nickperzik

<p>The 803 makes a great everyday bag. I can carry my M6 with lens attached in the padded compartment so it goes everywhere with me. The rest of the inside holds a book, journal, Holga, a roll of black tape and my ipod quite comfortably. The smaller pockets carry film, pens, and other small bits. The big pocket in the back is now completely useless as I wore a huge hole in it from walking around with it all the time. But it took a few years for that to happen. If you're looking for a good bag to carry your everyday stuff and have a safe place to keep your camera when you're not shooting, the 803 is a good one.<br>

Has anyone tried sewing Domke inserts into a Chrome messenger bag? I don't like that my camera is floating around, unprotected at the bottom of my bag when I go on bike rides.</p>

if you don't need a lot of power, try the vivitar 2800. it isn't very powerful - you can't light up a large room

at f/16 - and it only gives you two aperture options in auto, but it works really well. and it's small. i

rarely ever use flash, but when i do that's the one i grab. it's perfect for the kind of stuff i shoot - people,

usually pretty close. i also have a 283 that i don't use very often because it's so big. the 2800 has a socket

for a flash cord, so it can be used with the m3. and you can find them on ebay for under $20. can't beat that.

<center>

<img src="http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c381/patientboy/josh_brin_curt.jpg" alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"><br><br>

</center>

ha! i just dropped mine off for repair. the jury's still out on whether or not i'll give up on it. the lenses are amazing but the newer bodies are so damn expensive...

leslie - hi, i'm nick from bowhaus. we met a couple weeks ago. i have no idea what lab i'm going to use. i've only ever used a&i since 1996. i'm thinking about maybe trying richard/paris. that's who we use for our lvt processing and they seem to do a good job.

 

keith - i pm'd you. too much sordid dirt to put here on the forum.

don't bother sending your film to a&i. the only guy there who knows how to do it doesn't work there anymore. he was so disgusted with the way the new owners are running things that one day last year, he walked. the whole company is going downhill. i was only still going there because they were still giving me a discount after they laid me off last year. yesterday i found out some things that have been going on there recently and i will never go there again.

like Nicholas said - the pretty much all do the same job. some have hardener, some don't. standard fixers take longer and usually come in a gigantic packet of powder that takes forever to disolve. unless you want to have a huge forearm from spending half your life stirring and agitating, stick with the rapid fixer.

and if you're open to color, check out mark cohen's "true color" and, if you can find it, jeff mermelstein's "sidewalk." brilliant stuff.

check out richard kalvar's "earthlings." i think he's one of the best. up there with robert frank, winogrand, meyerowitz, and the rest of them.

 

you can see some of his work here:

 

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?VP=XSpecific_MAG.PhotographerDetail_VPage&l1=0&pid=2K7O3R135GR6&nm=Richard%20Kalvar

that's absolutely insane.

the first stuff i ever shot seriously was the underground music scene in los angeles in the 90's, so definitely it's influenced my photography. but the first time i ever really thought about it in a nonmusic setting - i was sitting in traffic in downtown l.a., listening to thelonious monk and i remember watching people as i was sitting there and i realized that it was like watching a video. monk's music - and jazz in general - perfectly described the rhythm of the street.

"I don't understand why people set the lens to hyperfocal - it's just wasting dof."

 

it's only a waste if you don't want the background sharp. with even a moderate wide angle

lens like a 35 you get a lot at f/11 - 5.5ft to infinity. at f/16 it's even more - about 3.5

feet to infinity. and with a wider lens it's even further. i use hyperfocal when it's the

entire scene that i want. if i just want one piece of it or if things are not happenning so

quickly, i just focus on what i want. for me, presetting my focus and exposure is all about

being able to turn that part of my brain off so that i can just react.

Constantine Manos is using an M8 these days. He talks about it here. There are also

some pretty great images he shot with it.

(i don't know how to make a link so copy and paste...)

 

http://inmotion.magnumphotos.com/essays/color.aspx

 

I think Simon Wheatley is using one as well. Or at least he shot some images for the M

brochure. I couldn't tell you which body of work he's used it on but some of his images

are here:

 

http://www.magnumphotos.com/Archive/C.aspx?

VP=XSpecific_MAG.PhotographerDetail_VPage&l1=0&pid=2K7O3R1VTLCH&nm=Simon%20

Wheatley

if you think you might regret selling it, chances are you will. even if you don't use it much.

if you don't like using it and think you could sell it without looking back. go for it. the

best camera is the one you like using most.

also - try and find out if anyone else who uses the same lab has had similar problems. if

so, then you have your answer.

my guess - since you said the spots are on the same place on every frame - is that you

might have a light leak in your camera. if you think it might be lab related, find out what

type of machine your lab uses. if it's dip and dunk, spots like that are not possible as

nothing actually touches the film - it hangs on a rack and is lowered into the chemistry. i

worked at a lab that uses dip and dunk machines for a long time and have seen every

possible damage that was our fault and i've never seen spots like that before. if your lab

is using a mini-lab type machine there could be something on the rollers that's getting

stuck on the film and then cleaned off in the bleach-fix. honestly, though, without actually

seeing the negatives, i can only guess.

i say if you really want one and can afford it - go for it. i wanted one from the first time i

saw my high school photo teacher walk into class with a beat up, brassed, old m4. i went

the mechanical slr route for a while - om1 then later fm2's. amazing cameras but just not

the same. eventually, i got a job at a camera store, saved my money, and one day my boss

offered me a really beautifully beat up m6 that he bought for a customer who ended up

never coming back for it. i bought it, spent another $200 getting it to work right - shutter

problem - and have never regretted it for one second. it is hands down the best camera

i've ever owned. it's like playing a '59 les paul. mind you, it's not a "do everything"

camera. if you like to do macro or tele work, it's probably not the camera for you. and

like larry up there said, if you don't like it you can always sell it and get pretty much what

you paid for it - if not more.

if you're looking for leica quality glass for an slr - used R stuff is pretty cheap. i got an R4,

a 50 summicron and a 28 for about $500. check ebay. if you already have nikon bodies,

then yeah, the zeiss lenses are probably about as close as you can get to leica lenses in

character. but in my opinion, nikon lenses are amazing. if you're just looking for

something to put on your F3 or whatever, why spend the money?

yay! it worked! thanks!

i want to create triptychs, diptychs and other multi image pieces but i have no clue how to get more

than one image on the same canvas. a friend of mine explained it to me a long time ago, when i first

started thinking about it, but i can't for the life of me remember what he said. something to do with

layers, maybe?

 

any and all help is much appreciated.

...

while i do think it's sad that film and silver based printing are slowly going away, i

definitely don't think that photography is dead. i think that as long as there are people

out there making images that are honest, insightful, and of course, good, photography will

continue to grow and evolve both as an artform and a medium for communication. i shoot

mostly film and will do so for as long as i can afford it and the materials are available for

me to use, but i have no problem with digital - i even use it sometimes when the job calls

for it. i think photography is fine. what i do think is kinda sad is that photography is one

of the only arts that you can earn a degree in without ever learning the history of the

medium. imagine going through an mfa program without ever taking an art history class,

or an english program without ever reading the classics. how can we go forward if we

don't know what came before?

ok... one more try. why do i always forget how this works?<div></div>

hmmmm.... that didn't work. wait a minute......

<img src="http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c381/patientboy/little_joy.jpg"

alt="Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting"><br><br>