dan_porter1

Brian:

Provia was just an example so we were all talking the same price for the same thing. digital? interesting idea...but buying a digital camera doesn't really solve my cost issue. it would also mean buying another PC. and god knows what else...anyway I like film. weirdo eh?

Ray: the reason I mentioned New Zealand was because thats where I am heading to..a photographer there told me it was VERY expensive and like others here gets his film from NYC. thanks for all the advice everyone...seems b and h is the way forward...

Where is the world's cheapest film to be found? Not out of date....

 

Here in UK a roll of Provia 100F can be had for 3 pounds. What are

costs in places like Singapore? Japan? New Zealand? I am trying to

work out how to stock up for a long trip (6 months) without carrying

tonnes of film....

 

I'm just a cheapskate.

i need some advice please; acros rated at 50asa? What dev times

should i use in either rodinal or hc-110?

i recently got hold of a load of ektachrome 64 which is about 3 years

out of date. i was thinking of cross-processing it but thought the

colour balance may be all over the place anyway. anyone had any

experiences here? shall i bother cross-processing it? or would that

be too much? i'll probably try a roll to begin with and see how it

goes without cross-process - any thoughts?

cheers

d

im thinking of getting an ME Super to take around India for a few

months. any thoughts on this? they are cheap and seem fairly reliable

so i thought i might try one out. has anyone had any problems with

the electronics or anything else? any other recommendations? i was

thinking nikon but they are too expensive.

cheers. d

thanks Anupam.

has anyone made contacts by simply switching a light on over the

negs? any tips?

 

thanks. d.

Thankyou Allen.

Nice picture.

 

This is a picture of mine that may help illustrate my original point. Apologies for the crap scan.<div></div>

Allen -

Apologies for my stroppy response! I think I misread you.

 

All of the above comments - very useful (although I don't agree with all of them). Thanks.

Anymore patronizing? you have an inflated ego - let some of the gas out chump.............

How sad....

These are great pictures! Remember that these guys are under 25! There are so many many portfolio's of dreary rubbish on this website.....There is a hint of stinky jealousy here...

Lots of words.......

 

No Pictures........

Robert Frank - among many others - didn't plan the majority of his photographs....I think you'll find spontaneity is VERY much a part of photography. And what about Don McCullin? Or Robert Capa? Or George Rodger?......

It boils down to this: I have - like many others - often seen commercial success as "success". Be it rightly or wrongly I have thought subconciously about how to get pictures published. It was quite an ambition when I first became interested in photography. Now I look at these pictures and others that I would call cheesey, and don't see any real value in them at all. They are there to show me what I was doing 6 months ago, a year ago. I think my attitude has changed of late and now if something ends up in a magazine, website, or whatever, - OK. If it doesn't? Who gives a f**k? Being able to do whatever feels right is so liberating - keep your money capitalist pigs!

This is an extremely emotive issue...I think we are talking about "What is Art?" here and lets be honest - we wouldn't be the first. I could sit down with a paintbrush (or without one) and copy a work of modern art that was fairly simple to copy. Does this mean that the original is no good? Does it mean that I am equally as talented as the original artist?

Mike

 

Interesting point...and lots to think about from all these posts. It depends on your outlook surely? Yes, I sit with friends and we sometimes talk about things we have talked about before, and thats one of the things which make us close; shared experiences, memories etc. Like most people when we get together we repeat the same old stories and they are still as funny as they were the first time. Thats just human nature - thats how myths formed, around a campfire generation after generation. Repetition in that sense is very comforting and cathartic. I will never get bored of looking at a beautiful sunset no matter how many times I see one...

You're right...

I constantly try to avoid the obvious when taking photographs, but

always end up with exactly that - the obvious. Perhaps I try to

emulate famous and successful photographers, or look for images they

produce and try to copy them subconciously; is this a bad thing?

Perhaps certain images are fixed in our heads? When I look for a

landscape photo for example, I try and find something new - but end

up with a corn field, a sunset, or something "chocolate-boxy". I

recently had some pictures published and overheard someone talking

about them in the local pub: the general feeling was that they would

look OK on the wall of a cafe or an Athena poster. The comments were

not supposed to be complementary. They were very much in the "black

and white only camp". They are probably right, but I found it hard to

accept. It seems highly saturated colour landscapes sell very well,

but are frowned upon by others. Is a book good if it sells millions

of copies or is it good because critics say so? Perhaps my efforts

are just poor copies of original ideas. I tend to sway between two

schools of thought on this: 1) trying to do what the pro's do is no

bad thing and helps no end to build confidence and develop ideas

about photography, or 2) It should all be new, fresh and original or

whats the point? Perhaps we are just re-writing old ideas? Are all

the great photographs already taken?