beau 1664876222

Many thanks for the congrats, people. It's good to see that some of the old gang is still around.

 

Andy, I'm told the response to my feature has been very good so far, and I've struck up a bit of a relationship with the editor in chief, who seems to be a big fan of urban street photography. I'm definitely going to point him to my friends' work...

 

Michael, I'm afraid I've been a little lame about getting my photos on the Internet at all lately, even though I'm shooting a fair amount. This last winter, for whatever reason (impending midlife crisis?), I devoted a lot of time to playing ice hockey (I know, I know), and my league's games were always late at night when I otherwise would be developing film and printing. With the season over I've been trying to catch up on this huge pile of exposed film, although I've got a backlog of other projects going on too (some commissioned graphic design projects, etc.). My hope is to drop a big pile of new images into my website at some point this summer.

 

Ray, yes, still got the Hassy, though I don't carry it around much. I'm going to be in Europe later this month and intend to bring it along for some tripod-type stuff. I'm still quite happy with the Leica, and really liking film more than ever (other than the time required for processing it - I have to hire an assistant!).

 

Take care everyone, and drop a line when in NYC.

Hi everyone,

 

<p>Lodown is kind of an international art-music-fashion-entertainment type of thing, published out of Berlin but in English. There are usually two or three photographers covered in a given issue; this month's issue also features Chris Jordan (whose work really like).<p>

 

It seems to be available mostly in hipster-type places, for example <a href="http://www.turntablelab.com/books_design/">here</a>. I know you can get it in several stores around Manhattan and Brooklyn but maybe their website has info on where it can be found where you are.<p>

 

The Lodown website is <a href="http://www.lodownmagazine.com/index.php">here</a>, but I should mention that the site seems to be a few issues behind the print edition and doesn't appear to mention me (yet). You can order the magazine from the site; I'm in issue #56 and Edmo is in #51. <p>Thanks

Hey folks,

 

Hope you are all well. Sorry I've been MIA in recent months; I'm still taking

lots of photos but not as active on the internet for whatever reason.

 

Anyhow, if anyone's interested, my photography is featured in "Lodown"

magazine this month. They took some liberties with the layout and cropping and

so forth, but they gave me six full pages, and the whole thing required about

ten minutes of work by me, so I'm not complaining.

 

Lodown is actually an excellent mag. Apparently they had done a feature on

another photonet denizen, Ed Leveckis (many of you will remember him

as "Edmo") and I guess Ed turned them on to me, which was very cool of him,

because I never bother to promote my work. Incidentally, they tell me Ed has

become quite the celebrity since then, traveling around Europe and winning

awards and stuff.

 

Anyway, check it out if you have any interest. Thanks

 

-Beau.

On the one hand, there's no sport that looks cooler when played well, but on the other hand, indoor rinks have about the worst light imaginable for photography. In addition, the sport moves incredibly fast and people are moving around in so many directions that it's hard to get a clean look at anybody. So it's a challenge.

 

The main problem with your photos is that your subject has his back to you most of the time. Another issue is that your vantage point seems awkward. Third, the photos are neither up-close and revealing nor taking in the whole context, just somewhere in between.

 

If there's any way to actually go out onto the ice and set up some shots with your guy, that would help alot. Try to get close and capture his face and hands in certain shots, and then in the full-body shots, try to capture really dynamic body movement, preferably with him moving among other players. Try to anticipate when he's going to make a tight turn at full speed or launch a shot -- both those things look incredibly cool if you nail the moment. If you're able to get out there on the ice with him and stage things, ask him to do some tight turns or pivots in front of you while handling the puck, and to take some big slapshots as well.

 

Finally, I'd say spend some time at espn.com and sites like that, to see how the pros handle it.

SP, you gotta be kidding me - the Lidstrom curve is exactly what I switched to also! And my first slapper in warmups sailed 8 feet over the goalie's head, promptimg several wisecracks from the "Brads" among my teamates. Third period, I scored both by roofing rebounds from close range.

 

Sorry to be OT, but that's a cool coincidence.

I should mention, the stick is magenta-colored.

Gear does matter! I bought a new ice hockey stick, and in my first game with it the other night, I scored two goals -- after scoring none all season. Plus, my break-out game happened against the leading team in our league. Coincidence?

Get VueScan software at Hamrick.com

The Pentax is really in a class by itself when you're talking about $1k DSLRs. Just pick it up and look through the viewfinder, then do the same thing with the others in that price range.

I went through this a few months ago. Basically, forget the flatbeds - they basically defeat any rationale for using medium format. As for Minolta vs. Nikon, you really should not be blowing a couple thousand on a scanner that was discontinued a long while ago. The Nikon 9000 is the only game in town unless you want to spend a lot more.

 

By the way, I just spent $300 on a drum scan because someone wants to buy a 40-inch print of one of my photos, and I'll tell you that, compared to the Nikon, there is very little difference. And this was a scan done by an acknowledged world-leader with state-of-the-art gear. The drum scan has noticably more dynamic range, and a tiny bit less noise, but it is not one bit sharper. The difference is visible, but it is so subtle that I will not be getting any more drum scans.

I use Bibble "pro" with Pentax raw files and I'm very happy with it.

Like Michael, I think they look cool on B&W film.<p>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/1091974-md.jpg">

Those little rubber strips supplied with the scanner are meant to address this -- were you using them?

The comparable Nikon camera for a K10-d, quality and features-wise, is the D200.

Don't even consider the flatbed for 35mm film. Especially given that the Nikon is almost the same price.

It all comes down to the question of how bad the IR issue really is, and right now it's mostly speculation. Eventually there will be enough cameras available, and enough people using it, to create a legitimate consensus.

 

Erwin's contribution seems to be that it's a limitation but not a crushing death blow to any and all photographic aspirations. A couple of other gearhead commentators, like Reichmann, agree.

 

Certainly there are others who maintain that the camera's very existence is robbing them of all talent. We'll see how it plays out and, in the meantime, you're welcome not to buy it.

Tom, TMX in Rodinal is my favorite combination. Pretty much all my photos posted here are done with either that or tri-x in D76. You will want to pull it a little bit, exposing at ISO 50 or 64. The 1:50 dilution works best for me, and I agitate less than I would with other developers: once a minute with just a couple inversions.

National Archives, Library of Congress, Smithsonian.... all these sound like they're located in

Washington, DC. Do I have to go there? And if I do, how do I get digital files of the relevant

photos? Is there a way to access these collections online?

I've been asked to create some artwork that will require an historical image

as part of a complicated photo-montage. Specifically, among other items, I

need a photo (or print-resolution file thereof) depicting the skyline of a

bombed-out German city at the end of World War II.

 

I've seen some great images available from agencies like Getty or Magnum, but

I'm not sure if the budget for this project will be sufficient to buy the

rights from an agency.

 

Does anyone have a suggestion as to where public-domain images of this sort

might be found, or, alternatively, how one could be purchased for a modest

amount?

 

Thanks

Incidentally, the movie "Control Room" has a fascinating examination of the Saddam statue-toppling and flag-raising upon the conquest of Baghdad in 2003. It shows footage shot by local cameramen (which U.S. viewers apparently were not shown) that demonstrates the amazing amount of choreography of the event being provided by American P.R. and media people. Clearly they were very aware of how important such images can be.

I think the critical aspect is that so many guys are trying to be part of it. All those soldiers trying to get a hand on the flag as it goes up creates an impression that, despite going through a brutal battle, they hadn't lost sight of the symbolic underpinnings of the struggle.

 

If the poster above is correct that all those soldiers were necessary because the pole was so heavy, then that totally changes the meaning of the photo for me and, probably, for most people.

I guess it's consistent with my experience that flatbeds fail to capture much of the highlight and shadow detail.

Take it from someone who learned the hard way: you have to get a Nikon 9000 ED. People carry on about how the Epson flatbeds give you comparable quality, but it's wishful thinking: I'd argue the difference in image quality is about the same as you'd see using a cheap kit zoom lens on your camera vs. a good quality prime lens.

 

I realize $2 grand is a lot to spend for the Nikon, but if you go for the Epson you're eventually going to start wondering why you bother to shoot medium format.

Aha... so if you set it to "transparency" it refuses to scan wider than the smaller overhead light source in the scanner's lid.

 

I wonder what would happen to that experiment if you told it to scan the whole 8x10 in flatbed mode? I suspect there would be way too much light because you'd have it coming from both above and below, but maybe you could ratchet down the brightness in the software to get it right. If only the light-table thing had a variable output- would think you could probably dial in just enough brightness to make it work as a flatbed scan.

I knew somebody that set up a dslr with a macro lens over a light table. He'd photograph a whole sleeve of negatives and then reverse it to a positive in photoshop. The resulting contact sheet wasn't super high quality, but it did the job for him.

 

I've been thinking about doing an experiment with one of those portable, flat light-table things and a flatbed scanner; basically, sandwich the negative sleeve between the light-table and the scanner glass, and then run a scan in flatbed mode. Any thoughts on how that might work before I go buy the light-table thing?