Jump to content

a._valerio

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    188

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by a._valerio

    Tips for lacrosse photography needed

    in Sports

    Posted

    <p>I'm photographing division 1 men's lacrosse tomorrow, and I have never photographed lacrosse before. I'd like tips for photographing the game, and any important information that I should know about NCAA rules for lacrosse photography such as whether photographers are allowed to stand or have to kneel, and where we are allowed.</p>

    <p>Also, I'm a bit concerned about safety. Are photographers allowed to wear a helmet in case the ball hits you in the head? Does anyone ever wear one (no, I am not kidding)?</p>

    <p>Thanks.</p>

    E6 lab roundup 2010

    in The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>For over 34 years, Tech Photo has processed E6 and C41 of all sizes in hanger machines. We were the very first E6 lab in NJ and I think we're the last still doing it on a custom level in the area outside of NYC.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Havng conversed with John, I must say that I am extremely impressed with his attention to detail, expertise, and concern for his client's results. John's company is one of the last that prides itself on high-quality digital-to-film conversion. I am planning to have him output some digital images to b&w film in the near future for a colleague who is a wedding photographer, and will use Tech Photo for color processing as well, because their quality and service are legendary in NJ. Tech Photo is such a unique operation, that if I were in NJ, I would surely shoot a photo essay on them. But alas, I am not in NJ and probably will not be able to shoot such a photo essay.</p>

    AF speed 85mm f1.4 vs 70-200 vs 200 f2

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>I have all these lenses. I think lenses faster than f/2.8 have lower in-focus rate when tracking moving subjects wide open than f/2.8 lenses. This includes the 85/1.4 and 200/2 in my experience. However if you shoot at f/2.8 then they all work well.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Perhaps this could be a case of effective t/stop versus f/stop? Maybe the f/2.8 zooms, for example, which are closer to t/3.2 or t/3.5, don't pass the maximum amount of light that the central AF sensor needs...and the f/1.4 exceeds this amount (faster than t/2.8).</p>

    Some Kodak film to "Retire"

    in The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry

    Posted

    <p>This TXP-320 is probably going to sell out fast. Oh well. You either buy and freeze it if you have the money and freezer space, or you just switch to 120 Tri-X 400. While we're at it, it doesn't hurt to ask questions about potential 220 b&w film availability in the future.</p>

    <p>As usual, Daniel Bayer has a very balanced, healthy point of view on this. Dan, I personally want to thank you for writing what you wrote.</p>

    <p>And to Patrick: This was interesting, wasn't it? Learning by trial and error is always fun. I make tons of decisions every day that I could have made better looking back. But that's the adventure in living and doing things. Anyone who says they don't goof things up regularly or have any regrets, is lying.</p>

    <p>Now, I've said it before elsewhere, but I'll say it again here: I believe the product discontinuations will be slowing down after this. As Daniel Bayer stated, Kodak IS committed to film and color paper, and processing. They derive significant income from these products. Keep using it if you can.</p>

    <p>I'm not saying there wont be anymore film discontinuations in the near future. But we have an idea already what those might be if we've paid attention over the last few years; they're been mentioned here and elsewhere. (I'm not going to go into depth here because I don't want to start more rumors though).</p>

    <p>But we have to adapt the best we can. Just for the sake of one example: If Kodak discontinues P3200, I personally will not be happy about it. I often shoot this film at EI 6400. But there are other ways of adapting that don't involve switching to 100% digital. For example: Ilford makes Delta 3200 in both 35mm AND 120 format. Though it's supposedly a bit grainier than P3200, possibly a bit slower, and maybe a bit less shadow density, there are ways around it. Use the 120 film, and the grain goes down. Try different developers, times, and agitation schemes. I'm sure there is some way to get EI 6400 out of Delta 3200. But maybe P3200 will hang on. Maybe it won't be discontinued in the next year. Who knows.</p>

    <p>Another example: Many of us want a b&w film in 220. Ok, we have several choices. We can either learn to replace it with 120, and just have more backs on hand at any given time. Or, maybe there will be something else available in 220 if there's enough demand. Maybe Kodak would make T-Max 400 in 220 if there's enough demand. Who knows.</p>

    <p>If Ektachrome E200 goes, we can push-process E100G or E100VS a stop or two. If we need to go faster, there is Fuji Provia 400x.</p>

    <p>If Portra 800 goes, there is Fuji 800Z. Or if the Fuji goes first, there is still the Kodak.</p>

    <p>Or if Kodak really doesn't want to continue in film at some point in the future, maybe another company would take over where they left off, buying that portion of the company.</p>

    <p>Whatever happens, I honestly think we will still have film in a range of speeds available, and in a range of types and sizes, from ISO 50 to EI 3200, for a long time. I really think we've weathered the worst of it. Once TXP in rolls and those several discontinued Ektachromes, and possibly several other films are gone, I think we're done for a while and can go back to enjoying the image rather than worrying that the medium is getting harder to find.</p>

    Some Kodak film to "Retire"

    in The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry

    Posted

    <p>Tom:</p>

    <p>I just gave you the link. As you will see, this was hastily handled by Kodak. Some of the film types may already have run out. Others, like P3200, they may deny.</p>

    <p>Note: the original poster of the apug thread (Martin Reed) is a Kodak dealer. He possibly even wasn't supposed to post this stuff publicly, who knows...but I and many others are glad that he did.</p>

    <p>It was not until after the thread started burning that Kodak came out with the offical statement!</p>

    <p>So that says to me they are possibly watching us. Why call another thread (this one) to their attention and risk getting dealers, distributors, and Kodak employees in trouble? We, the photographers, may not have known about this until much later had it not been for such people as Martin Reed and Patrick Mont's contact at Kodak.</p>

    Some Kodak film to "Retire"

    in The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry

    Posted

    <p>This thread is actually a child thread of a much larger original thread that has been burning over at apug for several days now.</p>

    <p>Edit: Link to original thread: <a href="http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/71265-some-kodak-b-w-film-deletions.html">http://www.apug.org/forums/forum172/71265-some-kodak-b-w-film-deletions.html</a></p>

    <p>If anyone thinks this thread is bad, wait until you read the original thread at apug.</p>

    <blockquote>

    <p>Again, I'll post what the kodak PR folks have to say about this on Monday.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Does this really have to be reported? It may not be the best thing to do as it could have nagative ramifications.</p>

    Some Kodak film to "Retire"

    in The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>People, people, this is a rumor. When someone posts "a contact told me" that is simply someone that is insecure and needs attn., please do not feed into rumors like this and there will be plenty of time to post your feelings on these issues when and IF the Orig. Mfr, in this case Kodak, puts out a press release with facts.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Please do not attack the original poster with such accusations. He does not need this sort of negativity.</p>

    <p>There already is a press release on Kodak's site stating that TXP is being discontinued in 120 and 220. Do not say there has not been a release. The OP has linked to it. I suggest reading it.</p>

    <blockquote>

    <p><br />Posts like this help no one and many more times then not, they are empty rumors.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>This is not an empty rumor. Again, TXP is being discontinued in roll film sizes. Therefore, there is no more b&w film of any type by any manufacturer that will be available in 220 format after the current TXP sells out.</p>

    <blockquote>

    <p>Anyway, X is not been discontinued and threads like this are useless and a waste of time.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Again, Tri-X 320 in roll film sizes is indeed being discontinued. Saying it has not been, and saying that everyone here is wasting their time--now that is most surely a waste of your time. Why fight it? Kodak isn't lying to us. They really are discontiuing TXP in roll film sizes. Arguing that Kodak has not done what they said is going to get us nowhere. They've made their decision, and nothing will likely change it.</p>

    Film recorders - are the results really that bad and are they actually obsolete/discontinued due to inkjet printers?

    in The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry

    Posted

    <blockquote>

    <p>I am working on a personal project to duplicate MF chromes. I scanned at 2400DPI on my Epson 4990 and sent the files in to dr5.com to be output on their 8K CRT film recorder. The results weren't perfect but I believe all of the error was in my scanning and processing of the file. I could see no evidence of any kind of artifact of the film recording process. <br />dr5.com maintains a quality line of CRT and LVT recorders. Give them a try.</p>

    </blockquote>

    <p>Thank you. I actually do intend to use Dr5, and I've already talked with David Wood. He recommended I try the CRT recorder on 6x7 film.</p>

    <p>I appreciate you sharing your experience. Good to know I'm not the only one interested.</p>

    <p>If you can be more specific about what worked for you and what didn't, I'd be grateful.</p>

    <p>Thanks.</p>

    Film recorders - are the results really that bad and are they actually obsolete/discontinued due to inkjet printers?

    in The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry

    Posted

    <p>It would seem that there would still be a demand for such services though, because of alternative / hybrid photographic processes.</p>

    <p>Are practitioners of hybrid processes doomed in the future as existing recorders fail? I ask because I'm just now getting into hybrid processes. There are still people who want film images from digital files for various reasons.</p>

    <p>A similar thing appears to be happening with quality film scanners (Nikon Coolscans have been out of stock at B&H for many months now). But there are still people who shoot film and want to digitize it, not to mention many, many existing libraries of images on slides and negatives.</p>

    Film recorders - are the results really that bad and are they actually obsolete/discontinued due to inkjet printers?

    in The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry

    Posted

    <p>I've been googling for people's experiences on film recorder output, and I've heard 2 common themes:</p>

    <p>1. CRT film recorder output is no good as far as quality when compared to even a duplicate slide, even when using 4x5 film as the output medium. "LVT" is apparently the only type of recorder that can produce results that are practically equal to film quality. (I want negatives that would be as close as possible to a negative captured in a camera.)</p>

    <p>Here is one of the threads that states that image quality from CRT models is terrible: <a href="../medium-format-photography-forum/0003M6">http://www.photo.net/medium-format-photography-forum/0003M6</a></p>

    <p>2. Film recorders (for still photography / non-cinematic use) are no longer made and thus parts for them are no longer available. As such, the technology will cease to be available after all the existing machines wear out over the next decade or so. The only options will then be digital printing onto RA-4 or inkjet/dye sub printers.</p>

    <p>A thread that states that recorders are obsolete now: <a href="../digital-darkroom-forum/00Sj4z">http://www.photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Sj4z</a></p>

    <p>Are these actually true statements? (That the quality is terrible and the machines are no longer made and are obsolete now due to inkjet printers)?<br />If so, it would seem that there could be a market for a company to make film recorders once again.<br /><a href="../medium-format-photography-forum/0003M6"></a></p>

    Kodachrome and the Road...

    in The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry

    Posted

    <p>Enjoy that home away from home!</p>

    <p>At some point in the coming weeks, I need to give you a call and do that interview. I just haven't had the time yet to prep for it. Is there going to be a block of time in which you won't be on the road and would be willing to sit down and chat for bit? I don't want to interfer while you're out doing your thing with the Kodachrome. You have my email address...</p>

    <p>As for me, I've been shooting a nice old little leaning New England style barn in the fall foliage for the last couple of weeks using Kodachrome 64. I took a few shots of it every few days. I think I finally got what I was looking for, and I think the Kodachrome will do justice to the red of the barn as well as the Autumn colors.</p>

    <p>best wishes.</p>

    "Green" Initiatives Ousting Traditional Photography?

    in The Wet Darkroom: Film, Paper & Chemistry

    Posted

    <p>"I once thought that digital imaging was 'green' but it's manufacture uses many extremely toxic chemicals and gases. Special plumbing is used to control and monitor gases and sensors throughout the plant warn of any leaks, no matter how small. Saftey and responsible handling is of paramount importance. There is no doubt that these substances are best dealt with by an experienced chemicals company - which is exactly what Kodak is - leaving no residual chemicals for users to dispose of and ensuring that digital capture is environmentally friendly."</p>

    <p>Source: <a href="http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/dcs.html">http://www.epi-centre.com/reports/dcs.html</a></p>

    Who still uses discontinued Nikon DSLR Bodies?

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>I own and regularly use a D1H and a D1x. They're my only digital SLRs. The D1H has great image quality at all ISO settings, while the D1x is amazing at ISO 125 but quickly deteriorates as you increase ISO. Both cameras have unlimited manual flash sync (as long as you don't undercut the flash duration with your shutter speed). And the viewfinders and especially the AF motors (for use of non-AF-S lenses) are second-to-none. The D1H had one of the best high-ISO capabilities until the D300 came along (it was even 1/3 to 1/2 stop cleaner than the D200). Of course now with the brand new D3s, we will have ISO 102,400 that looks nearly as good as 1600 on the original Nikon D1 of 1999. If you know what you're doing, you can get good service out of the NiMh batteries. The trick is to recharge them often and always recharge them before you store them, and to use them at least every few weeks, making certain to keep track of cycles and refresh roughly every 6 weeks.</p>

    <p>The following photo was taken at an ISO of Hi-2 (approx. 6400) with the D1H, at a slow shutter speed by available candle-light. The 8x10 print looks amazing.</p><div>00UkMD-180391684.jpg.e73a9661f8c99fee8a78a991f709e4a6.jpg</div>

×
×
  • Create New...