waldo_lee

<p>To respond to Tim, I'd say to some extent you have a point. As I recall, Kodak was a sponsor for Ralph Gibson's <em>L'Histoire de France</em>, so I think it's a safe bet he had access to the very best in the way of film and processing. I'm also certain he used the professional version (PKR) which would have provided more consistent, predictable color. In general, though--and I say this as someone who was disappointed a number of times by Kodachrome color--I think Kodak did its upmost to maintain consistent, high quality K14 processing.</p>

<p>To use a film well--particularly a transparency film--it's a question of understanding what color and contrast the film will deliver in various situations and then working to the particular strengths of that film. If you examine <em>L'Histoire de France</em> (which isn't very expensive used), this becomes immediately apparent. It's much easier to see than to talk about. The particular look of that book isn't something I think we're likely to see again. You can view many of the book images on Gibson's website (though I think web images are a poor substitute for the book).</p>

<p>I have no idea what you're referring to with regard to "film elitism." Every medium has its strengths and weaknesses. Some folks learn how to used each medium to its best advantage. Others flounder around. Nothing new about that.</p>

<p>I don't particularly miss Kodachrome even though I shot thousands of rolls of K64 professionally. Once the Fujichromes came out, I found the Fujichrome color response worked better under a wider range of light conditions. However, in the right conditions Kodachrome could look wonderful, and some photographers used it brilliantly. Check out Ralph Gibson's <em>L'Histoire de France</em> of you'd like to see Kodachrome used really well. It's a look I doubt I'll ever see from a digital camera, though I'd be happy to be proved wrong.</p>

<p>"Am I INSANE for letting a magazine publish a photo?...This lake is a bit of a hidden gem and although beautiful, not very photographed. I've been going there all my life." Well, to take this in slightly different direction, I'm hoping for the sake of your own mental and spiritual well being that you were vague with respect to captioning and location. This has been my policy for years, unless it's a location that is widely known and recognized. And on the matter of charging a licensing fee and nailing town the terms of use, yeah, you should have done that. Lesson learned.</p>

<p>Considering you haven't spent money on a film scanner yet, I suggest you save yourself a lot of trouble and consider this option instead: <a href="http://www.scancafe.com/">http://www.scancafe.com/</a></p>

<p>No, I haven't used ScanCafe myself, but there are a number of ScanCafe threads on photo.net, and reviews are quite good overall. The only reason I haven't used ScanCafe myself is because I have a good dedicated 35mm film scanner. I may use them in the future for medium format.</p>

<p>I've done a lot of knocking on doors in pursuit of a photo and have always been accomodated. A couple of points:<br>

--Even if you're on public right-of-way, taking a few shots over the fence isn't going to win you friends. If you think you want access, ask first.<br>

--Too many photographers fail to follow through on the promised photo. I've encountered the sceptical looks. Follow through!<br>

--I've been in rural areas where nobody had a clue what a medium format or view camera were. Some people thought I was surveying (!), and it didn't make them happy. That's where examples of my work really helped.<br>

--The first thing I say after saying I'm a photographer is that I saw something on their property that was "interesting" or "attractive." That often pleases people and helps to get things moving in the right direction. Once folks know your genuinely interested in something that's close to them, more often than not they'll go out of their way to be helpful. I've had amazing days unfold with tractor rides to the top of mountains, personal tours through orchards, etc.<br>

--It's a good idea to familiarize yourself about local customs. In my neck of the woods, if you knock on the front door, you might as well turn around. The front door is for ministers and undertakers. Wear boots. The point about farmers fearing you might get into trouble is a good one. They'll be happy to see the boots. Again, around here, those boots better be off before you take one step inside anyone's door.</p>

<p>As a Canadian, B&H Photo gets my vote. They have made it much easier and more affordable to order from them, so much so that I usually can get things shipped (by Purolator) to me for less than I can get an item mailed within Canada.</p>

<p>Like many Canadians, I dread FedEx and UPS because of unreasonable brokerage fees. With B&H there still is a FedEx tie in when they ship by Purolator, but B&H handles the brokerage and tax at the time of purchase, and you know the (reasonable) charges before you submit the order.</p>

<p>Greg's photo of the Trans International jet is a stunner by any standard.</p>

<p>I did a couple of photo books with Kodachrome 64. In those days you used your noggin more and relied on automation less, and I still like working that way. Your brain is fast if you know your tools, especially without all of today's camera "features" to clutter the process.</p>

<p>In the 60s flash was done by guide numbers which you knew by heart, or if you didn't, there were tables or simple calculators ready at hand. For direct flash, guide numbers have the advantage of avoiding "subject failure," which can fool meters.</p>

<p>Someone wrote that E-6 processing was available in the 1960s. If memory serves, Kodak in the 1960s offered either Kodachrome processing or E-3. E-6 didn't arrive until the mid-1970s with E-4 in between.</p>

<p>Xtol</p>

<p>Though there can be loss of sharpness in the corners when enlarging, it can be mitigated considerably by using a somewhat longer focal length lens (e.g., a 105mm lens rather than an 80/90mm for 6x6 film) and/or by using only the best lenses (El-Nikkor, Apo-Rodagon, Apo-Componon, etc.). I don't find corner softness a problem.</p>

<p>Corner softness can also be a problem if you're not using glass negative carriers. I suggest always using glass. If Newton rings become a problem, they can be dealt with, but that's another topic.</p>

<p>I use a very nice Chromega D5. As solid as it is, movement is always an issue...with any enlarger. Rather than use a baseboard, my enlarger base is bolted to a massive shelf that is attached to wall studs with lag screws and the upper portion of the enlarger column is further secured to the wall with heavy chain. Film can shift, too, quickly losing flatness in a glassless carrier, which is why I always use glass. And focus can drift very slightly--but enough to make a difference--which is why I always check focus with a grain magnifier immediately before exposing a print. If you want sharp prints, you cannot take things for granted.</p>

<p>After pursuing digital B&W for a decade, I returned to darkroom printing because I like it better. One thing I especially prefer is the way that sharpness and blur work naturally within a scene. It's very easy to introduce dubious sharpening in digital images. I'm not saying the digital photos cannot be rendered in a very fine way, but like anything you try to do well, it doesn't just drop in your lap</p>

<p>Let me recommend these websites: <a href="http://www.khbphotografix.com/">http://www.khbphotografix.com/</a> and <a href="http://www.cancart.net/khbphotografix.com/">http://www.cancart.net/khbphotografix.com/</a>. Even if you don't want to buy from them, there's all kinds of specific, useful information. And if you are particularly interested in Omega, there's Harry Taylor: <a href="http://www.classic-enlargers.com/">http://www.classic-enlargers.com/</a>. It's been years since I've been in contact in Harry, but when I was, he was very helpful.</p>

<p>I mostly agree with David Bebbington and Ilkka Nissila. Professional photojournalists research a story just like reporters do; they ARE reporters. Not only do they capture great images, they also get the story behind the story. They give us context and background.<br>

What's killing photojournalism is the public's belief that we can get the information we need for free. Personally, I put as much stock in the views of "citizen journalists" as I do in the votes for American Idol. I want my journalism written and photographed by well paid, experienced pros who work to standards and who actually know something about how the world works.</p>

<p>Eric wrote "There is no good reason to hand-develop color films. Unlike B&W films, color negative and transparency films were designed to be machine-processed, and you can't do a better job hand-developing them as opposed to running them through a processor." Though I mostly agree with most of what you said, I don't agree that there's no reason to hand develop color. If you live a long ways from an E-6 lab--which I do--then hand-developing can give you a same day turnaround. I've needed that for professional work. Secondly, hand-developing (actually Jobo) can afford a significant savings. Thirdly, a lot of machine developing--especially C41--really sucks: scratches, dirt, careless cutting, etc. If you live in a major city, you can probably find a decent lab. Out in the sticks you spend a lot of time waiting for the mail.</p>

<p>I hit the jackpot a few years ago at a second-hand office furniture store and bought a metal map cabinet with huge drawers that can easily take 30x40" prints as well as 2" deep print boxes. Talking my friends into helping me bring it home and carry it up two flights of stairs took some doing, but I cannot think of a better cabinet for print storage.</p>

<p>"Nobody said what the right spot to measure is." In contrasty light it's typically the highlight. For starters assume that if you meter a highlight where you hope to preserve detail, you can open up about 2 1/2 stops for overall exposure. You'll probably to have to fine tune this for your camera/meter/film/lab combination, but it ought to get you close. Slide shooters look for light that's favorable for the contrast range of slide film. There are light situations that just won't work, so you pass them by, or wait. I shot slides professionally for at least a decade; watching for the right light is just part of the deal.</p>

<p>It's encouraging that Giovanni found he could essentially spot meter with his Mamiya 7II. I've used the same technique of identifying where the meter spot is with a number of cameras. Hopefully, this approach works just as well with your Mamiya 7.</p>

<p>Also, with slide film you need to find ways of making those inky shadows a successful compositional element. It's not something you want to do all the time, but learning to make graphic shadows work for you can increase your success rate.</p>

<p>Mauro, how much ascorbic acid?</p>

<p>The recent announcement of the Sony NEX-7 has made me sit up and take notice. However, I'm puzzled that Sony doesn't even contemplate a fast (at least f/2) normal (30-35mm) prime lens in its lens roadmap, especially when there are a couple of fast 25mm normals for MFT and at least one fast normal for Samsung's NX.</p>

<p>For me the entire appeal of the Sony NEX system (and other mirrorless system cameras) has nothing to do with zoom lenses. I want fast primes, and the smaller the better. And as much as I like and respect the work that can be done with wide angle and medium wide angle primes, there is also a strong argument to be made for the slightly more concentrated view of a "normal" lens. The lack of such a lens is enough to keep me from investing in a NEX-7. If one of the other manufacturers who have signed on to the E-format--Zeiss, Cosina, Sigma, Tamron--produces a fast normal, perhaps this will change my mind. Am I alone in seeing the lack of a fast normal prime E-mount lens as a glaring omission?</p>

<p>I'm coming at this not as a wedding photographer, but rather as someone who has done many editorial assignments. Copyright issues aside, I think you want to be mindful that once you've done the "finishing touches," in the mind of the client the work will now be yours as well as the original photographer's. Your own reputation is involved in this. Will this work truly represent you as a photographer?<br>

I'd think long and hard about this. Perhaps you can guide the "potential client" to another person who has good retouching skills. Your work is your reputation, even if it starts with someone else's photography.</p>

<p>What's silly about this is that I'm darn sure--if I were a terrorist--that I could take countless photographs of so-called "targets" without every being noticed or seen. And so could most who visit this site. Not to mention the vast number of photos that can be found by looking around the internet. I don't think authorities accomplish anything useful by harassing photographers whose only crime is being obvious. These paranoid policies are completely and utterly stupid. If a terrorist wants a photo of a target, he's going to have it. We might as well accept that fact and concentrate on other approaches to security that might actually achieve a meaningful result.</p>

<p>As electronic viewfinders continue to improve and gain wider acceptance, I think square becomes more doable. Getting rid of the mirror would really help with the mechanics. Why square? Because "squares are nice" and because square is the most flexible format for composition there is. When the moment is truly decisive, square gives the most options for later output. Square means you only have to orient the camera one way...i.e., the best way. The ergonomics in turning a camera sideways really suck. Square also makes 45-degree and 90-degree viewfinders much more workable, and those are options I'd like to have. Finally, I personally dislike the 2:3 aspect ratio, even though most of my paid work was shot that way. 3:4 is better, but I'm not crazy about the available sensor sizes.</p>

<p>Why would it possibly matter what others prefer? You use the lens(es) that suit YOUR vision. There are plenty of examples of great photographers who prefer either one.</p>

<p>My two go-to SLRs are the KX (own 3) and the LX. With MLU and aperture visible in viewfinder, the KX is my favourite of the K-series, which I agree with Will Daniel seems to be a continuation of the Spotmatic series. Wearing glasses I find the KX viewfinder more comfortable than than the MX. My KXs were set up by Eric Hendrickson, and I've never had another camera--among scores--where focusing was so precisely aligned with the viewfinder. I also find the shutter release to be exquisitely refined. With the KX's mass (just right, not too much) and that beautiful release, I feel very confident shooting handheld.</p>

<p>Bruce, I don't have an answer why the Sharpie faded. I used them on a variety of media: color and B&W prints--mainly RC--and negative enclosures. I always used Staedler Lumocolor permanent pens on non-critical negatives, and for critical transparencies, I scratched info into the edge emulsioin with a super sharp stylus. Since Staedler pens are widely available, I won't bother with Sharpies. Writing with the Staedler pens is easy, and so far the ink has stayed put. I can't ask for more.</p>

<p>I can show you scores of dark-stored photographs marked with Sharpies approximately 15 years ago where the ink has almost faded away completely. So something about Sharpy isn't stable. If you need to proceed in a timely way, I'd recommend a fine point Staedtler Lumocolor permanent pen. They're available in a fine enough point that you can confine your writing within the clear edges. So far, I haven't had a problem with these.</p>

<p>I have a Vivitar 35ES and think it's a great camera. Very sharp lens. As you no doubt know, the Minolta 7sII, Konica Auto S3, and Revue 400SE are all more or less clones. I've noticed that it's fairly easy these days to get a Revue 400SE from Europe at a good price. It fits all your criteria with the exception that it doesn't have full manual control, being shutter-speed priority auto-exposure. I recently acquired a Revue 400SE, but haven't shot with it yet. It looks identical to the Vivitar 35ES, and I expect it be every bit as brilliant.</p>

<p>Jim Strutz mentioned "drastically shortened battery life brought on by a component failure related to the LCD." I believe this is the result of the failed backlight placing a steady drain on the battery. An internet search should provide instructions on how to clip the wires that feed the backlight. I found this easy to do and losing the backlight is not a game-changer for me. The LCD still works.<br>

I have a real affection for the 630. I gave mine very heavy professional use for several years. Like any camera, you had to learn its quirks, but it was solid as rock and absolutely trustworthy.</p>