5 Reasons to Shoot Film -- Popular Photograghy Article

Scott W wrote:
Pudentame wrote:
Not always. I've developed film using just a changing bag for
loading &
a light-tight developing tank.

I've made contact prints using a frame that holds the paper and
negative, with a cover you can open/close to expose it to direct
sunlight, and processed them in the bathroom using a portable safelight.

Ah, then we are going for the really big prints are we?

Scott


4x5 negative - 4x5 print (on 5x8 paper, i.e. half sheet)

Pudentame wrote:
Scott W wrote:
Pudentame wrote:
Not always. I've developed film using just a changing bag for
loading &
a light-tight developing tank.

I've made contact prints using a frame that holds the paper and
negative, with a cover you can open/close to expose it to direct
sunlight, and processed them in the bathroom using a portable safelight.

Ah, then we are going for the really big prints are we?

Scott


4x5 negative - 4x5 print (on 5x8 paper, i.e. half sheet)

Well at least no one will accuse you of trying to enlarge it too much.

Scott

"Annika1980" wrote in
ups.com:


Al Denelsbeck wrote:

And now, before you repeat the done-to-death line of "but
you can
edit it to look the way you want!", go read my other posts. The
challenge is the You have to edit your images to look like Provia
100F and 400F, Velvia 50 and 100F, Sensia, NPC and NPH. Go. Don't
come back until you can back your claims with real results.


Once again a liability of film (each roll being constrained to a
certain "look") is painted as an asset. You've just described an
advantage of digital ... the ability to mimic any "look" while not
being limited to just one.

I see your ability to read is unmatched, at least by anyone over
the age of three. I just slammed your ass with ten images on my editing
abilities, and you disappeared long enough to hope that was forgotten.
Now it's your turn (or anyone else that makes the claim): Show me this
marvelous ability. Hot air is free and plentiful, my lad.


Same goes for ISO. Just click a button and
you go from ISO 100 to 3200.

Wow, no ****? I can change the entire color register of digital
images by simply changing ISO? And here I thought that just changed the
noise characteristics. Go figure...

Bret, your arguments are simply making you look less and less
experienced. Don't mistake shooting 500,000 images as having learned a
damn thing from it, okay?


Say you're shooting foilage with Velvia and a portrait opportunity
presents itself. Do you have a seperate camera loaded with NPH? Or
do you have to do a mid-roll rewind, change film, re-load film and
then shoot? I ended up with some pretty creative double-exposures by
taking "advantage" of the mid-roll rewind feature of the Fabulous
EOS-1V.

And by that, you imply I'm as clumsy at doing roll changes as you
are? I hate to interrupt your worshipping at the CMOS altar with news
from other tribes, but there's this wonderful deity over on the other
side of the hills, goes by the name of a "Sharpie." Requires a sacrifice
of about $1.25. Give me your address and I'll send you one, gratis.

Yes, Bret, two bodies (at least), 90% of the time. Six or more
different types of film, *all* of the time. And by the way, before you
talk about the weight of another body (which ain't jack compared to the
lens selection and tripod), some of us work with the idea of a backup to
counter equipment failures.

Oh, yeah. Let me count the number of times I've been on a nature
shoot and a portait situation broke out. Hmmmm, this might take a bit...


So what other advantages of film are there?
So far, we've got "I get to wait for my photos" and "Each roll has
only 1 look."

Repeating the list I've provided in earlier posts, that you're
hoping everyone has forgotten now, won't make you any less ignorant,
Bret. Since you failed to learn on the playground that volume doesn't
validate your arguments, I'm probably far too late to help.


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

"Scott W" wrote in
ups.com:



Well if you have a business model that is working for you then more
power to you. I assume that this is sort of a hobby that you are
making money at, otherwise the cost of the camera and memory cards
would be pretty insignificant.

If your business model is based on that kind of thinking, you can
effectively be said to have no business model. Cost effectiveness
requires taking into account all expenses, including depreciating assets
and investments against higher returns. I'm pretty sure I've pointed out
these aspects.

I'm also pretty sure I've pointed out that it was not just a matter
of expense, but also of image quality and results.


I take it your currently are sending slides to your customers and that
they are mostly in the publishing business, I would have to think that
the number of places that will accept slides as an acceptable format
for photos is going to shrink to just about zero in the next 10 years.

Predictions on digital, and indeed on the entire business of
photography, have been frequent, and less accurate than the average
psychic. The amount of money I've saved so far by not responding to hype
has been pretty damn significant (and not limited to digital).


And as you continue to shoot film the backlog of scanning that you
might have to do one day continues to grow.

What I *might* have to do one day is anybody's guess, and I accept
the consequences of my own decisions, regardless. I don't see digital as
supplanting film anytime soon, just as none of the other advances
supplanted their predecessors. There are still guys making a good living
off of large format, so both MF and 35mm failed to kill that one as
predicted. I could go on, but there isn't a need - what is speculated
does not equate with what is.


But hey it is your business and if it is doing well and you are
comfortable with it then no worries.

Thanks. Personal choices are, surprisingly, personal, and do not
mean that any one aspect has a clear and unarguable advantage over any
other. I don't see a need to shoot digital, and don't care if someone
else does. But I'll argue with anybody who claims it's the only way to go
;-)


- Al.

--
To reply, insert dash in address to match domain below
Online photo gallery at www.wading-in.net

Al Denelsbeck wrote:
I see your ability to read is unmatched, at least by anyone over
the age of three. I just slammed your ass with ten images on my editing
abilities, and you disappeared long enough to hope that was forgotten.
Now it's your turn (or anyone else that makes the claim): Show me this
marvelous ability. Hot air is free and plentiful, my lad.

Out of the images you posted, only one stood out, the wedding pic of
the couple leaving the church. The others were cake.

As for my editing abilites, they are showcased in almost every pic I
post. You just haven't noticed them because they are not obvious and
don't call attention to themselves.
There is much more to editing photos than simply cloning in (or out)
something that isn't there like in this pic:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/65753651

Or this one:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/69564745

And what was The Mighty Jewel really staring at in this pic?
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/22731280
I'll never tell.

For example, my wife couldn't believe this pic since it was taken in
front of a plain white plaster wall:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/71681800
She commented that it looked like a professional backdrop.

And do you think this pic came from one shot?
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/54799895
Not hardly.

Or maybe this one?
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/52401604

Even a photo like this taken in harsh mixed lighting needed a lot of
work:
http://www.pbase.com/bret/image/66815024

One of these guys wasn't there for this photo. Can you guess which
one?
http://www.pbase.com/image/72681795

------------------------

Bret, your arguments are simply making you look less and less
experienced. Don't mistake shooting 500,000 images as having learned a
damn thing from it, okay?

Don't confuse experience with talent, old man. I've seen your pics.

------------------------

Yes, Bret, two bodies (at least), 90% of the time. Six or more
different types of film, *all* of the time.

I noticed you didn't include those extra bodies in your "film v.
digital" price comparisons.

------------------------

Oh, yeah. Let me count the number of times I've been on a nature
shoot and a portait situation broke out. Hmmmm, this might take a bit...

OK, how about simply having to turn and shoot into a completely
different lighting situation?
You're shooting flowers and foilage in bright sunlight and all of a
sudden a deer pops his head through the brush over in the shade. That
ISO50 Velvia isn't going to save ya now.

"Annika1980" wrote in message
oups.com...

Snip

One of these guys wasn't there for this photo. Can you guess which
one?
http://www.pbase.com/image/72681795

The gentleman wearing the hat in the front row? The area around his right
hand looks "rough." Also his proportions relative to everyone else look a
little big...is he masking someone who was there?

Jay Beckman
Chandler, AZ
www.pbase.com/flyingphotog

Jay Beckman wrote:
One of these guys wasn't there for this photo. Can you guess which
one?
http://www.pbase.com/image/72681795

The gentleman wearing the hat in the front row? The area around his right
hand looks "rough." Also his proportions relative to everyone else look a
little big...is he masking someone who was there?

Nope, not him. That's my dad and he always looks rough that way.
BTW, he only has two fingers on his right hand.

Annika1980 wrote:
Jay Beckman wrote:
One of these guys wasn't there for this photo. Can you guess which
one?
http://www.pbase.com/image/72681795
The gentleman wearing the hat in the front row? The area around his right
hand looks "rough." Also his proportions relative to everyone else look a
little big...is he masking someone who was there?

Nope, not him. That's my dad and he always looks rough that way.
BTW, he only has two fingers on his right hand.

The guy next to your Dad, on his right; our left.

john

Annika1980 wrote:
Jay Beckman wrote:
One of these guys wasn't there for this photo. Can you guess which
one?
http://www.pbase.com/image/72681795

The gentleman wearing the hat in the front row? The area around his right
hand looks "rough." Also his proportions relative to everyone else look a
little big...is he masking someone who was there?

Nope, not him. That's my dad and he always looks rough that way.
BTW, he only has two fingers on his right hand.

This is getting fun! How's about the man in the back row, third from
our right behind your Dad (the young man with the hat)?
Helen

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 08:14:58 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

Annika1980 wrote:
Jay Beckman wrote:
One of these guys wasn't there for this photo. Can you guess which
one?
http://www.pbase.com/image/72681795
The gentleman wearing the hat in the front row? The area around his right
hand looks "rough." Also his proportions relative to everyone else look a
little big...is he masking someone who was there?

Nope, not him. That's my dad and he always looks rough that way.
BTW, he only has two fingers on his right hand.

The guy next to your Dad, on his right; our left.

That would be my guess, if you mean the man third from the left who's
slightly behind the others in the front row. The lighting looks wrong,
and the shadows aren't quite right.

--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"]