Digital BW, The Print

After spending thousands on digital equipment (piezo, printers, 
profiling equip., drum scanner etc..) I have no money left for zooms. 
But I wish I did; they will be my next purchase. I've taken quite a few 
weddings recently and have decided that changing lenses too fast is 
putting too much wear on my cameras (not to mention having to lug 
around many pounds for a everything)  For 35mm zooms are great, but for 
anything larger (like the Hassys) you end up with a lens that is twice 
as big, heavy, and expensive. Arguing about that is like arguing about 
film speed everyone should use; you use what you need to for your 
situation.

As far as the whole "experimental" vs standard in contests and salons, 
That surprises me, since all the labs here now print everything (done 
by machine that is) digitally. If I want a cheap machine reprint from a 
35mm negative (or 120 actually) they feed it into a machine (a frontier 
usually) that scans it and then prints it. And if you look at it 
closely enough you can see the pixels (usually requires a loupe)

But on the other hand, now I can get 8x10s printed onto fuji crystal 
archive for only $1.90  (from digital files)

Tell the members of your group that unless they are printing all of 
their images by hand in chemistry (and not using a commercial lab) they 
have no room to argue.

-mh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "sm7bxd" <sm7bxd@y...> wrote:
> Hi - You got it right,
> 
> There is nothing wrong with photojournalism - it's a job for a 
> photographer needing an zoom to get that very picture without
> changing lens at all, many with 800 ASA films - I have done it myself.
> 
> That's why I said - what I said - Zooms and photojournalism hangs 
> toghther not! Often handheld, often in a hurry, to catch up all those
> assignments to make his/hers living. Good pictures had been taken - 
> but how many lost - when the winder rips the film through the 
> camerahouse!
> 
> Zoom is a splended tool for a splendid photournalist - not right??
> Zoom is also not a splended tool for 100 ASA trying to do fineart.
> Zooms are bad because - try to buy one for a deasent price for an 
> Hasselblade - did you see one of those?
> 
> Did You ever see a zoom an a LF-camera? 
> 
> And those cameras *could* certainly stand a zoom better than 35 mm 
> camera.....or are they that good now...that I shall window out 
> everything over 35 mm???
> 
> I own zooms as well - but that is for vaccation when traveling light 
> with my 35 mm camera. But is that little filmpiece on a 35 mm camera 
> best toghether with a zoom?
> 
> Ah - you know what I mean - and all of this is out of topics for this
> forum - not? And out of topics of my main question:
> _____________________________________________________
> 
> My question was about "Is quad, PIEZO and color pigment to be 
> regarded as "experimental" photo?
> ___________________________________________________
> (For those who forgot this was the real topic of this inlay!)
> 
> And You starts arguing about the situation where I mensioned the Word 
> zoom in a sence - that was the beginners at my photoclub was using 
> zooms and only have one camerahouse not able to switch film - that 
> might be more important in certain situations!
> That was a picture of how it looked at my photoclub - where I'm 
> regarded as a stranger since the computer does the picture 
> automaticly for me - just like the autofocus of those Nikon 
> Zoomlenses - it was playing with words - to give you a certain 
> feeling.
> 
> But one good fellow did understand what i meant - and that good 
> answer came from Áustralia. 
> 
> Read that one!
> 
> The others here either don't care or don't want to hold that hot 
> potatoe!
> I have a feeling that most hang their quads/Piezo next to the 
> siverphotos - not saying a word!
> 
> This was also written with some satir - but who cares?
> In what legue do Quad/Pizo play - none cares!
> Strange indeed! Remarkable!
> 
> 
> Fiat Lux!
> 
> Bo Wrangborg
> Sweden
> Moderator "Minolta Multi Pro" at Yahoo