Why slide film?
Nevit & Ilham
Chad Bailey wrote:
>
> I'm currently taking my first photography class and the instructor has
> us shooting slide film for all our assignments. At the beginning of
> each class we veiw everybody's slides with a projector in front of the
> class, so I understand why we use slide film in the class. But what
> I've come to learn is that photographers use slide film all the time
> in the real world. Like the other night I was at a basketball game and
> talking to this professional photographer that was shooting the game
> and he was using slide film. So what I'm wondering is what is the
> rationale, advantages, applications for using slide film when I leave
> class and start shooting on my own? Why use slide film as opposed to
> print film?
>
> Chad
I used to use negatives, but it came to be too expensive for me.
1. For a real understanding of what you have got on the film you have to
get it printed. The prints does not look real when you shoot something
colored, deep red or blue, and for many other reasons you have to print
it more than once, to get a good result, and on enlargement the results
may not be what you had your what you want.
2. If you take multiple shots of the same object/scene, (prfessionals
and some amateurs do) and get one print for each of the shots... the
prints can be too expensive for you. You can evaluate rolls of slides
and find what is really needed for you. Then even Ciba Chrome can be
cheaper. You print it once.
3. Archiving and reviewing slides is much easier.
4. You can get duplicates with minor loss of quality, when needed...
Nevit
--
mailto:nev...@ibm.net
irc:#istanbul
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Studios/9594/
My favorites:
http://www.turknet.com/atlas/
---
Karen Simmons
> > so what I'm wondering is what is the
> > rationale, advantages, applications for using slide film when I leave
> > class and start shooting on my own? Why use slide film as opposed to
> > print film?
> >
I don't really agree with any of Nevit's reasons to use slide film --
but to each his own, right? My reasons are as follows:
1) For most professional publishing applications (magazines, calendars,
etc.) editors still want slide film. Not always, but most of the time.
2) Slides are ORIGINAL images as opposed to being a second generation
copy the way a print is. This makes them, in general, a better all
around image.
3) Slides are cheaper if you're shooting large quantities of film.
4) Slides are easier to store if you're shooting large quantities of
film.
The reason your instructor is probably having you shoot slide film is
because transparencies are much less tolerant of exposure errors than
print film is. After all, over or underexposed negs can always be
corrected in printing (to a degree). With a slide, what you shoot is
what you get. It's an ideal tool for learning how to properly expose
your film.
Dell Elzey
Karen Simmons <klsi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>The reason your instructor is probably having you shoot slide film is
>because transparencies are much less tolerant of exposure errors than
>print film is. After all, over or underexposed negs can always be
>corrected in printing (to a degree). With a slide, what you shoot is
>what you get. It's an ideal tool for learning how to properly expose
>your film.
Dear Karen,
Where have you been? We just had an enormous discussion in this
newsgroup (rec.photo.technique.art) about bracketing. I think I was
the only person to recommend learning proper exposure techniques.
Most recommended bracket, bracket, bracket.. everything. I still
contend bracketing is a crutch and anyone who uses it to any extent
has little confidence in themselves as a photographer.
Dell Elzey
Large Format black and white Photography
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
Tony Harris
> Where have you been? We just had an enormous discussion in this
> newsgroup (rec.photo.technique.art) about bracketing. I think I was
> the only person to recommend learning proper exposure techniques.
> Most recommended bracket, bracket, bracket.. everything. I still
> contend bracketing is a crutch and anyone who uses it to any extent
> has little confidence in themselves as a photographer.
Well, many times there may be more then one reason to bracket - for
example, maybe you aren't sure which exposure mode will look best until
*after* developing, and what you thought would look really cool didn't, but
at least with bracketing, you are left with some options. I don't bracket
alot, but, there are times when I'd like to get the shot as the camera
reads it, then slightly under and overexposed to see if I like any of the
other results better.
I do agree the bracketing can be a crutch tho - and can make you burn thru
a roll of film faster then multiple frames per second....
-Tony
Ok - so it isn't done, and it isn't exciting, but at least I worked on the
digital photo section :)
to...@ntech.com (email not in header:)
Dell Elzey
remove...@meiland.com (David Meiland) wrote:
>po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey) wrote:
>>Dear Karen,
>>Where have you been? We just had an enormous discussion in this
>>newsgroup (rec.photo.technique.art) about bracketing. I think I was
>>the only person to recommend learning proper exposure techniques.
>>Most recommended bracket, bracket, bracket.. everything. I still
>>contend bracketing is a crutch and anyone who uses it to any extent
>>has little confidence in themselves as a photographer.
>This is an asinine rant. What about variations in processing? Haven't
>you ever seen that? It's WIDELY ACCEPTED that shooting +/- 1/3 or 1/2
>of a stop is the way to get a perfectly exposed chrome. Personally I
>always shoot two sheets, exposed identically. I hold the second and
>ask for a slight push or pull if I need it. 90% of the time the
>exposure I choose is on, and I keep the second sheet. What about
>scratching or other damage? You've never had that, I guess, so you
>don't need backup film. What about changing light conditions. Sure, on
>a day when nothing's moving you can sit there and spotmeter 20 points
>and decide what exposure to use. When the clouds are moving and the
>sun is rising or setting quickly, well, I guess you got that covered
>too. Just shoot one.
>And what's this about f64 on every shot? Are there no movements
>available on your camera?
>--
>David Meiland
>Oakland, California
David, I have stated many times in this discussion that many times I
expose a back up sheet of film in case of an accident in development.
I do not believe that is considered bracketing. I process my own
black and white film. Are there actually people who send black and
white sheet film to a lab? As you can tell by my photographs I am
just a novice and haven't figured out the movements thinge.
bergstro
po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey) writes:
> white sheet film to a lab? As you can tell by my photographs I am
> just a novice and haven't figured out the movements thinge.
If you want a quick start on understanding movements, Steve Simmons' book
is very good. Otherwise, just do some finger exercises (set up the camera
and see what the various movements do for a given subject).
For example: If you have an axis-tilt camera, focus on a near object and
tilt the lens until a far object is in focus. Back off the tilt a little
bit and refocus on the near object. Adjust tilt and focus until both
objects are in sharp. Watch out for tall vertical items in your picture if
you've done this - the tilt may cut them off. If you're working outside
against mountains, be careful that the sky isn't out of focus.
For learning this kind of stuff as well as exposure and contrast, Polaroid
is our friend.
Pete
eric
--------------66CEE7586FE1E1D880CD2B46
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
anyone who says they do not bracket film are one of two types of people,
one type is the person who is full of bull pookie.....
the other is the type who does not get the job done
sometimes.................
eric
http://www.dallas.net/erics
--------------66CEE7586FE1E1D880CD2B46
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/"></A> </BLOCKQUOTE>
anyone who says they do not bracket film are one of two types of people,
<P>one type is the person who is full of bull pookie.....
<P>the other is the type who does not get the job done sometimes.................
<P>eric
<BR><A HREF="http://www.dallas.net/erics">http://www.dallas.net/erics</A>
<BR> </HTML>
--------------66CEE7586FE1E1D880CD2B46--
eric
Tony Harris wrote:
> A lot of pros use slides because the color is richer in slides then it is
> in negatives.
pros also use slide film because they work in the commercial end of the
business and they are shooting jobs that the end result will be a printed
piece.......and the printers want to scan from a chrome......
why scan from a chrome, well if you scan from a print you are scanning a second
generation image that could possibly be printed incorrectly at the lab......so
why go from a color negative to a print to a scanner then to printed
material...
when with a slide you go to scan to printed media........you have saved an
entire generation.........
> I haven't tried the SW version of the film, but I hear its colors are
> warmer.
yes guess what the W stands for WARMER.........by the way the S stands for
SATURATED..........
eric
http://www.dallas.net/erics
eric
Dell Elzey wrote:
> David, I have stated many times in this discussion that many times I
> expose a back up sheet of film in case of an accident in development.
> I do not believe that is considered bracketing.
call it what you want, but it is still bracketing............
> I process my own black and white film.
good for you................but why...............
> Are there actually people who send black and
> white sheet film to a lab?
yes when you have to shoot for a living, not to mention i make more money
shooting then processing film.........
> As you can tell by my photographs I am
> just a novice and haven't figured out the movements thinge.
well keep practicing and someday you will be better........
eric
http://www.dallas.net/erics
Charlie
> Dell Elzey wrote:
> > David, I have stated many times in this discussion that many times I
> > expose a back up sheet of film in case of an accident in development.
> > I do not believe that is considered bracketing.
eric wrote:
> call it what you want, but it is still bracketing............
Try looking in a dictionary eric.
--
Charlie Newark, DE
To reply by email please remove antispam "TY" from address.
Tony Harris
Nevit & Ilham <nev...@ibm.net> wrote in article <3473C4...@ibm.net>...
> Chad Bailey wrote:
> >
> > and he was using slide film. So what I'm wondering is what is the
> > rationale, advantages, applications for using slide film when I leave
> > class and start shooting on my own? Why use slide film as opposed to
> > print film?
> >
> > Chad
A lot of pros use slides because the color is richer in slides then it is
in negatives.
A pro photographer once recommended E100S film, so I went out and got some
to try, to do this, I went out one day with a roll of the Kodak E100S
positive (slide) film and a roll of Kodak 100 negative (print) film, took
pictures of the same houses, etc., had them developed, and now, aside from
B&W stuff, I will only use slide film.
I haven't tried the SW version of the film, but I hear its colors are
warmer.
The color was sharper and richer, the image was crisp and clear, and it was
a lot easier to sort thru all of the crappy shots (ones with sun flares,
level problems, angle problems, etc.) then scan them into my computer for
ultimate cataloging. The scans were also better then the scans I get off
negatives.
I'd rather pay the few extra bucks in the beginning for positive (slide)
film, rather then suffer with not as crisp and colorful photos in the long
run from negative (print) film.
JMHO :)
Dell Elzey
mar...@primenet.com (Marcio Watanabe) wrote:
>po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey) wrote:
>>Most recommended bracket, bracket, bracket.. everything. I still
>>contend bracketing is a crutch and anyone who uses it to any extent
>>has little confidence in themselves as a photographer.
>Even notorious pro photographers who are also writers, like Gary
>Bernstein and Galen Rowell, have written that at one time or another
>they bracket, bracket, bracket. Until I know that you are anywhere
>near as good, your opinion doesn't really matter.
>For example, shooting actress Lena Harris for an ad campaign, Gary
>Bernstein wrote in a Petersen's Photographic article:
>"I bracketed full two stops in either direction, giving me a wide
>variety of densities from which to select."
I can understand why Mr. Gary needed to bracket two stops. When you
use an incident light meter it is difficult to determine the proper
exposure.
Roger Gerbig
In article <652sog$q...@camel20.mindspring.com>
remove...@meiland.com (David Meiland) wrote:
> po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey) wrote:
>
>>I can understand why Mr. Gary needed to bracket two stops. When you
>>use an incident light meter it is difficult to determine the proper
>>exposure.
>
> Dell,
>
> Please retract that silly comment, before you start another torrent of
> posts telling you that you don't know what the f*&k you're talking
> about.
>
> How is it that you're aware of Mr. Gary's metering technique? Maybe he
> used a spotmeter. Maybe he can tell by the modeling lights and power
> settings what stop to choose. Maybe he shoots hella polaroids. Till
> the envelopes are all over the studio floor.
>
> Why is it that incident meters are so hard to use? My run-of-the-mill
> Sekonic flash meter gives me an accurate exposure reading within 1/3
> of a stop on transparency film, every damn time I use it, indoors or
> out, flash, sunlight, or tungsten. It's so reliable that nearly all
> the bracketing I do is unnecessary (damn, ain't that some shit? maybe
> I should stop bracketing).
>
> I recommend you log off and go learn about the movements on your view
> camera. You'll be blown away when you see what you can do.
> --
> David Meiland
> Oakland, California
I'll second all this. While a spot meter is great for Zone system shooting, an incident meter can work wonder with "people" shots. For
instance, I was director of photography on a super-low budget 16mm film--which I'd never done before. My major preparation was
purchasing a Gossen Luna Star F, which I used throughout the film. And you know what? The one-light workprint (no exposure
adjustments) came out approx 90% consistently exposed. That's 8,000' worth of proof.
No, incident meters aren't difficult to master--after all, I was still rereading the Gossen's instruction book the night before principle
photography started.
Roger Gerbig
rge...@surf-ici.com
Marcio Watanabe
po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey) wrote:
>I can understand why Mr. Gary needed to bracket two stops. When you
>use an incident light meter it is difficult to determine the proper
>exposure.
Dell, I will no longer bother replying to any of your comments. With
your comment above, we all now know how knowledgeable you really are.
Marcio
--
_
__ _ ___ _________(_)__ If you had half as much fun reading this
/ ' \/ _ `/ __/ __/ / _ \ as I had writing it
/_/_/_/\_,_/_/ \__/_/\___/ I had twice as much fun as you!! ,,,
(o o)
--- mar...@primenet.com -------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo--
David Meiland
po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey) wrote:
>Mr. Meiland, If you used a little common sense instead of your nasty
>mouth you would put Mr. Gary's name in a search engine on the WWW and
>you would be directed to his web site. On his site he goes into
>explicit detail how he took several readings with this incident light
>meter of the subject.
Dell,
Thanks for the advice, but I'm on an antique computer and one-legged
modem, and the web just takes too long for what I get. I'd actually be
more interested in your site.
It's not Mr. G that interests me just now, it's your comment about how
incident metering is difficult (apparently enough so to require four
brackets on either side of the reading!). Mr. G, like many incident
meter users, probably DID take several readings: one of high main
light, one of his fill, one of his background, one of his hairlight,
and so on. And then, I suspect, he took one with the meter in front of
the model's face, pointing the dome straight at the camera, and used
that reading or one within 1/2 a stop of it.
Now, I haven't seen the picture he shot--maybe it's all rim light or
something dramatic and difficult to meter, but let me assure you: in
most shooting situations an incident meter gives extremely useful
readings without any clever technique or other voodoo.
--
David Meiland
Oakland, California
Please note: return address field is ALTERED. Just remove the 'remove' and the 'dot'
Correct address: da...@meiland.com
eric
--------------E51970F6A7E9F9E870D541DE
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Charlie wrote:
> Try looking in a dictionary eric.
for what?
--------------E51970F6A7E9F9E870D541DE
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
<P>Charlie wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<P>Try looking in a dictionary eric.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<FONT COLOR="#FF0000"><FONT SIZE=+4>for what?</FONT></FONT>
<BR> </HTML>
--------------E51970F6A7E9F9E870D541DE--
Paul Butzi
On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 14:14:02 GMT, po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey)
wrote:
>
>Mr. Meiland, If you used a little common sense instead of your nasty
>mouth
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
This Dell Elzey is the same person who, after using his beloved
search engine to find other posts from my account, found posts
made by my wife and then accused me both publicly and in some
extremely rude email of being either a liar, a sexual deviant, or
both.
If I were you, Dell, I'd consider wiping the snot from my face
before accusing other people of being snot-faced. Anyone who
sends mail accusing people of being a 'cunt' has no right to
complain about other people having nasty mouths.
>I think if you will take the time to visit my web site you will find I
>was being facetious about view camera movements.
I see. Dell understands EVERYTHING about photography, except for
how diffraction degrades images. Once he gets that figured out,
he'll know it all. What a relief!
Joseph O'Neil
David Meiland wrote:
> po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey) wrote:
>
> >I can understand why Mr. Gary needed to bracket two stops. When you
> >use an incident light meter it is difficult to determine the proper
> >exposure.
>
> Please retract that silly comment, before you start another torrent of
> posts telling you that you don't know what the f*&k you're talking
> about.
>
> Why is it that incident meters are so hard to use? My run-of-the-mill
> Sekonic flash meter gives me an accurate exposure reading within 1/3
> of a stop on transparency film, every damn time I use it, indoors or
> out, flash, sunlight, or tungsten. It's so reliable that nearly all
> the bracketing I do is unnecessary (damn, ain't that some shit? maybe
> I should stop bracketing).
-stuff snipped-
Listen to you two guys argue is like listening to an airline pilot and
a ship captian discuss which engine is best.
Read Dell's sig - he is a Black & White photographer. A lot of
B&W shooters perfer a refelcted meter over incident. Colour shooting
is different, I think an incident meter is best then.
I will not get into the arguement over which meter is best for B&W,
incident or reflected - to me, it's one of those useless debates such as
Nikon vs Cannon, Fuji vs Kodak, toilet paper roll hanging in or out.
The whole point is that there are a lot of B&W shooters who
swear by a reflected light meter, right or wrong. Maybe Dell
assumed the topic was still on B&W, not colour.
joe
http://www.multiboard.com/~joneil
Dell Elzey
bu...@halcyon.com (Paul Butzi) wrote:
Dear Paul,
I thought we had become friends. I didn't realize you held such
animosity for our previous disagreement. I don't even remember what
we disagreed about. I thought you were going to send me some of your
scanned images to show me the type of photography you do. Like I
stated before you are all talk. Its easy to sit at the keyboard and
comment and criticize but it takes a real man to have the guts to
display his talent or lack of photographic talent to the world.
eric
Paul Butzi wrote:
> I see. Dell understands EVERYTHING about photography, except for
> how diffraction degrades images. Once he gets that figured out,
> he'll know it all. What a relief!
no once dell figures it out he will put up some decent pictures that are as
good as he thinks he is.......
you see dell next time you send me a wise ass email you will be a little
nicer.........
Dell Elzey
eric <er...@dallas.net> wrote:
>Paul Butzi wrote:
>eric
>http://www.dallas.net/erics
Eric bro, the only comment I can make about your work is that you have
it appropriately priced.
Jerry Houston
If anyone here is actually interested in "Why slide film?", there's a very
comprehensive relevant article in the current "Outdoor Photographer"
(December '97 issue). In it, Glenn Randall very clearly explains, "Why I
Use Print Film." (p.36)
Slide film is great if you want to produce slides for projection, or if
you're shooting for someone who wants to pay for transparencies. But a LOT
of recent posts on this subject have been very misleading.
If the desired result is a print or enlargement, or the image must be
scanned for use, then print film has a lot more to offer. INCLUDING a lot
of advantages that I've recently seen erroneously attributed to slide film.
Please excuse the interruption. Those of you who are really not interested
in "Why slide film?" can go back to your squabbling now...
David Meiland
Karen,
Read the posts. It was NOT I that said those things, it was Dell!!
Karen Simmons <klsi...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>I originally wrote:
>>The reason your instructor is probably having you shoot slide film is
>>because transparencies are much less tolerant of exposure errors than
>>print film is. After all, over or underexposed negs can always be
>>corrected in printing (to a degree). With a slide, what you shoot is
>>what you get. It's an ideal tool for learning how to properly expose
>>your film.
>David responded with:
>> Where have you been? We just had an enormous discussion in this
>> newsgroup (rec.photo.technique.art) about bracketing. I think I was
>> the only person to recommend learning proper exposure techniques.
>> Most recommended bracket, bracket, bracket.. everything. I still
>> contend bracketing is a crutch and anyone who uses it to any extent
>> has little confidence in themselves as a photographer.
>David,
>Three things (ok, maybe four):
>(1) Where have I been? Well I responded to a post to rec.photo.misc. I
>didn't notice that it was posted to the r.p.art board as well. So yeah,
>I guess I missed that discussion.
>(2) What does my post about transparencies being less tolerant of
>exposure variance have to do with bracketing, except in that by
>bracketing you can "hit or miss" your way to a correct exposure.
>(3) Bracketing is not a "crutch" unless you use it that way ALL the
>time. I bracket frequently for several reasons: sometimes I'm not sure
>just what exposure I'll like best in the final shot, especially if I'm
>doing a landscape that has a wide overall range of zones, so I give
>myself some choices. Sometimes, especially in bad weather, I like to
>hedge my bets. Sometimes, if I'm shooting water for example, I like to
>experiment with the feel that the different settings give me.
>(4) For a beginner, bracketing is a good way to LEARN exposure. If
>someone is careful to record their settings carefully while they
>bracket, they can learn a lot about the variances in exposure and depth
>of field by examining the results.
>Just my thoughts.
>Karen
>--
>------------------------------
>Karen Simmons Photography
>Atlanta, Georgia
>http://www.ks-photography.com
>------------------------------
eric
--------------E85886A0C0108A005F8F5011
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Give Em Hell, Marcio...........
eric
http://www.dallas.net/erics
Marcio Watanabe wrote:
> po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey) wrote:
>
> >I can understand why Mr. Gary needed to bracket two stops. When you
> >use an incident light meter it is difficult to determine the proper
> >exposure.
>
> Dell, I will no longer bother replying to any of your comments. With
> your comment above, we all now know how knowledgeable you really are.
>
> Marcio
> --
> _
> __ _ ___ _________(_)__ If you had half as much fun reading this
> / ' \/ _ `/ __/ __/ / _ \ as I had writing it
> /_/_/_/\_,_/_/ \__/_/\___/ I had twice as much fun as you!! ,,,
> (o o)
> --- mar...@primenet.com -------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo--
--------------E85886A0C0108A005F8F5011
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
<FONT COLOR="#3333FF"><FONT SIZE=+4>Give Em Hell, Marcio...........</FONT></FONT>
<P><FONT COLOR="#006600"><FONT SIZE=+2>eric</FONT></FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#006600"><FONT SIZE=+2><A HREF="http://www.dallas.net/erics">http://www.dallas.net/erics</A></FONT></FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#006600"><FONT SIZE=+2></FONT></FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#006600"><FONT SIZE=+2></FONT></FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#006600"><FONT SIZE=+2></FONT></FONT>
<BR><FONT COLOR="#006600"><FONT SIZE=+2></FONT></FONT>
<P>Marcio Watanabe wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey) wrote:
<P>>I can understand why Mr. Gary needed to bracket two stops. When
you
<BR>>use an incident light meter it is difficult to determine the proper
<BR>>exposure.
<P>Dell, I will no longer bother replying to any of your comments.
With
<BR>your comment above, we all now know how knowledgeable you really are.
<P>Marcio
<BR>--
<BR>
_
<BR> __ _ ___ _________(_)__ If you had half as
much fun reading this
<BR> / ' \/ _ `/ __/ __/ / _ \
as I had writing it
<BR>/_/_/_/\_,_/_/ \__/_/\___/ I had twice as much fun as you!!
,,,
<BR>
(o o)
<BR>--- mar...@primenet.com -------------------------------------ooO-(_)-Ooo--</BLOCKQUOTE>
</HTML>
--------------E85886A0C0108A005F8F5011--
eric
--------------DE350E4592CBBD6CC9D3C9F7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Dell Elzey wrote:
> mar...@primenet.com (Marcio Watanabe) wrote:
>
> >po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey) wrote:
>
> >>Most recommended bracket, bracket, bracket.. everything. I still
> >>contend bracketing is a crutch and anyone who uses it to any extent
> >>has little confidence in themselves as a photographer.
>
> >Even notorious pro photographers who are also writers, like Gary
> >Bernstein and Galen Rowell, have written that at one time or another
> >they bracket, bracket, bracket. Until I know that you are anywhere
> >near as good, your opinion doesn't really matter.
> >For example, shooting actress Lena Harris for an ad campaign, Gary
> >Bernstein wrote in a Petersen's Photographic article:
> >"I bracketed full two stops in either direction, giving me a wide
> >variety of densities from which to select."
>
> I can understand why Mr. Gary needed to bracket two stops. When you
> use an incident light meter it is difficult to determine the proper
> exposure.
no it is not........why would you make such stupid remarks............
>
>
> Dell Elzey
> Large Format black and white Photography
> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
--------------DE350E4592CBBD6CC9D3C9F7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<HTML>
<P>Dell Elzey wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>mar...@primenet.com (Marcio Watanabe) wrote:
<P>>po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey) wrote:
<P>>>Most recommended bracket, bracket, bracket.. everything. I still
<BR>>>contend bracketing is a crutch and anyone who uses it to any extent
<BR>>>has little confidence in themselves as a photographer.
<P>>Even notorious pro photographers who are also writers, like Gary
<BR>>Bernstein and Galen Rowell, have written that at one time or another
<BR>>they bracket, bracket, bracket. Until I know that you are anywhere
<BR>>near as good, your opinion doesn't really matter.
<BR>>For example, shooting actress Lena Harris for an ad campaign, Gary
<BR>>Bernstein wrote in a Petersen's Photographic article:
<BR>>"I bracketed full two stops in either direction, giving me a wide
<BR>>variety of densities from which to select."
<P>I can understand why Mr. Gary needed to bracket two stops. When
you
<BR>use an incident light meter it is difficult to determine the proper
<BR>exposure.</BLOCKQUOTE>
<FONT COLOR="#FF0000"><FONT SIZE=+4>no it is not........why would you make
such stupid remarks............</FONT></FONT>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
<P>Dell Elzey
<BR>Large Format black and white Photography
<BR><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/">http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/</A></BLOCKQUOTE>
</HTML>
--------------DE350E4592CBBD6CC9D3C9F7--
bergstro
po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey) writes:
> ... Like I
> stated before you are all talk. Its easy to sit at the keyboard and
> comment and criticize but it takes a real man to have the guts to
> display his talent or lack of photographic talent to the world.
Dell, give up the macho B.S. It has become as unpleasant to read your
postings to the newsgroups as Eric and Jason on r.p.t.people. The only
reason some of us respond to some of your posts is to counter the hyperbole
and opinions-paraded-as-facts that people new to photography might mistake
as legitimate suggestions.
If you want to see my photographs, I'll be happy to show you in person the
very next time you visit Minnesota. I have not yet seen any electronic
representations that come close to the qualities of a real print (yes, I've
browsed your web site). Until that happens, I personally will not put
together a web site of my photographs. Attacks against someone based on
the availability of his photographs on a deficient medium such as the web
is a miserably pitiful waste of our time.
Pete
Sorcerer
Dell Elzey wrote in message <654nlr$f...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
>Dear Paul,
>I thought we had become friends. I didn't realize you held such
>animosity for our previous disagreement. I don't even remember what
>we disagreed about. I thought you were going to send me some of your
>scanned images to show me the type of photography you do. Like I
>stated before you are all talk. Its easy to sit at the keyboard and
>comment and criticize but it takes a real man to have the guts to
>display his talent or lack of photographic talent to the world.
Dell, I'm a real man. I thought that was already established, however, by
my record as a man at arms, exchanging gunfire with various hostiles, and
withstanding passes with knives and so on. I see, however, that you are far
my master at wisdom, that none of this counted in the least, nor has
anything to do with real courage. I see now, under your tutelage, that I
must prove my manhood once again by displaying my photographic talent, or
lack thereof, to the world at large.
Frankly, Dell, I'm a hack amateur, just like all the other hack amateurs who
keep Kodak et al in business. I'm working on getting better, for my own
satisfaction, since I'm in this to have fun, not to prove my moral merit.
Having already succeeded at art in music and literary fiction, at least to
my own satisfaction, I have no doubt that my photographic abilities will
grow as I work at the matter.
Now.
It is time to either admit that you, too, are a hack, and still learning, or
else post the most smashing photographs as attachments to your next message,
eh? Nota bene: all your photographs from here on out must be works to equal
a Rembrandt because, as you have been advising us, you do not make mistakes.
Best,
-- Frank
Sorcerer
Indeed, getting past the macho hyperbole and back on topic would be a
relief. The problems I experience as an amateur between slide and print are
fairly easy to explain.
Slides:
Give me true color rendition and exposure validation without a printer
modifying the color balance or exposure values.
Are a pain in the behind to display, because I have to drag out a projector
and screen
Are easily duplicated with a bellows and slide holder.
Prints:
Can be dodged and burned if I work with a local custom lab quite easily to
get effects beyond those available in the original, including different
saturations, contrast levels etc.
Are horrible to look at in flourescent or tungsten light after dark because
the colors go awry.
Are extremely portable in their own right.
A lot of whether one wants slides or prints depends on one's intention. A
gallery show will never be done with actual slides, I think, and print film
is much more forgiving for this purpose. Both slides and print film can do
things the other can't; and while they can be crossed over, it gets
expensive to do so. The preference for one over the other has always struck
me as a matter of taste if one is not a commercial photographer on a
particular mission -- much as the pursuit of photography itself is a
personal choice and flair rather than an essential such as food, clothing
and shelter.
As always, YMMV.
Jerry Houston wrote in message <655e9u$ekm$1...@hourglass.oz.net>...
Dell Elzey
remove...@meiland.com (David Meiland) wrote:
>po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey) wrote:
>>I can understand why Mr. Gary needed to bracket two stops. When you
>>use an incident light meter it is difficult to determine the proper
>>exposure.
>Dell,
>Please retract that silly comment, before you start another torrent of
>posts telling you that you don't know what the f*&k you're talking
>about.
>How is it that you're aware of Mr. Gary's metering technique? Maybe he
>used a spotmeter. Maybe he can tell by the modeling lights and power
>settings what stop to choose. Maybe he shoots hella polaroids. Till
>the envelopes are all over the studio floor.
Mr. Meiland, If you used a little common sense instead of your nasty
mouth you would put Mr. Gary's name in a search engine on the WWW and
you would be directed to his web site. On his site he goes into
explicit detail how he took several readings with this incident light
meter of the subject.
>Why is it that incident meters are so hard to use? My run-of-the-mill
>Sekonic flash meter gives me an accurate exposure reading within 1/3
>of a stop on transparency film, every damn time I use it, indoors or
>out, flash, sunlight, or tungsten. It's so reliable that nearly all
>the bracketing I do is unnecessary (damn, ain't that some shit? maybe
>I should stop bracketing).
>I recommend you log off and go learn about the movements on your view
>camera. You'll be blown away when you see what you can do.
I think if you will take the time to visit my web site you will find I
was being facetious about view camera movements.
Dell Elzey
Paul Butzi
On Fri, 21 Nov 1997 18:33:59 GMT, po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey)
wrote:
>Like I
>stated before you are all talk. Its easy to sit at the keyboard and
>comment and criticize but it takes a real man to have the guts to
>display his talent or lack of photographic talent to the world.
Dear Dell-
I replied to this taunt before. I include the response I used
before below. I'm sure that you'll post your photographic resume
in response. After all, any wanker with a bit of software and
some disk space can put up a web site with his photographs. Getting
a show in a gallery means you have to convince someone else
who is actually spending money on it to display your work.
As a side note, I'd point out something I've learned from listening
to people view my prints in galleries.
When people look a print, they don't care whether you burned
or dodged. They don't care whether you used the zone system.
They don't care whether you used amidol to develop the print,
they don't care if you used Oriental Seagull or Kodak Elite,
they don't care if you bleached the highlights, they don't care
if you used compensating development, they don't care how many
negatives you exposed to get the one you printed. They don't
care how hard you worked, they don't care that you had to
stand in two feet of water that had just run off a glacier,
they don't care if you used Schneider or Rodenstock lenses,
they don't care how big the negative is, and they don't care
what kind of film you used. They don't care what sort of
tripod you use, or even whether you don't use one at all.
They sure as hell don't care what sort of metering you did,
and they sure as hell don't care whether you subscribe to
some sort of doctrine of 'Photographic Purity'.
All they care about, in the end, is whether your art moves
them.
Here's the old response:
>I don't know why you feel you should be any different from any
>photographer who displays their photography on the WWW. Everyone who
>is knowledgeable about black and white photography knows that
>photographs scanned and placed on the WWW are only a representation of
>the original print.
Ah, well. Perhaps it's vanity. I just work so hard on the prints,
and they look so *nice*. And then you scan them, and fiddle with them
to get the density and contrast right, and maybe you re-scan them,
and fiddle some more, and finally when it's the best you can do,
you compare it to the final print, and the image on the monitor
just really looks rotten. So rotten, in fact, that I'm heartily
embarrassed to have my name associated with it. Hubris? Perhaps.
But I reserve the right to not affix my name to things that don't
meet my standard (with prints I destroy them). And I'm sufficiently
cocky that I think that that's a good idea in life - if it doesn't
meet your standards, don't be associated with it. I've had
prints on public display that I was dissatisfied with, and in
the end, I decided that it was just a big mistake.
But, this is an issue where reasonable minds can disagree. There's
lots of fine work on the web - much of it is better than mine, some
of it is total dreck.
>I see you are one of these jerks thats all talk. Lets see your
>currnet portfolio.
Well, I don't know about 'all talk'. As for being a jerk, well, I
guess that's a matter of opinion.
As for my current portfolio, I'm afraid you'd have to come see
it in person. But folks are free to contact me by email, set
up a time and place with me, here in the Seattle area, and I'll
be happy to go thru my current work. If you're just trying to
verify that it exists, you could call the Eastshore Gallery
in Bellevue, Washington, and confirm that I had prints in a
show that ran from June thru Sept. of this year. You might be
able to confirm this just by looking in Seattle Sidewalk on the
WWW if you can get at past events. I've also had prints in shows
at Take Two, in Seattle, and Moss Bay Gallery, in Kirkland, so
if you want, you could call them. Alas, the Moss Bay Gallery
has changed hands, so I don't know if they could help you. But
my solo show there was titled 'Snoqualmie River - Below the
Falls', and was up during the month of January, 1997. It seemed
generally well received although I have to admit that the prints
fell short of my expectations (but then, they generally do!). I am
consoled by the words of Browning - "A man's reach should exceed
his grasp - or what's a heaven for?"
Anticipating your question, my portfolio isn't available on the www
for the simple reason that it just seems too hard to get it to look
the way I want it. I've got a scanner, and I've fiddled with scanning
both negatives and prints, and to be honest, the result just looks
like crud compared to the prints. I'm not claiming to be
an amazing printer, I'm just observing that what I see on the
monitor is way short of what I see on the paper. And that's
scanning 8x10 work prints. I've pretty much settled on 11x14
as the size for most prints, and that's larger than I can
conveniently scan.
But the offer to set up a time to meet and look at prints is genuine,
and extends to anyone who is actually interested.
> I would think if you are interested in selling
>your photographs the WWW would be an excellent avenue. Your work
>would be exposed to the entire world rather than just a few people
>visiting a gallery.
Well, now, I'm of mixed minds about print sales, and public exhibition
in general. I found the fact that I was committed to have prints
ready for a solo show to be a tremendous motivator. But, in the end,
I'm not really clear about what I get out of having prints up in
galleries. I'm not going to make real money out of print sales -
I'm not that good (and I know some people who really *are* good
and they don't make much off print sales), so I'm certainly not
going to center my life around selling prints. There's the
positive feeling of accomplishment, and there's the feedback you
get from folks who come to see the show. But it's a lot of work
and it's not work that central to creating the art in the first place.
So maybe I'll back off for a while, I don't know. I confess
to being fairly muddled about shows/public display/etc. If you're
not in it for the dough, and you're not in it for the notoriety/fame,
is it worth the effort of hitting the galleries with your portfolio,
and doing all the (substantial) work to prepare for the show? At
first, the answer is yes. Then, after the first rush wears off,
the answer is not so obvious.
Dell Elzey
bergstro <berg...@htc.honeywell.com> wrote:
>po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey) writes:
>> ... Like I
>> stated before you are all talk. Its easy to sit at the keyboard and
>> comment and criticize but it takes a real man to have the guts to
>> display his talent or lack of photographic talent to the world.
>Dell, give up the macho B.S. It has become as unpleasant to read your
>postings to the newsgroups as Eric and Jason on r.p.t.people. The only
>reason some of us respond to some of your posts is to counter the hyperbole
>and opinions-paraded-as-facts that people new to photography might mistake
>as legitimate suggestions.
Your concern for people new to photography is overwhelming.
So you wish to deny me the freedom to express my opinion? When you
become owner of the internet let me know.
>If you want to see my photographs, I'll be happy to show you in person the
>very next time you visit Minnesota. I have not yet seen any electronic
>representations that come close to the qualities of a real print (yes, I've
>browsed your web site). Until that happens, I personally will not put
>together a web site of my photographs. Attacks against someone based on
>the availability of his photographs on a deficient medium such as the web
>is a miserably pitiful waste of our time.
>Pete
That is a lame excuse for not presenting your photography. Everyone
with a photography web site is in the same boat as far as the quality
of scanning. Every knowledgeable person knows the limitations of the
WWW for black and white photographs. The WWW is the most wonderful
medium ever to present your photographic skills to the whole world.
The best most photographers can do on a local level is a few gallery
or mall shows. Some of the best commercial photographers there are
have web sites and I am sure love the opportunity for this exposure.
I receive e-mail almost daily from around the world from people
commenting on my photography. You might be surprised but a couple
were actually favorable comments. You are missing a fine
opportunity.
Several web sites are free and html can actually be fun. If you don't
have the confidence to show your work that is sad.
Dell Elzey
"Sorcerer" <fwa...@nospampacbell.net> wrote:
>Dell Elzey wrote in message <654nlr$f...@camel18.mindspring.com>...
>>Dear Paul,
>>I thought we had become friends. I didn't realize you held such
>>animosity for our previous disagreement. I don't even remember what
>>we disagreed about. I thought you were going to send me some of your
>>scanned images to show me the type of photography you do. Like I
>>stated before you are all talk. Its easy to sit at the keyboard and
>>comment and criticize but it takes a real man to have the guts to
>>display his talent or lack of photographic talent to the world.
>Dell, I'm a real man. I thought that was already established, however, by
>my record as a man at arms, exchanging gunfire with various hostiles, and
>withstanding passes with knives and so on. I see, however, that you are far
>my master at wisdom, that none of this counted in the least, nor has
>anything to do with real courage. I see now, under your tutelage, that I
>must prove my manhood once again by displaying my photographic talent, or
>lack thereof, to the world at large.
>Frankly, Dell, I'm a hack amateur, just like all the other hack amateurs who
>keep Kodak et al in business. I'm working on getting better, for my own
>satisfaction, since I'm in this to have fun, not to prove my moral merit.
>Having already succeeded at art in music and literary fiction, at least to
>my own satisfaction, I have no doubt that my photographic abilities will
>grow as I work at the matter.
>Now.
>It is time to either admit that you, too, are a hack, and still learning, or
>else post the most smashing photographs as attachments to your next message,
>eh? Nota bene: all your photographs from here on out must be works to equal
>a Rembrandt because, as you have been advising us, you do not make mistakes.
>Best,
>-- Frank
WOW Frank, I thought we were discussing photography and displaying
photography on the WWW. Didn't mean to rattle your chain so much. I
think you are reading too much into what I am posting. I have only
made statements as to how I work photographically and my personal
opinions about photography. I am in no way trying to solicit converts
to my way of doing photography or my beliefs about photography. This
is still a free country (world) and I believe everyone has a right to
their own opinion about anything. Although newsgroups make you
wonder.
I really don't recall stating that I don't make mistakes. I have been
in this life for many years and I have certainly made my share of
mistakes. At my age I could have made that statement I suppose and
not remember it.
Regarding attaching an image to this message, I am sorry but I do not
know how to do that. Do you not have WWW access? I will post the URL
(you know that is the World Wide Web address) of my web site that has
a few of my photographs displayed.
I have spent far too much time, effort and money on photography to
consider myself a hack. I am no longer active in photography except
an occasional snapshot of a grandchild. The new digital stuff is
interesting but far too expensive.
The best to you Frank,
Dell Elzey
bu...@halcyon.com (Paul Butzi) wrote:
Dear Paul,
Are you getting lots of results with these subtle solicitations for
sale of your work?
Dell
eric
Dell Elzey wrote:
> I receive e-mail almost daily from around the world from people
> commenting on my photography. You might be surprised but a couple
> were actually favorable comments.
that's right folks two out of 1500 were favorable, in other words 1,498 agreed
with me that his B/W work is at most average............nothing wrong with that,
just not as hot to trot as ole Dell would have you beleave.......
eric
http://www.dallas.net/erics
dell until i get an apology for the emails you have sent me this is the way i
will continue to talk to you.........
Paul Butzi
On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 09:07:09 GMT, po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey)
wrote:
>Dear Paul,
>
>Are you getting lots of results with these subtle solicitations for
>sale of your work?
>
>Dell
>
My 'subtle solicitations', as you call them, are, I'm sure,
both less effective and less obvious than your postings
promoting your web site in newsgroups such as:
de.rec.fotografie
soc.men
soc.women
swnet.general
soc.culture.russian
alt.california
alt.acting
alt.3d.studio
tw.bbs.rec.photo
triangle.general
vegas.general
wi.general
akr.jobs
alt.2d
alt.america
aus.photo
rec.audio.misc
soc.culture.europe
sat.personals
soc.culture.usa
soc.net-people
comp.infosystems.www
alt.art.scene
alt.japanese.misc
not to mention nearly constant postings in rec.photo.* plugging
the site.
Maybe when you stop spamming to promote your site, I'll accept
that my posts to the photo newsgroups are 'subtle solicitations
to for sale of my work'.
Until that happens, though, I think it's one more case of the
pot calling the kettle black. Based on the number of email
messages I've gotten from others who've also received rude
and offensive email from you, I'm not alone in holding this
opinion.
-Paul
Dell Elzey
eric <er...@dallas.net> wrote:
>Dell Elzey wrote:
>eric
>http://www.dallas.net/erics
Eric bro, I am devastated!!! ;-)
Dell
Dell Elzey
bu...@halcyon.com (Paul Butzi) wrote:
>On Sat, 22 Nov 1997 09:07:09 GMT, po...@mindspring.com (Dell Elzey)
>wrote:
>>Dear Paul,
>>
>>Are you getting lots of results with these subtle solicitations for
>>sale of your work?
>>
>>Dell
>>
>My 'subtle solicitations', as you call them, are, I'm sure,
>-Paul
And you think this bothers me? Lets see some of your photography.
Are you going to deny me the right to promote my site in newsgroups?
I have nothing for sale on my web site. People promote their web
sites in newsgroups all the time and they are selling something. Have
you purchased the internet? When you do let me know.
Dell
Steve Shapiro
You have encountered a large, large can of worms. Ansel Adams devised the
Zone System and said at the beginning of each workshop .. 'look at the
scene and determind what Zone your shooting for.' Same applys to slide
film, neg film B&W or what Jacque Lartigue used at age 8. Blink your eyes
and tell the vision to your most intimate friends.
SSH...@worldnet.att.net
Chad Bailey <bai...@uab.edu> wrote in article
<34665aa7....@news.dpo.uab.edu>...
> I'm currently taking my first photography class and the instructor has
> us shooting slide film for all our assignments. At the beginning of
> each class we veiw everybody's slides with a projector in front of the
> class, so I understand why we use slide film in the class. But what
> I've come to learn is that photographers use slide film all the time
> in the real world. Like the other night I was at a basketball game and
> talking to this professional photographer that was shooting the game
> and he was using slide film. So what I'm wondering is what is the
> rationale, advantages, applications for using slide film when I leave
> class and start shooting on my own? Why use slide film as opposed to
> print film?
>
> Chad
>
Dell Elzey
bu...@halcyon.com (Paul Butzi) wrote:
Dear Paul,
Lets see if we can figure out why you are having such a problem being
satisfied with the scans of your photography. From what I can gather
from your post you are never satisfied with your prints even when
mounted, matted, and framed for an exhibition. Could it be your
photography just ain't cuttin it? You seem to go to untold lengths in
making and remaking and burning in and dodging and bleaching. Don't
you know if the information is not in the negative nothing is going to
save it. Unless you properly expose and develop a negative no amount
of manipulation is going to help. Making a good photograph is no easy
task. Perhaps you need a few more workshops. It is true that if you
have a decent photograph and scan it for the WWW with a file size
somewhere around 40 or 50K it is not going to look exactly like the
original print. But it will be a good approximation of the range of
tones and esthetic look of the original. Now if you have a $3.00
video card in your computer and your monitor is not properly adjusted
for viewing black and white photography nothing is going to look good.
If you have a decent video card and preferably a 17 inch monitor here
is the URL of a site where you can calibrate your monitor.
http://www.zonezero.com/calibration/english.html
If you have windows95 the best video setting is True Color (24 bit) or
at least High Color (16 bit).
With my photographs I have scanned say on a scale of 1 to 10 and say
the original print is a 10 the scanned image is either an 8 or on some
a 9. What would you say you are getting with your scans? If you are
getting less than an 8 I would say something is wrong with your
scanning. You will get all kinds of suggestions for scanning black
and white photography. No two people can seem to agree on the proper
procedure. What I do is apparently contrary to all suggested
procedures. I scan 8x10 originals at 1200 dpi which creates a large
file size. I then import this as a jpg into my Lview viewing program
and resize the image to around 50K.
I hope this information will be of value to you.
Cheryl Claxton
eric <er...@dallas.net> wrote:
>Dell Elzey wrote:
>> I receive e-mail almost daily from around the world from people
>> commenting on my photography. You might be surprised but a couple
>> were actually favorable comments.
>that's right folks two out of 1500 were favorable, in other words 1,498 agreed
>with me that his B/W work is at most average............nothing wrong with that,
>just not as hot to trot as ole Dell would have you beleave.......
>eric
>http://www.dallas.net/erics
>dell until i get an apology for the emails you have sent me this is the way i
>will continue to talk to you.........
>>
>>
>> Dell Elzey
>> Large Format black and white Photography
>> http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Lofts/9083/
Eric, Why are you such a jerk?
perfect
Chuck Hoffman
Cheryl Claxton wrote:
>
> Eric, Why are you such a jerk?
Because -- as they say in showbiz -- bad publicity is better than no
publicity.
Eric has a twisted view of that existential philosophy, "I think,
therefore I am." In his view, "I get e-mails, therefore I must be."
He can't stand for people to ignore him so he pushes everyone's buttons
to provoke responses.
I think we should all just stop replying to Eric's posts.
--
Chuck Hoffman
eric
Chuck Hoffman wrote:
> Cheryl Claxton wrote:
> >
> > Eric, Why are you such a jerk?
>
> Because -- as they say in showbiz -- bad publicity is better than no
> publicity.
i have not received any publicity.......
> Eric has a twisted view
i have a twisted view of everything in life, some say this is why i shoot
as good as i do......others say i am an idiot,i say i do not care which, i
just keep on having fun and loving life.......
> of that existential philosophy, "I think, therefore I am."
i think therefore i am therefore i will always be........i am the
existential philosophy......
> In his view, "I get e-mails, therefore I must be."
now why would i think i am an e-mail...........i just consider myself a
regular male.............
> He can't stand for people to ignore him so he pushes everyone's buttons
> to provoke responses.
i push no ones buttons until they push mine..........
> I think we should all just stop replying to Eric's posts.
yea right chuck, you are the one who always replies first...........i am
the one who keeps this group from falling asleep.......why are you so
judgemental..............
is there not room in your world for others and there ideas no matter how
different they may be........
eric
http://www.dallas.net/erics
shen
Steve Shapiro wrote:
> You have encountered a large, large can of worms. Ansel Adams devised the
> Zone System and said at the beginning of each workshop .. 'look at the
> scene and determind what Zone your shooting for.' Same applys to slide
> film, neg film B&W or what Jacque Lartigue used at age 8. Blink your eyes
> and tell the vision to your most intimate friends.
> SSH...@worldnet.att.net
also, if we didn't have slide film what subject would we argue over in these
news groups???
truthfully though, i shoot to record what i see, not what the camera sees. to
this end i expose my film acording to what i see not what the guy printing the
pics at the supermarket photo dropoff booth would see (or, actually his
automatic meter in his print machine) so that is what i want when the image
comes back to me. thus slides.
--
shane
mailto:sh...@xmission.com
http://www.xmission.com/~shen/
Sherry's Agent
Well, I hate to blow your theory but I rarely (one out of a hundred
shots) have to bracket...and the work is good! After a while, you can
figure things out (exposure and amount needed for light painting,
etc.) without relying on a meter...
On Thu, 20 Nov 1997 10:48:57 -0600, eric <er...@dallas.net> wrote:
>>
>
>anyone who says they do not bracket film are one of two types of people,
>
>one type is the person who is full of bull pookie.....
>
>the other is the type who does not get the job done
>sometimes.................
>
>eric
>http://www.dallas.net/erics
Dell Elzey
eric <er...@dallas.net> wrote:
>Chuck Hoffman wrote:
>> Cheryl Claxton wrote:
>> >
>> > Eric, Why are you such a jerk?
>>
>> Because -- as they say in showbiz -- bad publicity is better than no
>> publicity.
>is there not room in your world for others and there ideas no matter how
>different they may be........
>eric
>http://www.dallas.net/erics
Eric, are you really this stupid?
Take your sentence "is there not room in your world for others and
there ideas no matter how"
Where you write "there ideas" don't you know it should be
"their ideas"?
eric
Dell Elzey
Sherry's Agent,
Evidently eric and Paul Butzi haven't figured this out yet.
kingsnake
Yes, I'm being a little bit facetious here ...
but I agree.
shen wrote:
> truthfully though, i shoot to record what i see, not what the camera sees. to
> this end i expose my film acording to what i see not what the guy printing the
> pics at the supermarket photo dropoff booth would see (or, actually his
> automatic meter in his print machine) so that is what i want when the image
> comes back to me. thus slides.
Don't tell me you have been photographing black cats in the snow, and
you had to have color, to make that Christmas Wreath around
"Midnight's" neck stand out like a sore thumb ... ;->
(((sorry, I just couldn't resist that one)))
It would make a heck of a shot ...
--
All joking aside:
Yes, I am pretty anal-retentive myself when it comes to processing.
When the [finished print] doesn't look like what I wanted, I usually
blame it on the lab. And sometimes, but not always, I'm right .
Admittedly, if a slide doesn't come out right, we have no alibi!
--
-John S. Bond <kingsnake> WA6FRN/6
kingsnake photography; a division of Gyro Gearloose Productions
http://www.humboldt1.com/~gyrgrls/
ICQ uin:4604100
Tim
On Sat, 06 Dec 1997 00:48:33 -0800, kingsnake <king...@dm.net>
wrote:
>Yes, I'm being a little bit facetious here ...
>but I agree.
>
>shen wrote:
>
>> truthfully though, i shoot to record what i see, not what the camera sees. to
>> this end i expose my film acording to what i see not what the guy printing the
>> pics at the supermarket photo dropoff booth would see (or, actually his
>> automatic meter in his print machine) so that is what i want when the image
>> comes back to me. thus slides.
>
>Don't tell me you have been photographing black cats in the snow, and
>you had to have color, to make that Christmas Wreath around
>"Midnight's" neck stand out like a sore thumb ... ;->
>
>(((sorry, I just couldn't resist that one)))
>
>It would make a heck of a shot ...
>
>--
>
>All joking aside:
>
>Yes, I am pretty anal-retentive myself when it comes to processing.
>When the [finished print] doesn't look like what I wanted, I usually
>blame it on the lab. And sometimes, but not always, I'm right .
>
>Admittedly, if a slide doesn't come out right, we have no alibi!
All it takes is telling the lab to run the prints straight through
with no compensation, then you'll get the same results as slide. And
if you did screw up your metering, you have more latitude to salvage
the pic.
Tim
Marc Schneider
In article <34891161...@dm.net>, gyr...@humboldt1.com wrote:
I shoot slide film for many reasons:
1) Color saturation, although some print films come close, esp. when I
print them myself.
2) Have you ever tried to sandwich negs? Ever get the result you wanted? I
print Ciba from slides when I want prints and it's much easier to work with
a positive image.
3) It's cheaper. About $8.50 for slides vs. $11.00 for Develope and Contact
and then depending upon what I want to print extra for lab time and paper.
4) Much more choice in films, esp. in large format. (Only color film Kodak
produces in 4x5 is PRN 100, which is a good film but, I think they make
about 6 slide films in this format.
5) Much easier to scan.
6) Archival prints (and slides if shooting Kodachrome) if I want them.
plus many other, I'm probably not thinking of off the top of my head. It
really depends upon what you want to do with the images you create, and how
critica you are about your work, camera format, type of work, etc.
I also often shoot print film. Fuji 800 is great for shooting by candle
light and VPS 160 is a great color portrait film.
I also do alot of cross processing shooting slide film and developing in
C-41 chemistry. You can really create some surealistic results.
Film is a tool, and like any other tool there a right tool for each job.
Know your tools well, and use the right tool for the right job. What tool
is "right" depends upon what you want.
Marc Schneider - ma...@panix.com - http://www.ctr.columbia.edu/~mars
____________________________________________________________________________
Guess there's something wrong with me, guess I don't fit in.
No one wants to touch it, no one knows where to begin.
I've got more than one membership, to more than one club
and I owe my life to the people that I love. - Ani DiFranco