dakotah_jackson

"If they want to compete, why don't they design their own systems and compete on their own merits rather than be content to let others do all the hard work whilst they ride their coat-tails?

 

I see them purely as leaches who ultimately damage the industry."

 

Just like them the auto industry has all the aftermarket 'knockoff' products too. (but in the auto industry they are 'leeches')

 

If you make a product and someone else makes an article that will work with it, what is wrong with that? No one is forcing you to purchase it. In many cases the existence of the aftermarket makers is what keeps the main maker pricing within reason. A product with no other options for accessories is way too expensive. (can you say Leica?,,, where my spell checker keeps suggesting leech)

This is one of those things that manual film cameras are still better used for. No limitation on exposure times due to battery life and cold weather performance is just fine as well.

Hope they make it in OD green like the Voigtlander.

"I need to know what this film is."

 

It is Ultrafine 100.

 

"I have several rolls of this film ready to process, and I don't really want to waste any in clip tests etc."

 

If you don't have time to do some basic testing maybe you should take up knitting or something similar instead of trying to be a "picture taker".

 

If you are too lazy to shoot a test roll or two and do some basic development checks you are wasting your time with a camera.

Rodinal, especially with the additions of Sodium Ascorbate works well for rotary processing. Nice and clean negatives with the sharpness Rodinal is famous for.

You are 'loosing' a half gallon of D76 every four months? Do you mean losing? Shoot enough to use the chemistry and this won't happen.

 

The Clayton developers work just fine. Comparable in results to D76.

 

Next post try using capitalization and check your spelling.

"If I do it professionally then it is work. If it is work then I loose my passion for it."

 

I do it professionally that that does "loose" my passion for it. It does not 'LOSE' it though. I shoot for pay and then come back and shoot for fun and then go on vacation and shoot for a hobby & relaxation & enjoyment. There is no reason at all that ones profession has to be something they don't want to do in their spare time as well.

 

Go and shoot two HS ballgames and then on the way back set up the 8x10 on an abandoned farmhouse. Spend half the night developing the 8x10 stuff and then in the morning editing the digital take to send to the newspaper editor and to put up on the website for the school/kids/parents to purchase. Then set a portrait shoot with a family reunion who will have 135 people there and plan on how to do it.

 

No reason in the world to get a 'real job' when you can have so much fun with the cameras and have a hobby/avocation as your method of making a living.

It didn't. They are two different films.

Sure do miss the old Fuji 50. It was a great match for printing on Cibachrome.

Glad that image quality is redefined with this one. If they keep it up they will some day get closer to the quality available from the bigger film formats at 1/10 the cost.

The issue is whether you want to crop on the camera or later in Photoshop.

 

The issue is whether or not you are a good enough photographer to get what you want in the framing of the camera body you use without being forced to crop later. The old Robert Capa (war photog) saying is valid here: "If your pictures aren't good enough, you aren't close enough."

 

If you look at much of the work of the top photographers in most areas you will find frame filling images planned that way at the time of shooting. Some crops are forced by circumstances but many of them are planned that way at the time of shooting also. Not being able to walk forward due to cliffs, fences and whatnot come to mind here.

 

The full frame cameras do have a big time edge in wide angle photography as you keep the same aspect you grew used to with 35mm film cameras. With the 'crop sensor' models you have the big advantage of more 'effective reach' while using the full available framing without the penalty of light loss incurred in sticking a teleconverter onto a full frame body. A 400 f/2.8 on the 30D is the basic equivalent of a 600 f/4 on a 5D... but you are a full stop faster with the aperture setting wide open. That is a big advantage when you can shoot and fill the frame on the fly and take advantage of every pixel the camera can capture.

 

I know many shoot planning to crop and do it often. A waste of time and vision both when pushing yourself will get you using the full framing capability of whatever camera system you have. The image sizing is so small to begin with, 35mm film or fullframe to 1.6 crop sensor bodies that planning to crop further only degrades image quality.

 

I know many will say they can enlarge to whatever and quality is there. I come from 8x10 format and news photography and the quality of the small cameras is so far down the line compared to the bigger formats it is not even on the same continent. But... I can't shoot football, news and action with the 8x10 and do it right. Different horses for different courses just as with the 1.6/1.3 crop and full frame.<div></div>

go to http://www.birdsasart.com and get more useful info on this topic than you may ever want. Arthur Morris is the most published bird photographer around. A Canon shooter, he has a number of posts and info articles on various lenses in the lineup.

 

The 400 f/5.6 is a good lens for your purposes. But go and read what Morris says and that may help a lot with your decision.

When are these NYC types going to start assessing big charges to all writers who pen/type/word process anything that mentions New York City? They are more damaging to the city than the photos taken by most I have seen. Most of them probably have more money to spend anyhow.

Yes, a 'tongue in cheek' joke. It is frustrating to have something fixed only to have another problem crop up. Most likely as a result of the guys who fixed the original problem. Doesn't instill much confidence in their work.

 

The digital cameras are scanners in a small box. Computers that are hand holdable for recording what is in front of the camera.(or at 90 degrees or so with some)

 

I have not yet seen a computer that doesn't break down, freeze up, or have problems of some sort. It is no wonder we see so many complaints about the digital cameras. Not nearly as sturdy as my old Nikon F2 or even the old Calumet 4x5. Maybe gee whiz technology but same old DAMMIT frustration when they don't work right.

Sorry if I'm sounding a bit strong Peter - sometimes I just see red when people try to inject rubbish like that (probably a troll).

 

I can outfit a complete B&W darkroom with a solid 6x7 enlarger these days for under $200 and it will last much longer than the computers and printers I am using.

 

We do have a track record for well processed B&W silver prints, pt/pd, Carbon an other alternative processes. We don't have much of one for digital printing yet.

 

As far as digital backup goes most of it is not as stable as a well processed negative. Care to work with old 5 1/4 floppies? How about Zip disks? I have a nice stack of both that won't open any longer. Then we come to CD's and DVD's. I and others have stacks that won't open, including some of the nice Gold ones. Eastman Kodak engineers still advocate "make a Silver based B&W negative" if you want it to last as every digital media made loses information.

 

Before our Bollocksboy gets too uptight, I have taught Photoshop classes as well as B&W printing in silver and alt processes. There are many ways to good images but if you really want them to last the tried and true is still with us while the digital products are all over the place. Some fine digital paper/ink combinations look great but start fading within months. Change the paper/ink combination and you are in the same boat as a B&W darkroom worker who thinks they save time and money by cutting back on rinse time after fixing.

 

I see some very nice B&W work but in general it is all over the place just like looking at the work of High School/college students from a B&W beginning photo class.

 

My choice for fine B&W is simple. 8x10(and larger) contact prints are preferred in both silver and alt processes. Good enlargements from the original negatives. Good contact prints from enlarged negatives.

 

The choices of papers and chemistry give some results I have not yet seen with digital. Improvements are coming in the digital world but too much of it is still at the 'look what I did' stage. Few mature workers whose images match the vision of a Caponigro/Michael A. Smith/Tillman Crane/Dick Arentz out there.

 

But, bad digital is just like bad B&W prints. The sooner they fade the better off the world is.

Hope they do it and give some specifics so we can plan for the upcoming Christmas Holiday season.

If the new CS3 comes with it, do the tutorial. One the earlier versions 4 and up that I have worked with, there was a totorial. Almost all the problems friends have run into were answered in the tutorial that came with the product. The totorial they never used. Would have saved them a ton of time and frustration if they had take an hour a day for a couple weeks and just done it.

The FP4+ is one very good film. Anchell in The Darkroom Cookbook refers it to 'the film to judge all others by'. It is very good, forgiving and gives excellent results. Works well in pyro developers and especially well with Sandy Kings Pyrocat HD.

 

No matter what you end up using if you work carefully you can get good results.

Before deciding you might look at Breezebrowser. It is very fast and easy to use and supports a lot of formats. http://www.birdsasart.com will get you to a user who recommends it. If it works for the number of images Arthur Morris shoots you shouldn't have any problems.

My comparison is silver, pt/pd and carbon. (real carbon prints, not the inkjet 'carbon' which is not a carbon emulion three dimensional print).

 

Have been printing since the early 1970's and have many silver emulsion fibre prints from that time still hanging in various places. No problems with them. I just don't do RC at all.

 

Yes, Cibachrome/Ilfochrome doesn't last like it was claimed. Ilford probably would have gone bankrupt replacing them with their 100 year guarantee if they had not already faced bankruptcy.

 

Am looking for a comfort zone with the prints. Mishandling is one thing. Conservation framing with high museum standards is what I look at in display. Anything else is a crapshoot, including using wood frames without sealing the rabbit to prevent outgassing problems and having Artcare board backing as well as a good dust seal.

 

Currently Fuji Crystal Archive has been looking good for a lot of prints. Life is expected to be in the 75 year range. The ones I worry about are 2-10 years down the line and fading overall or in one or two colors starts showing up. "Just reprint it" may be fine for my own wall but a few hundred clients, customers and some museums don't really fall under that option for various reasons.

 

As to this: "Speaking purely technically, only an abject idjit suggests 100 years without change, or has ever has done so." You probably don't work in pt/pd or carbon printing. Most likely not in high end silver printing. There are photo materials that last if cared for. The materials aren't 'fugitive' in the same terms of the dyes and inks used in so much digital printing. They are expected to last and do if experience over the past 100+ years is looked at.

I asked this a few weeks ago and since have tried five different programs for the DVD's to be readable on TV players. None of the programs are readable on all friends machines. Some play on more than half but none on all we tried.

 

Don't know why this is but sure is frustrating.

Sounds as if I won't be able to use it at f/2 or f/2.8 and pretty much wide open. Am used to using them for fill with the 8x10 LF film gear for and with 35mm for Rodeo work. Now with the digital stuff I seem to be finding this stuff doesn't work as well.

In reading a lot of the claims of digital printers it gets confusing. Wilhelm

testing gives some information. Some printer makers give some info but it is

even more confusing. The Canon printers look great until you realize the long

life claimed is only if you leave the prints in the dark. Expose to light and

you dont have much life left.

 

Some of the Epson and HP newer inksets have a longer life per the testing.

 

We rely on this 'best information' in making decisions and some of this

information really makes some nice claims for expected print life on display.

 

Just like Kodak/Ilford/Afga/others with RC papers. Yet too many labs went broke

when they bought into the claims and discovered the papers did not last. Some

photographers went broke, out of business, filed bankruptcy or nearly so as they

found themselves having clients with prints fading/browning as they hung for

display.

 

When/if these inkjet prints start fading way before the expected time, who pays

for redoing them? Sell someone a premium priced 'fine art' print and get a call

two years later about the print turning colors (even when framed behind glass,

conservation mats & frames), what do you do? The simple answer is 'reprint' the

image. If you have a few hundred prints out there you will go broke trying to do

so... not to mention the hit your reputation will take for your selling 'fine

art' that fades right off the walls.

 

So, who pays for the reprinting when this happens?

Be aware that the long life claims of the Canon printers is for prints kept in the dark. If you view or display them in light the life drops way, way down to about the same as cheap Konica photo papers from a one hour lab.

 

Take a look at the Wilhelm site for more info on how long the prints are expected to last.

Anyone know what auto capabilities you have if using a Metz 60CT4 wity the SCA

3102(and optional 3000C cord) with an EOS 30D digital body?

 

Does Ettl or any of the auto function work with this combination? I like the

power of the big Metz units and the handle mount which works great as a grip

during events. Just want to find out if it will work with the 30D with all the

options or what I will be giving up. If I have to give up too much I will go

with the Canon flash I guess and just use the bit Metz units for stand mounted

portables in manual setups.

Even here in North Dakota we are getting the effects of the fires far to the West. No smell and still visibility of 20+ miles without a problem but it sure makes for some nice sunset shots. The smoke stacking on the horizon makes the directly into the sun shooting much easier to do.

 

The attached is from yesterday evening. 85mm lens<div></div>