grain

Understood, but I h-a-t-e wal mart, so I'll keep thinking I'm getting one over on them. It

makes me happy. Alan, reloadables, I don't know if they could be trusted to know the

difference. And you guys mean to say that my film goes to Kansas and back? Then I'm

costing them even more than it's worth at $3 a gallon. Hallelujia.

I wouldn't push the issue with the film cartridge Alan (Collecting for the War effort?), and as

far as New Jersey, well... it's New Jersey. But I'll bet, Jeff, if you do as I do and just say

nothing, fill out the envelope explicitly as KODACHROME and drop it in the slot, you'll be

okay regardless of what the in house crew say. I never heard of "Dwayne's" either. Their

central lab is in Albany, and is a Fuji lab. Good luck!

It has come to my attention, that while everyone else treats Kodachrome as if it were some foreign

substance, to Mall Wart film is film, and slide film is the only term they use in the literature pricing

development of same. So, if you submit Kodachrome they are bound to develop it, and do, for under $4

unmounted, $4.88 mounted. (Most other places I've used charge three times that)

My slides of Nova Scotia came out great, except you have to really write "Do Not Mount" on every

available surface of the order bag or they'll miss it. I try to use gepe glassed mounts myself, those

kodak mounts are a bear to re-open. >:^(

Cheers!

Okay so that is it, a pc to pc cord goes there to stop focus after frame is shot so as to

conserve battery between shots. Stranger and stranger this thing gets. The canon version is

bidding low on you know where, might go for it. Thanks again.

"It" being my email address that is. Still need the I.B.

Thanks again.

Right, but does the PC socket do anything? It doesn't fire a flash, so is it supposed to go

into the cameras PC to read the synch time info or some such? I find almost NO images of

it anywhere, and the one I did find all the text was in japanese.

I just picked up the oddest gadget. It's an auto focus lens for FD. It works well, too bad the lens is a

Wibitar. But anyhow, can anyone tell what the extra pc socket is there for?

No. Not even a little.

No subscription. When I joined they let us post fifteen or twenty. Now they cap newbies at

five and if we try to swap an image out they just delete it. ( found that out one frustrating

evening ) So it's a time capsule of sorts, the remaining seven I have up.

Folks can see my URL to get a flavor of the latest I've done.

The Great Yellow Father has been frantic in its efforts to make film seem inferior to digital

over the past few years. When digital imaging became a viable alternative to photography,

some time a-way back in the year 2003 or so, it became obvious what was coming next

from Big K. Well the tables have turned. It used to be a mark of distinction for a person to

use a DSLR. But even now when we see an SRT101 or an IKONTA around someone's neck,

we see THAT as the mark of distinction.

My freezer is full, and I've dry chems. in stock for a while to come.

Drive the market, don't let it drive you.

It is bogus to depend upon the sothebey's and christie's of the world to be arbiter of who

gets the title "master photographer". Just so with the personal preferences of the person

sitting on the head of a grant or scholarship board who liked monkeys as a child and thinks

it's cute that the applicant likes monkeys too, so Guggenheim ahoy.

What says master is an image, made and printed by the master, that arrests the viewer.

When you can look at the photograph day after day and see something new in it. And when

it communicates, without an accomanying essay attached.

I'm comfortable with my level of mastery of photography.<div></div>

Well, if you have a darkened room, Leedahl steel tanks and steel hangers is how I go. They

hold .75liters each though, so have to commit to having them around a while, or to

developing a lot that night. Dip & Dunk offers great control, but it's messy so a bench is

best.

(Didn't now where to place this in the forum structure)

RE: Film and Paper, not Digital-

I'm unhappy with the quality of print methods available to photographers who are looking to publish. The

final print doesn't really translate. I was looking at some great books in a private collection a few weeks

back, and they were all first generation FB prints, tipped in as it were, or pasted into the page with an

onion skin overleaf to protect it from the acid of the previous page.

Any publisher/bookhouse savvy folks out there know of a bindery that would still indulge this kind of

thing? (Ya, I know it's expensive, I'm thinking [dreaming] short run to finance a longer run.)

Thanks.

"-it HELPS."

During my early youth (5 or 6) I had at least a few episodes which, armed with the

language of adulthood, I would have described as psychotic. Voices literally crowded my

head, like fifty conversations happening in a phone booth. I kept this to myself then,

understanding even at that age that it was a thing to be feared.

In later years, through my teens, my desire for escapism led me to expiriment with

psychoactive substances on more than one occasion. (Castaneda never impressed me, but

a I was curious about Leary) They sometimes induced the same frantic conversations in my

head, and the same fear. But these dabblings led me to quickly understand that, though

fun they may be, it was no way to grow in life.

Then I began to draw, and to paint, and to print. These demons seemed to excorcise

themselves overnight as I poured my id onto the paper in an orgy of creative lust. I could

not get enough of it and I was never without a drawing book and stylus of some kind

throughout my twenties.

Then in 95-6 all that changed and I took up the Camera.

I would be okay with the use of the analogy that the Camera now serves that purpose in

my life. It is my favorite drug, and thank God I found it in time.

The idea that the crazies of the world give us a glimpse into divinity is an old one. I've had

some pretty strong spiritual moments standing before Van Gogh at the MFA, and reading

Tolkien and C.S. Lewis (Both Nutters). That our minds work differently is a blessing, not a

curse. If there were none like us, and all were born 'normal' then who would point out the

color of the grass as beautiful?

Finally: I was of the generation who grew up watching George Lucas films. the

phenomenon of 'The Force' which threads through his first three Star Wars films is a

magical one, imbued with mystical power and spiritual energy. That was the gist.

Then in Lucas' latest foray into that series he reduces 'The Force' to some biochemical

reaction with a symbiotic microbe living in the hosts bloodstream.

I prefer the magic, don't you?

large neg it is then. I know about that great Efke stuff and will pursue freestyle, or maybe

pull a Fox Talbot and contact from paper. Thanks folks, A.

Hello again folks,

I'm hoping to amuse myself with a P.F. caynotype kit. However I'm not posessed of a large format camera

anymore since it was liberated by L.A.L.M. (the Latino Army of Lowell Ma.) last March.

*976983= Crown Graphic Body 8927067=lens, in case you come into ownership of it.

So without a large negative to contact with, my question is can the sensitized paper be exposed in an

enlarger or is it just too impractically slow? I've got some really nice cotton typing paper, and watercolor

paper also. I'm thinking of floating the stuff on rather than brushing.

I'm using an Omega D-2 or B-22.

thanks, A.

1. denoting or using biting sarcasm or invective.

2. (of a person or animal) given to biting.

Oxford American

A painting smeared with elephant dung by Turner Prize winning artist Chris Ofili, that he

donated to the Zoological Society of London (ZSL), was auctioned to raise money for the

elephants at Whipsnade Wild Animal Park, and sold for $105,000.00 USD.

Chris Ofili commented "I am absolutely delighted that the painting has raised so much for

the elephants. I couldn't create my paintings without them, so it's extremely rewarding to

be able to offer them something to say thanks after all these years".

Light-en-up!

Maybe so, sp... But as genius a stroke as polaroid peel apart film may be, it's still a pretty

simple process. I'm well aware of the chemical gymnastics involved, and have read with

interest the patent language disputes kodak put forth to excuse their theft of it.

Responding to the original post was the idea. Read it again, please. Q: Is there such a

thing as a Digital Original? A: Not really.

As to my thinking too much about others are thinking about my equipment, Jeff: Would I

go around with a flea market 350 to show off? It just does something none of my others

can do and I enjoy using it. (I don't enjoy reading thermometers, checking timers, cleaning

rollers and looking for handy waste baskets just to be seen with it)

Call me out like that just for spite and I'll tell you what's what.

Cheers and lighten up!

A.

I've often said that Photography is about an artifact that is the photo, and Digital is about

ones and zeros, which are numbers. Digital imagery is meaningless until extrapolated into

an image by extremely complicated processes, all of which deliver slightly different

results, take your pick of printers.

In short, one is real now, one isn't ever. I've been working a lot with my Polaroid 350 this

week, and many wanna-be's smirk and show me their gazillion mega whatever digital

cameras. I see the secret envy in their eyes though, as I peel back that acetate as the timer

goes off to reveal a glossy black and white hard copy, tangible and real in hand, right now.

It's value? Since there's only one copy and no negative to work from, I'd say pretty high.

So far I have picked up the 24/2.8, 35/2.0, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 135/3.5(S.C., they didn't make

an S.S.C. version) and 200/4.0 and I am eyeballing the 17/4.0 and 500/8 cadioptric. I'll pit

these against anything you can find today for color rendition, contrast and sharpness. I have

no notion that they've actually improved with age and would rather doubt it. I think it's more

of a "they don't make them like they used to" situation. Often when reviewing slides and

coming across a really punchy image I'll say to myself out loud, "Yup, it was a good day at

the Canon glass works".

A non movement if there ever was one, but a neat word to say, like: "Paradigm", "Matrix",

"Pro-Active" and "Manifesto".

If there's anything cose to what you're looking for I'd say it's already been covered by Man

Ray.

What is the goal of the image? If Reportage or Documentary then no editing is acceptable.

Film lends itself to that honesty which says this is an artifact made on the scene, and

undiluted by injecting what we'd rather see. The Saigon Police Chief summarily executing a

suspected Viet Cong prisoner in the street: Should we crop out the soldier to his left

because we think his expression too distracting, or straighten the Chiefs' hair which is

mussed? I have seen both of these things done to the image I'm talking about, and it makes

no difference because the original unedited image is so widely spread, it will never be

mistaken for other than genuine. PS is an appropriate abbreviation I think, in rhyming slang.