLLOWING TIPS TO PREVENT DISASTER:
>
> 1)Never buy a Minolta 35mm SLR. Minolta is a sub-standard camera
> manufacturer. They had some respect in the 1980's, but that is
> history. They make some OK point and shoot APS cameras, but that is
> about it. If you buy a Minolta SLR, you will be getting a camera with
> poor build construction. You will be limited as far as lenses and
> accessories go. You will be stuck with a non-standard flash mount.
> Minolta AF lenses are not as good as lenses made by Nikkor, Canon,
> Zeiss, or Leica. If you are buying your first 35mm SLR, get a Canon or
> Nikon system. They have the best selection of lenses and accessories
> and much better quality bodies than Minolta or Pentax. Canon is
> slightly better than Nikon. Leica and Contax are great systems too if
> you can afford it.
>
Tripe. Minolta make a line of cameras that are very reliable. They
also make some low end cameras that might not stand up to much abuse.
Canon and Nikon have low end models that I would not trust over the
longer term or on a rough road (eg:55/65/75). Minolta has several very
very good lenses, and most photographers will not be wanting. There
lineup is admittedly lean. The biggest weakness right now for Minolta
lens owners is whether we will be caught without a DSLR.
> 2)Do not buy a digital camera until they are available with 20
> megapixel resolution if you intend to print your pictures. That is
> what the equivalent to 35mm film would be. If you are snapping pics
> for the web, then a lower resolution may be acceptable.
Prints from digital cameras such as the D60 up to about 8x10 are wholly
respectable. This clearly is not a matter of your opinion, but of what
final result is expected or needed. How dare you dictate to people
based on your narrow range of experience and needs. Geeez!!!
> 4)Never buy any color negative film other than Kodak or Fuji. Kodak is
> generally better. If you are shooting black and white film, then you
> can use Kodak, Fuji, or Ilford with good results.
You are speaking from a position of such appalling ignorance as to make
me wonder when you will begin high school.
>
> 5)Never shoot any chromogenic (C-41) black and white films. They are
> garbage and have very little contrast.
Contrast is not always the dominant factor in shooting B&W. These films
fill a market niche for people who want to experiment with B&W without
resorting to the darkroom, which is where 50% or more of the process
takes place.
> 6)Never shoot any slide films other than Kodachrome Professional. This
> is the only truly archival slide film. Other slide films (E-6) may
> look good when they are first processed, but give it a year or 2 and
> they will start to fade dramatically.
They will fade at the same rate that you will achieve any photographic
knowledge; that is to say, very, very slowly. Recent postings about
K-64 processing and the colors and durability of these slides raises
more dubt than assurances. I have been shooting K-6 for twenty years.
I store my slides carefully but not obsessively, and they are fine.
>
> 7)Never print Kodak film onto Fuji paper, or vice versa. Print film
> only on paper of the same manufacturer.
Myth. (Big myth).
>
> 8)Never clean your lenses with anything other than a blower brush.
Myth. A blower brush will not remove some particles. A microfibre
cloth in a circular wipe pattern is the next step. After that, for
tough problems (raindrom residue) Kodak paper and Kodak lens cleaning fluid.
>
> 9)Do not use flash for children under 6 months old. It could
> permanently damage the child's vision.
References?
I agree that it should be avoided because of the childs reaction to it
(fear, surprise), but I'd like to see references to this.
>
> 10)Keep professional film in the refrigerator until you are ready to
> use it. Take it out 1 hour before and allow it to adjust to room
> temperature before you remove the film from the plastic container and
> load it into the camera. DO NOT keep consumer film in the
> refrigerator...it could slow down the aging process and prevent the
> film from ripening. NEVER STORE ANY FILM IN THE FREEZER DESPITE WHAT
> ANYONE TELLS YOU.
CAMERA EXPERT you say? Hmmm.
----Storing it in a freezer does not affect it adversely in the least.
There is possibly a low temperature at which it might become brittle,
but I have no idea how low that is. I have shot film at -25°C. In the
bag at -25°C, in the camera at -25°C. No problem. Period. It can
certainly be stored at -25°C and probably quite a bit lower without any
problem.
----Consumer film is "ripe" on the store counter. Store it cold to
extend it as much as you like.
----Film stored in a fridge can be used immediately if the humidity is
low. Otherwise 30 minutes is ample warm up time.
----Film stored in a freezer might take an hour or so to get to a
non-condensing temperature.
>
> I OFFER THIS ADVICE TO YOU NEWCOMERS SO YOU DON'T MAKE THE SAME
> MISTAKES TOO MANY PHOTOGRAPHERS MAKE.
I hope the Newcomers take all of your advice as "reference" and that
they do more research and reading before heeding it or in most cases
discarding it for more useful and accurate advice. For that matter,
your posting was, if I'm not mistaken, a "volluntary" contribution, as
opposed to a reply to a set of questions. My experience has been that
people who offer "manifesto" advice are usually attention seekers rather
than beneficient "experts"
Alan.
Michael Scarpitti
> mikesc...@yahoo.com (Michael Scarpitti) wrote in message
>
> DELETED.
>
> Hey Michael, your name sounds Italian. Are you a greaseball?
Why yes, how nice of you to ask!
Polytone
"Alan Browne" <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3F2ED638...@videotron.ca...
Skip Middleton
meant to be controversial, and his presentation of those opinions as facts,
marked him as a troll. Absolutely none of his "points" were inarguable, and
many of them, and their supporting statements were just plain wrong. These
things mark his posts as trolling. In his defense, however, his continued
participation alleviates that slightly, but not entirely.
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Jon Wordsworth" <jword...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3F2EC59F...@hotmail.com...
Skip Middleton
opinion of all C-41 b&w films?
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Polytone" <poly...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:nNkXa.3020$Oy2....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
> Actually I liked how they came. I never saw it printed on B&W paper.
>
>
> "Skip Middleton" <shadow...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:HLkXa.24769$ff.21418@fed1read01...
> > You shouldn't form an opinion of an entire genre of film from one poor
> > example, poorly printed.
> >
> > --
> > Skip Middleton
> > www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
> > "Polytone" <poly...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
> > news:omkXa.3016$_L2....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
> > >
> > > > Charlie, do you like Konica Monochrome 400?
> > >
> > > The reason I ask is because this is the only C41 B&W film I ever used.
I
> > had
> > > it processed C41 and printed on Konica Impresa color paper at the
> minilab
> > > and they came back Sepia.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Skip Middleton
Ilford Galerie fiber based grade 3. Where are you finding resin coated
graded paper? I didn't know Ilford made any.
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Charlie D" <cdi...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
news:cdilks-3FC0D6....@news.fu-berlin.de...
> In article <bgkm9s$pdhe7$2...@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Stacey <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > That's the problem. It looks sorta OK on color paper but is too low in
> > contrast IMHO to print well on B&W paper.
>
> They looked fine to me and many others printed on Illford grade 3 resin
> coated.
Skip Middleton
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Stacey" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bgkm6m$pdhe7$1...@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> I didn't have good results with it.
>
> --
>
> Stacey
Skip Middleton
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Hickster0711" <hickst...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030804080651...@mb-m26.aol.com...
> If you keep telling people about Agfa Optima, soon they'll start buying
the
> stuff. Never know where it'll end. Bob Hickey
Skip Middleton
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Ralf R. Radermacher" <foto...@gmx.de> wrote in message
news:1fz6f00.1g5xjlzy1kc00N%foto...@gmx.de...
> Skip Middleton <shadow...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> > Agfa, among others, makes some very good color negative film.
>
> Which one exactly?
>
> Ralf
>
> --
> Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - Köln/Cologne, Germany
> private homepage: http://www.fotoralf.de
> manual cameras and photo galleries - updated Apr. 11, 2003
> Contarex - Kiev 60 - Horizon 202 - P6 mount lenses
Skip Middleton
Ektachrome (or whatever Kodak is calling it this month) but E-6 films stand
up to light better.
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"John O." <onewir...@NOyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1997b66f4...@news.west.earthlink.net...
> In article <IqoXa.364$7r....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com>,
> poly...@prodigy.net says...
> > OK, I will change my wording. Are Kodakcrome slides more archival than
E6
> > slides like Velvia, Elite Chrome, Sensia, Asia, etc.? This rumor is all
over
> > the photo.net site.
> >
> > "Abrasha" <abr...@abrasha.com> wrote in message
> > news:3F2E004E...@abrasha.com...
> > > Polytone wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Don't Kodakcrome slides last longer than E6?
> > >
> > > No! Kodachrome is a type of film. E6 is a slide developing process.
> > >
> > > Abrasha
> > > http://www.abrasha.com
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> Kodachrome is more archival than Ektachrome. But really, I've never made
> an image I think anyone will be interested in after 200 years. I'm not
> that vain.
Skip Middleton
line of film. They are different from E-6 films that way.
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Polytone
film. The OP did.
"Skip Middleton" <shadow...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:%9BXa.26346$ff.7527@fed1read01...
Skip Middleton
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Polytone" <poly...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:rMlXa.3024$lP2....@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
> OK, So the guy has some good info in his post and you guys all labelled
him
> a troll because you do not agree with everything he said. OK, he does not
> seem to like Minolta or Pentax very much, but many people in this group
have
> brand loyalty.
>
>
> "Stacey" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bgko9k$p3uig$1...@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de...
> > PTRAVEL wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> 2)Do not buy a digital camera until they are available with 20
> > >> megapixel resolution if you intend to print your pictures. That is
> > >> what the equivalent to 35mm film would be. If you are snapping pics
> > >> for the web, then a lower resolution may be acceptable.
> > >
> > > Completely wrong. Everything depends on how large you want to print.
> > > With a 5+ megapixel camera, you can do prints up to 16" x 20" that
will
> be
> > > indistinguishable, when viewed with the naked eye, from prints made by
a
> > > chemical process.
> >
> > 16X20's from 5 megapixels? Compared to what kind of camera used for the
> > chemical print and how far away do you have to stand? IMHO 35mm isn't
good
> > enough for 16X20, how could a digicam be acceptable? I suppose if you're
> > comparing them to a mega zoom P&S they look OK....
> >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> 6)Never shoot any slide films other than Kodachrome Professional.
This
> > >> is the only truly archival slide film. Other slide films (E-6) may
> > >> look good when they are first processed, but give it a year or 2 and
> > >> they will start to fade dramatically.
> > >
> > > Who cares about archival, if they're amateurs? E-6 has considerably
> more
> > > exposure latitutde than Kodachrome Professional,
> >
> >
> > More exposure latitude? Where did you come up with that?
> >
> > http://wwwth.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/service/faqs/faq0100.shtml
> >
> >
http://www.kodak.com/global/en/professional/support/techPubs/e27/e27.jhtml
> >
> > Looks like both are to be metered to the nearest 1/2 stop. I know all
the
> > E-6 film I've shot has no exposure latitude to speak of given you can
see
> a
> > 1/2 stop change. Kodachrome is no better and no worse.
> >
> > I don't buy that modern E-6 fades anywhere near as quickly as this guy
> says,
> > if at all. I've got lots of slides shot on E-6 that are 15 years old and
> > look fine. The E-4 was bad stuff but the newer E-6 isn't the same thing.
> >
> > >
> > >> DO NOT keep consumer film in the
> > >> refrigerator...it could slow down the aging process and prevent the
> > >> film from ripening.
> > >
> > > "Ripening"? Give me a break.
> >
> > Yes ripening. Consumer film is sent out before it has aged into correct
> > color balance as they assume consumers won't cold store their film, nor
do
> > the stores cold store them. Ever wonder why pro films are stored in a
> > fridge?
> >
> > http://wwwth.kodak.com/cluster/global/en/service/faqs/faq0059.shtml
> >
> > http://www.olympusmicro.com/primer/photomicrography/filmbasics.html
> >
> > "Films whose boxes are marked professional, are those that have been
> brought
> > to their correct stage of "ripening" and then kept under refrigeration
(by
> > dealers and micrographers) until use. Such films should be allowed to
come
> > to room temperature for an hour or so before use in the camera. Ordinary
> > "off the shelf" films are sold with the assumption that they will be on
> the
> > dealers' shelves for some time and thus "ripen" after a while."
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Stacey
>
>
Skip Middleton
15x15, distinguishable from 35mm only in that they look a little smoother.
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Stacey" <foto...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:bgko9k$p3uig$1...@ID-52908.news.uni-berlin.de...
> PTRAVEL wrote:
>
> >
> >>
> >> 2)Do not buy a digital camera until they are available with 20
> >> megapixel resolution if you intend to print your pictures. That is
> >> what the equivalent to 35mm film would be. If you are snapping pics
> >> for the web, then a lower resolution may be acceptable.
> >
> > Completely wrong. Everything depends on how large you want to print.
> > With a 5+ megapixel camera, you can do prints up to 16" x 20" that will
be
> > indistinguishable, when viewed with the naked eye, from prints made by a
> > chemical process.
>
> 16X20's from 5 megapixels? Compared to what kind of camera used for the
> chemical print and how far away do you have to stand? IMHO 35mm isn't good
> enough for 16X20, how could a digicam be acceptable? I suppose if you're
> comparing them to a mega zoom P&S they look OK....
>
> >
> >><snipped>
>
> Stacey
Alan Browne
CAMERA EXPERT wrote:
> Like I said:
>
If you have to repeat your drivel twice...
Les Johnstone
Jessops!
Les
"Polytone" <poly...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:XelXa.3023$sE2...@newssvr32.news.prodigy.com...
> In the USA, most consumers shoot neg film or digital. In Europe and Japan,
> slides are more mainstream. Velvia is only sold as a Pro film in North
> America, I think.
>
> > > "PTRAVEL" <PTRAVEL...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > why would beginners want to work with slides?
> > >
>
>
John O.
says...
> Kodachrome is more archival if not exposed to light than E-6 films like
> Ektachrome (or whatever Kodak is calling it this month) but E-6 films stand
> up to light better.
>
> --
> Skip Middleton
> www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
I had never heard that before this thread. But I shoot to print, not to
project. So that has never affected me. I left my projector at my
Mothers house 16 years ago. I haven't missed it.
Frank Calidonna
Kodachrome will last longest as long as it is stored in the dark and not
projected. E-6 films will last a lot longer when projected. Kodachrome's
superiority was true twenty-five years ago, but newer E-6 films rival it for
quality and longevity. Kodak and Fuji make great color films, but so do Agfa
and Konica.
Frank Rome, NY
Polytone wrote:
> Seriously, what was so bad about what he/she wrote? Isn't it universally
> accepted that 35mm film still prints better than any resoluon digital
> available yet? Doesn't Minolta have less accessories and lenses than Canon
> or Nikon? Don't Kodakcrome slides last longer than E6? Yes his "pointer"
> carry some strong opinions, but not all of it is exactly false.
>
> "Charlie D" <cdi...@bellatlantic.net> wrote in message
> news:cdilks-A6F352....@news.fu-berlin.de...
> > In article <3926cede.03080...@posting.google.com>,
> > camera...@muchomail.com (CAMERA EXPERT) wrote:
> >
> > > IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN PHOTOGRAPHY BUT NEED SOME HELP, PLEASE BE
> > > SURE TO LEARN THE FOLLOWING TIPS TO PREVENT DISASTER:
> >
> > snip drivel
> >
> > > I OFFER THIS ADVICE TO YOU NEWCOMERS SO YOU DON'T MAKE THE SAME
> > > MISTAKES TOO MANY PHOTOGRAPHERS MAKE.
> >
Michael Moore
> > 8)Never clean your lenses with anything other than a blower brush.
>
> Myth. A blower brush will not remove some particles. A microfibre
> cloth in a circular wipe pattern is the next step. After that, for
> tough problems (raindrom residue) Kodak paper and Kodak lens cleaning
> fluid.
I wouldn't use Kodak lens cleaning fluid on Nikon filters or
lenses -- you get a smear that's almost impossible to remove.
--
M2
Skip Middleton
asking what Charlie thought of Konica after his comment about liking (now
discontinued) Ilford XP-1. Oops.
BTW, I found the Konica to be absolutely dreadful, very low contrast. As
far as I am concerned, the only C-41 process b&w film worth a hoot, if you
are going to print it in a darkroom, is Ilford XP-2 Super. Konica and the
Kodak Protra400BW have very low contrast, and Kodak TCN is a little muddy.
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Polytone" <poly...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:agBXa.360$li.10...@newssvr15.news.prodigy.com...
Skip Middleton
Couldn't find it in google, but maybe you are more persistent than I.
Since I shoot (rarely) transparency film for printing, too, the light
question isn't one that really bothered me, either.
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"John O." <onewir...@NOyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19988c84a...@news.west.earthlink.net...
Alan Browne
Whatever you say ...
Alan Browne
Fine Michael, so after the first two efforts to remove crap from a lens
fail ... what DO you DO to your Nikon lenses?
Don't just point out the negatives... point out WHAT DO YOU DO?
Cheers,
Alan.
Polytone
Cliff Claven from Cheers.
"Alan Browne" <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3F2F1F01...@videotron.ca...
Alan Browne
CAMERA EXPERT wrote:
>>TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT - DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS - TROLL ALERT
>>TROLL ALERT TROLL ALERT
>
>
> Just because you disagree with my content you accuse me of being a
> troll? What has happened to usenet?
What has happened to usenet? UNFORTUNATELY Assholes like YOU have
happened to usenet.