Worth Getting Muddy...

Annika1980 wrote
(in article
. com):

I'm more impressed with the worst photo I ever saw from his
camera than I am with any of the drivel you've been showing of
late.

Ok, so you hate me. I'm crushed.

I do not hate you. You are the one that hates anyone that
shoots film, or doesn't shoot Canon. That's pathetic, and it
doesn't make people all warm and fuzzy, unless their equally
silly, biased gearheads.

So what does that have to do with
anything we're discussing about Mark's pic?

You're the one that claimed "I would have done differently". In
order to do that, you'd have to get the image in the first
place, instead of drunk over-the-hill redneck ho's for a change.
Also, you never saw the
worst photos from Ansel's camera, so that statement is about as stupid
as the rest of them you've made.

And twice as smart as as anything you've said about Canon versus
Nikon in your lifetime.

And your opinion as a photo critiquer might carry a little more weight
if we saw your fabulous pics, so how about a link, hotshot?

No, you're the one into showing off for anonymous people. My
customers like my work, and that, plus my own enjoyment is
enough. Posting hundreds of pictures a week for
self-ego-boosting doesn't do it for me.

Suffice it to say I don't have any pictures of drunk bimbos to
post, so how could I possibly compete anyway? You seem to have
the Atlanta trailer park market all sewn up.

5. With slides you're stuck with what you shot.

I guess you are not aware that slides can be scanned.

6. With prints from print film you're stuck with what the processor
gives you.

I guess you are not aware that print film negatives can be
scanned either.

I guess you are not aware that when you scan a slide or negative you've
created a digital file. Dumbass.

Of course you can, that was the whole point of what I wrote.
So, with slides you are NOT stuck, and with print film you are
NOT stuck. So, you were wrong, and you agree that you were
wrong. Congrats.

What's even more important though, is that if you have the
finest digital body, lenses, tripods, flash heads, etc. on the
planet, that still won't fix a bad picture. All your
deification of your gear doesn't change that.

--
Lefty
All of God's creatures have a place..........
..........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
See also: http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/images/iProduct.gif

Lefty Bigfoot wrote:

So what does that have to do with
anything we're discussing about Mark's pic?

You're the one that claimed "I would have done differently". In
order to do that, you'd have to get the image in the first
place, instead of drunk over-the-hill redneck ho's for a change.

Well if I could drive to Yosemite in one hour I would. But since I'm a
couple of thousand miles away from there, I guess that ain't gonna
happen. Mark mentioned the luck aspect of his shot, but he still had
to wade out and get the pic. Don't know if I'd be that dedicated. And
all the while, the wife would be hollering, "You're gonna do what? Now
you've seen it, let's go!"


And your opinion as a photo critiquer might carry a little more weight
if we saw your fabulous pics, so how about a link, hotshot?

No, you're the one into showing off for anonymous people. My
customers like my work, and that, plus my own enjoyment is
enough. Posting hundreds of pictures a week for
self-ego-boosting doesn't do it for me.

As suspected, all hat and no cattle.

I have more respect for folks out there taking bad photographs than I
do for posers sitting at home talking about it. And since you've shown
us nothing, I guess even my worst photo beats that.

Annika1980 wrote:
Lefty Bigfoot wrote:

So what does that have to do with
anything we're discussing about Mark's pic?

You're the one that claimed "I would have done differently". In
order to do that, you'd have to get the image in the first
place, instead of drunk over-the-hill redneck ho's for a change.

Well if I could drive to Yosemite in one hour I would. But since I'm
a couple of thousand miles away from there, I guess that ain't gonna
happen. Mark mentioned the luck aspect of his shot, but he still had
to wade out and get the pic.

Not to get into this little "side-bar discussion," but I actually
didn't/wouldn't call it mere luck. I made four trips into the valley in
four days...just looking/waiting for the light. I worked to get it. Had I
found that scene on my first and only chance...I'd call that mostly luck,
though you still have to "see the shot." There's always an element that
is out of your control, but persistence and stubbornness certainly increases
your odds...

I actually suggested to the other guy standing in the field with a tripod
that the water was going to make the shot, but he declined...thinking he was
already set for "the shot." I have his shot, and I won't be posting it.
Even if he had moved, he was shooting on "P" or some such semi-auto mode,
and wouldn't have had teh DOF (who knows if he exposure would be on/off)...

Don't know if I'd be that dedicated.
And all the while, the wife would be hollering, "You're gonna do
what? Now you've seen it, let's go!"

I have a very patient wife...
I bought her a little digital camera last Christmas (Canon 620) & its given
her something to do while I'm out with my camera. She's taken to finding
small patterns and other subjects that I tend to completely miss. She
enjoys it and it helps--though she's always been amazingly tolerant of my
fiddling...

"Annika1980" wrote:

7. With digital you are in charge.


With digital,

"Annika1980" wrote:

5. With slides you're stuck with what you shot.

Get it right, and the job is done at the instant you expose the film.
No need for any of this "digital workflow" nonsense.

6. With prints from print film you're stuck with what the processor
gives you.

Find a good, able processor and always use that processor. You will
always be "stuck" with developing and printing to some of the highest
standards available - absolutely nothing to complain about there!

7. With digital you are in charge.

With digital, you are more at the mercy of your own ability to foul up
than was ever the case with film.

;-)

Tony Polson wrote:
"Annika1980" wrote:

5. With slides you're stuck with what you shot.

Get it right, and the job is done at the instant you expose the film.
No need for any of this "digital workflow" nonsense.

6. With prints from print film you're stuck with what the processor
gives you.

Find a good, able processor and always use that processor. You will
always be "stuck" with developing and printing to some of the highest
standards available - absolutely nothing to complain about there!

7. With digital you are in charge.

With digital, you are more at the mercy of your own ability to foul up
than was ever the case with film.

I'd have to say I agree, though, about full control with digital (assuming
one understands the process--which can be extremely tricky, and lead to
foul-ups--as you say). At least if there's a screw-up, I can know that its
not only MY fault, but that there's something I can personally do about it,
rather than always having to rely on someone or some lab's abilities. Even
with good labs, its still different, since they can't always know (during
the process) what I would do, or what trade-offs I'd choose (like shadow
detail vs. contrast...noise vs. sharp, etc.).

The main reason I started using digital in 2000 was the same reason I
started using slides--which was what I perceived as complete control from
start to finish. In 1998 or so, I started scanning slides myself for
printing. Again my reasoning for this was the control it offered, and the
ability to be much more selective with what I print and how. Unfortunately,
I had a number of frustrating years involving ink fade issues with early
Epsons that were supposedly fade resistant (1270). It hasn't been until the
last couple of years that I've *finally* reached a point where I feel FULLY
in control from capture to print. I'm no Photoshop guru, and actually do
very little to my images other than levels, correcting color casts, unsharp
mask, and printing of course.

Blah Blah Blah.

-Mark

"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:GFD2g.8492$Qz.2463@fed1read11...
Tony Polson wrote:
"Annika1980" wrote:

5. With slides you're stuck with what you shot.

Get it right, and the job is done at the instant you expose the film.
No need for any of this "digital workflow" nonsense.

6. With prints from print film you're stuck with what the processor
gives you.

Find a good, able processor and always use that processor. You will
always be "stuck" with developing and printing to some of the highest
standards available - absolutely nothing to complain about there!

7. With digital you are in charge.

With digital, you are more at the mercy of your own ability to foul up
than was ever the case with film.

I'd have to say I agree, though, about full control with digital (assuming
one understands the process--which can be extremely tricky, and lead to
foul-ups--as you say). At least if there's a screw-up, I can know that
its not only MY fault, but that there's something I can personally do
about it, rather than always having to rely on someone or some lab's
abilities. Even with good labs, its still different, since they can't
always know (during the process) what I would do, or what trade-offs I'd
choose (like shadow detail vs. contrast...noise vs. sharp, etc.).

The main reason I started using digital in 2000 was the same reason I
started using slides--which was what I perceived as complete control from
start to finish. In 1998 or so, I started scanning slides myself for
printing. Again my reasoning for this was the control it offered, and the
ability to be much more selective with what I print and how.
Unfortunately, I had a number of frustrating years involving ink fade
issues with early Epsons that were supposedly fade resistant (1270). It
hasn't been until the last couple of years that I've *finally* reached a
point where I feel FULLY in control from capture to print. I'm no
Photoshop guru, and actually do very little to my images other than
levels, correcting color casts, unsharp mask, and printing of course.

Blah Blah Blah.

-Mark


What printer are you using now? I still have the 1270, and I haven't had
any fade experiences, but I find that if I want a print I can send the
digital file to Kodak or Adorama, and they make great prints at reasonable
prices. I literally haven't printed anything out of the 1270 in at least
two years.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
www.mattclara.com

Tony Polson wrote:

With digital, you are more at the mercy of your own ability to foul up
than was ever the case with film.

It should be obvious, even to you, that a digital image can be edited
endless times from the captured file to get desired results.

This is no different than the myriad variances that can occur when
printing from slide or negative film. Just potentially less costly.

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.

Matt Clara wrote:
"Mark²" mjmorgan(lowest even number wrote in message
news:GFD2g.8492$Qz.2463@fed1read11...
Tony Polson wrote:
"Annika1980" wrote:

5. With slides you're stuck with what you shot.

Get it right, and the job is done at the instant you expose the
film. No need for any of this "digital workflow" nonsense.

6. With prints from print film you're stuck with what the
processor gives you.

Find a good, able processor and always use that processor. You will
always be "stuck" with developing and printing to some of the
highest standards available - absolutely nothing to complain about
there!
7. With digital you are in charge.

With digital, you are more at the mercy of your own ability to foul
up than was ever the case with film.

I'd have to say I agree, though, about full control with digital
(assuming one understands the process--which can be extremely
tricky, and lead to foul-ups--as you say). At least if there's a
screw-up, I can know that its not only MY fault, but that there's
something I can personally do about it, rather than always having to
rely on someone or some lab's abilities. Even with good labs, its
still different, since they can't always know (during the process)
what I would do, or what trade-offs I'd choose (like shadow detail
vs. contrast...noise vs. sharp, etc.). The main reason I started using
digital in 2000 was the same reason I
started using slides--which was what I perceived as complete control
from start to finish. In 1998 or so, I started scanning slides
myself for printing. Again my reasoning for this was the control it
offered, and the ability to be much more selective with what I print
and how. Unfortunately, I had a number of frustrating years
involving ink fade issues with early Epsons that were supposedly
fade resistant (1270). It hasn't been until the last couple of
years that I've *finally* reached a point where I feel FULLY in
control from capture to print. I'm no Photoshop guru, and actually
do very little to my images other than levels, correcting color
casts, unsharp mask, and printing of course. Blah Blah Blah.

-Mark


What printer are you using now? I still have the 1270, and I haven't
had any fade experiences, but I find that if I want a print I can
send the digital file to Kodak or Adorama, and they make great prints
at reasonable prices. I literally haven't printed anything out of
the 1270 in at least two years.

The fade issues with the 1270 inks is apparently related to region, and air
coditions.
Depending on the level of ozone (which can be produced by many things...not
just naturally), the fade varies. No...its not some granola-head or
environmentalist thing...its simply a reaction that the ink seems to have.
The variation does seem to be related to this, though, and my
area/home/something is definitely effected by it.

I once had a landscape picture that sat on my desk for a week or
two...partially covered by another paper.
When I pulled the paper off, it revealed the fact that the portion exposed
to the air (this was in a dim closet, BTW...so it wasn't a "light" thing)
was SEVERELY orange in color (the dreaded "orange shift"), while the portion
that was under a single other page was perfect.

This same problem continues today. My 1270 still prints beautifully, but
when I can't assume the images will last (since I can't predict air elements
in other locations), I can't give/sell/distribute images with confidence.

I now print with the much larger, and archival Epson 4000 Pro. While it
does not make a very good B&W printer, the print quality I get...and the
permanence it offers means that I no longer worry about my prints--at least
not nearly to the degree I did with my 1270.

-Mark