Future of MF

In article ,
Nick Zentena wrote:

For me it does. The other day I was looking at a negative page deciding
which one to print. I noticed quite a few negatives were very similar. I
only do that with 35mm. It's great if I manage to screw up a negative but
it's really not something I need to do. But 36 frames on a 35mm roll I burn
more frames. Back ups. Slight angle changes.

Nick

Camera made dupes, sure is easier and less expensive than having them
done.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote in message
...

Of course i like "keepers" made using MF better than "keepers" made using
35
mm format. But that's another issue, isn't it?


I keep thinking of that iconic image of the 35mm photographer, shooting a
motor-drive camera, and just firing off frame after frame, without really
trying to set up his shot.

Maybe he;ll get one or two keepers out of 250 shots . . .

"Q.G. de Bakker" wrote in message
...

Of course i like "keepers" made using MF better than "keepers" made using
35
mm format. But that's another issue, isn't it?


I keep thinking of that iconic image of the 35mm photographer, shooting a
motor-drive camera, and just firing off frame after frame, without really
trying to set up his shot.

Maybe he;ll get one or two keepers out of 250 shots . . .

I worked at a Pro Photolab about 4 years ago that did E6 and one
photographer that freelanced for magazines like Sports Illustrated
would come in after a Pro Football game and sometimes have 400 rolls of
Provia some would be normal, some push 2 stops some push 1/2
etc etc. Digital has changed all that overnight.


In article . net,
"Jeremy" wrote:

I keep thinking of that iconic image of the 35mm photographer, shooting a
motor-drive camera, and just firing off frame after frame, without really
trying to set up his shot.

Maybe he;ll get one or two keepers out of 250 shots . . .

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

I worked at a Pro Photolab about 4 years ago that did E6 and one
photographer that freelanced for magazines like Sports Illustrated
would come in after a Pro Football game and sometimes have 400 rolls of
Provia some would be normal, some push 2 stops some push 1/2
etc etc. Digital has changed all that overnight.


In article . net,
"Jeremy" wrote:

I keep thinking of that iconic image of the 35mm photographer, shooting a
motor-drive camera, and just firing off frame after frame, without really
trying to set up his shot.

Maybe he;ll get one or two keepers out of 250 shots . . .

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

"Jeremy" wrote in message
ink.net...
I keep thinking of that iconic image of the 35mm photographer, shooting a
motor-drive camera, and just firing off frame after frame, without really
trying to set up his shot.

Ok, if that is so bad on 35mm, it is even MORE SO with digital
photographers. I was shooting Motorcycle Racing for a season or two,
(2001/2002) and the digital vultures would come to the track on Saturday,
shoot a zillion frames with ther Canon D digitals, as the bikes raced
through any given corner they'd simply pan and have the camera popping off
dozens of frames, as many as possible at a time, next bike, zzzziiip! 20
frames, next bike, zzzzip! 20 frames, next bike zzziiipp! 20 more frames.
This took nearly ZERO skill. At the same time, I was using a 35mm SLR with
200+mm (even used a 500mm a few times. Single shot... concentration, focus,
(i was using a non auto-focus SLR) I take into consideration my DOF, focus
range, the distance between bike and DOF as if moves within the DOF through
the turn, I consider shutter speed and how it will effect background
blur/"speed effect" etc. The bike comes through and I WORK i THINK, I
CONCENTRATE, and *CLICK* Did I get it? I sure hope so. Meantime, next to
me. zzzzzzzzziiiiiiiip! 20 more frames from the digital money grubbers.

Needless to say, I take alot more pride in a "ONE SHOT ONE KILL" method,
than a "DROP A BOMB KILL EVERYBODY" digital method.

Now heres the killer: The next day the digital grubbers are at the track
with proof sets and prints ready to sell, they bring em all no matter if
they sell or not. They know that the racers are naive enough and dont really
care about how BADLY their shots suck. This infuriates me as it is
drastically lowering the accepted quality of race shots while atthe same
time the prices are no less than the good stuff used to be.

My shots (when they worked out) blew the digital stuff out of the water. My
shots took more skill, more talent and more time. But they were worth it.
Unfortunately, people want it now, even if it means junk. Welcome to
digital sports photography 2004.

Mike Lachance

At the same time, I was using a 35mm SLR with
200+mm (even used a 500mm a few times. Single shot... concentration,
focus,
(i was using a non auto-focus SLR) I take into consideration my DOF, focus
range, the distance between bike and DOF as if moves within the DOF
through
the turn, I consider shutter speed and how it will effect background
blur/"speed effect" etc. The bike comes through and I WORK i THINK, I
CONCENTRATE, and *CLICK* Did I get it? I sure hope so. Meantime, next to
me. zzzzzzzzziiiiiiiip! 20 more frames from the digital money grubbers.

Gee, since you seem to think photographs are judged by the degree of
difficulty in making them perhaps you should try using an 11x14 camera at
the motorcycle races next time. That would make the whole process even more
difficult and make the chances of getting a good photograph even more remote
than using a your manual focus 35mm camera. Your photographs probably
wouldn't be very good but you could tell everyone how hard you worked to
make them..

"Michael R. Lachance" wrote in message
nk.net...

"Jeremy" wrote in message
ink.net...
I keep thinking of that iconic image of the 35mm photographer, shooting
a
motor-drive camera, and just firing off frame after frame, without
really
trying to set up his shot.

Ok, if that is so bad on 35mm, it is even MORE SO with digital
photographers. I was shooting Motorcycle Racing for a season or two,
(2001/2002) and the digital vultures would come to the track on Saturday,
shoot a zillion frames with ther Canon D digitals, as the bikes raced
through any given corner they'd simply pan and have the camera popping off
dozens of frames, as many as possible at a time, next bike, zzzziiip! 20
frames, next bike, zzzzip! 20 frames, next bike zzziiipp! 20 more frames.
This took nearly ZERO skill. At the same time, I was using a 35mm SLR
with
200+mm (even used a 500mm a few times. Single shot... concentration,
focus,
(i was using a non auto-focus SLR) I take into consideration my DOF, focus
range, the distance between bike and DOF as if moves within the DOF
through
the turn, I consider shutter speed and how it will effect background
blur/"speed effect" etc. The bike comes through and I WORK i THINK, I
CONCENTRATE, and *CLICK* Did I get it? I sure hope so. Meantime, next to
me. zzzzzzzzziiiiiiiip! 20 more frames from the digital money grubbers.

Needless to say, I take alot more pride in a "ONE SHOT ONE KILL" method,
than a "DROP A BOMB KILL EVERYBODY" digital method.

Now heres the killer: The next day the digital grubbers are at the track
with proof sets and prints ready to sell, they bring em all no matter if
they sell or not. They know that the racers are naive enough and dont
really
care about how BADLY their shots suck. This infuriates me as it is
drastically lowering the accepted quality of race shots while atthe same
time the prices are no less than the good stuff used to be.

My shots (when they worked out) blew the digital stuff out of the water.
My
shots took more skill, more talent and more time. But they were worth it.
Unfortunately, people want it now, even if it means junk. Welcome to
digital sports photography 2004.

Mike Lachance

"Shelley" wrote in message
news:lui2d.8398$5t4.1178@trnddc01...

Gee, since you seem to think photographs are judged by the degree of
difficulty in making them perhaps you should try using an 11x14 camera at
the motorcycle races next time. [...]

With the camera mounted to the fairing. That's the ticket!

"Michael R. Lachance" wrote in message

Ok, if that is so bad on 35mm, it is even MORE SO with digital
photographers.

I didn't know that digital cameras had reached the point where you could
fire off multiple exposures as quickly as a film camera with a motor drive.
(I don't follow the high-end digital marketplace).

I concede that "action" subjects may justify using that technique. I
personally shoot landscapes, cityscapes, static subjects. I do not use zoom
lenses or motor drives, and I don't handhold. So for me, the motor drive
technique has no value.

I was never fascinated by stopping action, but if I were, I would probably
try to exploit motor drives and zoom lenses. As good as your photos may be,
you probably lose photo opportunities, if only because of the slow speed of
your technique.

But I suspect we can both agree that 35mm has tended to attract a lot of
photographers that rely more upon the equipment than their own skill to
create an acceptable image. Reading some of the 35mm NG posts, one would
think that anything but the most state-of-the-art equipment is unworthy to
be used to create good images. That is great for new equipment sales, but
the fact is that, for most photographic subjects, older equipment performs
just fine. My MF TLR is from 1954, and my screw-mount Pentax lenses date
from the early 70s, and they are capable of creating great images on film.
So are all those old Rolleiflexes and Rolleicords, and that great older
Hasselblad or Bronica gear.

How DID photographers ever survive without autofocus, anyway?

Recently, Jeremy posted:

"Michael R. Lachance" wrote in message

Ok, if that is so bad on 35mm, it is even MORE SO with digital
photographers.

I didn't know that digital cameras had reached the point where you
could fire off multiple exposures as quickly as a film camera with a
motor drive. (I don't follow the high-end digital marketplace).

This isn't new, or unique to high-end digicams. These days, many digital
cameras can even record short video sequences with audio at 15 to 30 fps.
That's a lot faster than the typical film camera's motordrive. The
trade-off is resolution, where the more you spend on a digital camera, the
higher the resolution of sequence shots.

I concede that "action" subjects may justify using that technique.

We differ on this notion. It's a "shotgun" approach rather than one of
considered framing of the image. I consider it a useful technique only
when the framing of the shot is irrelevant (there are some cases where
this is true).

Neil