mark_l3

I'm afraid the anti digital viewpoints here are clouding some of the minds that lurk these forums. 1 hour labs/non pro labs all sucked long before digital, and just because it says "pro lab" on the door isn't a guarantee either.

why don't you google "J.P. Caponigro B&W conversion" and look at the very first link to adobe.......

you want maximum quality? become an expert.......

if you don't "have" to have an lcd then save yourself some money and get a much higher qualtiy crt for a lot less money.

"Must be a money issue"

 

well duh! when isn't it?!

personally I don't care how many failures any artist has-painter or photographer, I don't want to see those anyway. show me the sucessful images and let me enjoy them.

"it is easier to make a good photograph than a good painting/sculpture/musical number"

 

depends on your definition of a "good photograph". I think it's easier to make a bad photograph or a snapshot than a bad painting. "good" or great photographs take as much vision.

imacon, imacon, imacon

I use tmax 100 for all of my bw work, inside or out....

It won't hurt to ask, when I was there for the AA symposium (spelling?) they let me go into the darkroom and load film.

Brad,

 

I'm willing to bet that none of the photographers Eric linked to have posted images on photo.net, if one of them gets on here and says something you don't agree with are you going to write them off too?

 

I bet you think getting ratings is important too, eh?

 

 

Eric,

 

I think you are missing the point here, let me back up a bit. first off, I enjoy looking at a well made flash site as anyone, I may even include some flash in my site in the future, but I would never have a site without a non-flash alternative for an art director to look at.

 

WHY?

 

All the sites you linked to have great images, some are great sites, some have irritating aspects to their design. ANY of them with music is irritating. However, when you are as big in the business as some of these people the faults of the websites will not affect their business. I doubt most agencies need to look up Lachapelle's or Avenaim's website to know who they are. Would you really think less of the images on the websites if they weren't using flash?

 

 

 

 

These people are making enough money and are willing to spend the money to hire someone who ensures that the website WORKS. So if you are going to insist on flash then hire someone who can do it.

 

I noticed that at least one of the sites has an alternative non-flash site to go to.

 

 

 

 

-------Warning, non active links ahead, okay I'm lazy----

 

 

www.burnsautoparts.com did a polling of art directors and what they say is what I have told you, a large percentage of them don't like flash or anything else getting in the way of looking at the images, they don't have time for it. Now if you think that your work can command as much attention as those you have listed, and you can hire someone as reliable as they can for a flash site then you have nothing to worry about. I just think you are worrying too much about flash, when it doesn't sound like you really need it. why complicate things?

 

I'll shut up now.......

Brad, please, you don't really base the quality of someones opinions on whether they have photos uploaded to an amatuer photo forum do you? I have a website, if you are so concerned you should take a look at it. You seemed like such a nice person when you sent me a print by the way.....

 

Eric, you're right, it's all my fault, it's obvious that you take advice well...as long as it's something you agree with.

"The word wasn't used rudely, or addressed to you."

 

 

hmmm, someone said you should have a non flash alternative,and you said,"I think sites with a choice are lame anyway". You don't see that as insulting or offensive to the one who said it, or maybe to anyone who may have sites with a choice?

 

 

"The thread was cool until you jumped in, without offerings."

 

how old are you?

 

 

"wait all you want, as I said, read the thread, it's all there, and has nothing to do with my question"

 

no, I said something that has to be done in flash....

 

 

"For the fish, what else?"

 

of course! it doesn't have anything to do with problems with flash now does it.......

 

 

good luck Eric, let us know when the site is done.

if you recall, you were the one to start with the "lame" comments.

 

 

"art buyers? hmmm. you're make believe land. not sure where you read that... "

 

 

try burns auto parts, one of the best consultants for the creative community I have seen.

 

 

 

"this confirms it, you haven't read the thread and just here for some other reason"

 

no, what it says is that you haven't shown me anything that you want that requires flash....still waiting.

 

 

Eric, if flash is so much better for a simple site, then why are you here in the first place?

"Mark, not sure of your point"

 

my point is that art buyers don't like flash, it can crash a computer and many don't even want the plug in on their computer. and it doesn't protect your images whatsoever.

 

 

 

"And it's as simple as simple gets"

 

then why to you need flash?

 

 

 

 

"ps Mark, you may want to add http:// in front of your url in your bio to get your web page to be clickable from here"

 

I'm sure you were hoping to get something juicier to throw back at me, since you are getting huffy. It doesn't really concern me, I don't come here to sell.

 

 

 

"When they are built properly, the viewing time is cut down with loading and easier navigation"

 

what in the world do you base this on?

 

 

 

 

 

"I don't know enough about web building "

 

exactly

 

 

 

 

 

"If someone isn't running flash, then they're not viewing the best photography displayed on the web anyway"

 

this is just ignorant.

 

 

 

 

"viewers that would never hire me in the first place "

 

I thought you said this wasn't a "sales" site?

 

 

do what you want, but don't get huffy when people tell you the truth.

" I think sites with a choice are lame anyway"

 

not as lame as sites you can't see.

 

Navigation that is too involved can be irritating at best and I hope that you aren't targeting Advertising agencies, they hate it the most. People are there to look at the images, why not keep it simple?

Meredith, are you doing bw or color?

seems to me if you wanted to get rid of the "Enhanced by MagicPhotoExposure" you could just add a large border to the border and crop or trim it from the finished print or file.

"Many are perfectly reasonable people, but surely you cannot deny that quite a few are, shall we say, evangelical about their beliefs"

 

 

we seem to agree in many ways, and yet the last time we spoke of this you called me a "true believer" and spoke of all zone users in a derogatory way, if you think that "Many are perfectly reasonable people" then your conversations should reflect this more, however I know that in the heat of the moment many of us do say things not really meant...

 

 

 

"ISO is an excellent starting point: better than yours"

 

 

I'm actually saying that the iso is my starting point, but not for actual shooting, but for testing.

 

 

 

 

"is to point out that that the ZS is not the ONLY route"

 

I have said before that I have no problem with this, however there have been times that I felt that some of the things you have said were inaccurate and biased, and I felt it necessary to offer my opinion.

 

I also don't think it's necessary to attack one method to defend your own, and have probably been a bit quilty of this myself.

 

 

"hopefully also get some constuctive feedback through the letters columns of these publications"

 

Kieth, I hope you don't think that the feedback here isn't contructive because I disagree with Roger on some points.

 

 

 

"May I also suggest that you join the Ilford Ilfopro Cafe forum where I am sure you would be made most welcome."

 

having a disagreement and discussing it is in no way making someone unwelcome. The forums would be very boring if everyone agreed on everything. If I have misinterpreted your remarks I apologize.

 

Roger, I apologize to you also if I have ever offended you.

 

 

Mark Lindsey

can't sleep either Edward?

film makers rate their films just like car makers rate their cars for mileage and performance, not to benefit the customer, but to benefit themselves. This isn't a terrible thing, it's just business.

 

when you start out, of course you keep it simple. There's no need to try to do everything all at once, you have to evolve slowly and digest what you learn. Of course amatuers can easily overreact to the OPPOSITE opinions as well, which isn't any better.

 

You can have any opinion you want, but if I look at a negative exposed and developed according to manufacturer specs, I see a negative that is underexposed and usually overdeveloped. No one can say otherwise as far as my preferences go, simply because I know what I want from my negatives.

 

"letting the highlights fall where they will, to be controlled later by paper grade"

 

I don't understand this, why stop control of the negative at shadow exposure and not control the highlights? The control later via paper grade is like building a crooked foundation and then adjusting later in framing.

 

 

 

"But I think you'd agree at (a)ISO gives you a far better starting point (even if you automatically downgrade 1 stop) than anyone's private system,"

 

this is a far cry from the original statement about novices. If you mean a starting point for testing to get a personal exposure index, then yes, I agree.

 

 

"I saw it as a subset of sensitometry"

 

I would say it's more like a visual version of sensitometry

 

 

 

"a True Believer / bad at uncritical belief"

 

I notice you always describe zone system users as if they are all zealots, which doesn't strengthen your views, it only weakens them. I am a zone user but am certainly not an "uncritical believer".

 

 

 

"ISO is standardized and replicable (unlike personal preferences)"

 

of course an iso is standardized,isn't iso self defining? I replicate my "personal preferences" or e.i. everytime I photograph and develope my film. am I missing something?

 

 

Everyone comes at it from different angles, but we all end up at the same ground zero---what we get out of it--the finished product, and if you're happy with what you get then more power to you.

also think about the fact that those 645 af lenses will fit the mamiya zd, so if you ever move to a digital camera, you could get the zd without having to purchase a new bunch of lenses, and even if you don't, I'm sure the af lenses will hold their value more now that they will be used for the zd.

if what he says is true then his pictures should reflect it, compare his images to Sexton's and decide for yourself.

that's your opinion, I disagree, however if you also add your comments to your observation, you will see that you are the one being the most rude with your last comment.

"Zone System True Believer"

 

Just as I suspected, you label ALL zone users as fanatics to justify your views.

 

 

" I had intended to put an alternative point of view to someone (Harry) who was inquiring about the value of the Zone System"

 

I never had a problem with this, except for when you selectively choose facts and discarded others to fit your opinion.