d_s31

Oh, when on those auction sites, be careful. I'm watching one on eBay right that says that they "know nothing about cameras" and that they're selling the camera for "an elderly lady" who brought the camera in. She says that her deceased husband used it. It has no lens. I have to wonder why this "working" camera was stuck in a closet without a lens. It may be a good deal but I'm skeptical when cameras are sold by folks who explicitly say that "they no nothing about cameras" but then list the specs and say that "it's a working camera in great condition!" - Right.<br/>To overhaul a MF camera runs about $200+/-. So keep that in mind if you want to buy a "fixer upper". <p/>The Rolleis have a bad reputation for their shutters freezing up - so watch out when you see those vintage Rolleis. <p/>Don't rush. There's plenty of good used MF cameras coming on the market in the future as more folks go digital. I hope I didn't sound like your folks!

6x6? eBay. To get that cheap ($200-$300) and actually work you'll have to go with a Twins Lens Reflex (TLR) or some other brand other than Hassalblad or Rollei. I think the other companies that made 6x6 interchangeable SLRs where: Contax, Bronica, and Mamiya? Check those brands out when on eBay or any other listing site for cameras. <p/>You can buy new TLRs - Seagull brand - in your price range, but from what I hear, their image quality and quality overall is not that good. Then there's always a Holga - $25. Don't worry too much. I've been watching the film camera prices slide now for a while. Currently, from what I've seen, MF cameras are going for about 30 cents on the dollar from new - and declining - for cameras in excellent condition. <p/>Good luck!

Frank, that reasoning can be extended to the point of banning all street photography. Anything and everything can be used for "less innocent" purposes. If someone wants to have a map of the subway stations, they can go get one for free. Here in Atlanta, the train maps are <a href=http://www.itsmarta.com/maps/viewer.asp>online</a> - and there's no problem here. <p/>How far do we have to go before we all can feel safe from terrorism? Is this living our lives "normally" like we were told after 9/11? It doesn't seem so to me.

From the article: <i>It?s an unusual thing to see an artist who doesn?t create his own work, and I don?t understand the frenzy around it.?</i><p/>He's not an artist if he's not creating own his work. Prince is just a manual copy machine - no talent.

I would look here: <a href=http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/category/4972/Printers_Scanners_Printers_Accessories.html> B&H Photo and Video's printer section</a>. They have the equipment to print such things. <p/>To keep the costs down, you'll have to go bulk - meaning buying <i>rolls</i> of paper and ink by the drum.

I have never done business in Florida but basically this is what I do when I set up a business in a particular state:

 

<ol>

<li/>If you have an accountant, ask him.

<li/>Talk to your Chamber of Commerce.

<li/>I suggest incorporating or a Limited Liability company: an attorney or accountant can help you with that - lawyers are better if you are not familiar with the in and outs of having a legal business entity.

<li/>Web search - BUT, only from trusted sources. For example: <a href=http://www.flchamber.com/mx/hm.asp?id=home> FL Chamber of Commerce</a>. Not from Joe's Business and Legal site that will make you rich over night by giving him $1,000.00 payable to "Cash".

</ol>

The one thing I forgot to add is that with a 6x7 negative, you will have a very high resolution original. So, in the future as scanning technology gets better, you will still have that original with all of its detail and dynamic range. And if your area is like mine (Metro Atlanta), many of the locations you've shot in will be buried under some development sooner or later *sigh*.

Unless you have a darkroom with those enlargement capabilities or a lab that can do it <i>from the negative</i>, I wonder if it is worth it. <p/>Let me explain. Every place that I've visited and asked about enlargements, they told me that anything 11"x14" and up is scanned and then printed on an ink jet. When I asked what they're using for a scanner, it's usually some flatbed Epson. By the way, they would charge $10+ for the "premium" scanning fee and then $++ for the printing. So an enlargement from a negative was a minimum of $30. What I'm saying is, you might be better off with your D200.<p/>Of course, that's just my experience in my area. Oh, I printed a 11"x14" from a 5mp (1.21 MB JPEG) P&S camera and it looks marvelous! <p/>My apologies for second guessing you and not really answering your question. I just wanted to point this out.

The more you hide; the more the imagination fills in and as a result, it adds mystery and eroticism. Of course, in the end, it all depends on what you're trying to get across in the photo.

I've gotten some real bargains up there. And, yes, sometimes, I get "sniped", but as far as I'm concerned, it went well. I look around to see what the item is currently going for in the open market - watch auctions of things I'm interested in, see what the dealers are charging, etc... I know, especially with film related items, things will get cheaper. If I'm interested in an item, I set the maximum I'm willing to pay. I refuse to get sucked up into the bidding war crap. And if someone wins an item by bidding the next bid level above me, so be it. Some of those snipers are schill bidders trying to get more money for the seller at the last minute anyway. <p/>It happened to me recently. The account that bid against me was brand new. (Yeah, it's possible that it was a newbie.) Anyway, it knocked me up to my max, and I just watched and did nothing. I won and within my maximum bid. I knew, that another item just like it would come up for sale eventually and I also found another one somewhere else for the same amount - I couldn't loose.

I think it's just the wrong third you were using. If you put the eagle on the left third instead of the right, it may look better.

I'm trying to find a link. But in short, he used a camera that had a broken lens. The photos where split down the middle and it is said that it inspired him to invent cubism.

I would ask how many times they want to use the image. Then take the fee you would charge for image use when selling the prints. To back track the number, take the selling price of your prints, minus the printing costs, minus the markup you charge on top of the printing costs to arrive at the license fee per image - that's assuming you don't know and you've been ball parking the fee per image all this time. Don't forget to add any fixed costs you have: utilities, insurance, and any other business overhead yo may have.<p/>of course, you can always just guess.

FYI, I just got the December "Consumer Reports" and they rate the D40 (not the D40x) as the best buy for DSLRs.

Or you can cut the negative and paste it to the back of the print. The negative is still intact enough to see that it's really the print and you can't really print it again - at least with the original quality.

I use Wolf. And I just do a process and cheap scan CD only - no prints. ~$10. If there's something I like, I'll have that printed.<p/>From what I've seen, the grain on the Porta is finer. You pay for it too. The Porta runs a couple of dollars more per roll of 36 exp. than the UC. I'm still experimenting. As Winter approaches, I'm back to shooting B&W most of the time.

Porta VC is still available in 120 and you'll get the same saturated colors like the UC.<p/><a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/6647047>UC 400 Photo</a><p/><a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/6670041>Porta VC 160</a>

From KODAK:<br/>

"Conversion will occur on a stock-turnover basis, beginning in December 2007."<p/>So, it looks like we won't be able to get it until the current inventory of TMY has been sold out. Bummer! I'm really anxious to shoot with this stuff.

Dan, I have no idea what MTF is. Nor do I understand a word in next two sentences - I'm not an engineer: just a programmer. <p/><i>No matter how many MP the 24 x 36 chip has, how can the images it captures produce a critically sharp larger than (to be generous) 240 x 360 mm? That's not very big.</i><p/>Was that a typo (240x360mm)? That's, what, a bit less than 12"x18"? A 7mp camera can do that easily. I don't understand.

My opinion is that the curves and whatnot of the post processing of digital images is for the photographer to make up for the "stupidity" of the computers in their cameras. As technology improves, there will be less of a need for post processing. Post processing will be used mostly to augment the cameras image. For example, making a digital image look like film or a water color.<p/>I think were digital will really shine is high dynamic range photography, photos that represent more of what the human eye can see, and who knows what else is in store.

<i>...doesn't mean that f/stops and shutter speeds have lost their meaning.</i><p/>f-stops is a ratio and thinking about it, I don't see how the programmers of the cameras can get away from that - it's optical science, isn't it? But then again, computers can have an infinite number of apertures between the max and min of a particular lens. Shutter speed is the same thing: another variable in the exposure algorithm - but how to have an interface that tells the computer that you're panning and actually want the background to be blurry or vice versa!

<i>The "film days" language isn't confusing to those familiar with it...</i><p/>My niece is now 5 and she's been shooting since she was 31/2 with P&S cameras. I don't think she'll ever be familiar with the film lingo unless she goes out of her way to learn it - from old photo books. Even then, the film lingo will be confusing because it really doesn't apply to digital. It's really an abstraction for us "old timers" to make the transition. Which I'm saying is that I agree with you:<p/><i>The marketeers will be on top of it and change the language, probably a few months before the mass is reached.</i><p/>My niece who has no concept of film, LPs, analog TV, or analog anything ;-), will be the target market in about 10 years, maybe?

Agreed. A an equivalent of large format doesn't exist from what I've seen and if it did, it would probably be over a $100,000.<p/>Oh, BTW, on my P&S camera, there is an ISO setting, but it's a couple of menus removed from the main "menu" button.

With the introduction of the Canon Mark IIIs (22 mega pixel 36x24mm sensor), I'm

beginning to see the lines blurred between "Medium format" and "small format".

The Mark IIIs has the resolution of a low end Hass. When speaking of digital,

I'm beginning to think that calling something "medium format" is going to be

meaningless - at least in the digital world - and eventually the same for large

format. <p/>It's already happening with the exposure settings on cameras. For

consumer P&S cameras, I can't think of any model where there is any mention of

"f stop", "shutter speed" and "iso". It's just settings for: portraits, close

up, scenic, action, etc... I won't be surprised if it happens to DSLRs and the

"medium format" cameras. I think there will be just settings for how fast your

subject is, what kind of dof you want, noise level, and maybe some other

settings. In other words, iso, f-stop, shutter speed, will become a thing of the

past.<p/>Personally, I think in the digital world, the paradigm of film exposure

and size is becoming an unnecessary and confusing relic from the films days.

Don't get me wrong, as someone still using film the majority of the time, it's

nice to see familiar setting on today's cameras. But I'm just saying, the film

paradigm is too limiting for digital.

@John Wilson - I do the exact same thing! And to add, I think some snipers are schill bidders trying to get more money for the seller at the last minute hoping that the auto bidding will run up the real bidder. By being ruthless about what your willing to pay, those type of shenanigans don't work