franki_wango

"Time will tell, but it is not a good time to be a film company, any more than it was in the mid eighties to be a typewriter ribbon company."

 

Please, only use the approved buggy whip metaphor when trying to show a product that is no longer needed in great numbers.

"Custom, handmade goods will always hold a premium for certain consumers, even if more affordable mass-produced items are just as beautiful, or useful. Related to this is a snob appeal for unique, or customized, items which others don't have. We see this all the time in jewelry as well in other art forms."

 

Which is exactly why discerning consumers don't consider photographs as art? They're really not handmade - it's done with machinery (camera, enlarger, etc.). You don't see the artist's hand at work in a photograph unless it's an altered piece of work, and so there is no "art" involved in the making of the print - they're all just copies.

Bwaaa...haaaa....haaaaa...heee...heeeee. Oh man. This is thread is great. Please keep it up. HHeeeee..heeeee....hheee.

 

Just answer one question. Why did the government build a huge soundstage at a certain base in the Nevada desert in the mid-60's? OH, no wait - those were airplane hangars - never mind.

 

heeeee...heeeee...haaaaa......

Pete -

 

<p>

 

To answer your question about exposure specifically, I have reviewed

field notebooks from over 30 years of taking photos. There are 57

exposures with -3 exposure (3 stops under incident reading) with

either +2 or +3 development associated with the exposures. There are

122 exposures with -2 exposure with +1, +2, and +3 development. 335

with -1 and either +1 or +2 development.

 

<p>

 

And then there are lots (the majority of entries) of "normal"

exposures with normal, -1, and -2 development. (I got tired of

counting after the ones above and didn't want to turn this into an

all day project.)

 

<p>

 

There is probably an amount equal to the minus exposures with plus

exposures and minus development. The plus exposures seem to mostly

be in the +1 range, I would guess there are at least 200, and a like

amount of +1.5 with minus development. I found only about 180 or so

with +2 exposure. And only about 45 with +3 exposure.

 

<p>

 

So - I guess in my work, there is a total 6 stop deviation from

a "normal" exposure with a lot of different development combinations

(times plus developer types) to compensate for the different total

luminance ranges I've encountered.

 

<p>

 

Does that help you get an idea of exposure/development deviations

from normal using a spot metered, sensitometry-based exposure

methodology?

"It doesn't take a meter reading to see a flat subject or an overcast

day."

 

<p>

 

Some of the highest contrast situations I have photographed have been

on overcast days. Overcast does not necessarily translate to low

contrast. How do you account for a high contrast range on an

overcast day? Do you have "calibrated eyeballs"? I've been fooled

to the point of questioning my meter readings and doing them over

again just to make sure I put the numbers into my notebook correctly.

 

<p>

 

The opposite situation is, on days with full sun at mid-day have been

some of the lowest contrast situations as the shadows are nearly non-

existant, and the reflected sunlight from sand, rocks etc. has nearly

everything at the same EV. Only the color of the different objects

provides a reflectance range, and in these cases the colors may not

be far apart in reflectance.

 

<p>

 

"Even clouds have to obey the laws of reflectance, and unless they're

transilluminated they can't be any higher in value than 2.5 stops up

from my incident reading."

 

<p>

 

I don't know where you photograph, but in the southwest U.S. with

large vistas, it is totally possible to have white areas of clouds

being 4 to 4.5 stops higher than an incident reading. How? You can

be under a cloud shadow for a very large area around you, meaning

everything in your field of view is like shooting on an overcast day,

and if you take an incident reading, that's what it will look like.

While, off in the distance is a huge thunderhead occupying a

signifcant portion of the sky with the top brightly illuminated by

reflected sunlight.

 

<p>

 

"As a prime example, take Adams' "Moonrise over Hernandez". He didn't

need to know the luminance of the moon in candles per square foot..."

 

<p>

 

Really untrue. If you read Adams description of making that photo,

it is EXACTLY because he knew the luminance of the moon itself from

other photos that allowed him to setup his camera and make the

exposure before the light changed. If you read his work further, you

will find out it is one of his hardest negatives to print, because he

did not have the time to analyze the total luminance range, carefully

place the exposure, and then alter development to adjust the final

negative tonal range to match the printing paper range. In this

case, it was nearly a point-and-shoot with an 8x10 using a known

value (full moon) placed on Zone VII - and without a full reading of

the scene, he ended up with a difficult negative to print.

 

<p>

 

"These techniques are directly transferable to rollfilm and colour,

messing about with the development isn't."

 

<p>

 

Not true. You can "push / pull" color film in the first developer

which does change the contrast.

I like heat waves. They can be used for creative purposes. I would

suggest that you not really care whether it is a factor or not, and

incorporate it into the photograph. My observation is that, you will

not see them unless you are using a telephoto lens that compresses

the scene (and atmosphere) and makes them appear.

I'm suprised Bob isn't putting those lens wrenches on E-Bay himself

to make a little more money.

Oh yeah. Lawrence forgot to tell you one thing about the NM State Police. They'll run you down and shoot you if you ignore them when they close the road. They shot a guy last year outside of Albuquerque when he was trying to get home after they had closed the road. BAD things happen when you get out of bed.

I smell timid people not common sense. Common sense would say that the driving conditions in the southwest are good on 9 out of 10 days even in the winter. But here's the real question. What are the chances that there will be a terrible snow storm to drive through from the Denver Airport to Colorado Springs? HMMMM? Ever been to the Denver Airport? That sucker is about 20 miles east of Denver in the middle of the plains where the wind and snow come whipping across unimpeded. And, as you get closer to Denver, the snow will increase as it is caused by air coming in from the west moving up over the mountains and cooling. So, most of the snow is near the mountains or, right on I-25. Which by the way, you have to take from Denver to get to Colorado Springs.

 

How come none of the "concerned" "knowledgable" people throught about that? You turned a car over between Pueblo and Colorado Springs. I'll bet an equal number of people did the same thing on the same day between Denver and Colorado Springs. What these people are saying, is that somehow driving north is more dangerous than driving south on the same road on the same day. Doesn't work for me.

 

Heck, I've seen folks that have turned cars over on a sunny day, on a totally dry road, with no traffic in sight. Hard to explain - but they did it. No accounting for that kind of driving talent. Oh yeah, one hint. You know how you can tell familiarity with local conditions AND driving experience? The experienced people put chains on the FRONT tires of a 4wd, while the inexperienced ones put them on the rear.

 

You might also consider staying out of Death Valley. There are really bad flash floods every so often. Heck, for that matter, stay out of the bath tub. Thousands of people are killed every year in their homes by slipping in the bath tub. Maybe you shouldn't even get out of bed - something bad might happen.

Yeah- I like PhotoDr's suggestion best. The other wimps just don't like to have fun; and it looks like they don't have the cajones to take a one in one hundred chance that they MIGHT have to drive in snow. OOOOh, snow. Please, oh, please, please, please, don't make me drive in that awful white stuff....

Deserts at mid day (10:00 am - 2:00 pm) are really low contrast situations. The lighting is flat with only very small shadows. The light reflects from surrounding highly reflective rock and sand surfaces and generally fills most of the shadows. The only time you will find high contrast situations at mid day is if you are in slot canyon country of Southern Utah. Even the mesa and canyon areas of north western New Mexico, and the high plateau areas of northern Arizona are low contrast at mid day. The Grand Canyon is extremely low contrast and one dimensional at mid day. The Sonoran and Mojave deserts are equally low contrast at mid day.

 

High contrast occurs early morning and late in the day. That's when you get deep large shadows and brightly lit highlights. I've photographed every desert area starting from the Mexican border, and north to the Canadian border; and from the Pacific Ocean on the west, to Nebraska and the Dakotas on the east during the past 25 years and have never found high contrast at mid day. Perhaps I've just missed something?

I'll take the lottery ticket too. Scott, it seems you've made a fairly convincing argument against LightJet prints also, since most service bureaus want to make scans from transparencies and not negatives.