beepy

Great experiences. Jim is knowedgeable.

<p>

Their web site, in my experience, is not able to keep up with inventory - Jim encouraged me

to call him when in doubt. I explained to him what I was trying to do and he steered me to

some used large format lenses on a couple occassions I have been very happy with. Call him

up - or send him an e-

mail (<a href="http://www.mpex.com/Default.aspx">contact info</a> available on site).

I read the article - and I really think I'm missing the story... Lots of details and events - but

I'm sitting here going "Huh?"

Zoe - I had to look up GWC - sheesh.

<p>

Ah, screw this thread. Zoe - your work is gorgeous...

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Hurrells-Hollywood-Portraits-Mark-Vieira/dp/

0810934345">Vieira's book on Hurrell's portraits</a> has some descriptions of his lighting

and setup - there are a couple photos of Hurrell at work. And it is full of great reproductions

of his classic images. Helped me really get a handle on his lighting approach.

I agree with Michael. Take a test sheet and practice loading and unloading without

developing (to develop later techinique - very useful with Type 55 P/N film in field

because of need to clear negative at some point)

<p>

A problem I had with the holder, well two. One, I stored my holder with the develop lever

cocked (which is almost natural on last film pull) - it seemed to weaken the spring such

that the holder didn't latch the metal film edge properly. I left it uncocked for a couple

days and it seemed to straighten out. This was my biggest problem at one point. Two,

there is a different feel for when the film catches and you pull back on the paper envelope

vs. the pack not catching. Practice with the holder off and see if you can develop a feel.

Definitely push the film packet (what do you call it actually) in all the way - don't stop

short.

<p>

You should keep your rollers clean - do so. But dirty rollers in my experience result in

uneven development or chemical bleeding...

I was being polite... for some reason it triggered a memory of

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Guerre">Martin Guerre</a> which

I found out about in a book, followed by

<a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0084589/">a movie</a> with G鲡rd Depardieu.

With questions of motivation and identity. Because it certainly is weird.

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/nyregion/15photographer.html?hp">NY Times

article</a> on a photographer who claimed some images were his, but seems to be at least mistaken if

not misleading. Photographer Joe O'Donnell.

<p>

Interesting article.

<p>

(NY Times access requires free subscription. Here is

<a href="http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070811/

ENTERTAINMENT05/708110353/1005/RSS04">an original obituary stating authorship of photos,

which were called into question the following day seemingly</a>.)

Can you upload a 100% view section of the digital file showing a representative area that

appears on the printer to be problematic? A JPEG without compression, crop on the face(s)

that are problematic? (a 8cm x 8cm - is that 3" x 3" roughly? square)

<p>

I'm curious about two things: (1) without seeing original image, it's hard to guess what you're

dealing with, (2) I'm curious what this problematic image would look like printed on an Epson

3800.

Ultra Premium OHP is the newer film and has less dot gain and holds more ink (ink density

increase) and dries faster. It is less "clear" which may help some printers register the film?

<p>

That said, standard OHP Premium is good. But there are UV transmission differences twixt

the two - so make a choice and stick with it.

<p>

I use the Ultra Premium (newer material) - I'm assuming it will last longer in market.

<p>

That said, last I looked, Ultra Premium is

<a href="http://pictorico.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWCATS&Category=52">only

available in rolls</a> - I cut it into sheets for my Epson 3800 (preferred digital negative

printer - which does not handle roll paper).

Another book that I have been eagerly waiting for is Eismann's

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Creative-Digital-Darkroom-Katrin-Eismann/dp/

0596100477">Creative Digital Darkroom</a>. I took several workshops with her as she was

developing the material for the book, and the were comprehensive in providing a holistic/

integrated approach to digital photography and print production. Out November 15, 2007

according to Amazon.

The image doesn't really move me as a composition, study or expression of technique. It has

nothing to do with politics. I grew up a mile or so from the Statue of Liberty. I've easily seen

much better interpretations.

<p>

Why blame politics?

Maggie Taylor had her opening last night at

<a href="http://www.modernbook.com/maggietaylor.htm">Modernbook Gallery</a>

in Palo Alto, CA last nite. Apologizing in advance for the large PDF link,

on <a href="http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/morguepdf/2007/2007_09_07.paw.section1.pdf">

Page 8 of the Palo Alto Weekly</a> you can read a review of the show.

<p>

It was fun last night, as it was the release of her book created with poet Lola Haskins (who did readings

from the book - published by and

<a href="http://www.modernbook.com/publications.html">available</a> from the gallery).

<a href="http://www.modernbook.com/jerryuelsmann.htm">Jerry Uelsmann</a> was there, as was <a

href="http://www.brigittecarnochan.com/">Brigitte Carnochan</a>,

<a href="http://www.ryuijie.com/main.html">Ryuijie</a>, and

<a href="http://opalenik.com/">Elizabeth Opalenik</a>.

<p>

There are many of her Alice in Wonderland images that will be part of a forthcoming new edition (I believe)

from Modernbook Gallery that I really enjoyed.

<p>

Much fun was had by all. The show runs through October 30, 2007.

Just an offbeat thought given your comment on the need for darkroom, and New England

art college programs still requiring darkroom work (though that may be a function of

capitalized resources and tenured professorship).

<p>

With pretty cheap paper, and some cheap chemicals and a contact frame and some sun

you could throw Cyanotypes in the mix and extend the "darkroom" to include more

historic (alternative) processes. The only limitation is you are likely shooting 35mm? They

make for

very frustrating contact prints (I assume you are enlarging to 8x10). If you are shooting

medium format (Holgas are fun cameras to learn on) then contact printing can be fun.

<p>

I've been puzzled as to why more people don't

<a href="http://blog.depressing.org/archives/000032.html">do cyanotypes</a>

- they're quite fun.

<p>

Make sure you intoduce your students to <a href="http://www.photo.net">photo.net</a>!

Start them with this thread:-)

Interesting comments. I think I'm going to buy a lawyer a drink and get some reaction to

the clause. I like puzzles I guess.

<p>

What strikes me is my desire for plain language that can be understood - by say a client -

vs. being legally binding. For example, I think (as was mentioned in a post) the ability to

make a backup copy of anything to protect your investment is inherently a right. The

whole burning CDs to listen to music on say you iPod (personal use - forgot which ruling

sprung up around this - occurred during the advent of cassette decks making mass "high

quality" duplication possible).

<p>

Thanks.

I just saw a contract for a wedding photographer shoot - and it was all expected and standard material

(implied model release, termination triggers, payments, follow on services, etc.)

<p>

Material delivered includes electronic copies (not RAW - this is clearly spelled out), printed photo book(s)

of all (?) photos?, and ability to order more.

<p>

It was the copyright notice I found confounding. It was simply and approximately:

<blockquote>

COPYRIGHT: The photographer retains the copyright to all images. It is illegal to publish or make for sale

any of the images (print, CD, electronic) without permission of the photographer, or bad things will

happen.

</blockquote>

Ignoring my quip at end:-) is this standard language for a wedding photography contract? The thing I am

stumbling over is the use of the word "publish". Why not simply say it is illegal to make copies of the

images in all forms without permission?

<p>

Publish has connotations of "making public" and receiving something in return of material nature in some

definitions. I'm sitting here thinking it's not entirely clear to me that (1) someone couldn't put the CD of

images on a web server to allow viewing on the Internet, or (2) make copies at the drug store for one's

"private" use (as the "publish" definition has a "make public" component to its connotation).

<p>

Yes, yes, I know I should talk to a lawyer (I'm more curious than anything here) - but is there a commonly

accepted standard clause for discouraging people from making copies of digital images from say a

wedding shoot that makes it very clear to the non-lawyer types what is actually being said? A pointer to a

standard contract would be cool.

<p>

Not trying to be dense - just curious. I just deal with model releases for my print work - this is a whole

'nother level of pain. Hats off to wedding photographers:-)

I'm not sure which books are good - I suspect there are more articles etc. on the web that

you can read before having to buy books - but unsure. I know they have photography

business books at Barnes and Noble books - and capuccino too so you can read before

buying:-)

<p>

I would try to track down information on stock photo business because that has

supposedly been rapidly changing and eroding because of microStock agencies selling

images very cheaply? Anyway, I bring this up because my fear about some information in

books on photography as a business may be out of date if they were written say 2000 or

earlier (last century:-).

<p>

You are on Deviant Art? They have some way to sell prints there - I've never tried it.

<p>

Good luck!

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=008cQi">This old

thread</a> has a lot of exchanges - some of which might be useful.

<a href="http://www.danheller.com/bizfaq.html">Start reading</a>. I think Heller gives

some food for thought in his stuff - not sure how much is now on line vs. in his

<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Profitable-Photography-Digital-Age-Strategies/dp/

1581154127">published book</a>?

<p>

Search around photo.net articles - this question I think has been asked before.

I use a 30" monitor, and have a 23" as a second monitor. Regardless, I work on captures

from my Canon 1Ds Mark II toggling back and forth between 100% view working on

sections of the image in Photoshop and fitting the entire image to screen. On the other

hand I also can do this on my 15" Mac Pro laptop - I just prefer to work on a larger screen

when I can.

<p>

I think I would buy the largest highest quality monitor (for accurate color reproduction

when

calibrated) as I could afford - trading that off against a new lens or something:-)

<p>

I just tried finding some LCD monitor recommendations via Google - but only seemed to

stumble across Apple Cinema Display recommendations (which I use).

Here is a pointer to a

<a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00L8JQ">photo.net

post</a> on same subject and includes a pointer NY Times review of the show.