scottroberts

"One face among many"? Leads to the Latin- "E Plurbis Punim"?

I decided to follow the advice to pick up a color enlarger, and found a nice Beseler 23C with a Dichro 23dga Colorhead on it... Guess I have TWO enlargers to master! lol... Scott

Hi Bill- The color head I have is actually a "first generation" style: It does not have the three colors already in place: it actually has a simple slot to slip in a holder with any of the three colors to filter! The Chromega and others developed after this one... I may pick up a used color enlarger if this proves too labor intensive... The enlarger I have was used by my dad for decades for B&W large format, so it will always have a use... But I want to get into color film as well, and wanted to see how to do it with the old style enlarger... Thanks! Scott

Hi- I am starting to get into the nuts and bolts of film photography, and looking to start developing and printing my own color photos... While large format B&W will be a main part of the effort, I am also looking into developing my own 35mm stuff as well. I have been over the C-41 process pretty thoroughly, and think I have a reasonable starter's handle on the process. But i can't find the info I want regarding the actual process of enlarging and printing I am about to attempt. The equipment I am planning to use is older- it was my late father's equipment, so I have a bit of an attachment to it. Most specifically, I am trying to figure out how to enlarge and make color prints with an Omega D-II with the color head. I know there is a space for inserting color gels in the color head. My question is this- Is the paper exposed three times- once for each gel, with a changeover time between each? This is what I am imagining: That I will need a red, green, and blue gel set, and will have to expose, swap and expose each of the three to get the color to print... Could someone give me a short primer on the operation? Thanks! Scott

You CAN develop Poloroid negatives in the traditional method? Could I ask you to elaborate on how to do this, please? I have several boxes(just about a case) of unopened Poloroid Type 58 film I am hoping to use- but they are all dated 1978, and my late father listed them as "dead?" on the box... If I can develop them normally, it might be a fun experiment! Thanks!

I'm starting to go through my fathers THOUSANDS of negatives from over 50 years or so of photography, and would love to know who a lot of the people were! Especially the family photos. But that may be just me... I find it interesting... Scott

Here is another take on the digital/film discussion... I found it kind of interesting... Scott

(Walt Roberts photo, 1946(?) If anyone knows where this photo was take, please PM me! I am trying to find my father's footsteps in the South Pacific. I know he was on Saipan, but found photos of the Philippines as well. Sorry for the words!)

Just make sure your major, whatever it becomes, is in something USEFUL, not "Ancient Sexual Position Study Among Extinct Primates", because no matter what you go for, you are on the hook for a LOT of money in student loans, and there is not that much use for most college degrees outside of reality... It is easier to work as an accountant and pay back the college loans for such a degree than to work at McDonalds while paying off $400k for that wonderful masters in "interpretive communication of silence among the blind" of other such cloud fodder that someone who never worked outside of academia advised you would be the greatest thing since meatball soup. Good luck whatever you do! Pay attention in class, read the material, and succeed. Scott

I'm not interested in anyone who wants to see if a computer response is as good as a humans'. I hate the damn things, and think such research is a bad idea...

Hi- This is my first posting here, so please excuse my newbieness... I wanted to weigh in on the "mileage" vs. digital debate, but let me introduce myself first: I have always been a "casual" photographer, working with 35mm, drug store development,what have you, for simple, inarticulate shots of no particular meaning... My father, however, was a photographer from the early 1940s on... He worked as a staff photographer for a few Philadelphia, Pa., and Wilmington, Del. newspapers, magazines, etc, and had a small photo studio in those years. He ended up doing still photography for ads for his company, where he ended up Assistant Director of Advertising. While he was alive, he never really "shared" photography with me: He never took the time to teach me photography, and what the equipment, et al was about. Since his passing a few years ago, I have become the "curator" of his photo equipment, His Graphlex Pacemaker Speed Graphic, Graphic View, and an almost complete set of B&W darkroom equipment, including his old Omega D-II enlarger, (etc., etc. etc.) and have recently started working on the learning part of the equation. Time for me is tight right now, so I am pretty limited to what I can do. I am reading through his photo text books- "Graphic Greflex Photography"(Morgan & Lester) and currently "This is Photography" by Miller and Brummitt... (there are MANY more) As I was reading, I found an interesting passage about quality vs. quantity in photography, which I think is possibly pertinent to the discussion: The statement was written in the 1940s or so that photography had pretty much advanced to film photography using pre-made films, so the photographer could waste many shots, while the (then) "old time photographers" working with wet plates had to spend a lot of time preparing their slide, etc. and that wasted plates meant wasted effort, money, etc... They suggested that the (then) new photographer (using film) should spend their time learning to make their shots count- only take a few sheets of film to expose at any given time, in order to do the very best they could with them, knowing their effort would be wasted otherwise... I think the digital age has brought out the ability to waste multitudes of shots, in hopes of "catching" the right one, rather than developing the ability to identify the right shot at what has been called "the critical moment". While I won't disparage those who choose to do this, I wonder if it doesn't simply "dumb down" photography in the long run- losing touch with the art, and making more contact with the "mass production" of shots? I am hoping to learn to identify and make the "right" shot at the "critical" moment- though I know I am years from being able to... For now, I intend to learn the large format (4x5) photography I have the tools to work with, and see how I can do... I hope I can make something of it, and figure the more sweat equity I put in, the better the result... Just to clarify- I do have a digital camera, and have taken thousands of photos with it- mostly pics of my restoration work, for documenting, etc, or family snaps, but nothing of note. I also still have my trusty Pentax K-1000 35mm I've had for a few decades, and I will probably scan and post some of my more interesting photos soon. But I am looking forward to learning the art of photography, the ancient version, on old equipment with old techniques. I hope my first post hasn't come across as too pedantic or insulting, but while i was reading through the comments about digital vs film, that passage came right to mind, and I wanted to share it. I just wonder how many ripples this small stone chucked in the discussion pond will produce! Scott