dried_squid

I tried the Domke F6. Normally I carry only 2 of my 5 lenses. Sometimes 3. Always carry 2 bodies, one with a winder, and an incident light meter. Plus film, filters, etc.

http://www.tiffen.com/displayproduct.html?tablename=domke&itemnum=700-60B

There are pockets in front, back, and in the cover. I like the steel snap hooks.

I liked the F6 enough, that I bought a second. to hold the other stuff that stays at home, or just in case.

I'm thinking of getting a third bag, the F-803

http://www.tiffen.com/displayproduct.html?tablename=domke&itemnum=701-83S

Not to add a laptop, but a plain-old kid-type 99-cent composition book.

And they're Made in the USA.

In a photograph, or any inanimate object, generally, I don't differentiate between nude and naked. As to art, I tend to agree with LuisG.

Here's something I ran into recently, and it considers the viewer. It's about "Aesthetics".

"In his book 'Art and Experience', Dewey (1934) wants to reclaim the aesthetic from the narrow and elitist confines of "museum art" and place it as a theme of human experience. For Dewey, the aesthetic experience is of central interest. Moreover, rarefied aesthetic experiences are simple an extreme form of what all humans experience in a wide variety of endeavours. Indeed, Dewey seeks, first and foremost, to situate the aesthetic squarely in more common, natural settings:

in order to understand the esthetic in its ultimate and approved forms, one must begin with it in the raw; in the events and scenes that hold the attentive eye and ear of man, arousing his interest and affording him enjoyment as he looks and listens (p5).

..."

"... In Dewey's conception, the aesthetic does not describe the qualities of perceptual artifacts; rather, it characterizes experiences that are satisfactory and consummatory.... While previous philosophers focused on the form of perceptual objects (colour, structure, etc.), Dewey looks for integration with the human being in interaction with the world."

- from "The Best Writing on Mathematics 2010" edited by Mircea Pitici, page 214 in 'Aesthetics'

Here's a picture I like very much. Maybe because it's Kodachrome. For all I know, it's a happy snap.

http://community.ovationtv.com/_Reclining-Nude-by-Window-Color/photo/11427177/16878.html

=> "... reclaim the aesthetic from the narrow and elitist confines of "museum art" and place it as a theme of human experience."

I don't really get it. I'm an amateur, and my frame rate per subject varies with both my subject and some emotional rock in my head on which my attention stands.

Let me first say, the topic has provoked some introspection and discovery.

There are three things going on when I decide I want to get a picture. First there's some ticker in my lizard brain which pricked my move to action. Second, there's my corporeal body existing in time and space, at distance x, selecting lens or camera body, and thinking exposure values like f/4 @ 1/60. Lastly, there's the subject. Could be five year olds around a cake of flaming birthday candles, a landscape evolving in the golden hours, or a near static bloom in either flora or fauna.

Three things in the zone - interrelated and interacting in concert. In which case, frames per second is driven by the subject and moment, simply one of many choices in the flow.

I thinks that's why I go out to take pictures. The search. And, the doing.

There's a Peter Lik store in Honolulu. It's absolutely wonderful to see large, as in 3x5 foot, glossy color prints.

TV won't do his work, or his printer, justice. But I'm glad he's getting the opportunity to have his work reach a broader audience.

Heck, I'm glad if any photographer's prints reach a broader audience.

To me, photographic prints are integral to the notion of photography. Whether it's an art print or poster-sized ad at the mall.

I think so.

From what I understand, the gamers still prefer desktop PCs. To me it seems right. With a desktop it's easier to manage a workaround for an equipment failure, or upgrade one part in the system. I think for many, such factors outweigh size and mobility.

Jay De Fehr - I am speaking for something, and not against. As to strained metaphors, the intention was to speak true, I feel that way. It's perception, ontology, or silly sentiment. I am speaking of my favorite slides which I took.

As to the advantages of a digital workflow, I recognize the advantages. But honestly, I can't afford it. I find it hard enough to maintain the non-photographic components of my computing life. Not meaning to be crass, but if I had it to do, to replace my film cameras and lenses, I desire two D700s, a 35mm, and an 85mm. That's a lot of film, processing, and scanning. And I barely shoot three 36x rolls a month.

So that's why I use film, for me, it keeps photography within my means.

For some, there's a preciousness about the physical. Like a flower fresh. Or music live. Or being in the picture as compared to seeing it pinned to a bulletin board for the internet.

To me, my favorite color slides are unique. I don't expect them to last forever. But for now, they are valuable. So the availability of film is required. At least to me.

<p>Perhaps I have a different personality, but why not try "Thank you very much for asking, but no thank you." After all, aren't they asking for something which is yours?</p>

<p>If they don't understand why they can't have them all, say "Because, .... oh did you hear that?", and walk away politely.</p>

<p>You might also consider that if you give them all, some images may be used in a way which you might not agree, and your subjects "trusted' you. Not the third party.</p>

<p>The internet is open and promiscuous. Digital makes it easy.</p>

<p>I shoot manual all the time, and slide film is my favorite film type. But I'm not sure what the discussion is really about. Seems to me that shooting manually is more about intent. Why do I shoot manually? Because for me, it's the most fun way to make a picture. I would not recommend manual to someone new to photography who wants to increase their percentage of "keepers". In fact, in this day age, I'm not even sure if camera sales relate to an interest in photography at all.</p>

<p>I suspect there are many who do not comprehend my enjoyment of a photographic print. Like those who feel a print always unnecessary.</p>

<p>What is the question in this discussion?</p>

I like slides. To me, slides are easy to troubleshoot.

SMUE, stupid moron user errors, occur, and with a slide, it's simpler to figure out.

Sometimes the gods favor me, and the slide sits there on the light table, and all I can do is wonder.

As a computer guy for over twenty years, I suggest that epiphany requires something organic, like film.

And yes, I will miss Kodachrome on blue sky days.

<p>I don't think there's a "correct" way. Your current practice of guess-timation works for me.</p>

<p>There is one way which is odd looking but faster. And I've done it when I didn't have the space, or was lazy. Adjust the lengths of the legs as if they were monopods, then don't spread the legs. Looks silly, but it does serve the purpose of helping you stabilize the camera.</p>

<p>A thought. You didn't mention if you had a quick release head for your tripod, and quick release plate(s) for your camera(s). To me, the additional cost is very very well worth it. You know you want to use your tripod, and the quick release setup feels much easier than no quick release setup. Mind over matter.</p>

<p>Happy New Year.</p>

Brian M - I think Kodachrome was processed in Honolulu HI in the '80s.

From the Kodachrome group on flickr.com

"Now that KODACHROME is gone..."

http://www.flickr.com/groups/kodachrome/discuss/72157625707831764/72157625707938746/

DxO Filmpack

http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/filmpack/introduction

Available Film Looks

http://www.dxo.com/us/photo/filmpack/available_film_looks

I don't know the product. I don't have a digital camera. And my digital photo editing skills are rudimentary.

Any way, what I will miss is my Kodachromes laid out across a light table.

Do we have to excel? Must we want to excel?

I'm an amateur too. I don't consider myself creative. I do know I like the idea of making things. It could be a picture. Or it could be a soup based on a frozen ham hock.

Is it not enough to just enjoy the doing? Or as someone once asked "When do you go photographic?" Recently it occurred to me that for me, as a Photographer, it's no different than as a Fisherman. It's the opportunity to go there and try that matters. Most the time when I go out to shoot, there's no reason, just a meager gladness to have the chance. And sometimes the gods smile upon me.

Doesn't everyone have shots they like despite technical, social, or artistic reasons to the contrary? Is there something wrong with that? I decline to believe.

Happy New Year everyone. I wish you all good light and fun juxtapositions. The Force be with you ... and all your cameras.

I'm not sure if this is flash for main light or fill. But since you've calibrated your flash, and have a Guide Number, for "flash for main light", have you considered shooting at fixed flash-to-subject distances?

Years ago I had a flash I rated at GN 80 with ISO 100. I limited my shots to 3.5, 5 and 7 feet, and f/8. These distances were close to 1 f-stop differences. So I prefocused by the lens barrel (all three distances are marked on my 35mm and 85mm), set the power ratio, and walked into each shot. Eg. ISO 100 at 5 feet and f/8, with power ratio at 1/4. I was using an L-type flash bracket.

It solved dim light focusing problems for me. DoF at f/8 is pretty good, and 1/4 power is short duration. I believe this is an old time photojournalist strategy. Don't worry about the framing. Get the shot in focus and well-exposed, then crop as necessary.

Good luck.

<p>The sidearm attaches to the legs, and then one attaches the head to the sidearm. It allows lateral adjustments without moving the legs.</p>

<p>http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/20801-REG/Gitzo_G532_G_532_Lateral_Side_Arm.html</p>

<p>I've had similar contraptions in the past. I've used them as a make-shift focusing rail, and also in a series of panned shots. Also in combination with the center post inverted.</p>

<p>Or were you just joking? Whatever. Happy Holidays.</p>

Karim Ghantous - Thanks for the thoughts.

There are many intangibles in photography. For example, I like the weight and feel of my old Nikon FE and my fixed-focus AIS lenses. I'm used to the balance.

There are many idiosyncrasies in hobbies. And we all make our choices. Couple years ago, instead of buying a new digital SLR and autofocus lens, I chose a new eye-level Gitzo, two heads, and a sidearm. I believe my thirtyish nephew and niece were dumbfounded at the cost. After all, with digital, one can change ISO on the fly. But I'm very much pleased with the choice. And silly me, I believe I was helping the economy.

I love 'em, but they just don't understand. Sometimes I wait for a shot - the wind, or the clouds, or the angle of the light, and for times like that, a friendly tripod is worth it. I bet my nephew never waits for a shot. His priorities are different.

At this point, my hybrid workflow, film-scan-print works for me. Everybody can take good pictures, it's just that we prefer different ways to do it.

<p>If people suggest digital to me, I tell them I can't afford it.</p>

<p>My basic kit includes two Nikon FE's, 35mm f/2, and 85mm f/2. If I could, to replace them, I would like two D700's, I like the 2:3 aspect ratio, 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/2. That's a lot of money.</p>

<p>Plus the computer hardware and software upgrades. That's more money, and more often.</p>

<p>As a computer guy, I know the time and money for upgrades, relearning, and changing workflows. So, I can't afford it.</p>

<p>With color neg, 30 out of 36. With B&W, 1 out of 36. With transparency, 3 out 36.</p>

<p>I'm down to my last two rolls of Kodachrome. For these, I hope for 3 out of 36.</p>

<p>I'm an amateur. I get some good ones. And simple me, it makes me happy.</p>

<p>Wow. I don't know about the Paul Simon's song, but I'm "framing" Luis G's tribute -</p>

<p> Luis G [Frequent poster] , Oct 31, 2010; 11:49 p.m.<br /><br />"...<br />While I agree that the earlier K25 was, the later Kodachrome, specially the K64, in my opinion, (and I shot thousands of rolls of it) was not truthful, simple, honest nor sentimental. It was the first film for photographing in a hyperreal color mode.<br /><br />It blew the doors of perception off the hinges. It didn't even attempt forensically faithful reproduction. Anyone who owned a Macbeth chart can tell you this. What was unique about it, and set it apart from every other photon-embracing medium (except for the Lumiere dyed potato starch grain process) was that it was designed by artists, the Leopolds Mannes & Godowsky, not just scientists or technicians. Kodachrome, dripping with character, poetic in nature and almost able to sense the invisible was an extraordinary palette, a work of art in itself. Literally, an art film, not in the sense that it conferred "instant art" status (what does?), but if you allowed the right light and vision to rain down on it , Kodachrome would sing in your hands as nothing else does.<br />..."</p>

<p>I agree.</p>

I returned to photography in 2008. After about 10 unconscious rolls in more than 20 years. Guess I disallowed resources for a hobby. I know pros live under different conditions.

I forgot what I liked about photography. My passion peaks when I click the shutter. My favorite goal is a color slide.

Post-processing was always another issue. Same today, whether it's scan, prints from scans. or traditional B&W prints.

Now that I've been back a couple years, to me venturing into digital looks more expensive. What would I want? Two D700s, a modern 35mm f/2, and a modern 85mm f/2, plus a dedicated Mac, photo editing stuff, monitor calibration stuff, and printer profile stuff.

Please note I have never considered the cost of film and processing as important. Internegs, or prints, or scans, or lenses, or two related camera bodies, or tripod, or flash, remain essential. Film and processing were minor costs compared to everything else - and they still are. Necessary, but minor costs compared to everything else. Like batteries for your flash.

BTW, I'm a computer guy, and the cost in dollars and time for the 4-5 year personal computer upgrades and maintenance are always on my mind. That's where my energies and free time have been when I was away from photography. And that's my day job.

So now, my two FEs, five Nikkor lenses, and slide films, seem so much simpler, and quality time at minor cost.

<p>I would get one with a center column. Especially if this is your first tripod.</p>

<p>I treated myself to a Gitzo eye-level tripod, GT2942L, in 2008. It included a center column. It also allows one to remove the center post, and use the legs without the center column. As well as reverse the center column. To use the tripod legs without the center column, one removes the Saflok Power Disk and the hook from the column. This is called the Ground Level Set, as when the legs are splayed out, and positions the Saflok Power Disk, about 6 inches high.</p>

<p>At the top of the center column is the Saflok Power Disk, and at the bottom, is the hook. The Saflok Power Disk is the platform upon which one sets the head. The hook is for hanging weights, like your camera bag, either to stabilize your tripod setup, or to keep your camera bag handy plus stabilize your tripod setup. The hook is on a bolt which screws into the Saflok Power Disk when you reassemble your tripod without the center column.</p>

<p>I recently purchased the medium length column as well. It's a little less than half the length of the normal center column. It's the same quality build as the original center column and tripod legs. Reason: when the legs are set at "medium", and the center column is not extended, the normal center column reaches the ground. So I have the medium length column so I don't need to extend the center column much when I position the legs at "medium".</p>

<p>Lastly, a center column is necessary for my uses. I use a Nikon FE with the MD-12 winder often. I just like the feel of the combination. And the tripod socket on the winder is not at the center, but on the right-side. Because of the tripod socket's offset, when I reorient the camera for portrait with the shutter button up, panning brings the camera body in contact with the legs. Raising the center column a bit resolves this.</p>

<p>Gitzo is high-quality and higher cost. To me, it's worth it. I like the feel, and I believe it's durable and reliable. And I don't believe extending the center column reasonably lessens stability, at least not with this Gitzo tripod.</p>

<p>In any case, if you're fortunate enough to have a store nearby where you can try different tripod systems, you should. Take your kit in with you, and try loading up a likely configuration of camera and lens onto the tripod. And then try the tripod head adjustments.</p>

<p>A tripod which works with you well will make photography more enjoyable. BTW, if such a store exists, where you can try the equipment, please consider purchasing from them, even if it's a bit more.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The first reason, economics, is my 2 FEs and 5 lenses still work well, and I rarely shoot more than three rolls of film a month. The costs of film, processing, and scanning for three rolls a month is more manageable to me than the upfront purchase of a DSLR and a good modern zoom or two fixed autofocus lenses. There's some rank emotional fondness here, as in shared memories. Similarly with Kodachrome. Note: twice in 25 years, I've had to switch to the second body to keep shooting.</p>

<p>The second reason, lifestyle, is my day job. I work in IT. Mainly software. I manage the content on a website. So I sit at personal computer a lot at work. And, even at home, whether I'm doing personal stuff, or trying to learn something new, or writing documentation. And, it has occurred to me, that the reason my time and efforts in the name of photography were minimized back in the late 80's up until June 2008, perhaps 15 rolls in 20 years, was time around a computer - in many varied formats, from DOS handhelds to network applications. So now, with troubleshooting and advancing your grasp of any subject in mind, manual focus and exposure on transparency film seems so discrete, clear-cut, and matter-of-fact. So, it's relaxing. I like it. I feel fortunate to have returned to it.</p>

<p>The third reason, slides on a light table and enlargements. I like prints from slides To me, the intermediate step of a scan is no different from creating an internegative for the print. In either case, the slide remains the baseline. I've never acquired the skill to read a negative.</p>

<p>Probably, if the next big thing is a pocket light saber, I'll still hang on to my Case folding knife.</p>

<p>Have a nice Sunday.</p>