beepy

<p>I'm fascinated by the use of digital photography and Intermet access in the preservation and dissemination of culturally valuable artifacts.<br>

<a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jVPgYIKPw3GzbwiF3tmUm3N4qlYgD9995HT00">World's Oldest Christian Bible Digitized</a><br>

<a href="http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/digitisation.aspx">Digitizing the Codex Sinaiticus</a></p>

<p>Yes, bought used from them without regrets. I've also used <a href="http://www.mpex.com/">Midwest Photo Exchange</a> for some used large format (Graflex) gear successfully.<br>

If you are ever physically in New York, BH Photo is a blast to go to. A photographer's candy store:-)</p>

<p>The higher specs on image quality (no you might not print that big, allows wider latitude for cropping and retaining quality, so you can shoot wider). Weather sealing/resistance (I remember when in a continuous downpour in China in '97 my cheaper mid-range film Minolta SLR's display went nuts and looked like text from the console from a ship in Star Wars - similar downpour/humidity conditions in Rio during Carnaval and 1Ds kept shooting). 1Ds from 5D Mark II - near prescient autofocus on the 1Ds. That said, I would steer anyone to a 5D Mark II before the 1Ds - having waaaay too much fun with my (IR converted) 5D Mark II and HD movie mode. And the 5D is thankfully lighter.<br>

The high end cameras are geared towards pros with specific specs, who also can write off as business investments their equipment. There seems to be a healthy market for Hasselblad's medium format digital setups - again, for pros. These were people shooting primarily large format for things like product photography - 4x5 and 8x10. 35mm film was never adequate for many commercial markets.<br>

What may be interesting is that the highest end full frame digital SLRs may have taken out film medium format, while digital medium format has taken out film large format. The overall simplified workflow (since a lot of end result is digital production), the ability to know you got the shot (I wonder what % of shots - must be miniscule - of film develops were lost in pro lab development?).<br>

What's nice is that over a generation high end features (say high ISO performance) bump their way down to the prosumer line.</p>

<p>Yeah, I figured there would be a rush to post:-) So, the plant made SX-70, and nothing else? SX-70 was probably (if anyone knows any different) the most complex of the Polaroid films - no ripping off negative, develop in one step. <br>

I have a small stockpile of 85, 665 and 55 B+W packs - need to use.</p>

<p>As <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1503451">Byron Rakitzis</a> said "In the Netherlands no less!":</p>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/26/technology/26polaroid.html">Polaroid Lovers Try to Revive Its Instant Film</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>800 pixels long size is a good size image for web use. <br>

You're afraid if you send a sample for comment that the person might use it? If you size it to small to view on a screen - it's going to be too small to get someone's opinion.<br>

I was in a hurry to print out some images to sequence for a book, and the quality was not important for the task, so instead of "making prints", I printed a bunch of jpegs of mine off photo.net - some 1024 pixels in the long side. I was a bit surprised at how good they looked at large snapshot size (5x7). But am not going to really lose sleep over this. But have pretty much settled on 800 pixels (for whatever reason) for photo.net in future.</p>

<p>On a more profound note.<br>

Somewhere in here is the dilemma of something having already been shot many times before - an idea, image or concept. Blissful ignorance at the start of my endeavors, feeling my way mostly on my own, I started playing with silk and figures because of an image I saw by Maureen Gallagher.<br>

Showing my work at a workshop in Rockport, Maine someone said "That reminds me of Ruth Bernhard." I replied "Who?" How thoroughly embarrassing (I got to meet her when she was somewhere north of 100, bopping around Photo SF).<br>

The problem here arises when in order to make a new image, you start getting ... clever for lack of a better word. Clever is not always a compliment. Such as appropriating images and transforming them into art. Incorporating them whole cloth to make a statement. It's perhaps interesting the first time, or not. But I think it's hard to pull off successfully.<br>

Moving out of photography, I must admit I find Warhol's soup cans and Brillo boxes oddly compelling. While not "photographs" they are reproductions of common objects presented in a different context. In the end, whether an original image or a departure from an original, the artist is left with the need to make an impression - and more difficult, a lasting one beyond the initial reaction of "That's clever."<br>

I'm not sure I'm helping here.</p>

<p>I'm sorry, I can't resist:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Well, Art is Art, isn't it? Still, on the other hand, water is water. And east is east and west is west and if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does. Now you tell me what you know. - Groucho Marx</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred hit a point:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It's a good reminder of the power not of the nude but of the photograph. And a reminder that the experience of the photograph is not the same as the experience of the moment in which the photograph was taken.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On the first sentence. A separate point is made in the second. But the second point is fluid. I do a lot of directed photography where the setup and people in the image are assembled. And then I push the button. I am often left wanting to move on to the next thing. Particularly with digital, I know exactly what was captured, but remember <a href="../photo/winogrand">Winogrand left 2,500 rolls of exposed but undeveloped film behind</a>. The photographer's and participants experience is fleeting, the image is the experience that other's participate in, and then we close circle with the first sentence of the power of the photograph.<br>

Maybe somewhere in here loosely tied to this thread is that all photographers are voyeurs, and all people in photographs are exhibitionists, and the lines are much more blurred between the specifics of public vs. non-public once the genie (image) is let out of the bottle.<br>

Need more coffee.</p>

<p>I'm still reading this thread, but wanted to make a couple comments, as one of my pics was referenced originally.<br>

It is not a "public nude" by the definition of "shot in public with people passing by." It's a formal image shot in a studio. <br>

My first and foremost reaction by the way was "Public nudity is a crime - misdemeanor - in most places." While I have been stopped on two occasions (once by hotel security, once by Sunnyvale police) for practicing photography, and detained briefly, for simply practicing photography post-9/11 I actually haven't gone out of my way to flaunt community laws. So, there is an element of legality here.<br>

My second reaction was <a href="http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,481468,00.html">Spencer Tunick</a>. I apologize for not reading the whole thread, and I assume he's been mentioned. Tunick photographs nudes in public on a scale that literally boggles the mind - there are so many nudes that you are no longer confronted with a single vulnerable unclothed person - but instead it is you the viewer that is in the minority. His work goes far beyond challenging public nudity laws (which he doesn't do - these are highly organized events with approval of the city fathers). Thinking now, has he ever shot St. Peter's Square in the Vatican City?<br>

My third reaction was somewhat more subtle. Landrum posted some examples, and everyone got into a "Landrum, interesting point, your examples don't bear out your thesis or question." So, when I shoot, I get model releases that allow me to use the images. The image posted of mine is public post-capture in a way that a single person walking nude down main street will never bear. Yes, the shoot dynamics are different (I shoot clothed, model nude - though some photographers do level the playing field by stripping. I've discussed this with some of my long term collaborators and they assure me that I can keep my clothes on, in fact they seem rather emphatic:-). But the concept of "public" is getting extremely complex. Someone gave me permission to post their nude image (well, mostly I do print work, but I am here on photo.net as part of this community to gain critique and participate.) So, squint your eyes and think "She's nude in front of me - and I am looking at here as are everyone else reading this thread.")<br>

My fourth reaction in relation to virtual vs. real public (community) is the Facebook flap on posting images of a woman breastfeeding. It is allowed nearly everywhere in the US (though sometimes not without eyebrows raised) - as that argument was laid to rest in our post-Similac bottle culture sometime in the '80's I believe - except on Facebook. I find this hugely ironic. One of my favorite images from Lachapelle hits this taboo on the head with a sledgehammer in his image <a href="http://www.emojo.com/reviews/fashion/david-lachapelle---milk-maidens">Milk Maidens</a>. I see an image like this and want to grab my camera and start pushing much harder - myself, the world around me.<br>

Maybe I got off topic - still need that first cup of coffee.</p>

<p>A <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/health/28book.html">review of a new book on snapshots and pictures of anatomy classes</a> in the early 1900's.</p>

<blockquote>Some student groups posed for professional photographers. Others took their own shots. The prints were mounted on living room walls, sent as postcards and even used as calling cards. By 1920 the craze had simmered down, and after World War II it was pretty much over.</blockquote>

<p>Brad, man. Decisive! Decisive! :-) (How are you?)<br>

I have seen reactions of film photographers to the Uzi approach of digital of shooting in the hope of getting something (Brad - this is not directed at you!) I don't quite know how ability to shoot many frames (in rapid succession) of digital has affected the argument around the "decisive moment" - and that concept is core to some serious soul searching of photography.<br>

Personally, I keep pushing myself "technically" to slow down in digital... to get the thoughtfulness of a view camera sometimes with digital (handheld manual focus, single shot - tripod landscapes).<br>

I imagine a future of a rapid shooting high ISO camera with automatic T/S capability and stitching and I wonder "Where is the art?"<br>

On the other hand, I've been told I worry too much:-)</p>

<p>Sorry, I was chuckling in that with a good dSLR camera and a large card and burst mode you can take A LOT of shots. A lot. I mean, Cartier-Bresson waited for the moment and clicked - then wound. And 36 shots or whatever later he changed film. (What were on the frames around his decisive moments - indications of indecision?)<br>

With a hot dSLR, I can hear a modern photographer looking at their images in Lightroom saying "There are SO many decisive moments here, I can't make up my mind!"</p>

<p>I liked the article also. Carmel is a great place to make a photography trip. Besides the beautiful scenery and history, there are the two photo galleries in Carmel itself: <a href="http://photographywest.com/">Photography West</a> and the <a href="http://www.westongallery.com/">Weston Gallery</a>. Going in and browding the works is a nice way to spend the afternoon. There are occasional shows in the local museums also on a pretty regular basis. There are many restaurants to dine at in the evening, and you can make quite a nice weekend of it. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Sur">Big Sur</a> starts just south of Carmel, pack a lunch and drive south.<br>

<a href="http://www.kimweston.com">Kim Weston</a> gives workshops at Edward Weston's house. It is inspiring to say the least. I will be conducting a <a href="http://kimweston.com/workshops/09_platinum.htm">platinum printing with digital negatives workshop</a> with Kim at the end of May '09. Saturday evening of the workshops include a great dinner and presentations by current photographers working in the Carmel area.</p>

<p>I almost missed this one.<br>

The NY Times (requires a free subscription?) had an <a href="http://theater2.nytimes.com/2009/02/02/theater/reviews/02disf.html">article today</a> about a theater piece about the Arkansas photographer - telling his life and work through puppets and music?<br>

It runs through this Sunday or next Sunday?<br>

Difficult to make this stuff up.</p>

<p>You asked your question in:</p>

<blockquote>Community > Forums > B&W Photo - Film & Processing > Darkrooms</blockquote>

<p>of whether people still used a darkroom?<br>

Is that not like asking Democrats how many are registered as Republicans?</p>

The 9900 is interesting to me for a couple reasons. The print head technology has evolved to "clog" less, and to better

detect clogged nozzles. It also has the option for adding a spectrophotometer for profiling in the printer.

<p>

That said - I'm not sure what features a 4900 would have when/if it comes out. The 9900/7900 has both matte and photo

black cartridges auto switching with front panel confirm based on media type. If you don't print matte AND glossy, this is

not interesting. Higher Dmax. I'm not sure the increased gamut is going to be noticeable for many prints?

High ISO performance of the 5D Mk II is a win I think - and worth waiting for. The ability to shed the grip to get the camera

size and weight down when more casual seems a plus also. The continuous shoot rate is lower, but the question is do you

care.

<p>

The movie capture mode or whatever they call it is an interesting cherry on top of the 5D MkII...

<p>

This coming from the owner of a 1Ds Mk III. If I was sitting here now without either, I would buy the 5D MkII (waiting for it

to come out). Try a pre-order to reduce wait time?

I didn't see a mention of the price. $11.95 per 35mm or 120 roll of film. For film this is a recurring cost.

<p>

<a href="http://www.northcoastphoto.com/Ken_Rockwell_Scans.pdf">North Cost Scans</a>

<p>

I'm a bit tired, help me with the math here, the scan is 5035 x 3339 pixels - which is 16 megapixel equivalent. Three

channels of RGB. The resulting scan is "48 MB" - so the scan is 8 bit color channel depth? Is that right?

<p>

It is simply not going to take that long to reach the price of a Canon 5D Mk II if you shoot professionally from just the up

front costs to get a digital image to *start* with. At a lower bit depth (less dynamic range) smaller size (21.1 megapixels

for 5D). The 5D Mk II is 14 bit per channel capture?

<p>

That said, the 5D Mk II uses a Bayer grid on the sensor and interpolates - so squint your eyes and wave hands and

declare it a draw.

<p>

I am not sure I see the economic argument (which is the business side of photography) for film here?

<p>

Tell me my math is wrong - I am a bit tired...

Hmmmm... this is three models back - Epson 4000 was followed by the 4800 (which intro'ed the black dilutions I think and

Advanced BW capabilities in driver), and the 4880.

<p>

I wouldn't jump on this if my goal was B+W prints. I remember printing a 16x20 B+W on my 4800 (I bought for B+W to

augment my 7600) and being stunned by the quality in a way that my 7600 didn't. The 4000 seems to be the brother of the

7600?

<p>

Poke around a bit and hold out for a 4800 or 3800?