tommyfilmist

but re

This is what I have in current circulation:

 

Left to right:

 

FSU cartridge: Bought from an Ukraine eBay seller. Very sturdy, semi easy to open. Smells bad. Works with most cameras, but tolerances are not too precise, therefore it can be a tight fit in some cameras. The velvet doesn't look great but works fine (so far).

Price paid <€2/each

 

No-name metal: - NOS bought from my local camera shop two years ago - very easy to open and good quality velvet - will probably open easily if dropped. Works in all cameras.

Price paid <1€/each

 

Commercial cartridge: The most convenient solution, IMO. Just tape the bulk film to the lip that sticks out. Won't open when dropped. Scratching from re-use is overly exaggerated IMO. Works in all 35mm film cameras and easy to get.

Price paid 0€/each

 

Ilford reloadable: Great quality but not super easy to open (and therefore less likely to open if dropped - which is good). Compatible with all cameras.

Price paid 2€/each

 

Leica IXMOO: Requires bulk loader that can open the film gate of the cartridge (or darkroom loading). Works only with Leica M (up to mid-production M6) and Barnack Leicas. Crazy good quality of solid brass. Likely to be mistaken for high caliber gun cartridges in airport security. Not super easy to unload.

Price paid <20€/each (but often sells up to 50€!)

 

Leica FILCA: Like above, but only compatible with Barnack Leica.

Price paid <15€/each

 

Nikon F: Requires bulk loader that can open the cassette (or darkroom loading). Works only with Nikon F (and maybe some of the Nikon rangefinders?). Great quality. Not super easy to unload.

Price paid <20€/each

 

Nikon F2 (AM-1): Like above, but only compatible with Nikon F2.

Price paid <8€/each (but very difficult to find at any price)

 

My preferred method of reloading is the commercial cartridge where I just tape the bulk film to the end of the old film lip sticking out of the used cartridge. It is easy, cheap and fast - and the cassette will work in any camera.

its better to just open the film cartridge with a can opener

what blocks more light guys.

the vinyl blind with crappy plastic rod opener,, or the big fancy custom light blocking blind rated to block "98% of all light" by the maker?

ye

However the photo was constructed, it doesn't in the least express 'road rage' to me. I find it difficult to understand how this photo would visually support an article on 'road rage''. It's an interesting photo but it seems to me to be completely OT.

ah, give me 10 minutes, and a country plow truck and well get lots of good road rage footage.

went through the gallery, and in the last few days "all time" setting is the same as "previously year" in every subject gallery.

fine art, glamour, portrait, food, architecture... etc

finally doing some improvements?

Also why so many full nude photos outside of the nude subject gallery? strange as to find nude women showing their "fun bits" in the food category

Camera work and post work aren't necessarily incompatible. Tommy, you're speaking dogma, not logic.

creating an in camera multiple exposure takes skill, and is a bitch..

yet the main selling point of most digital editing programs is "a seemless, AI/graphics engine run algorthm that will insert any background into the photo you want.."

Hell, even the widdle low end photoshop express claims to have the capability of taking a photo of anyhuman with a closed eye, and replacing the closed eye/s with an open eye from any photograph you posess. and to do it seamlessly.

why not have the person OPEN their eyes instead for a photo

An example of why you dont just believe everyone on the internet.

Its like the old joke from the 90s...

4 out of 5 18 year old guys on them chat forums be 45-60 year old guys in momma's basement

What actually is photoshop EXPRESS... comes included with windows 10 updates and well it wants a user login, and when i try to search it online all roads lead to it being adobe photoshop standard version with the 20$ monthly usage fee..

yet windows tells me this

Adobe Photoshop Express

version 3.6.385.0

App 47.7 MB

definitely NOT the full version

evening news LOVES showing pictures of bloated bodies on the beach, loves showing photos of people executed in Ukraine and everywhere else like coca cola loves putting its logo on everything.

Your just doing what national geographic does and even fly fisherman does.. any bird magazine... etc.

Joc ken, im afraid you have not understood the concept. Although i admit i havent bothered following the post, real life, looking at tripods, checking on photo software, etc. Important things first you know.

1. I dont believe you READ that qoute... if you read the qoute youd read it as it was written, although i will emphasize it in its parts.

that said, the more you know how to use photoshop, the less you ACTUALLY need to know about how to use your camera.

That quote came from a person defending the use of photoshop and other editing programs to deal with things that a sane person can deal with at the time of shooting, whether making an alteration to the camera settings regardless of digital or film, controlling the angle of the shot or using hoods and CPL and ND filters to allow a shot to be made in the first place.

That qoute more or less relates to the majority of people who leave the camera cotrol dial set to AE and just use the photoshop AI to batch process their 400 shots of a cup of coffee in the hope one shot will be good enough for their instagram.

2. Editing is part of photography, just as much as going into the dark room and making prints, by enlarging, cropping, dodging and burning, were (are?) all parts of film photography.

That is a sell out of the use of photoshop to replace entire parts of photos because "ansel adams did it in the darkroom, its perfectly fine to do with photoshop now".

Im not against editing, merely against the creation of digitally imagery. Yeah, you want a picture of your girlfriend in a bikini and want to make her look like ariel complete with tail. Well simply be an adult and get a mermaid costume that has a tail and go with it. Far easier and cheaper then spending an hour cut and pasting a picture of a fish tale on your girlfriends photo..

Or better yet if you want to combine a photo of yourself on a mounted cliff edge with a sunset in the background, simply why the hell cant you take the photo AT sunset,, instead of combine a photo of you standing on that ledge at high noon, with one you take the same day at that same spot of the sunset?

creativity does indeed need some originality to it.

Truly, if a person can write, why not be creative and create their own world.. instead of just doing star wars fan fiction story 94.679 million?

Why do yet another clone of the most popular vogure or harpers bazaar photo cover portraits?

If one has the ability to DO,, why COPY all others?

If your idea or concept of originality is in doing what the PPA says to do, "follow the curent trends to stay competitive and relevant", why even BOTHER? Your doing neither of those things by copying everyone else.

still

I would have no problem with it. Can’t imagine what I would find objectionable about someone photographing my property. Maybe it comes from living in a big city, where people walk within feet of my front door every day and I’ve taken lots of pics of houses and gardens in the neighborhood without giving it much of a thought.

 

True story (no camera involved) … About 20 years ago, a boyfriend and I stopped at a house in an adjacent neighborhood. From the street, we were looking at the walls of their kitchen, because we were getting ready to paint ours and liked their color. At the right moment, the man of the house came along and yelled at us for peeping at his wife. We explained that we were two gay guys much more interested in his interior design than his wife. He was amused enough and the situation was diffused with no need for artillery.

a violation on the wife, and man of the house.. and a violation of good taste.

It also raises a few points that people wandering the property are up to no good. Sort of like the strange dude who buys a trampoline and lets all the 6 too 16 year old girls and boys play on it

I was on another forum, and despite not being a member, and having blocked their email addresses, I keep getting link emails from them. I was bored and clicked on one that turns out was interesting. First i shall post excerpts from that thread dealing with photography and editing

That said, the more you know how to use photoshop, the less you need to know about how to use your camera.

Editing is part of photography, just as much as going into the dark room and making prints, by enlarging, cropping, dodging and burning, were (are?) all parts of film photography.

Creating a photo isn't simply taking a picture. That first image is just the beginning of the process.

Often when new photographers realize their work is no were near the quality of others they conclude the others must be "cheating."

l

Sometimes, creativity is getting out of your own way.

Copying what someone else is doing isnt getting OUT of my own way, its getting IN my way.

What point is there.. yeah sure it might look cutesy for a moment, but why the big push for conformity in order to "stand out"

No. If I were to use it and I’m in a provocative mood, I’d show it as is. If less so inclined, I would create a context for it, possibly with other photos, that would make it less toxic for some viewers.

 

I should add that men I’ve showed it to saw the violence aspect and understood the reactions as well.

Your liberal leanings an learnings suck..

It doesnt matter if THEY have the nerve to create a false back story to a photo. People do that all the time.

Its like the old hamilton versus sally versus sturges debate... hamilton is called porn now,, but the other two are called "art" even though Hamilton used models that were of legal age and actually consented to be photographed.. unlike the other two.

Better than debasing oneself. ;)

What ever you say S am S tevens... lovely initials

The guidance for stand development using Rodinal is that you need 4-5 ml of active solution per roll which is used up.

so, reuse doesn't work in the stand development scenario.

that data was from one of the retailers talking about the product or the maker, its been a while, i dont use rodinal myself.

but that was for regular developing in a tank

it all depends on the tank..

if i read the manufacturer website correctly, all tanks require 5ml per roll, OR 5ml per tank.

either way.... its a one shot. although does reusing rodinal make it more of a stand development scenario?

You debase photography..

it IS a photograph as the scanner is technically a digital camera... the debate is no longer what a phtograph IS,, but a debate of

is a photograph an actual photograph or image, when someone uses photo editing to change every single part of a scanned or digital photo..

ie if someone takes a high noon shot of a person in tempe arizona at a gas station, and uses photoshop crap to make it a picture of a person standing next to a venetian gondola, on pavement, with an african skyline at DUSK for a background, is it a photo or an IMAGE

Sometimes, when you know a lot and have a deep awareness, you have little patience, and more so if you are faced with the personification of the the Dunning-Kruger syndrome.

no, on photography forums its more of a situation of

the more people can qoute in the realms of technical skills, or technical science, the less they can do.

Many on here can spend HOURS discussing and debating the meaning of say kodak technical report 19 of june 3, 1949, and know the science of each facet of that report, and how to debunk it with modern science, but yet lack the ability to put a CPL on a lens and take a photo of something in a window to get rid of a reflection.

I see.

 

At one time, I believed that the worst of things lived in the "Philosophy" board. It doesn't take very long to make a review and learn that it should be properly named "The Toad Jar." These were my thoughts of several years ago--and the spillover from that and the colossal failure of PN2.0 sent me away for likely a year now.

 

Oh, and has anyone noticed (or worse, been on the receiving end) when Toad Jar denizens are not content to sling scat about there--but follow the object of their scat slinging into other benign boards? It's a real treat!

 

At the risk of being seen as playing out a logical fallacy [argumentum ab auctoritate], I offer this bit of observation.

 

In an earlier life, I had published and administered several fora that ranged in size between several hundred, and several thousand members. I learned a great deal about handling problems--and still contribute regularly to the Admin Zone forum administrators group. Another of my expensive hobbies is amateur radio, and for many years belonged to the largest ham radio interest site in the world--QRZ.com.

 

That site averages 850K members at any given time--with an average of 600 signed-in members and 400 guests online throughout the day. I quote these metrics to throw light on how certain problems here on PN were magnified tenfold on QRZ! The forum was in trouble, membership (especially including PAID) was dropping, and the overall quality of the site slipping. I was asked by the forum owner to become the general manager and clean up the mess.

 

It took six months, 28 permabans, and 4 members reported and dealt with by their local ISP's. Membership at the end of the year had grown by 17%, and subscriptions to the forum and callsign database up by 23%. Attitude and disposition of members does matter. It makes me sad to think of the many people I used to enjoy interacting with here leave because of the nonsense. Sandy and I had several conversations about this a little over a year ago--and that's when I decided to stop supporting PN financially and just drift off. My current view is not awe-inspiring...

 

Ludmilla, I just don't get your response--whether in jest or seriousness. There seems far too much of the wrong color Koolaide being passed around these days.

if youd look at the stats for pn.... youd probably see 1,000 people on the site on any given day, but maybe 10 people creating or replying to a thread... and those people would be the only ones doing so for a week.

Not at all where it started. It started with your gratuitous insults, regarding a question I had about a camera bag. Its continued with a private message from you saying "I piss on people like you." That's what I call an unbalanced mind. And Gobtalk? What's that about?

That is merely proof that photo.net is like anyother forum website.