Survey -- No Wrong Answers
Ken Cashion
the posters of the group exposed, and I wondered what would be a
typical amount of film the group individuals use.
I don't have any photographer friends any more and I use this
group to get information and for general enlightenment.
So, how many rolls of what do you folks expose on an average
basis?
Please specify if you are currently:
A. Casual amateur
B. Serious amateur
C. Semi-professional (Meaning you get money for some of
your photography.)
D. Full-time professional (Meaning that photography is
your principal source of income.)
Some one could be an "A/B," I guess, or perhaps a "B/C," but I
think "D" would generally stand alone. Most of the photographers I
knew who supported themselves and family with their cameras didn't do
much "just for fun" photography.
Since I am posing the questions, it is appropriate that I
start this.
I am currently a "C." I might shoot a couple of rolls of
color print a month but the fun of photography is never the reason I
am doing it. I am doing it to get the photographs to support another
interest or job.
My cameras are not the objects of my attention but merely the
tools; sometimes I do not have any jobs for the tools to do.
I might shoot 10 rolls of color print film on a weekend as I
did recently when working on a book, but again, this was not fun
photography because if it had not been for the likelihood of making
money with the film, I would not have travelled, spent money on meals
and nights in motels, etc.
For the 25 years I was a "B," I exposed perhaps three rolls of
35-mm slide film a week, plus five or six rolls of 120 B&W film. (The
most I have exposed was when I was in active competition in
photography...and that was the most fun I have had with photography.
I highly recommend photo clubs.)
Exceptions to this photography have been when on extended
trips when I might shoot 10 rolls of 36 exposure color slide film a
week for six weeks. (I have a file of near 10,000 slides of Britain.)
I just do not have much of a purpose for using my photography
for its own sake anymore, yet is supports most all my other interests.
So, how much of what do you shoot over what period of time?
Ken Cashion, Film In Camera: Camera In Closet.
Alan Browne
Ken Cashion wrote:
> There was a comment recently about the amount of film one of
> the posters of the group exposed, and I wondered what would be a
> typical amount of film the group individuals use.
> I don't have any photographer friends any more and I use this
> group to get information and for general enlightenment.
> So, how many rolls of what do you folks expose on an average
> basis?
100 rolls/year
> Please specify if you are currently:
> A. Casual amateur
> B. Serious amateur
> C. Semi-professional (Meaning you get money for some of
> your photography.)
> D. Full-time professional (Meaning that photography is
> your principal source of income.)
strong B/very light C. (not enough total revenue to pay for a years
supply of film and dev).
As to the fluff, making the image is what counts. On the other hand,
20+ years of work in high technology, in particular, aviation
electronics, I have a fondness for the details of how systems work.
35mm SLR's are a funny thing as they carry a lot of history in their
design and operation, yet the manuf.s are continuously adding features
and functionality.
Cheers,
Alan
Nighthawk
ink
Clear A, about 3 rolls of print, 1 roll of slides per week.
"Nighthawk" <nigh...@nospam.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:%%M_a.57112$PD3.4...@nnrp1.uunet.ca...
Gordon Moat
> There was a comment recently about the amount of film one of
> the posters of the group exposed, and I wondered what would be a
> typical amount of film the group individuals use.
Often dictated by subject matter choices, more than typical working mode.
>
> I don't have any photographer friends any more and I use this
> group to get information and for general enlightenment.
> So, how many rolls of what do you folks expose on an average
> basis?
> Please specify if you are currently:
> A. Casual amateur
> B. Serious amateur
> C. Semi-professional (Meaning you get money for some of
> your photography.)
> D. Full-time professional (Meaning that photography is
> your principal source of income.)
>
> Some one could be an "A/B," I guess, or perhaps a "B/C," but I
> think "D" would generally stand alone. Most of the photographers I
> knew who supported themselves and family with their cameras didn't do
> much "just for fun" photography.
Mostly "D", though since I also do graphic design for a small portion of
my income, maybe a slight lean towards "C". However, I think that graphic
design and photography are complimentary professions.
>
> Since I am posing the questions, it is appropriate that I
> start this.
> I am currently a "C." I might shoot a couple of rolls of
> color print a month but the fun of photography is never the reason I
> am doing it. I am doing it to get the photographs to support another
> interest or job.
I know I shoot about twice as much 35 mm as 120 roll film. I really do
not keep track of film, though I always have some in the fridge. All film
is billed to clients directly at my costs, including processing.
Sometimes I use the left over extra film from a shoot for exploring
concepts, though usually with the idea of possible portfolio usage.
I also do some photography for fine art gallery exhibiting. Some of that
is Polaroid originated. The fine art stuff is more of my "fun"
photography, though in a way it is still work. Since I am contemplating
getting a Master's Degree, the gallery exposure helps.
>
> My cameras are not the objects of my attention but merely the
> tools; sometimes I do not have any jobs for the tools to do.
Mostly the same. My 35 mm gear is mostly Nikon due to the availability of
rental gear. However, I do like some of the gear I own, just on a
mechanical function level.
>
> I might shoot 10 rolls of color print film on a weekend as I
> did recently when working on a book, but again, this was not fun
> photography because if it had not been for the likelihood of making
> money with the film, I would not have travelled, spent money on meals
> and nights in motels, etc.
Each job I do is somewhat different, with different film requirements.
Four rolls in an hour or two would not be unusual, though I do not use
motor drives, nor do I shoot sports. It really depends upon what each
client expects.
>
> For the 25 years I was a "B," I exposed perhaps three rolls of
> 35-mm slide film a week, plus five or six rolls of 120 B&W film. (The
> most I have exposed was when I was in active competition in
> photography...and that was the most fun I have had with photography.
> I highly recommend photo clubs.)
I rarely use colour negative film. While I would like to use more B/W
film for work, or even portfolio images, more clients want colour, and
want to see colour samples. In college, we mostly used B/W, and I added
to my photography assignment film usage by using my camera to do subject
study images for my paintings.
>
> Exceptions to this photography have been when on extended
> trips when I might shoot 10 rolls of 36 exposure color slide film a
> week for six weeks. (I have a file of near 10,000 slides of Britain.)
On my last trip, I did try out some E100GX. Mostly this was just fun
photography, but with a technical interest in how the new film responded.
I often shoot a test roll or two prior to using a new film for work.
>
> I just do not have much of a purpose for using my photography
> for its own sake anymore, yet is supports most all my other interests.
> So, how much of what do you shoot over what period of time?
>
> Ken Cashion, Film In Camera: Camera In Closet.
I found that for a while, I almost would not pick up a camera unless
someone paid me. That really was the wrong approach, since my portfolio
was not developing fast enough. There was also a frustration of concepts
that I wanted to better explore, and some clients, or time constraints,
that limited the range, or scope, of some concepts.
Now I try to give myself assignments, like when I was in college. These
are helping my fine art endeavours, and adding some images to my
portfolio. Also, I now try to always have one camera with me wherever I
go. Since doing that, I have found a few more ideas to express my vision.
Ciao!
Gordon Moat
Alliance Graphique Studio
<http://www.allgstudio.com>
Tony Parkinson
news:3f3b86d8...@news.datasync.com...
> I don't have any photographer friends any more and I use this
> group to get information and for general enlightenment.
Can we call you Billy then ?
> So, how many rolls of what do you folks expose on an average
> basis?
100 in a bad year
200 in a good year
> Please specify if you are currently:
> A. Casual amateur
> B. Serious amateur
> C. Semi-professional (Meaning you get money for some of
> your photography.)
> D. Full-time professional (Meaning that photography is
> your principal source of income.)
>
B with occasional C (usually for my local church and just enough money to
cover the expenses incurred)
Ken Cashion
<nospamne...@photoshot.com> wrote:
>"Ken Cashion" <kcas...@datasync.com> wrote in message
>news:3f3b86d8...@news.datasync.com...
>> I don't have any photographer friends any more and I use this
>> group to get information and for general enlightenment.
>
>Can we call you Billy then ?
I guess you can if you want to.
Ken Cashion
Ken Cashion
wrote:
Gordon, this was an interesting post. Thank you. I have
experienced most of the things you mention but I had forgotten them.
Strangely, I never forget how to operate a camera. I can take
the 35-mm Graphic from its box and the "rocker" focusing still seems
natural, but if I haven't shot any film through a camera in three
months or so, I put a test roll through it just to make me feel better
before shooting some photos I want/need.
I have not handled a 9" camera, 70-mm, or Hasselblad in
perhaps 20 years but I am confident I would have no problems with
them.
I do not shoot enough film these days and I am using this
group to find some inspiration.
My problem is that when I see some scene, I see it either as a
potential dollar sign or as a "hanger" and I simply do not have enough
wall space to display any more photos. I have 12' of wall space in the
corner of my study where this computer is and I have 28 color prints
in aluminum frames hanging there and most are matted.
Again, one of the attributes of an active photo club...club
competition based on subject and date.
Ken Cashion
Jim
Jim
*----------------------------------------------------------------*
* Check-out my web site at: http://SwensonStudio.com *
* landscape and travel photographs, featuring nsets *
*----------------------------------------------------------------*
kcas...@datasync.com (Ken Cashion) wrote in message news:<3f3b86d8...@news.datasync.com>...
Michael Scarpitti
kcas...@datasync.com (Ken Cashion) wrote in message news:<3f3b86d8...@news.datasync.com>...
Michael Benveniste
wrote:
> So, how many rolls of what do you folks expose on an average
>basis?
I'll shoot on the average of a roll a week plus a few odd digital
shots. These days, the majority of my shots are either on Fuji NPC or
NPS, the rest split between Kodak TMAX 100, Tri-X, and 400UC.
When I use my Pronea-S (as a car camera) or my Pentax 110 SLR
(strictly for novelty) I grab some random consumer film.
> Please specify if you are currently:
> A. Casual amateur
> B. Serious amateur
> C. Semi-professional (Meaning you get money for some of
> your photography.)
> D. Full-time professional (Meaning that photography is
> your principal source of income.)
A. I rarely wear a coat and tie while shooting.
--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-...@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $250. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.
Fountainhead
says...
> So, how many rolls of what do you folks expose on an average
> basis?
> Please specify if you are currently:
> A. Casual amateur
> B. Serious amateur
> C. Semi-professional (Meaning you get money for some of
> your photography.)
> D. Full-time professional (Meaning that photography is
> your principal source of income.)
>
I'm an A-and-a-half in skill level, trying to become a B. I have no
aspirations for C or D.
I have been shooting approx 1 roll of B/W (TMax100/400) per week, which
I develop and print at home. I'm going to try my hand with slide film,
having just purchased a few rolls of Velvia, though I admit I'll miss
being able to process and print my own work.
-Ken
Skip Middleton
gallery, but the main reason I shoot is for the satisfaction of creating an
image.
I probably go through 10-20 rolls a month.
--
Skip Middleton
www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Ken Cashion" <kcas...@datasync.com> wrote in message
news:3f3b86d8...@news.datasync.com...
Rob Wild
'C/D' (C for vistas, arty stuff, D for portraiture). This is as I am
looking to move photography from a hobby to a career change (getting
REALLY sick of IT work)
Currently in a lull, and only shooting around 2 rolls a week, although
occasionally more. The number may be quite low in comparisons with other
people here, but this is due (for me) to economy - I lack spare cash!
cheers
Rob
William Graham
Right now, about 2 rolls a week.....Sometimes more, if I go to visit a
family member, or something interesting..........
William D. Tallman
> There was a comment recently about the amount of film one of
> the posters of the group exposed, and I wondered what would be a
> typical amount of film the group individuals use.
> I don't have any photographer friends any more and I use this
> group to get information and for general enlightenment.
That's too bad!
> So, how many rolls of what do you folks expose on an average
> basis?
At the moment, it looks like I'm hitting B&H for a 20 roll shipment at least
once a month, and there's the odd roll from elsewhere. Then there is the
digital, but that's OT here.
> Please specify if you are currently:
> A. Casual amateur
> B. Serious amateur
> C. Semi-professional (Meaning you get money for some of
> your photography.)
> D. Full-time professional (Meaning that photography is
> your principal source of income.)
Probably somewhere between A and B. Not sure what constitutes a serious
amateur (photo club competition?). If so, I'm not there yet but moving in
that direction. If funds invested count, then I'm quite serious....
<grin>
Bill Tallman
Ken Cashion
<rober...@adelaide.NOSPAM.edu.au> wrote:
Rob, as I was moving from "B" to "C" I had decided that I
would do enough "kidnapping" to pay for equipment. I had to put up
with a lot of kids to get the good flat-field enlarging lenses for the
Beseler 23C.
I am surprized at what this stuff costs now and that is the
reason I am opening an ebay account to get rid of a bunch of darkroom
equipment. When I had the studio and darkroom in Florida, I was in a
deliberate break-even mode.
Strangely, over the last 20 years, my writing and photography
has been paying for another hobby .
It is good when things work out this way. It is always
satisfying to get cash in hand for doing something (photography) one
enjoy.
Ken Cashion
Wm Gardner
the quantity of film exposed and where that puts them on this "scale".
Actually, I do not shoot that much, maybe a roll or two a week (on average).
However, I am obsessive-compulsive about my metering and composition.
Yesterday I went to a local state park and only took a handful of shots,
maybe half a roll. Spent about 2 hours doing this though to get the tripod
adjusted just right, correct lens, meter off of the correct object, wait
until the wind was correct, etc.
To me this rates a solid B. Would have no objection to being a "C" but no
desire to be a "D" (unless I can photograph the subjects I am interested
in). Have a concern that I would need to do event photography (no offence
to those who do, it is just not my thing), portraits, or some sort of
production work to make a living. Very concerned that if I am not shooting
the subjects I enjoy then the love may die.........
Just $.02 worth,
Bill
--
"Do what you can, with what you have, where you are."
-Theodore Roosevelt
"Ken Cashion" <kcas...@datasync.com> wrote in message
news:3f3b86d8...@news.datasync.com...
Ken Cashion
Bill, when I wrote the above, I had a good understanding in my
mind what a casual amateur and a serious one were, but now I am not as
sure. I guess a casual amateur has no studied approach or style or
goal other than to get the immediate photograph.
The serious amateur is learing about equipment (photographic
technician) while studying what makes noted photographers great
(photographic artist).
A serious amateur sees a situation, imagines the resulting
photograph, and trips the shutter. When the photo is made manifest
and hanging on a wall, the serious amateur is neither proud or
surprized. He knew what it would look like before he tripped the
shutter.
The last rolls I took for a publication, I had some bad,
bright background lighting and this light could put the shadow
detail...that which I needed to make the photos meet the
requirements...too dark. I shot some as they were with the lens
metering on the shadow detail, but I was concerned that the bright
background windows would flare and bleed over into the shadow detail.
I also shot some with a strobe fill-in to illuminate the
shadow detail, however, this area was close and I was concerned that
the strobe would over-expose some critical details. I borrowed a
tissue from a lady to put over the strobe. This softened and disfused
at the same time.
All the photos were good. There were differences in the two
photos but both were fine. I might have used one of one exposure in
the book and another photo from the other illumination on the same
page.
The point is that I visualized what I wanted the final print
to look like and I tried two styles. When both styles were printed,
they looked like what I wanted.
This is the work of a serious amatuer/part-time pro.
When I was becoming a "B," I really liked Haas and Turner but
then I read how many photos got thrown away and how many were kept.
From this, I decided that they were not as good as a lot of serious
amateurs because anyone shooting 1,800 photographs certainly should be
able to display three prints in a gallery. I thought many amatuers
could do better.
But I did learn from these guys (and bad photographers) to be
very brutal about sorting photographs. If it has any technical error,
it goes in the trash; if it is technicallly good but artistically
flawed, it goes in the trash, and just because it is technically and
artistically good doesn't mean it is a keeper. There is a limit to
wall space and publication opportunity.
Ken Cashion
Ken Cashion
<WmGa...@send-no-spam.insightbb.com> wrote:
>Seems to be a trend here, most replies seem to have a correlation between
>the quantity of film exposed and where that puts them on this "scale".
>Actually, I do not shoot that much, maybe a roll or two a week (on average).
>However, I am obsessive-compulsive about my metering and composition.
>Yesterday I went to a local state park and only took a handful of shots,
>maybe half a roll. Spent about 2 hours doing this though to get the tripod
>adjusted just right, correct lens, meter off of the correct object, wait
>until the wind was correct, etc.
>
>To me this rates a solid B. Would have no objection to being a "C" but no
>desire to be a "D" (unless I can photograph the subjects I am interested
>in). Have a concern that I would need to do event photography (no offence
>to those who do, it is just not my thing), portraits, or some sort of
>production work to make a living. Very concerned that if I am not shooting
>the subjects I enjoy then the love may die.........
>
>Just $.02 worth,
Bill, your comments are worth a lot more than the proverbial
two-cents. The points are well-made and I have thought the same
things.
However, in any endeavor, there are expenses involved.
Generally, there is time and material. The film (material) is the
cheapest thing in any of these formulas. I commented on this relative
to some of the tremendous film shot by professionals to get those four
money-makers.
After six-weeks in Britain, the trip and film have become the
same thing. The film is all I have from the trip and each time I look
at it, I re-enjoy the trip.
I have found that I remember places better when seen through a
view finder because this forces me to evaluate everything in the
scene. Not just the physical objects but the interplay of form,
contrasting colors, shadow depth, and the like. I do not think I
would remember these things otherwise.
But I know what you mean about tripod shooting. This really
is a different mind-set and one I have enjoyed.
I agree that when I was kidnapping, not only did I not enjoy
it; I hated it! Several times I would have liked to have told the
mother, "Hey, Lady! I will give you the portraits for nothing if you
will let me slap your kid!"
I never said this but the thought of doing it made me a little
more patient.
Being a professional photographer can quickly become like a
lot of professions...a damned hard job...and a lot of hard jobs are
not that much fun. I have little patience with "people" but
tremendous patience with "things." This doesn't say much for my
nature but at least I recognize it and try to allow for it.
My questions really were about quantity of film shot for
various implied categories of photographer. If I had specified
subject matter, the answers might have been different.
You raise some good points. They are thought-provoking
because there are so many other variables.
I once shot nearly 100 subjects with 100 exposures. This was
copying some WWII posters. :o)
I did nearly the same thing shooting a bunch of girl scouts
for a local scout troop, yet, these were near-static and
one-dimensional. They were almost the same subject shot 100 times.
Yet, motorized film drives have a real application, too.
Interesting subject this is.
Ken Cashion
Gordon Moat
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:08:10 -0700, Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net>
> wrote:
>
> Gordon, this was an interesting post. Thank you. I have
> experienced most of the things you mention but I had forgotten them.
> Strangely, I never forget how to operate a camera. I can take
> the 35-mm Graphic from its box and the "rocker" focusing still seems
> natural, but if I haven't shot any film through a camera in three
> months or so, I put a test roll through it just to make me feel better
> before shooting some photos I want/need.
I have a Polaroid 250 Automatic that has push pull sideways focusing for the
Zeiss rangefinder. Definitely very strange compared to turning a lens barrel.
>
> I have not handled a 9" camera, 70-mm, or Hasselblad in
> perhaps 20 years but I am confident I would have no problems with
> them.
The one thing about waist level finders is the reversed left and right
orientation. Sometimes that can be a bit tough, especially when following
motion. Kodak still make the 9" Aerographic film, though I would imagine it
is not cheap.
>
> I do not shoot enough film these days and I am using this
> group to find some inspiration.
One thing that sometimes gets me going is Polaroid transfers. Along with the
250 Automatic, I have a Polaroid printer that projects 35 mm slides onto
Polaroid films. After that, it is transfer, or emulsion lift projects.
>
> My problem is that when I see some scene, I see it either as a
> potential dollar sign or as a "hanger" and I simply do not have enough
> wall space to display any more photos. I have 12' of wall space in the
> corner of my study where this computer is and I have 28 color prints
> in aluminum frames hanging there and most are matted.
Sort of the opposite for me. I have several years of transparencies in boxes
from various projects for clients, and from college. I hardly ever had a
photographic print. That really started this year with my move back to
displaying in art gallery exhibits. Since some of those have not sold, I have
a few hanging in the house. Of course, I also have lots of paintings just
stacked against a wall, so I know what you mean about building up too many
images.
>
> Again, one of the attributes of an active photo club...club
> competition based on subject and date.
>
> Ken Cashion
I don't even know about any photo clubs, though I have attended a couple
ASMP, AIGA, and similar professional groups meetings. Why not try some local
galleries, instead of the photo club?
Another thing you might find interesting is the Polaroid transfers. They are
actually much simpler than some make them out to be, and about $1 an image to
experiment. I currently have one of my multiple transfer composite images
hanging in an exhibit. It took a bit of time to get it together, but it was
an enjoyable challenge.
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>Ken Cashion wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 09:08:10 -0700, Gordon Moat <mo...@attglobal.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Gordon, this was an interesting post. Thank you. I have
>> experienced most of the things you mention but I had forgotten them.
>> Strangely, I never forget how to operate a camera. I can take
>> the 35-mm Graphic from its box and the "rocker" focusing still seems
>> natural, but if I haven't shot any film through a camera in three
>> months or so, I put a test roll through it just to make me feel better
>> before shooting some photos I want/need.
>
>I have a Polaroid 250 Automatic that has push pull sideways focusing for the
>Zeiss rangefinder. Definitely very strange compared to turning a lens barrel.
And one of the TLRs (Minolta Autocord? Automat?) had a
swinging lever pointing down from the lens barrel. Cradling the
camera in the palm of the left hand permitted the first finger to sort
of wrap up onto the lever end to swing back and forth to focus.
Aren't these sorts of things fun?
>>
>> I have not handled a 9" camera, 70-mm, or Hasselblad in
>> perhaps 20 years but I am confident I would have no problems with
>> them.
>
>The one thing about waist level finders is the reversed left and right
>orientation. Sometimes that can be a bit tough, especially when following
>motion.
Gordon, the sickest I have been in an aircraft was in a
twin-Beech on a perfectly calm day. I had the emergency door off and
was sitting cross-legged in the seat and I was turned to get the lens
barrel of an electric Hasselblad out the door.
The camera had a prism on it which made it necessary to look
into the camera at an angle that was neither vertical nor parallel to
the horizontal plane of the lens...it was sorta' at 22° or so.
The plane was low and in my peripheral vision, I could see the
ground going by left-to-right, but in the camera, it was going by
right-to-left and in the camera, the ground was "nearer."
The flight line of photos needed to have about 40% forward
overlap so I had to keep track of some object in the field-of-view to
track that to the 40% point before taking the following photo.
All of this made me sicker than heck and when I saw the spots
in front of my eyes, I thought I might pass out but I kept a firm grip
on the "handle bars" of the camera and I developed a rhythm of pushing
the exposure button on the top of the right "handle bar."
I finally lost all vision but was aware to keep pushing the
button.
When we finished the flight line and the plane did a hard
bank, I started getting my vision back.
After the 70-mm film was processed and on a light table, it
could be seen that I had maintained the 40% overlap but the track
sort of dipped a little for maybe six frames...the principal targets
were still in the frame though.
Strange are the sort of positions we can find ourselves in if
there is a camera involved. :o)
>Kodak still make the 9" Aerographic film, though I would imagine it
>is not cheap.
We were generally shooting color infrared because of the
false-color work we were doing. And in these applications, they were
bore-sight cameras for the multiband scanners.
We did some multiband (lens) photography on both 9" and 5"
film. This had only a moderate application. It was good for patrol
functions where some film would be taken seasonal over the same area
but that was about all. (Though it was fun to play with.)
>> I do not shoot enough film these days and I am using this
>> group to find some inspiration.
>
>One thing that sometimes gets me going is Polaroid transfers. Along with the
>250 Automatic, I have a Polaroid printer that projects 35 mm slides onto
>Polaroid films. After that, it is transfer, or emulsion lift projects.
The only thing I did like this was with color slides in my
Beseler 23 C, and I these onto standard packs of Polaroid film. I had
to build a focusing fixture from one spent pack, make a jig for the
enlarger easel, set everything up, and in the dark, move a good pack
from the camera to the jig, expose the film, put the pack back in the
camera and pull it through to start the processing.
There was not a lot of control but the results were sometimes
quite artistic looking...for which, I was smart enough to develop a
story as to why the results were what I had planned all along.
A picture is worth a 1,000 words; well, sometimes, a 1,000
words can sell a picture...or a good caption can. :o)
>> My problem is that when I see some scene, I see it either as a
>> potential dollar sign or as a "hanger" and I simply do not have enough
>> wall space to display any more photos. I have 12' of wall space in the
>> corner of my study where this computer is and I have 28 color prints
>> in aluminum frames hanging there and most are matted.
>
>Sort of the opposite for me. I have several years of transparencies in boxes
>from various projects for clients, and from college. I hardly ever had a
>photographic print.
I shoot positive color film for publication or to hand out to
friends and relatives. If I am doing personal photography, I shoot
transparencies.
We will later enjoy the slides and at some point my wife will
say, "You know, I have always liked that slide. I want a print of it
for my office wall."
"OK, it will need to be full-frame...do you want it matted?"
And this way, I will know what size I will need.
On the wall here in my study, I have 79 prints (I just
counted them) and only 15 were made from negatives and of these 6 are
some ancient favorite b&w studio photography I did.
>That really started this year with my move back to
>displaying in art gallery exhibits. Since some of those have not sold, I have
>a few hanging in the house. Of course, I also have lots of paintings just
>stacked against a wall, so I know what you mean about building up too many
>images.
Good for you! At least they are out of envelopes and boxes
from the closet and being seen. I thought about doing another survey
about where all the images were from all the rolls we exposed.
I never got a new camera unless I shot a 24 exposure roll and
I got a failing grade. This means that 30% of the slides were bad by
fault of the camera.
Or said another way, the camera failed me more often than I
failed it. Obviously I don't buy many new cameras since the potential
in even an Argus C-3 can far exceed my demonstrated ability. :o)
>> Again, one of the attributes of an active photo club...club
>> competition based on subject and date.
>>
>> Ken Cashion
>
>I don't even know about any photo clubs, though I have attended a couple
>ASMP, AIGA, and similar professional groups meetings. Why not try some local
>galleries, instead of the photo club?
I have displayed my photography here and won some ribbons and
my photography has been displayed in restaurants and the like but club
competition establishes a criteria of photographic success and we all
like to think we are getting better in our photography.
The competition also gives a reason to do some photography
when I might not otherwise do it. There are so many fun themes in
club competition. These themes can really broaden the photographers'
abilities.
>Another thing you might find interesting is the Polaroid transfers. They are
>actually much simpler than some make them out to be, and about $1 an image to
>experiment. I currently have one of my multiple transfer composite images
>hanging in an exhibit. It took a bit of time to get it together, but it was
>an enjoyable challenge.
Gordon, I don't think I know what you are doing. The only
Polaroid photography I do is in my pub bar. I have photo albums of
everyone that comes over and they get their photo in there and
everyone enjoys seeing who they know.
But the transfers, I am not familiar with.
Ken Cashion
McLeod
digital images now as part of my job. I shoot 3 or 4 rolls of mixed black
and white and colour for myself on weekends and evenings however.
"Ken Cashion" <kcas...@datasync.com> wrote in message
news:3f3b86d8...@news.datasync.com...
William D. Tallman
> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:02:12 -0700, "William D. Tallman"
> <wtal...@olypen.com> wrote:
<snip>
>>Probably somewhere between A and B. Not sure what constitutes a serious
>>amateur (photo club competition?). If so, I'm not there yet but moving in
>>that direction. If funds invested count, then I'm quite serious....
>><grin>
>
> Bill, when I wrote the above, I had a good understanding in my
> mind what a casual amateur and a serious one were, but now I am not as
> sure. I guess a casual amateur has no studied approach or style or
> goal other than to get the immediate photograph.
Hmmm.... perhaps something of the sort, I guess. Amateur == lover of, so I
think that an amateur photographer is one who loves the craft of
photography, is an active and intentional photographer. This probably
signifies an appreciation of the equipment, and the processes of usage
thereof; gearheads and process testers are amateurs, whether or not they a)
ever produce recognizable photographs (not snapshots), or b) get paid for
what they do. From this point of view, an amateur can also be a
professional.
> The serious amateur is learing about equipment (photographic
> technician) while studying what makes noted photographers great
> (photographic artist).
> A serious amateur sees a situation, imagines the resulting
> photograph, and trips the shutter. When the photo is made manifest
> and hanging on a wall, the serious amateur is neither proud or
> surprized. He knew what it would look like before he tripped the
> shutter.
I think I disagree with this. I would suggest that a serious amateur is one
who is disciplined in some way. Which is why I mentioned photo-club
competitions. Self-assignments are also effective in that regard.
I would think that any amateur investigates both the science and art of
photography. The casual amateur may do this in part by osmosis, absorbing
such knowledge by impromptu study and activity, etc. The serious amateur
would do so in a more systematic manner, having recognized somewhat of the
scope of photography.
Dunno how many amateurs, casual or serious, are capable of previsualizing to
the extent that there is no surprise in the resultant print. Indeed,
previsualization needn't be a part of the amateur's capabilities at all, I
think. On the other hand, the professional who expects to produce a
predefined and prespecified result must be able to do this, at least to an
adequate extent, in order to remain in business! Even then, it would seem
that the amount of film expended to obtain such results suggests that the
element of surprise is present even for the professional.
> The last rolls I took for a publication, I had some bad,
> bright background lighting and this light could put the shadow
> detail...that which I needed to make the photos meet the
> requirements...too dark. I shot some as they were with the lens
> metering on the shadow detail, but I was concerned that the bright
> background windows would flare and bleed over into the shadow detail.
> I also shot some with a strobe fill-in to illuminate the
> shadow detail, however, this area was close and I was concerned that
> the strobe would over-expose some critical details. I borrowed a
> tissue from a lady to put over the strobe. This softened and disfused
> at the same time.
> All the photos were good. There were differences in the two
> photos but both were fine. I might have used one of one exposure in
> the book and another photo from the other illumination on the same
> page.
> The point is that I visualized what I wanted the final print
> to look like and I tried two styles. When both styles were printed,
> they looked like what I wanted.
No 'A' for you!!! <grin>
You knew, in general, what you wanted, and provided yourself with a number
of options. That they all turned out well is a testimonial to your
experience and photographic knowledge. I submit that you knew what sort of
images you could/would produce, and you chose from that sort.
The point is that until you have some experience in creating photographic
images, you cannot previsualize the result. Perhaps the ability to do this
is a benchmark in an amateur career (lifetime of lovin' photography...).
It is, of course, what enables a photographer to produce on demand, which
is the prime requirement of the professional.
So the reliable ability to previsualize marks the point at where 'B' can
contemplate becoming 'C'.
> This is the work of a serious amatuer/part-time pro.
> When I was becoming a "B," I really liked Haas and Turner but
> then I read how many photos got thrown away and how many were kept.
> From this, I decided that they were not as good as a lot of serious
> amateurs because anyone shooting 1,800 photographs certainly should be
> able to display three prints in a gallery. I thought many amatuers
> could do better.
I think the point is that even the pros cannot previsualize completely.
Part of this is a necessary lack of complete certainty as to what is
desired. One can work to achieve a specific result and obtain other
results that prove even more desireable. The requirements put upon the
professional photographer are seldom so detailed that they can only be
fulfilled by one image. So the pro has some ideas about what sort of
images will 'fill the bill', but is well advised to allow for possibilities
unrecognized in advance.
> But I did learn from these guys (and bad photographers) to be
> very brutal about sorting photographs. If it has any technical error,
> it goes in the trash; if it is technicallly good but artistically
> flawed, it goes in the trash, and just because it is technically and
> artistically good doesn't mean it is a keeper. There is a limit to
> wall space and publication opportunity.
Parameters of critique should be appropriate for the purpose of the
criticized. If one intends to hew to the highest standards, those
parameters do get exceedingly brutal, and one's chances of meeting them
decrease markedly. Only if one learns from the critical process can it be
of benefit for the growth of the amateur's capabilities.
I can readily believe that 1800 photographs can fail to produce a gallery
quality image. There are very good amateur photographers who have work in
the tens of thousands of images, and cannot get a gallery showing. The
requirements for a gallery display begin with technical and artistic
competence, and build from there. Read somewhere recently about a fellow
who tried to get a showing, only to be told that his work did not display a
recognizable "personal style", such that would allow a knowledgeable viewer
to recognize said work by the nature of the image itself.
Photography has become a mature art form, and the requisite level of
excellence is higher than many professionals, much less amateurs, can
aspire.
Me: I'm enjoying the doing of photography (and the acquisition of quality
gear), and have no intention of displaying my results. They are for my own
edification: they show me what I can do and point toward what can be done.
I've enough knowledge of photography to recognize a more than adequate
scope of possibilities, and am content to explore as many of these as seem
appropriate.
That suggests that I've some amount of discipline, probably in the form of
some organization of expectations and how they can be addressed. In that
case, perhaps I'm a serious amateur with no aspirations to professional
status.
Incidentally, Ken, it sounds like you aren't really an amateur at all, that
photography is something that you can do well enough to get paid for it,
but that you don't enjoy doing it. May I assume this was not always the
case? At some point in the past, you surely must have enjoyed photography
for its own sake, did you not? Sounds like you need to do something in
order to put the spark back into the doing, lest you become stale. In any
case, doing something that is not enjoyable just because you are good at it
is a tragedy which too many people suffer. May it cease to be the case for
you!!
Bill Tallman
Ken Cashion
<wtal...@olypen.com> wrote:
>Ken Cashion wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Aug 2003 19:02:12 -0700, "William D. Tallman"
>> <wtal...@olypen.com> wrote:
><snip>
>>>Probably somewhere between A and B. Not sure what constitutes a serious
>>>amateur (photo club competition?). If so, I'm not there yet but moving in
>>>that direction. If funds invested count, then I'm quite serious....
>>><grin>
>>
>> Bill, when I wrote the above, I had a good understanding in my
>> mind what a casual amateur and a serious one were, but now I am not as
>> sure. I guess a casual amateur has no studied approach or style or
>> goal other than to get the immediate photograph.
>
>Hmmm.... perhaps something of the sort, I guess. Amateur == lover of, so I
>think that an amateur photographer is one who loves the craft of
>photography, is an active and intentional photographer. This probably
>signifies an appreciation of the equipment, and the processes of usage
>thereof; gearheads and process testers are amateurs, whether or not they a)
>ever produce recognizable photographs (not snapshots), or b) get paid for
>what they do. From this point of view, an amateur can also be a
>professional.
I know that we are now into semantics (which I enjoy and
appreciate) and we are both enjoying large helpings of philosophy but
I take a hard line on "amatuer" vs. "professional." A photographer
who gets paid for a photograph is a professional. He, that does not,
is an amatuer. And Heaven knows this has nothing to do with ability.
He who sells but one picture is still not a generally accepted
professional any more than a professional is an amatuer if he gives a
photo away. We have to paint these terms with very large brushes.
>> The serious amateur is learing about equipment (photographic
>> technician) while studying what makes noted photographers great
>> (photographic artist).
>> A serious amateur sees a situation, imagines the resulting
>> photograph, and trips the shutter. When the photo is made manifest
>> and hanging on a wall, the serious amateur is neither proud or
>> surprized. He knew what it would look like before he tripped the
>> shutter.
>
>I think I disagree with this. I would suggest that a serious amateur is one
>who is disciplined in some way. Which is why I mentioned photo-club
>competitions. Self-assignments are also effective in that regard.
>
>I would think that any amateur investigates both the science and art of
>photography. The casual amateur may do this in part by osmosis, absorbing
>such knowledge by impromptu study and activity, etc. The serious amateur
>would do so in a more systematic manner, having recognized somewhat of the
>scope of photography.
>
>Dunno how many amateurs, casual or serious, are capable of previsualizing to
>the extent that there is no surprise in the resultant print.
All photographers should aim (no pun) for this end -- to
eliminate the point-shoot-and--hope aspects of photography. "No
surprizes" means that the photographer has control of the product.
Until this is accomplished the photographer is a person who points a
camera and trips a shutter. He cannot take credit for his successes
but neither can he be blamed for the failures.
But then, there may be some folks who would disagree with me
on this point. :o)
> Indeed,
>previsualization needn't be a part of the amateur's capabilities at all, I
>think.
Or, for that matter, an ape with a camera. :o)
>On the other hand, the professional who expects to produce a
>predefined and prespecified result must be able to do this, at least to an
>adequate extent, in order to remain in business! Even then, it would seem
>that the amount of film expended to obtain such results suggests that the
>element of surprise is present even for the professional.
The amount of film is a reflection of the certainty of
producing the best product for the application. I do not think that
bracketing indicates the desire for a lucky break but rather the
acknowledgement of how cheap the film is. There may be but one
opportunity for the photographs...it could be very expensive to put
together the people and equipment for another attempt.
When the camera is in the hand and the holder recognizes that
a heck of a lot of money is being spent for the photo opt...well, that
sobers a fellow up pretty quickly and puts butterflies in his stomach.
Redundancy of a bunch of photos means nothing if THE shot is acquired.
>> The last rolls I took for a publication, I had some bad,
>> bright background lighting and this light could put the shadow
>> detail...that which I needed to make the photos meet the
>> requirements...too dark. I shot some as they were with the lens
>> metering on the shadow detail, but I was concerned that the bright
>> background windows would flare and bleed over into the shadow detail.
>> I also shot some with a strobe fill-in to illuminate the
>> shadow detail, however, this area was close and I was concerned that
>> the strobe would over-expose some critical details. I borrowed a
>> tissue from a lady to put over the strobe. This softened and disfused
>> at the same time.
>> All the photos were good. There were differences in the two
>> photos but both were fine. I might have used one of one exposure in
>> the book and another photo from the other illumination on the same
>> page.
>> The point is that I visualized what I wanted the final print
>> to look like and I tried two styles. When both styles were printed,
>> they looked like what I wanted.
>
>No 'A' for you!!! <grin>
But there were 17 photos of mine in the book and this meant a
lot to me. I made sure there were picture credits with each photo.
Now, however, I wonder what I am going to do with those other 93
photos in that box over there in the corner. :o)
They aren't bad photos; just redundant.
>You knew, in general, what you wanted, and provided yourself with a number
>of options. That they all turned out well is a testimonial to your
>experience and photographic knowledge.
I visualized failures, as well as successes. This is
important. I have had about every kind of failure from miss-reading a
situation as there can be. I just tried to eliminate as many
possibilities of failure as I could. However, I know that I am very
resourceful and I can find many new ways of failing. :o)
>I submit that you knew what sort of
>images you could/would produce, and you chose from that sort.
>
>The point is that until you have some experience in creating photographic
>images, you cannot previsualize the result.
Yet, we see photos and we can stand there with a camera still
in a case and we can look at the scene. Yes, we have to be able to
mentally convert a 3-dimensional image to a 2-dimensional one, but
this ability can come pretty quickly. I do not know when this happens
but it seems to happen "all of a sudden." (This is one of the reasons
that a TLR is such a good learning camera...what you see is
2-dimensions.)
And being sensitive to shadow detail can come with just one
roll of well-thought-out photography.
A couple of my favorite early photos was on 120 TRI-X. I was
walking in a plain little bunch of trees but the shadows were deep. I
came to the end of the path and maybe 50' in front of me, the path
opened onto an open field.
I made one exposure based on the field lighting and made
another based on the woodsy shadow detail. When both were printed, I
had one print that could tell of the coolness of the shade while just
ahead was a blazingly hot field. In the other print, the impression
was one of a deep, near-black forest and a wanderer finally breaking
out of the oppressive darkness and deep threats into the light of day
and a pleasant (safe) open meadow.
The only requirement is a critical eye and contemplation...the
technical skill is easy to acquire after that.
However, if the eye isn't performing, the road to
predictability can be rough and long.
>Perhaps the ability to do this
>is a benchmark in an amateur career (lifetime of lovin' photography...).
>It is, of course, what enables a photographer to produce on demand, which
>is the prime requirement of the professional.
>
>So the reliable ability to previsualize marks the point at where 'B' can
>contemplate becoming 'C'.
>
>> This is the work of a serious amatuer/part-time pro.
>> When I was becoming a "B," I really liked Haas and Turner but
>> then I read how many photos got thrown away and how many were kept.
>> From this, I decided that they were not as good as a lot of serious
>> amateurs because anyone shooting 1,800 photographs certainly should be
>> able to display three prints in a gallery. I thought many amatuers
>> could do better.
>
>I think the point is that even the pros cannot previsualize completely.
>Part of this is a necessary lack of complete certainty as to what is
>desired. One can work to achieve a specific result and obtain other
>results that prove even more desireable. The requirements put upon the
>professional photographer are seldom so detailed that they can only be
>fulfilled by one image. So the pro has some ideas about what sort of
>images will 'fill the bill', but is well advised to allow for possibilities
>unrecognized in advance.
Very true. I have provided "the perfect image" and then have
some idiot photo editor choose a different one of mine. But he was
the one who signed the checks. :o)
I have provided proof sheets to a mother who had given birth
to a slobbering ape...a real ugly one. I hated to even show her the
proofs.
She saw the proof sheets, put her hand to her mouth, and
gasped teary-eyed, "Oh, look! Isn't he just too Precious! They are
all so lovely, I will have a hard time choosing." This lady, who
challenged my minimum fee, bought large prints of her primate son for
everyone in the family plus some distant acquaintances. So go figure.
>> But I did learn from these guys (and bad photographers) to be
>> very brutal about sorting photographs. If it has any technical error,
>> it goes in the trash; if it is technicallly good but artistically
>> flawed, it goes in the trash, and just because it is technically and
>> artistically good doesn't mean it is a keeper. There is a limit to
>> wall space and publication opportunity.
>
>Parameters of critique should be appropriate for the purpose of the
>criticized. If one intends to hew to the highest standards, those
>parameters do get exceedingly brutal, and one's chances of meeting them
>decrease markedly. Only if one learns from the critical process can it be
>of benefit for the growth of the amateur's capabilities.
>
>I can readily believe that 1800 photographs can fail to produce a gallery
>quality image. There are very good amateur photographers who have work in
>the tens of thousands of images, and cannot get a gallery showing. The
>requirements for a gallery display begin with technical and artistic
>competence, and build from there. Read somewhere recently about a fellow
>who tried to get a showing, only to be told that his work did not display a
>recognizable "personal style", such that would allow a knowledgeable viewer
>to recognize said work by the nature of the image itself.
Yep, there is the quest for the individual in the technical
competance of the camera user. Many perfect photos look like a demo
for photographic excellence and still leave one cold. And we have all
seen photos that were lacking technically, yet the subject, lighting,
expression took our breath away. (Eugene Smith.)
This is art after all the technical stuff has been subtracted.
Technology always precedes art, but it can also stiffle it.
>Photography has become a mature art form, and the requisite level of
>excellence is higher than many professionals, much less amateurs, can
>aspire.
>
>Me: I'm enjoying the doing of photography (and the acquisition of quality
>gear), and have no intention of displaying my results. They are for my own
>edification: they show me what I can do and point toward what can be done.
>I've enough knowledge of photography to recognize a more than adequate
>scope of possibilities, and am content to explore as many of these as seem
>appropriate.
>
>That suggests that I've some amount of discipline, probably in the form of
>some organization of expectations and how they can be addressed. In that
>case, perhaps I'm a serious amateur with no aspirations to professional
>status.
>
>Incidentally, Ken, it sounds like you aren't really an amateur at all, that
>photography is something that you can do well enough to get paid for it,
>but that you don't enjoy doing it.
This is true. That is why today I received five rolls of
three kinds of film that I have never shot and why I am selling the
darkroom equipment. I am going to see if I can relight the fire;
however, as I said about it being a support tool for other interests,
I got the mechanical SLR out and I am thinking about removing the
batteries from the light meter. I will take it to a music
get-together a couple of state west of here and I will take photos of
friends doing what we are going there to do.
So even in this case, it will be a support tool, not the end
of itself.
But I remember getting new equipment and listening to it, and
smelling of it, and running my fingers over it. I must have put 100
"exposures" through it that first night...and this was before I even
put film in it. :o)
>May I assume this was not always the
>case? At some point in the past, you surely must have enjoyed photography
>for its own sake, did you not?
Oh, yeah. Constantly and all kinds. Have you processed film
rolling it through a 5x7 tray under the light of a 60-watt red bulb
and using chemicals bought at the local drug store? (Have you heard
of Eastman's Tri-Chem Packs?) And then made contact prints in a print
frame by flicking the switch of a lamp. I still have some of these I
did 55 years ago. Damned, but I was slim then...and had HAIR! :o)
> Sounds like you need to do something in
>order to put the spark back into the doing, lest you become stale.
I am not stale exactly. I could shoot a magazine spread
almost in my sleep...and that is about how much I would enjoy it.
>In any
>case, doing something that is not enjoyable just because you are good at it
>is a tragedy which too many people suffer. May it cease to be the case for
>you!!
And again, we have defined "professional." :o)
I only shoot for money, testing, and hangers...and to give
people photos they wouldn't otherwise have.
Bill, this has been very interesting and I really enjoy your
insight. We need to be careful or this will become a Photography 101
thread.
Cheers...have a good weekend,
Ken Cashion
William D. Tallman
<snip>
> Bill, this has been very interesting and I really enjoy your
> insight. We need to be careful or this will become a Photography 101
> thread.
Yeah, this has been fun! Glad you enjoyed it as well!
About the Photography 101: The UseNet is a bulletin board, not a discussion
venue (though it serves that purpose as well). New people read here on a
continuum. Some few of them delurk, and those are who we meet; the others
leave no discernable trace. But they take with them what they read here,
and all too often some of these basic issues are avoided because they are
basic. And boring to many habitues of this venue.
Too bad. The reality is that those who post here are sometimes teachers and
mentors and tutors, without intention and without awareness. Maybe some
change in that state is appropriate. Dunno...
> Cheers...have a good weekend,
> Ken Cashion
And you, too, Ken!
Bill Tallman
Ken Cashion
<wtal...@olypen.com> wrote:
Bill, the acoustic guitar newsgroup inspired me to start
playing again after an 18-year layoff. I had done one-hand concerts
before then but I quit.
Now, two or three times a year, I meet about 30 of these
people in Texas for a three-day guitar weekend. Some of these people
on the newsgroups are not just virtual people and I have gotten to
know many of them and count them as my friends now.
Yes, this is an abuse of the UseNet. :o)
Your (and others) not so virtual friend,
Ken Cashion
Gordon Moat
> . . . .
> >
> >I have a Polaroid 250 Automatic that has push pull sideways focusing for the
> >Zeiss rangefinder. Definitely very strange compared to turning a lens barrel.
>
> And one of the TLRs (Minolta Autocord? Automat?) had a
> swinging lever pointing down from the lens barrel. Cradling the
> camera in the palm of the left hand permitted the first finger to sort
> of wrap up onto the lever end to swing back and forth to focus.
> Aren't these sorts of things fun?
They certainly are challenging. A friend of mine was selling his classic car,
happened to find me taking a break at a local café, and pleaded with me to do
some images of his car. Unfortunately, I only had a 1937 AGFA Jsolette with me. I
also had a 1920's Kodak hand held rangefinder, and a Sekonic L-358 meter, but it
was still a challenge. It was luck that I had an unloaded roll of Kodak E100VS
with me. With that in hand, we went to a couple locations, and I fired off some
shots. I was glad that he really likes four on that roll of film . . . so mission
accomplished.
>
> . . . .
> >
> >The one thing about waist level finders is the reversed left and right
> >orientation. Sometimes that can be a bit tough, especially when following
> >motion.
>
> Gordon, the sickest I have been in an aircraft was in a
> twin-Beech on a perfectly calm day. I had the emergency door off and
> was sitting cross-legged in the seat and I was turned to get the lens
> barrel of an electric Hasselblad out the door.
> The camera had a prism on it which made it necessary to look
> into the camera at an angle that was neither vertical nor parallel to
> the horizontal plane of the lens...it was sorta' at 22° or so.
> The plane was low and in my peripheral vision, I could see the
> ground going by left-to-right, but in the camera, it was going by
> right-to-left and in the camera, the ground was "nearer."
> The flight line of photos needed to have about 40% forward
> overlap so I had to keep track of some object in the field-of-view to
> track that to the 40% point before taking the following photo.
> All of this made me sicker than heck and when I saw the spots
> in front of my eyes, I thought I might pass out but I kept a firm grip
> on the "handle bars" of the camera and I developed a rhythm of pushing
> the exposure button on the top of the right "handle bar."
Sounds like some of my early drinking experiences . . . grab onto something
solid, and hope the room stops spinning.
>
> I finally lost all vision but was aware to keep pushing the
> button.
> When we finished the flight line and the plane did a hard
> bank, I started getting my vision back.
> After the 70-mm film was processed and on a light table, it
> could be seen that I had maintained the 40% overlap but the track
> sort of dipped a little for maybe six frames...the principal targets
> were still in the frame though.
> Strange are the sort of positions we can find ourselves in if
> there is a camera involved. :o)
Great story . . . sounds like intuition helped in that situation.
>
>
> >Kodak still make the 9" Aerographic film, though I would imagine it
> >is not cheap.
>
> We were generally shooting color infrared because of the
> false-color work we were doing. And in these applications, they were
> bore-sight cameras for the multiband scanners.
> We did some multiband (lens) photography on both 9" and 5"
> film. This had only a moderate application. It was good for patrol
> functions where some film would be taken seasonal over the same area
> but that was about all. (Though it was fun to play with.)
Sounds more like agricultural studies. Was this for geographic survey?
>
>
> >> I do not shoot enough film these days and I am using this
> >> group to find some inspiration.
> >
> >One thing that sometimes gets me going is Polaroid transfers. Along with the
> >250 Automatic, I have a Polaroid printer that projects 35 mm slides onto
> >Polaroid films. After that, it is transfer, or emulsion lift projects.
>
> The only thing I did like this was with color slides in my
> Beseler 23 C, and I these onto standard packs of Polaroid film. I had
> to build a focusing fixture from one spent pack, make a jig for the
> enlarger easel, set everything up, and in the dark, move a good pack
> from the camera to the jig, expose the film, put the pack back in the
> camera and pull it through to start the processing.
That is one good method of doing it. One advantage is that with the larger
Polaroid film holders, you can get bigger final prints to work with, though the
costs go up as size goes up.
>
> There was not a lot of control but the results were sometimes
> quite artistic looking...for which, I was smart enough to develop a
> story as to why the results were what I had planned all along.
> A picture is worth a 1,000 words; well, sometimes, a 1,000
> words can sell a picture...or a good caption can. :o)
I often read/use the phrase, "how many words is 100 pictures worth", though it is
a bit of an odd commentary.
>
>
> >> My problem is that when I see some scene, I see it either as a
> >> potential dollar sign or as a "hanger" and I simply do not have enough
> >> wall space to display any more photos. I have 12' of wall space in the
> >> corner of my study where this computer is and I have 28 color prints
> >> in aluminum frames hanging there and most are matted.
> >
> >Sort of the opposite for me. I have several years of transparencies in boxes
> >from various projects for clients, and from college. I hardly ever had a
> >photographic print.
>
> I shoot positive color film for publication or to hand out to
> friends and relatives. If I am doing personal photography, I shoot
> transparencies.
> We will later enjoy the slides and at some point my wife will
> say, "You know, I have always liked that slide. I want a print of it
> for my office wall."
> "OK, it will need to be full-frame...do you want it matted?"
> And this way, I will know what size I will need.
> On the wall here in my study, I have 79 prints (I just
> counted them) and only 15 were made from negatives and of these 6 are
> some ancient favorite b&w studio photography I did.
Well . . . you do have many more years of photography than I do. I am mostly a
transparency shooter, though I have rarely projected anything. A light table and
loupe are more common for me.
>
>
> >That really started this year with my move back to
> >displaying in art gallery exhibits. Since some of those have not sold, I have
> >a few hanging in the house. Of course, I also have lots of paintings just
> >stacked against a wall, so I know what you mean about building up too many
> >images.
>
> Good for you! At least they are out of envelopes and boxes
> from the closet and being seen. I thought about doing another survey
> about where all the images were from all the rolls we exposed.
Sadly, I have lost a few roll of images from moving around in the past few years.
Since after I graduated, I was doing mostly graphic design, my photographic
images were not well organized. In the last three years, photographic work has
surpassed my design work, and I am much more organized, meaning that everything
in the last three years is still in great shape, and in labelled boxes.
Creativity and organization do not generally go together, and I am a prime
example of that.
> . . . .
>
> >Another thing you might find interesting is the Polaroid transfers. They are
> >actually much simpler than some make them out to be, and about $1 an image to
> >experiment. I currently have one of my multiple transfer composite images
> >hanging in an exhibit. It took a bit of time to get it together, but it was
> >an enjoyable challenge.
>
> Gordon, I don't think I know what you are doing. The only
> Polaroid photography I do is in my pub bar. I have photo albums of
> everyone that comes over and they get their photo in there and
> everyone enjoys seeing who they know.
> But the transfers, I am not familiar with.
Okay Ken, I do not have any of my transfer work scanned, but I can point you to
the Polaroid web site area that deals with this. In general, there are three
basic methods, and a few variations. The end results of each are somewhere
between painting, drawing, and photography.
If that link is too long to work, check out <http://www.polaroidwork.com> and
click through on the Creative Techniques link, or check out the images in the
latest Annual Polaroid International Photography Awards. There are some
interesting images there. Another great resource you can get free from Polaroid
is P Magazine, which has many really nicely done images. P Magazine is also on
heavy paper, and printed to a high standard of quality.
I mostly am doing the Emulsion Lift method for my current fine art imagery. It is
slightly tougher than the other techniques, though the added vibrancy of colours
is often worth the effort.
William D. Tallman
> On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 23:38:40 -0700, "William D. Tallman"
> <wtal...@olypen.com> wrote:
>
> Bill, the acoustic guitar newsgroup inspired me to start
> playing again after an 18-year layoff. I had done one-hand concerts
> before then but I quit.
> Now, two or three times a year, I meet about 30 of these
> people in Texas for a three-day guitar weekend. Some of these people
> on the newsgroups are not just virtual people and I have gotten to
> know many of them and count them as my friends now.
> Yes, this is an abuse of the UseNet. :o)
>
> Your (and others) not so virtual friend,
> Ken Cashion
Ahhhh....
What kind of guitar? What kind of music? What are one-hand concerts?
Hmmm.... in Texas, eh? Texas music? Texas swing? Flat-pickin' flat-tops?
<knows something about guitars..... <grin>>
Bill Tallman
Ken Cashion
wrote:
>Ken Cashion wrote:
>
>> . . . .
>> >
>> >I have a Polaroid 250 Automatic that has push pull sideways focusing for the
>> >Zeiss rangefinder. Definitely very strange compared to turning a lens barrel.
>>
>> And one of the TLRs (Minolta Autocord? Automat?) had a
>> swinging lever pointing down from the lens barrel. Cradling the
>> camera in the palm of the left hand permitted the first finger to sort
>> of wrap up onto the lever end to swing back and forth to focus.
>> Aren't these sorts of things fun?
>
>They certainly are challenging. A friend of mine was selling his classic car,
>happened to find me taking a break at a local café, and pleaded with me to do
>some images of his car. Unfortunately, I only had a 1937 AGFA Jsolette with me. I
>also had a 1920's Kodak hand held rangefinder, and a Sekonic L-358 meter, but it
>was still a challenge. It was luck that I had an unloaded roll of Kodak E100VS
>with me. With that in hand, we went to a couple locations, and I fired off some
>shots. I was glad that he really likes four on that roll of film . . . so mission
>accomplished.
It is strange how these work out sometimes. I used to shoot
with an Argus C-3 in photo competitions just so on the placard someone
could see the quality of prints that could be produced with such "out
dated" cameras. "Exposure -- not recorded -- determined from
experience."
Using the old camera the do the car made it fun to be back to
basics...it might have been routine with a modern camera...routine can
(with me) translate into boring pretty quickly.
>> . . . .
>> >
>> >The one thing about waist level finders is the reversed left and right
>> >orientation. Sometimes that can be a bit tough, especially when following
>> >motion.
>>
>> Gordon, the sickest I have been in an aircraft was in a
>> twin-Beech on a perfectly calm day. I had the emergency door off and
>> was sitting cross-legged in the seat and I was turned to get the lens
>> barrel of an electric Hasselblad out the door.
>> The camera had a prism on it which made it necessary to look
>> into the camera at an angle that was neither vertical nor parallel to
>> the horizontal plane of the lens...it was sorta' at 22° or so.
>> The plane was low and in my peripheral vision, I could see the
>> ground going by left-to-right, but in the camera, it was going by
>> right-to-left and in the camera, the ground was "nearer."
>> The flight line of photos needed to have about 40% forward
>> overlap so I had to keep track of some object in the field-of-view to
>> track that to the 40% point before taking the following photo.
>> All of this made me sicker than heck and when I saw the spots
>> in front of my eyes, I thought I might pass out but I kept a firm grip
>> on the "handle bars" of the camera and I developed a rhythm of pushing
>> the exposure button on the top of the right "handle bar."
>
>Sounds like some of my early drinking experiences . . . grab onto something
>solid, and hope the room stops spinning.
I would rather have experienced this trip via drink, myself.
I have been in some unusal positions shooting from choppers, planes,
sailplanes, sailing boards, sailboats, and race cars.
Once, in another plane, I was in the baggage compartment and
had the door off. I had to lean, head-and-shoulders out into the slip
stream to shoot straight down. To change magazines, I would lean back
in the airplane, hit the pilot on the shoulder so he would know to do
a quick 360 and take up the heading at the same point we had left.
The turn was to be to the left so my door would be pointing at
at a steep angle to the last thing I photographed. To keep from
sliding out, I would put my foot against the edge of the door. I
layed back and changed magazines on my chest.
Just as we leveled off, I was leaning forward and out again to
take the next magazine of photos.
I was paying attention so much I didn't get an upset
stomach...until I landed.
When I was leaning out, I had my legs crossed and my knees
would not clear the edges of the door so I figured I couldn't fall
out...besides, I had a rope around my heavy belt and the rope was tied
to a removed seat fixture...only, when we landed, I saw that I had
forgotten to tie it to anything but myself. One slip and I would have
been in free fall and would have torn up another good Hasselblad...and
myself.
Ahhh....fun and games with cameras! :o)
>> I finally lost all vision but was aware to keep pushing the
>> button.
>> When we finished the flight line and the plane did a hard
>> bank, I started getting my vision back.
>> After the 70-mm film was processed and on a light table, it
>> could be seen that I had maintained the 40% overlap but the track
>> sort of dipped a little for maybe six frames...the principal targets
>> were still in the frame though.
>> Strange are the sort of positions we can find ourselves in if
>> there is a camera involved. :o)
>
>Great story . . . sounds like intuition helped in that situation.
>
>>
>>
>> >Kodak still make the 9" Aerographic film, though I would imagine it
>> >is not cheap.
>>
>> We were generally shooting color infrared because of the
>> false-color work we were doing. And in these applications, they were
>> bore-sight cameras for the multiband scanners.
>> We did some multiband (lens) photography on both 9" and 5"
>> film. This had only a moderate application. It was good for patrol
>> functions where some film would be taken seasonal over the same area
>> but that was about all. (Though it was fun to play with.)
>
>Sounds more like agricultural studies. Was this for geographic survey?
Not actually. I was testing film and filter combinations so
the images could be digitized and then by developing spectral
signatures, determine ground material and surface condition.
In some of the direct multiband work, I was locating illicitly
grown opium poppies in Mexico.
We later got them a Learjet and multiband scanners -- but we
first needed to have a quick-and-dirty approximation of proper
wave-lengths to detect the stuff. (That was easy.)
I did a bunch of things in remote sensing...and cameras are
pretty old remote sensors.
I also designed (imaging and non-imaging) scanners and
determined the wave-lengths for some orbital platforms.
Like military experience...I am glad I did it but I don't want
to do it anymore.
>> >> I do not shoot enough film these days and I am using this
>> >> group to find some inspiration.
>> >
>> >One thing that sometimes gets me going is Polaroid transfers. Along with the
>> >250 Automatic, I have a Polaroid printer that projects 35 mm slides onto
>> >Polaroid films. After that, it is transfer, or emulsion lift projects.
>>
>> The only thing I did like this was with color slides in my
>> Beseler 23 C, and I these onto standard packs of Polaroid film. I had
>> to build a focusing fixture from one spent pack, make a jig for the
>> enlarger easel, set everything up, and in the dark, move a good pack
>> from the camera to the jig, expose the film, put the pack back in the
>> camera and pull it through to start the processing.
>
>That is one good method of doing it. One advantage is that with the larger
>Polaroid film holders, you can get bigger final prints to work with, though the
>costs go up as size goes up.
>
>>
>> There was not a lot of control but the results were sometimes
>> quite artistic looking...for which, I was smart enough to develop a
>> story as to why the results were what I had planned all along.
>> A picture is worth a 1,000 words; well, sometimes, a 1,000
>> words can sell a picture...or a good caption can. :o)
>
>I often read/use the phrase, "how many words is 100 pictures worth", though it is
>a bit of an odd commentary.
In our business, we always said that "A picture is worth
$100,000...so you can keep your the cheap talk."
>>
>>
>> >> My problem is that when I see some scene, I see it either as a
>> >> potential dollar sign or as a "hanger" and I simply do not have enough
>> >> wall space to display any more photos. I have 12' of wall space in the
>> >> corner of my study where this computer is and I have 28 color prints
>> >> in aluminum frames hanging there and most are matted.
>> >
>> >Sort of the opposite for me. I have several years of transparencies in boxes
>> >from various projects for clients, and from college. I hardly ever had a
>> >photographic print.
>>
>> I shoot positive color film for publication or to hand out to
>> friends and relatives. If I am doing personal photography, I shoot
>> transparencies.
>> We will later enjoy the slides and at some point my wife will
>> say, "You know, I have always liked that slide. I want a print of it
>> for my office wall."
>> "OK, it will need to be full-frame...do you want it matted?"
>> And this way, I will know what size I will need.
>> On the wall here in my study, I have 79 prints (I just
>> counted them) and only 15 were made from negatives and of these 6 are
>> some ancient favorite b&w studio photography I did.
>
>Well . . . you do have many more years of photography than I do. I am mostly a
>transparency shooter, though I have rarely projected anything. A light table and
>loupe are more common for me.
I am sorting slides now from my British trips to put together
slides for the last British history course I am writing (college) and
I am seeing if I have enough slides to support a 12-hour lecture
series covering 1700 to 1900. I am so familiar with the slides, I am
just using a little cheapo light table and a little loupe.
How many are enough slides?
In my first three courses, I lecture for 30 hours and show
about 900 slides to cover 250,000 B.C. to 1702 A.D. My courses are
not "sho-n-tel" but "tel-n-sho." I lecture for an hour and a half and
then show slides about what I talked about.
Gordon, I will certainly look into this. I might not want to
give it a try, but if I consider myself reasonably experienced, I
should at least know what this is.
I could say a lot about modern graphic design processes and
capabilities but I try not to use profanity on the usegroup. :o)
I will just say that too many graphic artists are not artist
but people with a graphic artist utility programs on a computers who
have too many fonts and too much clip art.
Editors today are not interested in a "readership"; they are
developing a "lookership."
Of course, there might be some who disagree with me. :o)
Ken Cashion
Ken Cashion
<wtal...@olypen.com> wrote:
Bill, this is hilarious!
The reason why is that I am also an active radio-control model
designer and have competed nationally with my designs...several of
which have been published.
I was discussing model features on a model airplane newsgroup
and someone wrote that we get off topic sometimes and we should just
discuss model planes...otherwise, we might as well be discussing
acoustic guitars when there was a newsgroup for guitars.
I immediately posted a message suggesting that we should
broaden the model group and also discuss guitars. I then proceeded to
ask him guitar questions on the model newsgroup.
I then "found" the guitar newsgroup and the rest is history.
Now you come along and suggest guitars on the photo newsgroup!
Funny, funny!
But I will answer your questions just this once and then lets
go off-net and e-mail following music discussions. :o)
>What kind of guitar?
All kinds...12-string, 6-string, nylon, steel, silk and steel,
flat tops, arch tops, and my wonderful, wonderful plastic Maccaferri.
The Plastic Mac deserves some discussion but not here. I have no
solid guitars but a couple of the arch tops have mag pickups and the
Plastic Mac has a transducer. All are played acoustically.
>What kind of music?
American folk, popular music of the 1900s, 20s, and 30s...not
40s...unless someone wants to put "One Meat Ball" there. :o)
I write a lot of my own music.
>What are one-hand concerts?
This is putting on a concert with one hand tied behind my
back. No...not really...that should have been "one-man" concerts.
:o)
>Hmmm.... in Texas, eh? Texas music?
This means Tex-Mex now, I guess, so the answer is "yes." But
I started playing real country & western in a band while in high
school. We did a lot of dances at the local VFW hall because we could
get free beer and see Mexican stag movies there. (It doesn't matter
when, does it?)
>Texas swing?
A bunch.
>Flat-pickin' flat-tops?
A bunch. Primarily Carter Family lick but I also play
independent thumb...with picks. But on nylon strings, I don't use
picks and play a more traditional finger style.
><knows something about guitars..... <grin>>
Good. Lets discuss it...somewhere else. :o)
Ken Cashion, who is still just a kid trying to learn a trade.
Gordon Moat
> . . . . .
>
> It is strange how these work out sometimes. I used to shoot
> with an Argus C-3 in photo competitions just so on the placard someone
> could see the quality of prints that could be produced with such "out
> dated" cameras. "Exposure -- not recorded -- determined from
> experience."
> Using the old camera the do the car made it fun to be back to
> basics...it might have been routine with a modern camera...routine can
> (with me) translate into boring pretty quickly.
Very true. Often I consider the old cameras my "art cameras", since sometimes you just do not know how things will turn out. Of
course, when some of them were new, past photographers did use them for serious work.
>
>
> . . . .
> >
> >Sounds like some of my early drinking experiences . . . grab onto something
> >solid, and hope the room stops spinning.
>
> I would rather have experienced this trip via drink, myself.
> I have been in some unusal positions shooting from choppers, planes,
> sailplanes, sailing boards, sailboats, and race cars.
> Once, in another plane, I was in the baggage compartment and
> had the door off. I had to lean, head-and-shoulders out into the slip
> stream to shoot straight down. To change magazines, I would lean back
> in the airplane, hit the pilot on the shoulder so he would know to do
> a quick 360 and take up the heading at the same point we had left.
> The turn was to be to the left so my door would be pointing at
> at a steep angle to the last thing I photographed. To keep from
> sliding out, I would put my foot against the edge of the door. I
> layed back and changed magazines on my chest.
> Just as we leveled off, I was leaning forward and out again to
> take the next magazine of photos.
> I was paying attention so much I didn't get an upset
> stomach...until I landed.
Bummer . . . just when it was nearly over.
>
> When I was leaning out, I had my legs crossed and my knees
> would not clear the edges of the door so I figured I couldn't fall
> out...besides, I had a rope around my heavy belt and the rope was tied
> to a removed seat fixture...only, when we landed, I saw that I had
> forgotten to tie it to anything but myself. One slip and I would have
> been in free fall and would have torn up another good Hasselblad...and
> myself.
> Ahhh....fun and games with cameras! :o)
Sometimes better to be lucky than good.
>
>
> . . . .
> >
> >Sounds more like agricultural studies. Was this for geographic survey?
>
> Not actually. I was testing film and filter combinations so
> the images could be digitized and then by developing spectral
> signatures, determine ground material and surface condition.
> In some of the direct multiband work, I was locating illicitly
> grown opium poppies in Mexico.
Sort of agriculture, but definitely not the normal sort of stuff. I asked because I once talked to a guy that did infrared forest
aerial forest studies. The geographic survey information was trying to judge new growth to old growth a few years after some forest
fires.
>
> We later got them a Learjet and multiband scanners -- but we
> first needed to have a quick-and-dirty approximation of proper
> wave-lengths to detect the stuff. (That was easy.)
> I did a bunch of things in remote sensing...and cameras are
> pretty old remote sensors.
Still quite useful. Even though lots of things are going all electronic, or all digital, there is still room for film camera usage.
However, the button pushers making purchase decisions are going towards all digital, sometimes because it is the latest thing. I
sometimes feel sorry for some of the guys that need to drag all that load to a location.
> . . . . .
> >
> >Well . . . you do have many more years of photography than I do. I am mostly a
> >transparency shooter, though I have rarely projected anything. A light table and
> >loupe are more common for me.
>
> I am sorting slides now from my British trips to put together
> slides for the last British history course I am writing (college) and
> I am seeing if I have enough slides to support a 12-hour lecture
> series covering 1700 to 1900. I am so familiar with the slides, I am
> just using a little cheapo light table and a little loupe.
> How many are enough slides?
Well, judging by the art history classes I took in college, it is easy to have too many. A few that really tell the story, and
reinforce the lecture, may be enough. However, if you are testing on slide content, it may be different.
>
> In my first three courses, I lecture for 30 hours and show
> about 900 slides to cover 250,000 B.C. to 1702 A.D. My courses are
> not "sho-n-tel" but "tel-n-sho." I lecture for an hour and a half and
> then show slides about what I talked about.
Going back to the "picture is worth 1000 words", it seems that 1000 words may be better supported by more than one image. I seem to
remember that the greatest picture density in the lectures I attended was about one image for every 200 words. Things may be a little
different than when I graduated in 1998, but the art history I took was more like history than art. We were usually tested on some of
the images, rather than just having them support the lectures.
>
> . . . .
> >If that link is too long to work, check out <http://www.polaroidwork.com> and
> >click through on the Creative Techniques link, or check out the images in the
> >latest Annual Polaroid International Photography Awards. There are some
> >interesting images there. Another great resource you can get free from Polaroid
> >is P Magazine, which has many really nicely done images. P Magazine is also on
> >heavy paper, and printed to a high standard of quality.
> >
> >I mostly am doing the Emulsion Lift method for my current fine art imagery. It is
> >slightly tougher than the other techniques, though the added vibrancy of colours
> >is often worth the effort.
>
> Gordon, I will certainly look into this. I might not want to
> give it a try, but if I consider myself reasonably experienced, I
> should at least know what this is.
> I could say a lot about modern graphic design processes and
> capabilities but I try not to use profanity on the usegroup. :o)
> I will just say that too many graphic artists are not artist
> but people with a graphic artist utility programs on a computers who
> have too many fonts and too much clip art.
We had a few of those in college, and some of them did graduate. My speciality is actually oil painting. I had some of the highest
grades at SDSU, so I was able to custom tailor my degree to a certain extent. This included some graphic design, and some photography.
While it would be nice to just make a living from my paintings, the reality is that there was more demand for graphic design when I
graduated. In the last couple years, the graphic design demand has slowed, though demand for my photography has grown.
>
> Editors today are not interested in a "readership"; they are
> developing a "lookership."
> Of course, there might be some who disagree with me. :o)
Perhaps, but not me. I find more examples of poor graphic design, than good graphic design. However, much of that is the result of
poor training, and lack of attention to details. The same can be said of editing, or even judging art exhibits. Often the better
subtle approach is overlooked for the "in-your-face", fast-food, or quick and dirty solution.
There are also many without the appreciation for the needed skills of a graphic designer, causing creative decisions to be originated
and completed by many non designers. When some marketing and advertising people tightly control a project, and the "designer" just
assembles the ideas in software without input, disasters can get printed. Sometimes the greatest problem with graphic design is a lack
of understanding what a graphic designer should do.
The capabilities within graphic design are another issue, though mostly dictated by the printing industry. I would mention web design,
but there is almost no "design" in web design; mostly just coding tricks. Anyway, improvements in printing, and getting clients to
take advantage of the improvements, are constant battles that slowly evolve.
While it would be nice to see more leaps of technology, I am actually glad that the printing industry changes slowly. There is a vast
area of technical details, and a faster pace of change would detract from creativity time. The same can be said for photography, and
photographic gear.