christopher earle photogra

<p>I suppose it is a shame, however I was always cautious about "crowdsourcing" photographic content. They had issues with censorship as well. Interesting idea, but one that from the getgo had a higher chance of failure than of success.</p>

The abject HORROR of it! To think, people are BORN nude! Truly horrifying....

 

:-p....

Something else to consider is (as suggested) natural light, but without a flash. How about windowlight portraits using a white reflector as a fill? An investment in a good tripod might be necessary, but I think that window light style portraits would be beautiful (and congratulations, I remember pondering similar things 15 years ago :-D).

What strikes me as bizarre is that the police got involved over someone asking permission to photograph. What a wierd, paranoid place Naperville must be....

I think one's lifestyle choices have a far greater impact on CO2 emmissions than which medium a photographer uses (I'm a photographic

whore, I'll sleep with whatever medium will get me the photographic results I'm after, he he).

 

It IS very much possible for a photographer to have zero CO2 emmissions, but when I went through the environmental analysis exercise a

while back, photography was less than 10% of my CO2 output (but more than 5, can't recall exactly). As far as photography goes, I ended up

moving to strobes as much as possible for studio lighting (lower power consumption, and they don't heat up the room requiring more A/C). I

still use hotlights for some shots because I haven't figured out how to replicate the light of a 1950s Strand Fresnel with strobes (any

suggestions?).

 

I think the most important decision I made was to quit obsessively looking at every new gadget that comes out. It struck me one day that the

WORST lens that I own is better than the BEST lens that Edward Weston used (probably). It struck me that if I can't make the photograph that I

envision 95% of the time with the equipment that I already *own*, then I probably should look for another career. SURE, I'd LOVE to have a

Leica with a 50mm f/1.0.....or an 8x10 view camera, but the reality is that I can probably get the shot with what is alreay in my studio.

 

The other thing, in those rare cases where I DO need something that I don't own, I try and rent. If I can't rent, then I look for it used...

 

The other tricks for me to become carbon neutral were: I no longer own a car, I bike everywhere (and yep, there are bags for bicycles that are

*excellent* camera bags), and I subscribed to my local power company's wind program. When I calculated CO2 footprint after that, I simply

bought offsets (yes, there are some questions as to their usefullness, but at the moment its all we've got). I actually had *wondered* if I was

the only photographer worried about these issues :-).

I don't think it is Tri-X/Plus-X. I talked with Freestyle at great length about it because I need a 400 ASA 35mm film that can be pushed to 1600/3200. Their recommendation was Tri-X or HP5 (what I'm currently using). It sounded like Arista Ultra EDU is rebranded Foma Pan (which is one of my favorite films rated at 400), but we didn't get into much detail on the Arista Premium, other than the fact that I probably wouldn't be able to push it to the level I need for this project.

 

If I misunderstood and the Arista Premium IS Kodak traditional emulsion, I'm probably going to empty my bank account into Freestyle's and fill my freezer with it :-).