keith selmes

March 9, 2012

Confusingly, Iford is a Swiss company which has continued manufacturing Ilford inkjet papers, but also seems to be doing Ilfochrome chemical photographic products.

Ilford black and white film products are manufactured by Harman Technologies in the UK, at the old Ilford premises.

They have a fairly broad portfolio of chemical products, and a have developed a strong line of inkjet papers

The website does say

"HARMAN technology Limited, trading as ILFORD PHOTO, is "Passionate about Black and White" and intends to continue this commitment"

All of which means I don't know the answer to the question, but I do know there isn't one specialist company called Ilford producing just Ilford film products.

I imagine Harman will continue with film products so long as they make a profit, that is, so long as enough people buy them. But if film stops selling, Harman will phase it out and continue with their other products, they don't have all eggs in one basket.

I'm not really helping, Ilford B&W prices went up, so I bought other brands. I probably will buy Ilford again, but they are not my automatic first choice now.

March 7, 2012

My knees and posterior deserve a mention as well, I seem to spend nearly as much time on them while photographing. Mud, mud, glorious mud went the song :)

February 14, 2012

If you saw my drawing or painting you'd know it was bad, and if you saw my photography you'd probably think it wasn't.

The big difference is the very real difficulty of getting the vision or idea out of the head via the hands onto a medium that other people can see. I think if you can't do that, it's unlikley to be good.

Didn't Fox Talbot start with a camera obscura device to aid his drawing ?

I should add, I assume a difference between being technically good, and the less easily definable artistically good.

February 14, 2012

Something like Vue perhaps - it seems popular on the Deviant Art site

Free version at <a href="http://www.e-onsoftware.com/products/vue/vue_pioneer/">http://www.e-onsoftware.com/products/vue/vue_pioneer/</a>

and materials for use with that <a href="http://www.cornucopia3d.com/">http://www.cornucopia3d.com/</a>

Or possibly Blender, another free one, which I think is a more general purpose heavy duty 3D package

<a href="http://www.blender.org/">http://www.blender.org/</a>

February 12, 2012

I certainly have problems with drawing and painting. They were never things that came easily, and the occasional effort in that direction has been horribly difficult and disappointing. I have very little aptitude with the kind of hand-eye skill needed for pencils and brushes, but I seem to have a good aptitude for the mechanical and computer operations in photography.

Based on general discussion on forums like this, I think that is a fairly common experience, but I never saw any figures for it.

I also think, if I could naturally transfer to painting, I would have done it by now, that is, if I had started with photography, I would now be doing both.

But visualisation and creative urge are the key. Many people with a similar poor aptitude for painting, will not take up photography, because they have no need, and nothing to record or show. Then there are people who can copy paintings with superb dexterity and exquisite detail, but cannot see what to paint for themselves, and I don't know if a camera would really help them.

February 10, 2012

I have a couple of quarter plate cameras and have used one occasionally, and I expect I will again.

January 28, 2012

Well, almost Ricoh GR21, but I don't think it has manual control

<a href="http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ricoh_GR21">http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Ricoh_GR21</a>

January 6, 2012

Film is not small format, quite the contrary

</blockquote>

true, but 135 is known as miniature :)

January 6, 2012

Speaking from the uncle perspective, this is a very scary thread :)

But my photographer nephew is doing good work with my old Eos D60, which must be almost 10 years old now. I have in mind I should budget for a replacement, having last year replaced a broken zoom lens. Thankfully though, nephew seems happy with that old DSLR and just one 3rd party lens, and is doing good work with it.

December 21, 2011

From the point when DSLR first became available, the 5D was the one I was waiting for, I'm not in any hurry to change it. There are possible reasons for getting another, but they're not pressing.

December 17, 2011

Rather like William, I would say that I'm more consistently capable than I was 10 years ago.

I suppose I know more, can do more. But sometimes I look back at earlier work and I don't think I've improved on that. Perhaps I'm more confident of being able to do it when I want to, and I probably have a wider range of options in what I can tackle, andI'm better in seeing opportunities. Probably a more in depth understanding both of technical matters and the more subjective aspects. But the results aren't always better.

I think there was a lot more dross, ten years ago, that I might have been satisfied with at the time.

November 26, 2011

seeing some draft result from the camera

</blockquote>

this is what I don't like with evf. Sometimes it is OK, but other times it seems to show me what some computer programmer thought I would like to see, and I really want to see what is actually there in front of me. So although the smaller camera is pretty good, I would still rather use the SLR, and I don't really know if EVf will ever be a straight replacement.

Perhaps the primary market for EVF is still the casual user, who probably shoots jpg anyway, and is happy with seeing what that will look like.

November 26, 2011

the photographer must sometimes cheat to re-create the illusion of realism

</blockquote>

I thought that put it rather well.

November 26, 2011

the reflector mirror is slowing down the camera and adds weight to

</blockquote>

I sometimes use smaller cameras, including EVF, because the size and weight of a FF DSLR is a nuisance. But the fps isn't a problem. 1 FPS is usable, and 5 is plenty. Perhaps reporters or sports photographers need 14, I don't know.

The mirror does blank out the view at the exact moment the picture is being taken, that can be a problem - you don't know exactly what happened at that instant. Nowadays you can review that on the LCD of course.

Where DSLR are used for video, they seem usually to be bolted into some kind of rig where the size and weight of a DSLR doesn't look to be a problem. Also, when I use a fast tele TV lens on a small micro 4/3 camera for video, the lens is much bigger and heavier than the camera anyway.

November 26, 2011

the SLR and DSLR have a huge disadvantage

</blockquote>

Well yes, but every type of camera I have used has a huge disadvantage. With a rangefinder you have a limited selection of lenses, and real problems with macro or long tele work. With a field camera, the sheer weight and bulk, and so on. But I think they all have their good points as well. I can't think of any that are really useless. And of course there are subject areas where a rangefinder is top choice.

the shuttering process has to shake the camera and causes some blurring

</blockquote>

That can be a problem for hand held work where the shutter speed needs to be kept up, but not with landscape or other detail work from a tripod

You just use mirror lock up with either a timer delay or a cable release.

Many SLR/DSLR allow combining a 2 second timer delay with mirror lock up so vibrations from hand or mirror should have settled before the shutter operates. If 2 seconds isn't long enough, you use MLU with the cable release.

November 25, 2011

the major reason for the invention of the slr was the mirror and the ability to look/meter through the lens, and the ability to change lenses

</blockquote>

changing lenses is not relevant as that can be done on a variety of camera types.

Using the mirror to see exactly what is coming through the lens is the point, and as yet the EVF I've used aren't up to it. They're mostly usable, and I tend to defend them against criticism, but they're not nearly the same thing as an SLR design. I'm not sure they ever will be, as they're a slightly different concept.

It will still not surprise me if at some point most DSLR users do switch to an EVF design, but if that happens that would be some years in the future, for now they're just not good enough. Even then it might still sensible to use a DSLR on occasions, and some people will simply from preference. An EVF can have advantages,and eventually might be a better choice, but I don't think it will ever be a straight replacement.

I think the the round shutter referred to would be a leaf shutter, not clear how that would be an improvement unless the lens is a fixed one. If they're interchangeable, then usually you have a shutter built into each lens. I don't think it would be an improvement.

November 17, 2011

I don't do much film, and only black and white for the time being, but it is home processed without a darkroom and then scanned. Sometimes I also make contact prints in daylight e.g. with Printing Out Paper or with Cyanotype (blueprint) paper. Really, I think if you want to use film you use film. Its not as practical as digital but lots of people like to do it anyway.

November 15, 2011

The famous name lenses do tend to be expensive. The cheaper ones I have bought from ebay suggest a lot of luck really is involved.

If you buy no name, unknown, or overlooked lenses, you might have something truly wonderful, or truly horrible. Probably best looked on as an absorbing pastime.

But I did get one famous lens very cheap, and I don't know what all the fuss is about. I should sell it really, but it looks quite nice, and it's possibly a better investment than money in the bank, so I just let it sit in its box appreciating in value (I hope).

November 8, 2011

The only ones I know are definitley rated for drop test are the Ricoh G series,like this one

<a href="http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/g/g700/features.html">http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/g/g700/features.html</a>

It survives a 2 meter drop, works 5m under water, you can wash mud off, you can disinfect it with ethanol or sodium hypochlorite, and its designed for use while wearing gloves.

But might not be the best camera in other respects.

The 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras probably are worth a look, they can give better pictures in more difficult circumstances than the very compact cameras, but are still pretty small and light. Some of them do very good motion pictures as well.

October 30, 2011

I had a 35mm SLR film camera and some lenses.

I wanted a DSLR that would do the same things with the same lenses.

Now I have one, and really it does better than the film SLR.

Thats about as far as that goes.

I think it might be better than crop sensor combinations, at least for some things, but I don't really know and it isn't really important to me.

What I don't really have is an equivalent of a 35mm compact camera.

There are some small sensor models that I think are just as good, and I have one, but I haven't yet seen one that combines the capability and ergonomics I would like at a price I would like, so its more of a compromise.

I don't see why a manufacturer would have to have FF models to succeed. I suppose it depends what sort of company they want to be and how much market share they want to grab. Holga seem to do quite well without any sensors at all.

October 25, 2011

Perhaps the obvious place to start is the The Daguerreian Society at <a href="The Daguerreian Society">http://www.daguerre.org/dagfaq.php</a>

Also a website of current daguerrotypists <a href="http://www.newdags.com/making1.html">http://www.newdags.com/making1.html</a>

And the alternative photography site <a href="http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/processes">http://www.alternativephotography.com/wp/processes</a>

October 25, 2011

There seem to be good ranges of lenses new from Schneider, Rodenstock and Fujinon, and a couple from Cooke.

Robert White has those anyway.

How the prices compare would be another matter, depending how long ago many years was.

Some of the fujinon e.g. 135 and 150 are below £1,000, allowingf or inflation and exchange rates, I'm not sure how that would compare with $500.

<a href="http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/products.asp?PT_ID=382">http://www.robertwhite.co.uk/products.asp?PT_ID=382</a>

October 17, 2011

The exact size of the holders seems to depend on the make rather than the actual film size.

Maybe that applies to the back as well.

I've used both half plate and 5x7 holders on a Kodak Specialist 2 with the half plate back from a Specialist 3. The mix of half plate and 5x7 holders I have all fit. (They all came from ebay in various lots)

Looking closely, a plastic Fidelity 5x7 film holder is indeed a little wider than a wooden Kodak half plate plateholder.

An Ansco wooden 5x7 film holder and a Kodak wooden half plate film holder are about the same width, and they are both about a thumbnail thickness wider than the plateholder.

But a Fidelity half plate plastic film holder is the same width as a Fidelity plastic 5x7 film holder.

The half plate Fidelity is also marked 12x16.5 cm.

Because they all fit the same back, I had just assumed they were all the same size, but now looking carefully, the exact dimensions seem to depend on the make, or even the batch, rather than the film size.

October 14, 2011

Yes, we know, but it doesn't affect the question about DSLR.

The Wright brothers flew an aeroplane in 1903, but if you were waiting for a scheduled airline flight New York to London, it was a very long wait. And now that you can do that, people are still using trains for inland journeys.

And EVF cameras might be a DSLR replacement one day, but it's still a don't hold your breath situation.

October 13, 2011

Voice recognition is nowhere good enough yet, and in any case I wouldn't usually see the point of using it to control most kinds of machinery. You can have an instant response via your hands feet and fingers, faster than you can think, and I don't expect voice control will ever be that good. Putting thought into words takes too long.

upcoming generations will be using the newest technologies

</blockquote>

So will older people. I don't see the point here. Its not exactly news.

The generational difference possibly is that older people will still have some of their earlier technology, and younger people will tend not to be so familiar with the older stuff. It doesn't mean only younger people use new technology, that would be a total misunderstanding.

For example, people of all ages tend to use mp3 players now, but older people are more likely to have a record or tape player as well.

We tend not to use transport so much nowadays, its expensive, and we have broadband and webcams and avatars, so we can do a lot without it. if you're looking for future trends that are here now, thats one of them.

Horses, well in many ways they are a better way to travel, especially for younger people (!), but expensive.

Nonetheless there are many more of them than there were 50 years ago, same thing with sail powered boats.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by keith selmes