Graflex! a question

On 3/31/2004 2:22 PM jjs spake thus:

Perhaps someone can tell us what newspapers did in order to make printing
plates from the image and what size enlargement they worked with.

No enlargement. That's what the big negative was for.

Um. I don't think so.

I can think of at least one front-page picture--the one of Truman holding
aloft the early edition with the headline "DEWEY WINS" across it--that most of
us here above a certain age also remember, that's definitely bigger than 4x5.
(Or pictures from The Date Which Will Live in Infamy.)


--
.... but never have I encountered a guy who could not be bothered
to make his own case on his own show.

- Eric Alterman on his appearance on Dennis Miller's bomb of a show
on CNBC (3/17/04)

No, Nick, sometimes I get confused. I am of the opinion that the end
result is what is important. The equipment doesn't mean doodoo.

Regards,

Marv

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
"Marv Soloff" wrote


Before we all forget, the quality of pictures taken by photogs using
stock Graflex 4 x 5s was excellent. Check out the stuff by Bourke-White
and Weegee.


Pictures? Like photographs?
Now, what do pictures have to do with it?

Marv, you probably have the flu and it has made you confused. Have a
good rest, drink plenty of fluids ...

"Marv Soloff"
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
"Marv Soloff" wrote
Before we all forget, the quality of pictures taken by photogs using
stock Graflex 4 x 5s was excellent. Check out the stuff by Bourke-White
and Weegee.
Pictures? Like photographs?
Now, what do pictures have to do with it? [insert smiley, if needed]
No, Nick, sometimes I get confused. I am of the opinion that the end
result is what is important. The equipment doesn't mean doodoo.

That's heresy on this group, you know. [ditto smiley]

How about a rec.photo.photography newsgroup? No equipment allowed.

--

Good Lord, someone is going to take this seriously ....

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

The rec.photo.technique.* groups are probably what you are looking for.
Apparently there are far fewer people interested in photography then in cameras
because they tend to be low traffic. Then there is rec.photo.moderated for those
who do not like off topic posts, though from my experience you get about the
same traffic unsubscribed on r.p.m as you do when subscribed.

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:


How about a rec.photo.photography newsgroup? No equipment allowed.

--

Good Lord, someone is going to take this seriously ....


Why not? It happens all the time. Just figured you are one of those photo snobs
(rec.photo.technique.art).

In article , jjs
wrote:

"Marv Soloff" wrote in message
...
Before we all forget, the quality of pictures taken by photogs using
stock Graflex 4 x 5s was excellent. Check out the stuff by Bourke-White
and Weegee.

Weegee? Fine techincal quality? Are you friggin serious? His lack of
technique is what makes his work remarkable. IMHO!

Technique can be defined in many ways. Weegee had great Weegee
technique. His ability to get the raw, stark images in The Naked City
was incomparable. Old-school film, big assed flashbulbs, lens stopped
down and the balls to move in close. Factor in a focusing bed which
was marked 'close' and 'far' for focussing and Weegee's finger on the
trigger and you have technique few can match.

Jeff