mike dixon

5D2, Contax Zeiss 50/1.4, about f2 at 1/40, ISO 3200<div></div>

Buy a decent monitor? My images typically look better on my (not-very-expensive) monitor than on my camera's LCD, especially after a few global adjustments.

One of my more-enduring projects is photographing the wildlife in the bars and clubs around Busan, where I live. It led to a gallery exhibit last summer (focused on the music scene). Not sure what else it will lead to, but at least it keeps me off the streets . . .<div></div>

I would recommend shooting with the 28-135mm for a while before purchasing any additional lenses. That will help you figure out your further needs.

5D2, Contax 50/1.4, 1/20 at about f2, ISO 1000.<div></div>

How many photographers, when they begin, start off with a clear idea and vision of what they want to accomplish? I agree that Frank had an idea and vision (as well as considerable experience) before he began, but I would be surprised if that vision were not further developed and shaped by the many thousands of photos he took. It's unrealistic to expect people who are trying something new to NOT take a lot of pointless photos. Sure, there are people who will never develop any clear vision of what they're trying to do, but I don't think that people who are madly snapping away are necessarily doing something wrong. They are at least doing something and enjoying their hobby. That's how I became passionate about photography; I'm not going to look down on others for going through the same stages.

<i>As a new street photographer I was guilty of smashing the shutter so often to get a shot, so at least one of the bunch might be better composed or focused. I guess its a learning process, now I think more and compose more and click less.</i><P> If it's any consolation, Robert Frank shot about 27,000 exposures (on film!) to get the seven dozen images that ended up in <i>The Americans</i>. Based on his "batting average," the guy must have been a total hack! If someone that unskilled could produce a book that profoundly influenced the entire genre, maybe there's hope for the rest of us . . . ;-)

5D2, Contax Zeiss 50/1.4 Planar, about f2 at 1/80, ISO 3200<div></div>

Okay, take out the additional step about the disclaimer. What you want is still a disruption of their workflow. They don't offer low prices because they're providing personalized service to each customer. The low prices comes from a largely-automated, efficient workflow. "All they need is another box that I can check to ask for first class mail of my negatives." All they need to do is add an additional option on their website and add additional fields to their database, set up another printer loaded with a different type of envelopes, and modify their standard workflow to leave out the burning of a CD (or have someone manually pull out the unwanted CD). Do they really have enough customers wanting only negatives to justify the complications and expense?

I'm sure it's possible for them to mail you just the negatives. So how much are you willing to pay to cover the extra time the processor's employees will have to spend in talking to you to determine exactly what you want, dealing with a disclaimer that you won't hold them liable for negatives that went missing in the regular mail, pulling your order out of the usual workflow, and dealing with the exceptions to their workflow? They're probably not willing to do all that just for the tiny profit they get from processing and scanning one roll of film.