Digital BW, The Print

After as much research as possible, I decided to just ask the 
question here---very basic but perplexing for me.

I am a (relatively) long time digital photographer--I came from film 
(35mm)--but haven't shot film in quite a number of years.  I never 
had a darkroom--and don't intend to now.  I'm quite proficient in PS, 
use Quadtone RIP for printing b/w with my 2200 (a larger format 
printer will come eventually, but not the immediate future).  BUT--
I've recently gotten the itch to buy a Pentax 67 as the prices go 
lower and lower--but just am not totally sure of the workflow to get 
it from camera to printer (and if there is more than one way to skin 
a cat).      

Of course, the other question is--is this even reasonable to 
consider.  I currently shoot with a Canon 20D--have considered FF but 
will not make the jump to it with the new 5D--not right now anyhow.  
I've prepared a list of pros and cons for the used 67--but, because 
I'm digitally minded, will print digitally--is this just crazy?

I've been reading the John Sexton thread too, but really couldn't 
find anything else on the forum while searhing that addresses this--
and the pros/cons.

Hi Diane

It would be more time consuming than using 100% digital but
very rewarding in the end.
For film processing you can either use a photo lab or do it
yourself, I purchased a Jobo processor on Ebay and it is
really a piece of cake to develop one's own films (that is
assuming you stick with standard times and concentrations,
if you go into push-pull, that tends to become more elaborate).
You can use either B&W or color (either negative or slide), with
the latter you have a bit more latitude once you get the digitized info
into PS, as you would be able to "filter" and tweak the pictures to a larger
degree. In PS, to convert from color to B&W you can use the channel 
mixer tool,
or dedicated PS plug-ins which come already "flavored" with common B&W
settings (Ilford, Kodak, Agfa).
For scanning you medium format negatives/slides, you have the choice of 
higher
end Nikon scanners or Minolta, for entry level you could use the Epson 
Perfection
series or the new Canon 9950F, at high resolution it will yield a 
massive file, good
for poster size printing. I believe there are still many magazines and 
advertising agencies
who require this technique (except of course the processing equipment 
and scanners,
which would be out of reach for the common person).
Good luck in your endeavor!

Andrei

Diane Fields wrote:

> After as much research as possible, I decided to just ask the
> question here---very basic but perplexing for me.
>
> I am a (relatively) long time digital photographer--I came from film
> (35mm)--but haven't shot film in quite a number of years. I never
> had a darkroom--and don't intend to now. I'm quite proficient in PS,
> use Quadtone RIP for printing b/w with my 2200 (a larger format
> printer will come eventually, but not the immediate future). BUT--
> I've recently gotten the itch to buy a Pentax 67 as the prices go
> lower and lower--but just am not totally sure of the workflow to get
> it from camera to printer (and if there is more than one way to skin
> a cat).
>
> Of course, the other question is--is this even reasonable to
> consider. I currently shoot with a Canon 20D--have considered FF but
> will not make the jump to it with the new 5D--not right now anyhow.
> I've prepared a list of pros and cons for the used 67--but, because
> I'm digitally minded, will print digitally--is this just crazy?
>
> I've been reading the John Sexton thread too, but really couldn't
> find anything else on the forum while searhing that addresses this--
> and the pros/cons.
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>     * Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint>" on
>       the web.
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

MY TWO CENTS:

If quality is any concern, don't worry about it.

I saw a small exibition of prints by Ian Adams, a nature 
photographer, that used a 6x7 format camera w/transparancy film 
(Fuji, if I remember correctly).

The photos were print on an Epson 9600 at 40"x60". Yes INCHES!

These photos were STUNNING! I was blown away by the quality.

So, I don't think you're crazy for considering the Pentax 67 and 
scanning the film to be printed. I'm sure you'll spend a lot less on 
a Pentax 67 outfit and a Nikon 9000 scanner than you would on a MF 
digital outfit that would cost $10-30,000 for a digital back.

Scott



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Diane Fields" 
<picnic@c...> wrote:
> After as much research as possible, I decided to just ask the 
> question here---very basic but perplexing for me.
> 
> I am a (relatively) long time digital photographer--I came from 
film 
> (35mm)--but haven't shot film in quite a number of years.  I never 
> had a darkroom--and don't intend to now.  I'm quite proficient in 
PS, 
> use Quadtone RIP for printing b/w with my 2200 (a larger format 
> printer will come eventually, but not the immediate future).  BUT--
> I've recently gotten the itch to buy a Pentax 67 as the prices go 
> lower and lower--but just am not totally sure of the workflow to 
get 
> it from camera to printer (and if there is more than one way to 
skin 
> a cat).      
> 
> Of course, the other question is--is this even reasonable to 
> consider.  I currently shoot with a Canon 20D--have considered FF 
but 
> will not make the jump to it with the new 5D--not right now 
anyhow.  

> I've prepared a list of pros and cons for the used 67--but, because 
> I'm digitally minded, will print digitally--is this just crazy?
> 
> I've been reading the John Sexton thread too, but really couldn't 
> find anything else on the forum while searhing that addresses this--
> and the pros/cons.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Andrei Aderca 
<aderca@s...> wrote:
> Hi Diane
> 
> It would be more time consuming than using 100% digital but
> very rewarding in the end.
> For film processing you can either use a photo lab or do it
> yourself, I purchased a Jobo processor on Ebay and it is
> really a piece of cake to develop one's own films (that is
> assuming you stick with standard times and concentrations,
> if you go into push-pull, that tends to become more elaborate).
> You can use either B&W or color (either negative or slide)

I would add that if you start lookig for a processor, I would suggest 
one of the automatic versions like an JOBO ATL series. You can use 
the CPP/CPE with the lift, but you will need to stand at the machine 
for an hour to develop E6 films. Push and pull precessing are not 
that much different with the ATL1000/1500, as long as you stay with 
standard 1 or 2 stops, for half stops you'll want the 1500 control 
panel.

> It would be more time consuming than using 100% digital but very 
> > rewarding in the end.
> > For film processing you can either use a photo lab or do it 
> yourself, 
> > I purchased a Jobo processor on Ebay and it is really a 
> piece of cake 
> > to develop one's own films

Or just stick your B+W 120/220 into a standard paterson tank, and develop as
normal.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.

One word of caution.  If you don't have experience developing film in the Paterson type tanks (which I prefer), get some reliable advice of how to agitate.  Otherwise, it's pretty easy to get surge marks - uneven development - on the finished film.
 
Tom Baker

Chris Aitken <chris@...> wrote:
> It would be more time consuming than using 100% digital but very 
> > rewarding in the end.
> > For film processing you can either use a photo lab or do it 
> yourself, 
> > I purchased a Jobo processor on Ebay and it is really a 
> piece of cake 
> > to develop one's own films

Or just stick your B+W 120/220 into a standard paterson tank, and develop as
normal.


-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

and now for my two cents..............

I recently purchased a Mamiya 7ll 6X7cm and associated
lenses on Ebay for less than 1/3 the current retail
price. The equipment was in perfect shape and the
images I am getting from Fuji Velvia professional 100
and TriX are simply stunning. I scan with a Nikon 9000
and just couldn't be happier.

Go for it

Woody Spedden

--- scott_now_coming <scott_now_coming@...>
wrote:


---------------------------------
MY TWO CENTS:

If quality is any concern, don't worry about it.

I saw a small exibition of prints by Ian Adams, a
nature 
photographer, that used a 6x7 format camera
w/transparancy film 
(Fuji, if I remember correctly).

The photos were print on an Epson 9600 at 40"x60". Yes
INCHES!

These photos were STUNNING! I was blown away by the
quality.

So, I don't think you're crazy for considering the
Pentax 67 and 
scanning the film to be printed. I'm sure you'll spend
a lot less on 
a Pentax 67 outfit and a Nikon 9000 scanner than you
would on a MF 
digital outfit that would cost $10-30,000 for a
digital back.

Scott



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
"Diane Fields" 
<picnic@c...> wrote:
> After as much research as possible, I decided to
just ask the 
> question here---very basic but perplexing for me.
> 
> I am a (relatively) long time digital
photographer--I came from 
film 
> (35mm)--but haven't shot film in quite a number of
years.  I never 
> had a darkroom--and don't intend to now.  I'm quite
proficient in 
PS, 
> use Quadtone RIP for printing b/w with my 2200 (a
larger format 
> printer will come eventually, but not the immediate
future).  BUT--
> I've recently gotten the itch to buy a Pentax 67 as
the prices go 
> lower and lower--but just am not totally sure of the
workflow to 
get 
> it from camera to printer (and if there is more than
one way to 
skin 
> a cat).      
> 
> Of course, the other question is--is this even
reasonable to 
> consider.  I currently shoot with a Canon 20D--have
considered FF 
but 
> will not make the jump to it with the new 5D--not
right now 
anyhow.  
> I've prepared a list of pros and cons for the used
67--but, because 
> I'm digitally minded, will print digitally--is this
just crazy?
> 
> I've been reading the John Sexton thread too, but
really couldn't 
> find anything else on the forum while searhing that
addresses this--
> and the pros/cons.




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily
digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your
Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal
attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or
argumentative users may be removed from the membership
without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group
topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently
make off-topic posts may be removed from the
membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the
actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in
the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY
UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING
TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.


      

      SPONSORED LINKS  
                                               
Digital photography technique                         
          Digital photography                         
          Photography school                          
                                     Professional
digital photography                                   
Stock photography                                     
 
    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

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

Here are my two cents...

You will find the film -> develop -> scan -> PS workflow to be much 
more time consuming than using your digital SLR. This is something 
you need to take into account. The fact that you are already 
proficient in PS helps matters a lot, but scanning film takes time 
and there is a bit of a learning curve to it.

You can process 120-format B&W film on your own very easily and a 
JOBO setup is certainly not required (colour is another matter but 
you need a fairly high throughput to make home colour processing 
worthwhile). I process all kinds of film (B&W and colour, negative 
and reversal)  at home, without either a darkroom or specialized 
equipment. It's easy to learn.

You definitely need to give thought to how much you are prepared to 
spend on a scanner. The Nikon 9000 is certainly a great piece of 
equipment, but it is expensive. The Epson flatbed scanners with 
transparency adapters do a decent job scanning 6x7 for prices 
ranging from $200-$500 but neither the resolution or density range 
is as good as a dedicated film scanner (although I'm very pleased 
with my Epson 4180 flatbed).

Good luck

Jordan
www.photosensitive.ca

Diane Fields wrote:
> After as much research as possible, I decided to just ask the 
> question here---very basic but perplexing for me.
> 
> I am a (relatively) long time digital photographer--I came from film 
> (35mm)--but haven't shot film in quite a number of years.  I never 
> had a darkroom--and don't intend to now.  I'm quite proficient in PS, 
> use Quadtone RIP for printing b/w with my 2200 (a larger format 
> printer will come eventually, but not the immediate future).  BUT--
> I've recently gotten the itch to buy a Pentax 67 as the prices go 
> lower and lower--but just am not totally sure of the workflow to get 
> it from camera to printer (and if there is more than one way to skin 
> a cat).      
> 
> Of course, the other question is--is this even reasonable to 
> consider.  I currently shoot with a Canon 20D--have considered FF but 
> will not make the jump to it with the new 5D--not right now anyhow.  
> I've prepared a list of pros and cons for the used 67--but, because 
> I'm digitally minded, will print digitally--is this just crazy?
> 
> I've been reading the John Sexton thread too, but really couldn't 
> find anything else on the forum while searhing that addresses this--
> and the pros/cons.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 

-- 


Jordan Wosnick
jwosnick@...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker 
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
> One word of caution.  If you don't have experience developing film 
in the Paterson type tanks (which I prefer), get some reliable advice 
of how to agitate.  Otherwise, it's pretty easy to get surge marks - 
uneven development - on the finished film.
>  
> Tom Baker


If B/W negative film is what you will normally be using, then 
an "inexpensive" Jobo CPE2 with lift would do a good job. You can get 
these used, working on ebay for less than half price. It's still a 
manual process, but is temperature controlled, and has regular 
agitation.

Although I own a couple of digital cameras I still use MF film exclusively
for my work. Coming from a traditional background I feel more confident with
film and film cameras.  It's not only understanding the characteristics of
various films and their unique qualities but it's also having to create
images confidently without the reliance of previewing on the LCD screen.
Plus I'm concerned about the reliability of digital when working in remote
locations and climate extremes. Granted, photojournalists use digital
cameras under extreme conditions but, for me, film is a known quantity and I
feel far more secure with it. Not having to lug around a laptop, converters,
cables, backup devices, etc. is a real plus. And, in addition to the DVD/HD
backup, I like the feel of archiving a real piece of film. And the list goes
on.

I own and use several MF cameras/systems. I primarily use a Pentax 645 as
it's quicker, lighter and a little bit more discreet but also use the larger
and heavier P67 for more contemplative tripod work. I use both traditional
film (Delta 400) and C-41 films. They both scan very well (Nikon 8000) and
film (especially traditional BW film) has a far wider exposure latitude in
comparison to most digital CCDs. Although the 67 format provides larger file
sizes I've been able to produce large output (30x40) from both formats.

I may use up to 60-80 rolls of 220 film per project/trip so scanning can
indeed be time consuming. But after the usual edit (from traditional contact
sheets!!) I scan perhaps a few dozen images. So it's not any more time
consuming than reviewing several hundred downloaded digital images or
several darkroom printing sessions. Plus, fortunately for me, scanning in
grayscale is a lot quicker. I have several glass carriers so while one is
scanning I'm loading a couple more.

Someday I would like to make the switch to digital capture but I think I'll
be using film for the foreseeable future.

Good luck!

Rick Murai

www.richardmurai.com
http://www.hawaii.edu/mjournal/text/issues/descriptions/cambodia04.html

> After as much research as possible, I decided to just ask the
> question here---very basic but perplexing for me.
> 
> I am a (relatively) long time digital photographer--I came from film
> (35mm)--but haven't shot film in quite a number of years.  I never
> had a darkroom--and don't intend to now.  I'm quite proficient in PS,
> use Quadtone RIP for printing b/w with my 2200 (a larger format
> printer will come eventually, but not the immediate future).  BUT--
> I've recently gotten the itch to buy a Pentax 67 as the prices go
> lower and lower--but just am not totally sure of the workflow to get
> it from camera to printer (and if there is more than one way to skin
> a cat).      
> 
> Of course, the other question is--is this even reasonable to
> consider.  I currently shoot with a Canon 20D--have considered FF but
> will not make the jump to it with the new 5D--not right now anyhow.
> I've prepared a list of pros and cons for the used 67--but, because
> I'm digitally minded, will print digitally--is this just crazy?
> 
> I've been reading the John Sexton thread too, but really couldn't
> find anything else on the forum while searhing that addresses this--
> and the pros/cons.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND
> “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Diane,
here is advice perhaps not even worth 2c, and also against the grain
of the replies thus far.
My last (of 3) 120 cameras/systems was sold 18 months ago (SL66 with 3
Zeiss lenses, wonderful!). 
The difference is that now I have very much more depth of field for a
given image quality, no struggles with scanning and no dust spots (wow
yes!). And, mainly, *much better prints* (but I don't print 40x60).
The quality issue is fundamental - sensors are many times more
sensitive to light than any film, in some styles of photography this
matters, in others it matters not at all. 
Whether 6x7 is right for you depends a lot on your photographic style.
 It is not clear whether you have used a 120 SLR before but it is
certainly worth trying one on your normal subject matter before "going
for it". 

Good luck!
Ken

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Elwood Spedden 
<elwood@w...> wrote:
> and now for my two cents..............
> 
> I recently purchased a Mamiya 7ll 6X7cm and associated
> lenses on Ebay for less than 1/3 the current retail
> price. The equipment was in perfect shape and the
> images I am getting from Fuji Velvia professional 100
> and TriX are simply stunning. I scan with a Nikon 9000
> and just couldn't be happier.
> 
> Go for it
> 
> Woody Spedden
Funny that you bring up the Mamiya 711.  I drove to my nearest large 
city and the camera store I prefer and spent over an hour and a half 
with the manager.  I knew they had a Pentax 67II (used) in stock--but 
he gave me a lot more to think about.  He felt I would be happier 
with a  Mamiya (which they didn't have--so could have sold me the 
Pentax)--or even a Hassie or Bronica.  He and the other salesperson 
there, both MF and digital photographers, took the time to show me 
prints (mostly 1280 color--interestingly enough--older ones scanned 
on 'older' technology scanners), talk about  my 
type of shooting, etc.  Now, to digest it all.

Diane Fields

I agree with the positive comments from MF users. I still stay with film at at this time as I cannot justify the cost of the full-frame Dslrs. Another reason, I rather enjoy the look of film capture. Digital looks just a bit too "smooth" for me and I have read of photographers who add noise in PS. Of course, no one would deny the convenience of not having to process and making a quick review on a laptop or your computer screen. After processing I do a quick scan of the negatives on a lightbox or contact sheets to determine which I will scan into the computer. Interestingly, this process is quite simple with the larger negative. You can see the detail with a loupe. MF shooting also requires you to think before you press the shutter button. I have digital friends who brag about the amount of photos they can put on a card and not having to reload.  Then they download all of this to the computer and try to pick which photo meets their wishes.  More power to them!! To me, it is so much
 simpler with MF.  Most of my decisions are made at the time of the exposure. 
 
Richard expressed exactly how I feel about the usage of film.  My negatives are not going to be affected by a computer crash or disk failure. Of course, should I "mess" one up in some way, it is my fault..lol  I have negatives and transparencies going way back to the 50's - 60's that are still scannable and printable.  And I have had CDs and zip disks corrupted and have lost information in the past couple of years. 
 
Photography is now just a hobby with me and I am doing what works for me at this time. I am not fighting the digital revolution and with join it eventually. I just hope it settles down soon.  Get a MF camera, process your own film or send it out and enjoy!!!
 
T

R Murai <rmurai@...> wrote:
Although I own a couple of digital cameras I still use MF film exclusively
for my work. Coming from a traditional background I feel more confident with
film and film cameras.  It's not only understanding the characteristics of
various films and their unique qualities but it's also having to create
images confidently without the reliance of previewing on the LCD screen.
Plus I'm concerned about the reliability of digital when working in remote
locations and climate extremes. Granted, photojournalists use digital
cameras under extreme conditions but, for me, film is a known quantity and I
feel far more secure with it. Not having to lug around a laptop, converters,
cables, backup devices, etc. is a real plus. And, in addition to the DVD/HD
backup, I like the feel of archiving a real piece of film. And the list goes
on.

I own and use several MF cameras/systems. I primarily use a Pentax 645 as
it's quicker, lighter and a little bit more discreet but also use the larger
and heavier P67 for more contemplative tripod work. I use both traditional
film (Delta 400) and C-41 films. They both scan very well (Nikon 8000) and
film (especially traditional BW film) has a far wider exposure latitude in
comparison to most digital CCDs. Although the 67 format provides larger file
sizes I've been able to produce large output (30x40) from both formats.

I may use up to 60-80 rolls of 220 film per project/trip so scanning can
indeed be time consuming. But after the usual edit (from traditional contact
sheets!!) I scan perhaps a few dozen images. So it's not any more time
consuming than reviewing several hundred downloaded digital images or
several darkroom printing sessions. Plus, fortunately for me, scanning in
grayscale is a lot quicker. I have several glass carriers so while one is
scanning I'm loading a couple more.

Someday I would like to make the switch to digital capture but I think I'll
be using film for the foreseeable future.

Good luck!

Rick Murai

www.richardmurai.com
http://www.hawaii.edu/mjournal/text/issues/descriptions/cambodia04.html






__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi

Do you have the names/addresses of any labs that you
have worked with that process MF film? Reading the
posts has tempted me to try some B/W printing made
from the negs of a camera I have not used for
years...but at this point I would have to send out the
film for processing.

Thanks

Michael



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Thanks all for your input and I'll take any more anyone has to give.  

Ken, I have not shot with a 120 film cam--only 35mm.  I posted from the site so you'll see I spent some time with a Pentax 67II today but, of course, didn't shoot any film.  I do have a pro and con list and way up there on the con side is the time/expense of processing/scanning, etc.  I don't print 40" x 60" either--though I have had very large 'posters' made and mounted by a graphics company for a client.  The largest I have had printed (again, for a client) were 18 x 24.  My own prints are limited by my  2200 at 13 x 19 for the time being.

The person at the store today (the mgr) truly believes that the tonality, color and dynamic range just can't be beat by MF (except by LF of course)--he shoots 'casually' with a 20D and an MF for 'serious' work.  He also believes most people probably wouldn't see the difference LOL--and I concur with that--but that isn't really the point for me I guess.

I would like to stress again I'm not interested in a darkroom---but am certainly going to look into some of the 'alternatives' to a full blown darkroom from the suggestions.

BTW--I shoot landscapes,  urban landscapes, 'not quite' macros, and still lifes primarily.  (I do shoot parttime commercially for the furniture and textile industries but digital is great for that--and doesn't enter into this).  I'm pretty proficient in PS, use Quadtone RIP for B/W (not sure if I said that originally) and I lean toward b/w, but seem to be processing more color recently.

Diane Fields
www.pbase.com/picnic

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: kenstrain2000 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 2:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] A bit OT....MF to b/w print


  Diane,
  here is advice perhaps not even worth 2c, and also against the grain
  of the replies thus far.
  My last (of 3) 120 cameras/systems was sold 18 months ago (SL66 with 3
  Zeiss lenses, wonderful!). 
  The difference is that now I have very much more depth of field for a
  given image quality, no struggles with scanning and no dust spots (wow
  yes!). And, mainly, *much better prints* (but I don't print 40x60).
  The quality issue is fundamental - sensors are many times more
  sensitive to light than any film, in some styles of photography this
  matters, in others it matters not at all. 
  Whether 6x7 is right for you depends a lot on your photographic style.
  It is not clear whether you have used a 120 SLR before but it is
  certainly worth trying one on your normal subject matter before "going
  for it". 

  Good luck!
  Ken





  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

    a..  Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
      
    b..  To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c..  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Diane Fields" 
<picnic@c...> wrote:
That Mamiya 7 would be a really nice camera with some very good 
lenses. For another alternative, think about the Mamiya RZ series2 
since you can get several digital backs for it, as well as macro 
lenses, macro bellows, and a lot more. It is BIGGER and heavier than 
the 7 but has more flexibility, and may be cheaper on the used market.

If you end up scanning on a flatbed, take a look at this group:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SCANMAX/

As for me, I'm still going with a "lowly" Mamiya 645, you can get 
lenses and bodies really cheap on the used market. Don't get anything 
older than the 1000S body if you go this way, but the Super and Pro 
bodies are not that much more money. The Mamiya 6 is also a really 
nice body, similar to the Mamiya 7 but smaller image size.

Of course you could really step up to a 4x5 or 8x10 camera, the next 
camera I buy will be either of those from one of the build it 
yourself kits.

But we've probably strayed off topic for long enough.

On 8/26/05 11:19 AM, "kenstrain2000" <kenstrain2000@...> wrote:


> The difference is that now I have very much more depth of field for a
> given image quality, no struggles with scanning and no dust spots (wow
> yes!). 

Unless you never change lenses or have dedicated bodies for each lens
dust on CCDs can be, in my experience, just as bad, if not worse, than film.
The same dust pattern on a CCD will be on ALL files.

> And, mainly, *much better prints* (but I don't print 40x60).
> The quality issue is fundamental - sensors are many times more
> sensitive to light than any film, in some styles of photography this
> matters, in others it matters not at all.

Sensor sensitivity is only part of the equation. Contrast and exposure
latitude and tonal scale and palette of a given recording medium are, I
think, more important. Similar to the difference between cinema and video.


Rick 

www.richardmurai.com
http://www.hawaii.edu/mjournal/text/issues/descriptions/cambodia04.html

A few observations:

1.   If you are considering MF but have never shot it before, consider the 
Rolleiflex twin-lens reflex as a camera.   They are delicious, a joy to hold and 
use, and the optics are the best in class, period.   And you can buy a good 
user on eBay for a few hundred.   (Insert all standard disclaimers here.)   
Nothing else in MF comes close.

2.   Someone else, considering a return to film, asked for labs to process 
B+W.   If you want to give MF film a try but don't want to process your own film 
(which, really, is easy and a lot of fun), buy some Kodak 400CN film -- it 
gives a B+W image but develops in color C-41 process, so you can have it 
developed at your corner one-hour photo.

3.   As for processing, you can use JOBO tanks without the expense and bulk 
of the JOBO bases.   You can roll the JOBO tanks on a tabletop by hand, or buy 
a used Omega or Beseler roller base for $25.   I use JOBO tanks like that all 
the time for my 4x5-inch and 5x7-inch LF work, and they are dreams.

4.   Which leads to my final thought:   If you're going to take the plunge 
and come back to film, why not do it in style and go to a large format camera?   
There is nothing, absolutely nothing so inspiring as a big sheetfilm negative 
fresh from the fixer.   For the sort of work you are doing -- landscapes and 
still lifes -- a view camera is perfectly-suited.   The learning curve is not 
steep.   The equipment is cheap.   And the results are incomparable.   If 
nudity does not offend, stop by my web page, www.mcnew.net -- I am shooting nude 
portraiture entirely in 4x5-inch and 5x7-inch formats.   

5.   One of the benefits of shooting large format is that the Epson flatbed 
scanners will give you more than enough scanning power to get a first-class 
inkjet print -- that will save you a lot of cash and bother on the scanning side. 
  BUT BE WARNED!   Once you start messing with big negatives like these, you 
might conclude, as I have, that they really want to be printed onto silver 
gelatin papers.   And then you will end up doing something stupid like buying a 
4x5 enlarger and and 

Sanders McNew
www.mcnew.net


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Diane;

You sound like you shoot much of the same thing that I do for my personal
pleasure . . . I earn my living doing food ads and product shots for
packaging (with film thank you). I have used the Pentax 6x7 in the past and
liked it very much . . . never bought one though. I used Hasselblad for many
years, then switched to Mamiya RB/Zs . . . a great camera, but it really is
a studio affair . . . just too bulky to waltz around the countryside with.
At present I am shooting all my personal "MF" with a Sinar and a Toyo Field
using a zoom back (I know, bulkier than a Mamiya . . . but lighter and
greater versatility) . . . I shoot in 6x12, then I scan on an Epson flatbed
. . . am still looking for a good deal on an Imacon scanner (I feel one
coming soon . . . I hope). I have spent the last 6 - 8 months fooling around
with some smaller Epson printers while I try to zero in on what I like for
myself . . . and the projects that I do.

If I were you I would try to get my hands on a Mamiya G. While I am not a
rangefinder nut, and don't know if you are either, it is a light, fairly
compact unit with superb optics (which unfortunately cost far more than
Pentax's optics). It also is a good studio unit because you have a leaf
shutter (excellent outside with fill flash too) . . . you just have to get
over not seeing through the lens . . . not an insurmountable task . . . a
bit of practice, some (many?) goofs . . . and you will find your way.

As to the workflow issue . . . well that is a simple one to fix. If you can
afford the gear, and you are shooting a reasonable amout of film . . . that
means there will be a fairly good "workload" from time to time . . . so do
what any "professionally" oriented photographer would do . . . hire an
assistant to develop the film. You have twenty, thirty, maybe forty or more
rolls to process? (not unreasonable . . . we only have 10 exposures remember
. . . DON'T start using 220 you will regret it). There are a truckload of
people who would jump at a few bucks for a day's work (probably a hell of a
lot of them on this list). There . . . half of your workflow problem solved
. . . if they do a good enough job, maybe then can learn to scan too . . .
ALL of this a damn site cheaper than a Phase One 54 back and it's hundreds
of "accessories" needed to get it to work.

Last point . . . in your calculation, make sure the FIRST thing you buy is
the maximum amount of memory your computer can swallow . . . all of this
super-duper-gee-whiz techno crap will mean spit when you try to open a 100mb
plus file on a computer that goes into cardiac arrest.

good luck

Paul Aparycki


>Thanks all for your input and I'll take any more anyone has to give.

>Ken, I have not shot with a 120 film cam--only 35mm.  I posted from the
site so you'll see I spent some time with a Pentax 67II today but, of
course, didn't shoot >any film.  I do have a pro and con list and way up
there on the con side is the time/expense of processing/scanning, etc.  I
don't print 40" x 60" either--though I >have had very large 'posters' made
and mounted by a graphics company for a client.  The largest I have had
printed (again, for a client) were 18 x 24.  My own >prints are limited by
my  2200 at 13 x 19 for the time being.

snip, snip, snip.

>BTW--I shoot landscapes,  urban landscapes, 'not quite' macros, and still
lifes primarily.  (I do shoot parttime commercially for the furniture and
textile industries >but digital is great for that--and doesn't enter into
this).  I'm pretty proficient in PS, use Quadtone RIP for B/W (not sure if I
said that originally) and I lean toward >b/w, but seem to be processing more
color recently.

>Diane Fields

Rick,
not to argue, but my initial statements were well considered-
> > The difference is that now I have very much more depth of field
for a
> > given image quality, no struggles with scanning and no dust spots
(wow
> > yes!). 
> 
> Unless you never change lenses or have dedicated bodies for each
lens
> dust on CCDs can be, in my experience, just as bad, if not worse,
than film.
> The same dust pattern on a CCD will be on ALL files.

Somehow this seems to affect some more than others. I am fortunate to
have very minor dust troubles with my digital SLR and 4
frequently-interchanged lenses, compared to dust in drying film and
scanning.  OK, so I should not have generalised, sounds like you had a
bad experience.   

> 
> > And, mainly, *much better prints* (but I don't print 40x60).
> > The quality issue is fundamental - sensors are many times more
> > sensitive to light than any film, in some styles of photography
this
> > matters, in others it matters not at all.
>

> Sensor sensitivity is only part of the equation. Contrast and
exposure
> latitude and tonal scale and palette of a given recording medium
are, I
> think, more important. Similar to the difference between cinema and
> video.

I'm not going to prove to you that my prints are better now, but they
are. This is partly due to the improved quantum efficiency that leads
directly to shorter exposures when working at the depth of
field/diffraction limit (as I usually do). The wind can blow harder
without blurring the leaves; the tripod carried to the mountain top
can be much lighter. I see that Diane often takes pictures with things
that could move in the wind (nice photos on pbase).  I've compared
(measured) long tonal scale negatives developed with various
developers (including staining ones), and I am not convinced that the
true dynamic range of any of them was higher than the 9 stops
available from my digital camera (with suitable processing which is,
however, nontrivial).  Of course the characteristic shape is
different, but I can now choose it - something that was difficult
before.  I note that the resolution of film is very poor in the
shadows, and when comparing dynamic range with digital it is necessary
to average over pixels in the shadows before comparing dynamic range
(to be fair).

For some subjects this does not matter at all and the higher
low-contrast resolution of film is more significant.   

Ken


> 
> 
> Rick 
> 
> www.richardmurai.com
> http://www.hawaii.edu/mjournal/text/issues/descr
iptions/cambodia04.html

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, R Murai
<rmurai@e...> wrote:
...
> Unless you never change lenses or have dedicated bodies for each lens
> dust on CCDs can be, in my experience, just as bad, if not worse,
than film.
> The same dust pattern on a CCD will be on ALL files.

Rick is hitting all my major hot buttons with his posts. This is a
major problem.
> 
> > And, mainly, *much better prints* (but I don't print 40x60).
> > The quality issue is fundamental - sensors are many times more
> > sensitive to light than any film, in some styles of photography this
> > matters, in others it matters not at all.
> 
> Sensor sensitivity is only part of the equation. Contrast and exposure
> latitude and tonal scale and palette of a given recording medium are, I
> think, more important. Similar to the difference between cinema and
video.

Exactly, and as I've said before, I have countless images that I love,
that would not be possible to capture at all with a digital camera for
that reason. Even if I could, the image quality will be better on MF
film, unless you jump up to a MF camera back. This difference will be
less dramtic as you come down in print size.
Many have advised several MF cameras, sounds like you had your eye on
a Pentax67. I associate those with certain needs, many of which some
of these other cameras can't meet. For example, you may be able to
hand hold the Pentax in some situations you will certainly not be able
to hold the RZ, etc..
One advantage to the DSLR, there is a tendency to shoot more, and give
in to your instincts and try things. You may not bother to get out the
MF camera unless feeling more confident of an image. So I think the
DSLR may lead to more growth.
Tyler

>One advantage to the DSLR, there is a tendency to shoot more, and give
>in to your instincts and try things. You may not bother to get out the
>MF camera unless feeling more confident of an image. So I think the
>DSLR may lead to more growth.
>Tyler

More growth?  . . . hmmm, where are we now? Rocky 3, Rocky 7, Rocky 482???.
I don't dispute the "ease . . . read: shoot it until it is REALLY, REALLY
dead" issue, but I think that any GOOD photographer will have some idea as
to where they are going and what they want to do. Instead of more growth,
didn't you really mean to say keep on shooting until maybe, finally, you get
something that might be worthwhile?

Think I am being an S.O.B. about this? Look at ANY, ANY "photographer's"
site on the web, any "digital artist's" site on the web, and you will see
that Mr. Warhol was right vis-a-vis the fifteen minutes of fame . . .
unfortunately they all want 16, no 17, no 18, no, eternity for their ego . .
. they ALL have far too much mediocre to really shitty imagery. There might
be four or five extraordinarly great images, and then the 3,000+ other
images (might as well put them up, eh?) that show that they have NO idea of
where they are going.

The saving grace of film was that at least it made people be a little more
selective about their images. Digital is a wonderful step forward (in the
hands of those who have someting between their ears), but it is also a
plaque a thousand times worse than cancer or aids.

think I have to go and puke now

Paul Aparycki

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Aparycki"
<tawow@s...> wrote:
> 
> 
> >One advantage to the DSLR, there is a tendency to shoot more, and give
> >in to your instincts and try things. You may not bother to get out the
> >MF camera unless feeling more confident of an image. So I think the
> >DSLR may lead to more growth.
> >Tyler
> 
> More growth?  . . . hmmm, where are we now? Rocky 3, Rocky 7, Rocky
482???.
> I don't dispute the "ease . . . read: shoot it until it is REALLY,
REALLY
> dead" issue...

snip...

> think I have to go and puke now

Well now I've made someone puke. I just can't seem to get things right
on these lists. I don't think I've implied anything even remotely like
what you suggest.
There are countless images I should have made, that I didn't because
setting up the Deardorff was a factor. I was uncertain about whether
or not it would work, so took a pass.
I'm a firm believer in making photographic seeing, and the activity of
making images, a part of every day kife, rather than something I do as
a special occassion in a special place. That's how i learn to see,
that's how people become what they do instinctually.
That's why I wore my guitar all around the house when i was young,
even while doing the dishes.
I want to BE a photogrpagher. Always.
I can't explain it really.
Sorry about your stomach, seems a bit touchy.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Aparycki"
<tawow@s...> wrote:
...
> More growth?  . . . hmmm, where are we now? Rocky 3, Rocky 7, Rocky
482???.
> I don't dispute the "ease . . . read: shoot it until it is REALLY,
REALLY
> dead" issue, but I think that any GOOD photographer will have some
idea as
> to where they are going and what they want to do. Instead of more
growth,
> didn't you really mean to say keep on shooting until maybe, finally,
you get
> something that might be worthwhile?

You know something Paul? It'sa hot here today, I've kind of had ot
with the whole list thing, you've landed in my sites, so I'm going to
unload a bit more at you.

What's with the "didn't you mean" thing. Are you telling me what I'm
saying? Well you're dead wrong, absolutely. You don't know me or
anything about my approach to life or art or culture. You assume too
much, I imagine to make your own point.
> 
> Think I am being an S.O.B. about this?

Right here right now? Absolutely.

> Look at ANY, ANY "photographer's"
> site on the web...

I know exactly what you are talking about. Exactly. You have no reason
whatsoever to take what I said and reinterpret it into blather.
Sorry to jump down your throat, I'll go cool down, tomorrow will be a
better day.
Tyler

Paul

What is the deal with 220 that you would make such a
strong negative recommendation. Not challenging you,
just don't understand

Thanks
Woody Spedden

--- Paul Aparycki <tawow@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
Diane;

You sound like you shoot much of the same thing that I
do for my personal
pleasure . . . I earn my living doing food ads and
product shots for
packaging (with film thank you). I have used the
Pentax 6x7 in the past and
liked it very much . . . never bought one though. I
used Hasselblad for many
years, then switched to Mamiya RB/Zs . . . a great
camera, but it really is
a studio affair . . . just too bulky to waltz around
the countryside with.
At present I am shooting all my personal "MF" with a
Sinar and a Toyo Field
using a zoom back (I know, bulkier than a Mamiya . . .
but lighter and
greater versatility) . . . I shoot in 6x12, then I
scan on an Epson flatbed
. . . am still looking for a good deal on an Imacon
scanner (I feel one
coming soon . . . I hope). I have spent the last 6 - 8
months fooling around
with some smaller Epson printers while I try to zero
in on what I like for
myself . . . and the projects that I do.

If I were you I would try to get my hands on a Mamiya
G. While I am not a
rangefinder nut, and don't know if you are either, it
is a light, fairly
compact unit with superb optics (which unfortunately
cost far more than
Pentax's optics). It also is a good studio unit
because you have a leaf
shutter (excellent outside with fill flash too) . . .
you just have to get
over not seeing through the lens . . . not an
insurmountable task . . . a
bit of practice, some (many?) goofs . . . and you will
find your way.

As to the workflow issue . . . well that is a simple
one to fix. If you can
afford the gear, and you are shooting a reasonable
amout of film . . . that
means there will be a fairly good "workload" from time
to time . . . so do
what any "professionally" oriented photographer would
do . . . hire an
assistant to develop the film. You have twenty,
thirty, maybe forty or more
rolls to process? (not unreasonable . . . we only have
10 exposures remember
. . . DON'T start using 220 you will regret it). There
are a truckload of
people who would jump at a few bucks for a day's work
(probably a hell of a
lot of them on this list). There . . . half of your
workflow problem solved
. . . if they do a good enough job, maybe then can
learn to scan too . . .
ALL of this a damn site cheaper than a Phase One 54
back and it's hundreds
of "accessories" needed to get it to work.

Last point . . . in your calculation, make sure the
FIRST thing you buy is
the maximum amount of memory your computer can swallow
. . . all of this
super-duper-gee-whiz techno crap will mean spit when
you try to open a 100mb
plus file on a computer that goes into cardiac arrest.

good luck

Paul Aparycki


>Thanks all for your input and I'll take any more
anyone has to give.

>Ken, I have not shot with a 120 film cam--only 35mm. 
I posted from the
site so you'll see I spent some time with a Pentax
67II today but, of
course, didn't shoot >any film.  I do have a pro and
con list and way up
there on the con side is the time/expense of
processing/scanning, etc.  I
don't print 40" x 60" either--though I >have had very
large 'posters' made
and mounted by a graphics company for a client.  The
largest I have had
printed (again, for a client) were 18 x 24.  My own
>prints are limited by
my  2200 at 13 x 19 for the time being.

snip, snip, snip.

>BTW--I shoot landscapes,  urban landscapes, 'not
quite' macros, and still
lifes primarily.  (I do shoot parttime commercially
for the furniture and
textile industries >but digital is great for that--and
doesn't enter into
this).  I'm pretty proficient in PS, use Quadtone RIP
for B/W (not sure if I
said that originally) and I lean toward >b/w, but seem
to be processing more
color recently.

>Diane Fields





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily
digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your
Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal
attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or
argumentative users may be removed from the membership
without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group
topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently
make off-topic posts may be removed from the
membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the
actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in
the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY
UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING
TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.


      

      SPONSORED LINKS  
                                               
Digital photography technique                         
          Digital photography                         
          Photography school                          
                                     Professional
digital photography                                   
Stock photography                                     
 
    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

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

Tyler;

Please don't take it as an attack . . . but if you made the effort to look
at the websites of those on this list, and other lists . . . forget that,
just go cruise yahoo, or google for photogapher's galleries and you will see
exactly what I mean . . . "oh I shot it with a red filter, oh then I shot it
with a green filter, oh then I shot it with" . . . . . ad infinitum . . .
99.9999999999999 per cent is absolute diarrhea . . . and that is being
generous. They don't know what they are doing and the ease of the digi-doers
has made it a plaque.

As for not setting up the Deardorff . . . oooh, poor you. I suffer from the
same laziness, but I actually go out and work to get that shot. I guess I am
not a cripple, and I suppose you are really waiting for the next step where
there will be some sort of interconnect that you can just plug into your
head and then never get out of bed . . .just think up your "art" and send it
to your printer. Thankfully that idea won't survive for very long because
heart disease will wipe out most of the lazy slugs.

How many times on this list (and others) have we had the "experts"
masturbating over the "horsepower" figures for the next digi-whatsis . . .
and that is all they are capable of. There are very, very few artists,
photographers, what have you, who have a consistently high standard of
creativity/vision, whatever you wish to call it. To them, the tools are a
means to the end, nothing more. However, many on this list, drop their pants
and drool at the next press release . . . vision? creativity? no . . .
gutter rats maybe, creative, no.

The whole concept of "seeing" is based to a large degree on being able to
reflect . . . be it within an instant, or a day or two, or longer, until the
"image" speaks to you . . . shooting the hell out of something doesn't
guarantee a good image . . . understanding does, and that is not digital,
never will be . . . if you or anyone else wishes to presume otherwise, then
you obviously have nothing between the ears.

Digital DOES NOT improve creativity . . . if anything it promotes laziness .
. . reading a good book and getting a different point of view will go much
further to improving creativity . . . at least it gives you a different
viewpoint, a place to start. Digital gives NONE of that.

still shooting film, and digitizing (gotta compromise!)
Paul Aparycki

>Well now I've made someone puke. I just can't seem to get things right
>on these lists. I don't think I've implied anything even remotely like
>what you suggest.

simply not true

I've used the Pentax 67 system off and on for about 12 years. It's a great 
system and at today's prices on the used market I don't think you can beat 
it. There's a highly non-technical review of it on my web site 
www.ellisgalleries.com if you care to look. One of the nice things about 
medium format is that you'll slow down and take a lot of care with focus, 
exposure, and composition so you might find that the aesthetic quality of 
your photographs improves and the technical quality may as well (it 
certainly will as compared to 35mm).

The workflow is pretty simple, just get a scanner (medium format film or 
flat bed) and use either the bundled software or an independent like Vuescan 
(www.hamrick.com). The Epson 4990 is a very affordable (around $500) flat 
bed but you might get better quality, especially with prints larger than 
about 11x14, using a medium format film scanner.  Or you might choose to 
just do your own proofs on a very inexpensive flat bed and send your best 
negatives to an affordable lab like Nancyscans (www.nancyscans.com) for 
scanning.

If there's anything I can help you with in buying the Pentax camera, lenses, 
and accessories feel free to send me an email.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Diane Fields" <picnic@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:35 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] A bit OT....MF to b/w print


After as much research as possible, I decided to just ask the
question here---very basic but perplexing for me.

I am a (relatively) long time digital photographer--I came from film
(35mm)--but haven't shot film in quite a number of years.  I never
had a darkroom--and don't intend to now.  I'm quite proficient in PS,
use Quadtone RIP for printing b/w with my 2200 (a larger format
printer will come eventually, but not the immediate future).  BUT--
I've recently gotten the itch to buy a Pentax 67 as the prices go
lower and lower--but just am not totally sure of the workflow to get
it from camera to printer (and if there is more than one way to skin
a cat).

Of course, the other question is--is this even reasonable to
consider.  I currently shoot with a Canon 20D--have considered FF but
will not make the jump to it with the new 5D--not right now anyhow.
I've prepared a list of pros and cons for the used 67--but, because
I'm digitally minded, will print digitally--is this just crazy?

I've been reading the John Sexton thread too, but really couldn't
find anything else on the forum while searhing that addresses this--
and the pros/cons.






Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and 
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU 
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY 
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, 
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE 
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY 
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY 
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Tyler  -
 
I think you've made an error in your thinking.  You seem to be asuming that being a 'photographer' means that one is thoughtful, reasonable, and tolerent of different ways of approaching life (and photography).
 
Tom Baker

Tyler Boley <tyler@...> wrote:
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Aparycki"
wrote:
...
> More growth? . . . hmmm, where are we now? Rocky 3, Rocky 7, Rocky
482???.
> I don't dispute the "ease . . . read: shoot it until it is REALLY,
REALLY
> dead" issue, but I think that any GOOD photographer will have some
idea as
> to where they are going and what they want to do. Instead of more
growth,
> didn't you really mean to say keep on shooting until maybe, finally,
you get
> something that might be worthwhile?

You know something Paul? It'sa hot here today, I've kind of had ot
with the whole list thing, you've landed in my sites, so I'm going to
unload a bit more at you.

What's with the "didn't you mean" thing. Are you telling me what I'm
saying? Well you're dead wrong, absolutely. You don't know me or
anything about my approach to life or art or culture. You assume too
much, I imagine to make your own point.
> 
> Think I am being an S.O.B. about this?

Right here right now? Absolutely.

> Look at ANY, ANY "photographer's"
> site on the web...

I know exactly what you are talking about. Exactly. You have no reason
whatsoever to take what I said and reinterpret it into blather.
Sorry to jump down your throat, I'll go cool down, tomorrow will be a
better day.
Tyler






Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links










[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Diane, just a thought for b&w prints.  Since you're thinking about a large
clunky camera anyway which will probably require a tripod, you might
consider a 4x5 field camera like the Toyo or similar.  The field camera and
a couple of lenses will take up about the same amount of space, but the
quality will be better.  I'm scanning a backlog of 4x5 and 8x10 TriX and
Tmax negs now with the humble Epson 4990 scanner ($450) and the results are
excellent. If you scan at 2000 ppi (about the optical resolution of the
scanner) you will have an 8000 pixel image = a pretty big print.  I have no
experience with color neg or chromes so can't comment on that.  However, my
take: Personally, I'm not doing much if any new film work now.  I can get
images with the DSLR that I could not have made with the cumbersome MF and
LF cameras.  Free, free at last from the tripod.  In addition, tools such as
Convert to B&W Pro and ImagePrint make good b&w digital prints a reality.

  --Ken

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On 
> Behalf Of Diane Fields
> Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 8:35 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] A bit OT....MF to b/w print
> 
> After as much research as possible, I decided to just ask the 
> question here---very basic but perplexing for me.
> 
> I am a (relatively) long time digital photographer--I came 
> from film (35mm)--but haven't shot film in quite a number of 
> years.  I never had a darkroom--and don't intend to now.  I'm 
> quite proficient in PS, use Quadtone RIP for printing b/w 
> with my 2200 (a larger format printer will come eventually, 
> but not the immediate future).  BUT-- I've recently gotten 
> the itch to buy a Pentax 67 as the prices go lower and 
> lower--but just am not totally sure of the workflow to get it 
> from camera to printer (and if there is more than one way to skin 
> a cat).      
> 
> Of course, the other question is--is this even reasonable to 
> consider.  I currently shoot with a Canon 20D--have 
> considered FF but will not make the jump to it with the new 
> 5D--not right now anyhow.  
> I've prepared a list of pros and cons for the used 67--but, 
> because I'm digitally minded, will print digitally--is this 
> just crazy?
> 
> I've been reading the John Sexton thread too, but really 
> couldn't find anything else on the forum while searhing that 
> addresses this-- and the pros/cons.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
> --------------------~--> 
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! 
> your home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/ucIolB/TM
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ------~-> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or 
> you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership 
> preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier 
> messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks 
> or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be 
> removed from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of 
> digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic 
> posts may be removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group 
> rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and 
> decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group 
> Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL 
> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE 
> THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, 
> INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY 
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF 
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN 
> IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH 
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE 
> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED 
> ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) 
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO 
> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>

Ken, I am, indirectly, asking about this also.  I understand that there is bias on all sides, but I also would like input from all sides.  I can remain 'all digital' or I can veer off and incorporate film/MF also---but realize that I will have to incorporate a whole new support system for a different format--and that's not inexpensive.  I'm quite good at PS---and have done b/w conversions for a number of years, so that's not the issue.  The real issue is---will I find that I will end up with a 'better' image than I can with digital.  Today, the assumption by the salesperson was that I'm not 'contemplative' about my photography--with the reality that that is part of most people's approach to digital--lots of shots on a card, etc.  However---I AM slow, contemplative, etc.--its part of my creative nature (if you spent over 20 years as a textile artist/craftsperson with the many MANY layers of 'process'---you learn how to plan and never ever have quick gratification).  So--I'm trying to determine where I want to go with this--and I am most interested in the b/w print.  

I'm grateful for everyone's input.  I've been on this list for years---and have learned so much.  I'm perhaps not as obsessive as some of you that came from 'wet' darkrooms, but I am a very visual person and am very interested in the best I can get from my images.

Diane Fields
  Personally, I'm not doing much if any new film work now.  I can get
  images with the DSLR that I could not have made with the cumbersome MF and
  LF cameras.  Free, free at last from the tripod.  In addition, tools such as
  Convert to B&W Pro and ImagePrint make good b&w digital prints a reality.

    --Ken


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"They are delicious, a joy to hold and

use, and the optics are the best in class, period."

And no "mirror slap". And leaf shutter, too. Add a tri-pod and cable 
release. One of the best combos I've ever used. Can't be beat.

Scott



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, sandersm@a... 
wrote:
> A few observations:
> 
> 1.   If you are considering MF but have never shot it before, 
consider the 
> Rolleiflex twin-lens reflex as a camera.   They are delicious, a 
joy to hold and 
> use, and the optics are the best in class, period.   And you can 
buy a good 
> user on eBay for a few hundred.   (Insert all standard disclaimers 
here.)   
> Nothing else in MF comes close.
> 
> 2.   Someone else, considering a return to film, asked for labs to 
process 
> B+W.   If you want to give MF film a try but don't want to process 
your own film 
> (which, really, is easy and a lot of fun), buy some Kodak 400CN 
film -- it 
> gives a B+W image but develops in color C-41 process, so you can 
have it 
> developed at your corner one-hour photo.
> 
> 3.   As for processing, you can use JOBO tanks without the expense 
and bulk 
> of the JOBO bases.   You can roll the JOBO tanks on a tabletop by 
hand, or buy 
> a used Omega or Beseler roller base for $25.   I use JOBO tanks 
like that all 
> the time for my 4x5-inch and 5x7-inch LF work, and they are dreams.
> 
> 4.   Which leads to my final thought:   If you're going to take the 
plunge 
> and come back to film, why not do it in style and go to a large 
format camera?   
> There is nothing, absolutely nothing so inspiring as a big 
sheetfilm negative 
> fresh from the fixer.   For the sort of work you are doing -- 
landscapes and 
> still lifes -- a view camera is perfectly-suited.   The learning 
curve is not 
> steep.   The equipment is cheap.   And the results are 
incomparable.   If 
> nudity does not offend, stop by my web page, www.mcnew.net -- I am 
shooting nude 
> portraiture entirely in 4x5-inch and 5x7-inch formats.   
> 
> 5.   One of the benefits of shooting large format is that the Epson 
flatbed 
> scanners will give you more than enough scanning power to get a 
first-class 
> inkjet print -- that will save you a lot of cash and bother on the 
scanning side. 
>   BUT BE WARNED!   Once you start messing with big negatives like 
these, you 
> might conclude, as I have, that they really want to be printed onto 
silver 
> gelatin papers.   And then you will end up doing something stupid 
like buying a 

> 4x5 enlarger and and 
> 
> Sanders McNew
> www.mcnew.net
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Diane,
  I shoot most of my BW (which by anyone's standards is woefully little),
using a 4x5 field camera. I also have a 20D, which I use for all
sorts of photography.  No doubt the 4x5 wins - big surprise. It is easy
to scan on a desktop scanner (an EPSON 3200), whereas 35 mm does
not scan very sharply at all.  I like the tons of small detail that comes from
the large format. One thing I don't see mentioned much, is that the
printers can really print with a lot of resolution. You can see the difference
in the print from large files with lots of data, even in a relatively 
small print. Not to say that the smaller formats - digital or film -
can't make a nice large image. It is more a  question of visible detail. And
the ease in which you can transfer it to paper.

A great way to see whether a larger format will make any difference 
to your final product is to try printing some big files. There are a large
number of scans in the library of congress. For
example, some of my favorites are Lewis Hines' images of children
working in mills. Or the Wright brother's plane. You can download scans
of their glass plates - 5x7 usually. I have used these for test prints
sometimes when trying to tweak  the printer. Download a couple of
these and print them to see if they look any different than your
current equipment. These ancient images look just wonderful and
I think show off what a print from a big piece of film looks like.
There are also test images from big Dslrs (say on dpreview) that you can
download and compare. Never know which one you will like best.

A view camera does take a lot more work than a hand held SLR, 
whether digital or not. Once you start putting the camera on a tripod,
and with practice, the difference is somewhat less. After getting used
to the view camera, and this is a big point, you feel like you have much
less control of the camera when you don't have movements.  Sure, the
bigger format needs the movements to get acceptable depth of field,
but all in all there are just more choices than deciding what's in the
frame. That's fun and useful to some people, not so to others.

Hope that adds something to the thread.

Costa




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Diane Fields" <picnic@c...> 
wrote:
> Ken, I am, indirectly, asking about this also.  I understand that there is bias on all sides, 
but I also would like input from all sides.  I can remain 'all digital' or I can veer off and 
incorporate film/MF also---but realize that I will have to incorporate a whole new support 
system for a different format--and that's not inexpensive.  I'm quite good at PS---and 
have done b/w conversions for a number of years, so that's not the issue.  The real issue 
is---will I find that I will end up with a 'better' image than I can with digital.  Today, the 
assumption by the salesperson was that I'm not 'contemplative' about my photography--
with the reality that that is part of most people's approach to digital--lots of shots on a 
card, etc.  However---I AM slow, contemplative, etc.--its part of my creative nature (if you 
spent over 20 years as a textile artist/craftsperson with the many MANY layers of 
'process'---you learn how to plan and never ever have quick gratification).  So--I'm trying 
to determine where I want to go with this--and I am most interested in the b/w print.

Besides being a real joy/paing to use, very useable 4x5's and lenses can be had at quite reasonable prices.  Especially considering the quality.
 
They fact that you can scan 4x5's quite successfully (even for 3'x5' prints) on an Epson 3200 means you can save some money on the scanner you'd need.
 
I just took my 4x5 out to go on an outing up the Big Sur Coast this weekend.  (Ah, the good old days).
 
Tom Baker


 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello Diane.
For whatever it's worth, my take on your question is that it is truly
dependent on what you expect to be your future needs. If you work with
images and do a lot of what "real photographers--{:grin}" would
consider sacriligious, you might not ever need the level of detail
available in the larger sized negatives. On the other hand if you are
going for large prints and extreme detail you can get it with film in
larger sizes. The way you work and time available for it is a
consideration as well. Large cameras stick out in public and attract
attention by comparison with the smaller ones. They are a pain to
carry around, can be hard to protect both physically and from theft
and you are not likely to haul one off to work with you every day
unless using it IS your job. In my particular case, I own and have
used everything from 4x5 on down to 35mm both professionaly and for
personal work. The 4x5's and 6x6 slr's get taken out only occasionally
and exercised. I do use a 6x7 rangefinder fairly freaquently as well
as several little 6x6 folders I keep in vehicles under the seat. Most
of the work I do, however, ends up being done with 35mm for a number
of reasons, the primary one of which is that I take a camera
everywhere just on the chance I "might" get to indulge myself and do
what I enjoy so much.
The conversations on "contempletive use" srike me as a bit amusing.
One can shotgun with a (pick your size--any size) very easily so I
don't see that as relevent.
Take note though, that if you embark on the mf journey it may well be
 an endless one with a dark and twisted path to who knows what end.;) 

Regards
Duane




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Diane Fields"
<picnic@c...> wrote:
> Ken, I am, indirectly, asking about this also.  I understand that
there is bias on all sides, but I also would like input from all
sides.  I can remain 'all digital' or I can veer off and incorporate
film/MF also---but realize that I will have to incorporate a whole new
support system for a different format--and that's not inexpensive. 
I'm quite good at PS---and have done b/w conversions for a number of
years, so that's not the issue.  The real issue is---will I find that
I will end up with a 'better' image than I can with digital.  Today,
the assumption by the salesperson was that I'm not 'contemplative'
about my photography--with the reality that that is part of most
people's approach to digital--lots of shots on a card, etc. 
However---I AM slow, contemplative, etc.--its part of my creative
nature (if you spent over 20 years as a textile artist/craftsperson
with the many MANY layers of 'process'---you learn how to plan and
never ever have quick gratification).  So--I'm trying to determine
where I want to go with this--and I am most interested in the b/w print.  
> 
> I'm grateful for everyone's input.  I've been on this list for
years---and have learned so much.  I'm perhaps not as obsessive as
some of you that came from 'wet' darkrooms, but I am a very visual
person and am very interested in the best I can get from my images.
> 
> Diane Fields
>   Personally, I'm not doing much if any new film work now.  I can get
>   images with the DSLR that I could not have made with the
cumbersome MF and
>   LF cameras.  Free, free at last from the tripod.  In addition,
tools such as
>   Convert to B&W Pro and ImagePrint make good b&w digital prints a
reality.

> 
>     --Ken
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Diane, I bought a used P67II with metering finder on ebay this
January. 45mm and 75mm lenses with a metering prism. I scan the 
negs on an Epson 2450 in 16bit. A full-frame scan is about
6700x5200 px at 2400 dpi. If a sample scan would help you figure
things out, I have some I could share, but they are large 
files ~ 68MB. They aren't what you'd get from a drum scanner, 
but would be representative of sharpness and resolution from the 
Espon desktop scanner without an exotic wet-mounting rig. Contact 
me off list if you are interested and we can work out the details.

I'm not an experienced MF user (usually Wisner 4x5) so I can't
compare it to Hassey's and Rollie's etc, and I've only run 
about 20-30 rolls of TMax 100 through it, but it meters perfectly,
the lenses seem fine for the sorts of subjects I like -- 
landscapes, old graineries, still-lifes -- and the negs seem 
wonderfully sharp. I usually work on a tripod, but I tried it 
handheld too, just 'cause I could. :-)

I print using UT-7 inks on a 2200, btw.

-David Wroblewski
dawroblewski@...

The saving grace of film was that at least it made people be a little more
selective about their images. Digital is a wonderful step forward (in the
hands of those who have someting between their ears), but it is also a
plaque a thousand times worse than cancer or aids.


Paul Aparycki


That is complete nonsense, photographers that shoot film and are supported 
by companies with deep pockets will shoot huge amounts of film. There is a 
photographer that traveled with the naturalist that spent two years walking 
across central Africa. He is publishing a book of his photographs (with I 
believe 106 images). Over the two years he shot 25,000 images. He was 
supported by National Geographic. If you don't like Digital that's up to 
you, but enough is enough. Calling Digital a plague (I think that's what you 
meant, not "plaque") a thousand times worse than cancer or aids is way over 
the top.

Gary

I shoot both digital and film. My choice about which to use sometimes has to
do with image quality - then I will scan 6x7 film (I only have a Canon 20D
at the moment) but most times my choice has to do with what sort of
equipment and photographic mindset I'm plugged in to. If I have a particular
subject to shoot, I like the discipline of setting up the 6x7 Bronica and
shooting a limited number of frames. For street type photography, I like to
use Olympus 35mm with prime lenses - compact, unobtrusive. For stock
photography the canon combined with digital workflow is a godsend if you are
managing large amounts of images.

 

As far as quality goes, I get excellent results scanning film on Nikon 9000.
The Canon 20d is an excellent camera and I'm sure it's big brothers coupled
with top quality Canon primes are a league better.

 

I think the image quality argument is a bit of a dead end - the big
advantage with digital is surely the workflow

 

Richard

 

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
ccolbertbw
Sent: 27 August 2005 04:13
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] A bit OT....MF to b/w print

 

Diane,
  I shoot most of my BW (which by anyone's standards is woefully little),
using a 4x5 field camera. I also have a 20D, which I use for all
sorts of photography.  No doubt the 4x5 wins - big surprise. It is easy
to scan on a desktop scanner (an EPSON 3200), whereas 35 mm does
not scan very sharply at all.  I like the tons of small detail that comes
from
the large format. One thing I don't see mentioned much, is that the
printers can really print with a lot of resolution. You can see the
difference
in the print from large files with lots of data, even in a relatively 
small print. Not to say that the smaller formats - digital or film -
can't make a nice large image. It is more a  question of visible detail. And
the ease in which you can transfer it to paper.

A great way to see whether a larger format will make any difference 
to your final product is to try printing some big files. There are a large
number of scans in the library of congress. For
example, some of my favorites are Lewis Hines' images of children
working in mills. Or the Wright brother's plane. You can download scans
of their glass plates - 5x7 usually. I have used these for test prints
sometimes when trying to tweak  the printer. Download a couple of
these and print them to see if they look any different than your
current equipment. These ancient images look just wonderful and
I think show off what a print from a big piece of film looks like.
There are also test images from big Dslrs (say on dpreview) that you can
download and compare. Never know which one you will like best.

A view camera does take a lot more work than a hand held SLR, 
whether digital or not. Once you start putting the camera on a tripod,
and with practice, the difference is somewhat less. After getting used
to the view camera, and this is a big point, you feel like you have much
less control of the camera when you don't have movements.  Sure, the
bigger format needs the movements to get acceptable depth of field,
but all in all there are just more choices than deciding what's in the
frame. That's fun and useful to some people, not so to others.

Hope that adds something to the thread.

Costa




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Diane Fields"
<picnic@c...> 
wrote:
> Ken, I am, indirectly, asking about this also.  I understand that there is
bias on all sides, 
but I also would like input from all sides.  I can remain 'all digital' or I
can veer off and 
incorporate film/MF also---but realize that I will have to incorporate a
whole new support 
system for a different format--and that's not inexpensive.  I'm quite good
at PS---and 
have done b/w conversions for a number of years, so that's not the issue.
The real issue 
is---will I find that I will end up with a 'better' image than I can with
digital.  Today, the 
assumption by the salesperson was that I'm not 'contemplative' about my
photography--
with the reality that that is part of most people's approach to
digital--lots of shots on a 
card, etc.  However---I AM slow, contemplative, etc.--its part of my
creative nature (if you 
spent over 20 years as a textile artist/craftsperson with the many MANY
layers of 
'process'---you learn how to plan and never ever have quick gratification).
So--I'm trying 
to determine where I want to go with this--and I am most interested in the
b/w print.  





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.





  _____  

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 

 

*	 Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint> " on the web.
  
*	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Uns
ubscribe> 
  
*	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 

 

  _____  



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Paul,

You have made some good posts in the past but the attitude you are now
putting forth in this thread is garbage, full of snide commentary and a
pathetically veiled attempt at equally ill-considered innuendo.

on 27/8/05 9:39 AM, Paul Aparycki at wrote:

> Tyler;
> 
> Please don't take it as an attack . . .

Oh and what is it then ... Does the following give you a clue .. Your words
> 
> As for not setting up the Deardorff . . . oooh, poor you. I suffer from the
> same laziness, but I actually go out and work to get that shot. I guess I am
> not a cripple, and I suppose you are really waiting for the next step where
> there will be some sort of interconnect that you can just plug into your
> head and then never get out of bed . . .just think up your "art" and send it
> to your printer. Thankfully that idea won't survive for very long because
> heart disease will wipe out most of the lazy slugs.
> 
> How many times on this list (and others) have we had the "experts"
> masturbating over the "horsepower" figures for the next digi-whatsis . . .
> and that is all they are capable of. There are very, very few artists,
> photographers, what have you, who have a consistently high standard of
> creativity/vision, whatever you wish to call it. To them, the tools are a
> means to the end, nothing more. However, many on this list, drop their pants
> and drool at the next press release . . . vision? creativity? no . . .
> gutter rats maybe, creative, no.
> 

Who are the lazy slugs, Paul ... And what do the references to masturbating,
slugs & cripples imply about your own world view, which I note is not shared
by others who on this list at least show somewhat more respect for others by
not seeking to be so confrontational & insulting in their attitudes to
others. None of these comments have a place here and I for one don't intend
to allow you to drag this forum down.

If you have an opinion that's fine, if it involves insulting and degrading
remarks that don't assist or have relevance to the content of the thread
then who of us cares to listen, not many I think.

Tony Kelly

If he's getting his teeth into the digital concept it might well be Plaque. 
On the other hand, it you consider  he's behaving like a rat then most 
likely it IS the Plague.

Speaking personally I think he is behaving like a turd, and thus it might be 
claimed that he is talking a load of crap.

Definitions, definitions, my kingdom for a definition....

Richard

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gary Brown" <baffin@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 6:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] A bit OT....MF to b/w print



The saving grace of film was that at least it made people be a little more
selective about their images. Digital is a wonderful step forward (in the
hands of those who have someting between their ears), but it is also a
plaque a thousand times worse than cancer or aids.


Paul Aparycki


That is complete nonsense, photographers that shoot film and are supported
by companies with deep pockets will shoot huge amounts of film. There is a
photographer that traveled with the naturalist that spent two years walking
across central Africa. He is publishing a book of his photographs (with I
believe 106 images). Over the two years he shot 25,000 images. He was
supported by National Geographic. If you don't like Digital that's up to
you, but enough is enough. Calling Digital a plague (I think that's what you
meant, not "plaque") a thousand times worse than cancer or aids is way over
the top.

Gary








Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and 
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU 
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY 
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, 
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE 
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY 
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY 
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links







---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

Dianne,

Just an opinion , but you might find it helpful. I found this on 
photonet:

"My D2X has replaced my Pentax 645N and 67II gear.

I was scanning the medium-format transparencies on a Minolta Scan Multi 
Pro, and I think the digital files from the Nikon look better than the 
645 scans, and almost as good as the 6x7 scans. If the D2X images 
didn't look so good, I would have kept the Pentax gear."

Drime

"If you believe everything you read .... don't read"

19th Century Japanese proverb

> Dianne,
> 
> Just an opinion , but you might find it helpful. I found this on
> photonet:
> 
> "My D2X has replaced my Pentax 645N and 67II gear.
> 
> I was scanning the medium-format transparencies on a Minolta Scan Multi
> Pro, and I think the digital files from the Nikon look better than the
> 645 scans, and almost as good as the 6x7 scans. If the D2X images
> didn't look so good, I would have kept the Pentax gear."
> 
> Drime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See ?Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines? in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE ?OWNER? AND
> ?MODERATORS? OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  ?OWNER? AND ?MODERATORS? OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

I have no problem with digital. I have a very serious problem with
mediocrity and the millions of feeble excuses it seems a lot of digital
shooters use to justify it.

While not subscribing to the "ooooooommm Zen" attitude that many profess
regarding large format shooting . . . i.e. the contemplative approach that
allows for "better" images, I do agree that slowing down before you hit the
damn button makes for a better picture. Most people don't, and in the digi
age . . . well, you have heard it here a thousand times, "shoot, shoot,
shoot, shoot, shoot!" . . . then sadly, much of it makes it onto the web . .
. gallery after gallery of "maybes" and "it's pretty good" . . . the only
person that it serves is the ego of the so-so photographer who wasn't too
sure of what they were doing in the first place.

I shoot a little in digital, but mostly in film, predominately in MF and LF,
up to and including on some jobs 8x10 . . . my clients who pay me a good
amount of money are NOT screaming "digital, digital, digital, digital!", I
guess they don't know what you know . . . maybe you should talk to them and
teach them something.

As for my spelling, THAT is a major faux pas, I am well read and pride
myself on getting it right . . . I don't use or believe in spell-checkers. I
apologize for that and hope that you will sleep better tonight.

A plaGue? yes, it is . . . borne of laziness and stupidity (which is why is
pisses me off so much)

Paul Aparycki

p.s. a few years ago I started a project in southern Argentina . . . a few
months traipsing about the countryside. I haven't had time to finish it yet,
but plan on going back this year or next and spend 3-6 months completeing it
. . . ALL on film, ALL at my expense. Your wannabee stories from the "photo
press" are based on fact, but are really "harlequin romances" for the
uninspired . . . it sells, and they know it.


>That is complete nonsense, photographers that shoot film and are supported
>by companies with deep pockets will shoot huge amounts of film. There is a
>photographer that traveled with the naturalist that spent two years walking
>across central Africa. He is publishing a book of his photographs (with I
>believe 106 images). Over the two years he shot 25,000 images. He was
>supported by National Geographic. If you don't like Digital that's up to
>you, but enough is enough. Calling Digital a plague (I think that's what
you
>meant, not "plaque") a thousand times worse than cancer or aids is way over
>the top.

>Gary








Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Where may we view your superior work?

On Aug 27, 2005, at 5:32 PM, Paul Aparycki wrote:

> I have no problem with digital. I have a very serious problem with
>  mediocrity and the millions of feeble excuses it seems a lot of 
> digital
>  shooters use to justify it.
>
>  While not subscribing to the "ooooooommm Zen" attitude that many 
> profess
>  regarding large format shooting . . . i.e. the contemplative approach 
> that
>  allows for "better" images, I do agree that slowing down before you 
> hit the
>  damn button makes for a better picture. Most people don't, and in the 
> digi
>  age . . . well, you have heard it here a thousand times, "shoot, 
> shoot,
>  shoot, shoot, shoot!" . . . then sadly, much of it makes it onto the 
> web . .
>  . gallery after gallery of "maybes" and "it's pretty good" . . . the 
> only
>  person that it serves is the ego of the so-so photographer who wasn't 
> too
>  sure of what they were doing in the first place.
>
>  I shoot a little in digital, but mostly in film, predominately in MF 
> and LF,
>  up to and including on some jobs 8x10 . . . my clients who pay me a 
> good
>  amount of money are NOT screaming "digital, digital, digital, 
> digital!", I
>  guess they don't know what you know . . . maybe you should talk to 
> them and
>  teach them something.
>
>  As for my spelling, THAT is a major faux pas, I am well read and pride
>  myself on getting it right . . . I don't use or believe in 
> spell-checkers. I
>  apologize for that and hope that you will sleep better tonight.
>
>  A plaGue? yes, it is . . . borne of laziness and stupidity (which is 
> why is
>  pisses me off so much)
>
>  Paul Aparycki
>
>  p.s. a few years ago I started a project in southern Argentina . . . 
> a few
>  months traipsing about the countryside. I haven't had time to finish 
> it yet,
>  but plan on going back this year or next and spend 3-6 months 
> completeing it
>  . . . ALL on film, ALL at my expense. Your wannabee stories from the 
> "photo
>  press" are based on fact, but are really "harlequin romances" for the
>  uninspired . . . it sells, and they know it.
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I am sorry if you are offended, but I stand by remark about the incredible
level of what can only be described as "HEY, come and look at my family
vacation pics!!!".

I used to troll about a lot looking for galleries and pages of
photographers. I AM interested in seeing others work and most importantly ,
trying to get a handle on others viewpoint or perception. I don't anymore.
Virtually all web sites or galleries devoted to what can laughingly be
called "art" or "photography" are as I have described . . . more of an ego
stroking for the individual as opposed to worthwhile imagery.

I knew when I rsponded, perhaps a little heavy-handed, that I would end up
being burnt at the stake, but bear with me for a few minutes . . . and I
really hope I don't have to keep repeating this in other posts.

THIS IS GONNA BE A LITTLE ON THE LONG SIDE (yes Gary, I know "gonna" is not
a word), ;-))

I sense that on this list, and actually it doesn't really matter whether it
is this list or the banana importers from antarctica's list, that there are
many who are hobbyists, many who are geekheads (a large majority perhaps),
and some who are serious photographer/printmakers, and a very, very few who
are commercial shooters (I am in that group). Where I jumped, perhaps too
soon, was at the implication of "overshoot".

Let us go to a fabulously intelligent and very well informed lady by the
name of Henrietta Brackman . . . who?? I doubt any of you know her name. She
is an artist's portfolio consultant (yeah, I know, it sounds like a load of
crap), and she has worked with and modified the "books" of some of the most
famous names in commercial photography over the years. "What does that mean
to me? I am on a printers list, I am an artist!!!!", well, the constraints,
the guidelines that most art directors use are quite similar to those that
most publisher/editors use which are the same as those that most gallery
owners/curators use . . . so we are all in the same boat (sort of). Anyhow
(yes Gary, I know that is not in the dictionary either), her commentary
about a portfolio goes something to the effect of, 12-15 images, at the very
most perhaps 20. If you have others put them aside and save them for later.
She, and most of the agents she has worked with ALL agree on one thing . . .
photographers (that is YOU AND ME) are really, really, really, shitty
editors . . . and she is absolutely one hundred millionteen (your call again
Gary) percent right. Ms Brackman maintains, and correctly, that virtually
all photographers have too much emotional baggage tied to their images.
Those statements are probably the single most important lessons I have ever
learned in image making.

Learn to cull . . . without mercy. When you show your work, as MS Brackman
states, show a small to medium sampling . . . save some for later and then
you do an update . . . the audience is HUNGERING for more. Pull 5 maybe 6
from the original lot, replace them with others, and perhaps add a couple
more . . . a DYNAMIC and moving presentation that makes people want to see
your work again and again . . . BUT, what do most of you do? Well, my mommy
or my brother, or my wife/husband said I take great pictures  so here is the
picture they liked, Oh, and by the way, here are 3,842 more (SEE THE SLIDES
OF MY FAMILY VACATION!!!!!!!!! . . . . PUKE,PUKE,PUKE).

I have looked at so many of the "galleries" that some on this list, and
others, have posted. I can see exactly what Ms Brackman is talking about
when she refers to baggage. So many who have gone to for instance, the Grand
Canyon . . . and shot it to death. Yes it is an extraordinary place to be,
but the so-so shooter CAN'T bring that out in their photo. There is indeed a
competent,well exposed well composed photo, but little emotion . . . the
emotion exists solely in the eyes of the photographer (if you can call
him/her that), who when they look at the image have "a moving experience" .
. . something which DOES NOT exist in their photo, but in their eyes they
still remember that moment. Good for them, but the photo is at the same
level as the 25 cent postcard, cute, but no cigar . . . THAT is the problem
with digital and it's overshoot mentality.

Pleeeeeeze (Gary, help me here), learn to be a good photgrapher before you
buy a nintedo camera!

Paul Aprycki

Oh,and by the way Tony, you obviously don't pay any attention when it goes
your way, but there has been, in particular the debacle over John Sexton, a
mastubatory exhaltation over the merits of more, more, more, more pixels,
memory etc

I would suggest you learn to be honest


>ho are the lazy slugs, Paul ... And what do the references to masturbating,
>lugs & cripples imply about your own world view, which I note is not shared
>y others who on this list at least show somewhat more respect for others by
>ot seeking to be so confrontational & insulting in their attitudes to
>thers. None of these comments have a place here and I for one don't intend
>o allow you to drag this forum down.

>f you have an opinion that's fine, if it involves insulting and degrading
>emarks that don't assist or have relevance to the content of the thread
>hen who of us cares to listen, not many I think.

>ony Kelly





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

I have never, ever reffered to my work as "superior" and never will. I am a
very good, and very competent commercial photographer. If you were in
Canada, you could look at any place served by Cara (largest food service
company in the country), my images are there, do you drink wine coolers? I
have shot a large amount of headers and POP cards for Seagrams, in years
past I shot most of the catalogues for Hagen (pet products . . . hated the
work, but it paid well) . . . read medical trade rags? Boehringer Mannheim,
my trade ads, me doing the manuals, Pepsico, fridge headers and dispensing
machine headers. Virtually every major fast food franchise on the east coast
of Canada has my imagery . . . numerous trade and editorial pages and covers
. . . all commercial work, but you know what? I am 51, and semi-retired . .
. I work when I want and for whom I want . . . and ALL of that effort allows
me now to pursue what I want to do (I forgot to mention in my previous lines
. . . I don't owe a cent for anything, not the house, the car, my 3
daughters university, NOTHING, it is all paid . . . discipline and
intelligent management, thank you).

I don't maintain a web site as I don't want to involve myself with an
obligation that I feel is unnecessary. I have a co-ordinator/assistant who
pushes me for it, but she, nor I, want to be bothered about the extra
hassle. I have been looking/talking, and there is a "trial balloon", but as
I said, I don't need it . . .

>Where may we view your superior work?

by the way, what a comment from a monkey.

THIS IS GONNA BE A LITTLE ON THE LONG SIDE (yes Gary, I know "gonna" is not
a word), ;-))


Don't you mean Going To (just kidding).........

Gary

Being a "commercial shooter" does not mean anything when it comes to being creative.  It certainly does not make one an 'expert' at photography any more than some of the 'look at my family pics'  photographers.  And, in general, the family pics have a lot more validity for a lot longer time than 99.999999% of the commercial work.  And, it's ok if you don't like family pics.
 
Tom Baker

Paul Aparycki <tawow@...> wrote:
I am sorry if you are offended, but I stand by remark about the incredible
level of what can only be described as "HEY, come and look at my family
vacation pics!!!".

I used to troll about a lot looking for galleries and pages of
photographers. I AM interested in seeing others work and most importantly ,
trying to get a handle on others viewpoint or perception. I don't anymore.
Virtually all web sites or galleries devoted to what can laughingly be
called "art" or "photography" are as I have described . . . more of an ego
stroking for the individual as opposed to worthwhile imagery.

I knew when I rsponded, perhaps a little heavy-handed, that I would end up
being burnt at the stake, but bear with me for a few minutes . . . and I
really hope I don't have to keep repeating this in other posts.

THIS IS GONNA BE A LITTLE ON THE LONG SIDE (yes Gary, I know "gonna" is not
a word), ;-))

I sense that on this list, and actually it doesn't really matter whether it
is this list or the banana importers from antarctica's list, that there are
many who are hobbyists, many who are geekheads (a large majority perhaps),
and some who are serious photographer/printmakers, and a very, very few who
are commercial shooters (I am in that group). Where I jumped, perhaps too
soon, was at the implication of "overshoot".

Let us go to a fabulously intelligent and very well informed lady by the
name of Henrietta Brackman . . . who?? I doubt any of you know her name. She
is an artist's portfolio consultant (yeah, I know, it sounds like a load of
crap), and she has worked with and modified the "books" of some of the most
famous names in commercial photography over the years. "What does that mean
to me? I am on a printers list, I am an artist!!!!", well, the constraints,
the guidelines that most art directors use are quite similar to those that
most publisher/editors use which are the same as those that most gallery
owners/curators use . . . so we are all in the same boat (sort of). Anyhow
(yes Gary, I know that is not in the dictionary either), her commentary
about a portfolio goes something to the effect of, 12-15 images, at the very
most perhaps 20. If you have others put them aside and save them for later.
She, and most of the agents she has worked with ALL agree on one thing . . .
photographers (that is YOU AND ME) are really, really, really, shitty
editors . . . and she is absolutely one hundred millionteen (your call again
Gary) percent right. Ms Brackman maintains, and correctly, that virtually
all photographers have too much emotional baggage tied to their images.
Those statements are probably the single most important lessons I have ever
learned in image making.

Learn to cull . . . without mercy. When you show your work, as MS Brackman
states, show a small to medium sampling . . . save some for later and then
you do an update . . . the audience is HUNGERING for more. Pull 5 maybe 6
from the original lot, replace them with others, and perhaps add a couple
more . . . a DYNAMIC and moving presentation that makes people want to see
your work again and again . . . BUT, what do most of you do? Well, my mommy
or my brother, or my wife/husband said I take great pictures so here is the
picture they liked, Oh, and by the way, here are 3,842 more (SEE THE SLIDES
OF MY FAMILY VACATION!!!!!!!!! . . . . PUKE,PUKE,PUKE).

I have looked at so many of the "galleries" that some on this list, and
others, have posted. I can see exactly what Ms Brackman is talking about
when she refers to baggage. So many who have gone to for instance, the Grand
Canyon . . . and shot it to death. Yes it is an extraordinary place to be,
but the so-so shooter CAN'T bring that out in their photo. There is indeed a
competent,well exposed well composed photo, but little emotion . . . the
emotion exists solely in the eyes of the photographer (if you can call
him/her that), who when they look at the image have "a moving experience" .
. . something which DOES NOT exist in their photo, but in their eyes they
still remember that moment. Good for them, but the photo is at the same
level as the 25 cent postcard, cute, but no cigar . . . THAT is the problem
with digital and it's overshoot mentality.

Pleeeeeeze (Gary, help me here), learn to be a good photgrapher before you
buy a nintedo camera!

Paul Aprycki

Oh,and by the way Tony, you obviously don't pay any attention when it goes
your way, but there has been, in particular the debacle over John Sexton, a
mastubatory exhaltation over the merits of more, more, more, more pixels,
memory etc

I would suggest you learn to be honest


>ho are the lazy slugs, Paul ... And what do the references to masturbating,
>lugs & cripples imply about your own world view, which I note is not shared
>y others who on this list at least show somewhat more respect for others by
>ot seeking to be so confrontational & insulting in their attitudes to
>thers. None of these comments have a place here and I for one don't intend
>o allow you to drag this forum down.

>f you have an opinion that's fine, if it involves insulting and degrading
>emarks that don't assist or have relevance to the content of the thread
>hen who of us cares to listen, not many I think.

>ony Kelly





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links











Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links








[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Are there any workshops to help get a grip on the mechanics
of shooting with a LF camera?

Scott

ccolbertbw wrote:

> Diane,
> I shoot most of my BW (which by anyone's standards is woefully little),
> using a 4x5 field camera. I also have a 20D, which I use for all
> sorts of photography. No doubt the 4x5 wins - big surprise. It is easy
> to scan on a desktop scanner (an EPSON 3200), whereas 35 mm does
> not scan very sharply at all. I like the tons of small detail that 
> comes from
> the large format. One thing I don't see mentioned much, is that the
> printers can really print with a lot of resolution. You can see the 
> difference
> in the print from large files with lots of data, even in a relatively
> small print. Not to say that the smaller formats - digital or film -
> can't make a nice large image. It is more a question of visible 
> detail. And
> the ease in which you can transfer it to paper.
>
> A great way to see whether a larger format will make any difference
> to your final product is to try printing some big files. There are a large
> number of scans in the library of congress. For
> example, some of my favorites are Lewis Hines' images of children
> working in mills. Or the Wright brother's plane. You can download scans
> of their glass plates - 5x7 usually. I have used these for test prints
> sometimes when trying to tweak the printer. Download a couple of
> these and print them to see if they look any different than your
> current equipment. These ancient images look just wonderful and
> I think show off what a print from a big piece of film looks like.
> There are also test images from big Dslrs (say on dpreview) that you can
> download and compare. Never know which one you will like best.
>
> A view camera does take a lot more work than a hand held SLR,
> whether digital or not. Once you start putting the camera on a tripod,
> and with practice, the difference is somewhat less. After getting used
> to the view camera, and this is a big point, you feel like you have much
> less control of the camera when you don't have movements. Sure, the
> bigger format needs the movements to get acceptable depth of field,
> but all in all there are just more choices than deciding what's in the
> frame. That's fun and useful to some people, not so to others.
>
> Hope that adds something to the thread.
>
> Costa
>
>
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Diane Fields" 
> <picnic@c...>
> wrote:
> > Ken, I am, indirectly, asking about this also. I understand that 
> there is bias on all sides,
> but I also would like input from all sides. I can remain 'all digital' 
> or I can veer off and
> incorporate film/MF also---but realize that I will have to incorporate 
> a whole new support
> system for a different format--and that's not inexpensive. I'm quite 
> good at PS---and
> have done b/w conversions for a number of years, so that's not the 
> issue. The real issue
> is---will I find that I will end up with a 'better' image than I can 
> with digital. Today, the
> assumption by the salesperson was that I'm not 'contemplative' about 
> my photography--
> with the reality that that is part of most people's approach to 
> digital--lots of shots on a
> card, etc. However---I AM slow, contemplative, etc.--its part of my 
> creative nature (if you
> spent over 20 years as a textile artist/craftsperson with the many 
> MANY layers of
> 'process'---you learn how to plan and never ever have quick 
> gratification). So--I'm trying
> to determine where I want to go with this--and I am most interested in 
> the b/w print.
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>     * Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint>" on
>       the web.
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Scott McLoughlin wrote:

>Are there any workshops to help get a grip on the mechanics
>of shooting with a LF camera?
>
>Scott
>
>ccolbertbw wrote:
>
>  
>
Howard Bond runs a very good and reasonably priced one. Check his 
website for details.

Peter De Smidt

>Being a "commercial shooter" does not mean anything when it comes to being
creative.  It certainly does not make one an 'expert' at photography any
more than >some of the 'look at my family pics'  photographers.  And, in
general, the family pics have a lot more validity for a lot longer time than
99.999999% of the >commercial work.  And, it's ok if you don't like family
pics.

>Tom Baker

Point taken Tom, but you are still missing the point (are you one of the
guilty ones???). I never maintained being a commercial shooter makes me
better than anyone else . . . the only thing it has taught me through the
years is to be, in a word, ruthless . . . first with my own work and
criteria, and then with those who aspire to be something they might not be
(I apply it to mechanics at garages also . . . I used to race motorcycles).
The point that you and so many others are missing is that while XXX thinks
his/her photos are good/great/mediocre, while the family won't come over to
see the neverending slide show, they then revert to internet terrorism, "I
know, I will put up a web gallery so the whole world can see (suffer)".

As an aside, and a practical point, if "photographers", "artists" learned to
be more honest and reduce the content (you already know I call it something
else), bandwith usage would be reduced considerably . . . re: faster
connections, less useless search engine hits and finally a truly useful
world wide web as opposed to an internut stupor highway. ;-)))

Paul Aparycki

Where are you located? One of the best known if you are in the US, is the
Maine Photographic Workshops http://www.theworkshops.com/. . . literally a
disneyland for those who want to learn image making.

Paul Aparycki

> Are there any workshops to help get a grip on the mechanics
> of shooting with a LF camera?
>
> Scott

If you have Microsoft Outlook you may do the following:
With Outlook open, from the menu choose "Tools" & then
"Rules Wizard" 
& click "New",

Ensure that "Start creating a rule from a template" is
selected,

Highlight "Move new message from someone" & click
"next",

Under "Which condition(s) do you want to check?" make sure
"with 
specific words in the message header" is selected,

In the lower window on this same screen click on "specific
words" in 
the sentence stating "Apply this rule after the message arrives
with 
specific words in the message header move it to the specified
folder",

Type in "Paul Aparycki" & click add,

Type in tawow@... & click add, then click "OK",

In the same lower window as before click on "specified" in
the 
sentence stating "Apply this rule after the message arrives with 
specific words in the message header move it to the specified
folder",

Choose the "Deleted Items" folder & click "OK", then
click "Next",

Click Next through two more windows, then click "Finish"

You should now have an active rule that will automatically place into 
the deleted items folder any messages coming from this person either 
directly or through the list.  One less asshole in the world to deal 
with.  Please note that I did not say bad photographer, I said 
asshole.

Problem solved!

As an extra bonus you can create a rule to deal with threads that you 
do not want to weed through any longer.  Just copy the subject line 
into the rule and like magic, those emails also get deleted without 
getting your blood pressure up.  If you have different email software 
you might try looking in help under "Email Rules" & see if
this might 
be possible in your tool.

This really is related to Digital B&W Prints, really!!!  I subscribe 
to this list for information on this subject.   Threads get off on 
tirades that are hard to avoid.  My blood pressure goes up.  I go 
yell at my neighbors dog.  I am so upset I cannot capture images with 
my pinhole, brownie, 35mm, 6x6, 4x5, 8x10, DLSR cameras………….or
to 
make prints.

With this approach, ahhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!

This has been a public service announcement.  You may now resume your 
regularly scheduled threads.

Paul

I am sure that at heart you are a really good man and
a worthwhile photographer. But you are lowering
yourself to a position where you will have no respect
with these kinds of posting.

Why doesn't everyone go back to adding comments of
value to what has always been a tremendous forum. This
bickering in public does no one good and the forum at
large suffers.

If you can't stop, please take it off forum and beat
each other up at your private web addresses.

In the name of peace and harmony

Woody Spedden

--- Paul Aparycki <tawow@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
I have never, ever reffered to my work as "superior"
and never will. I am a
very good, and very competent commercial photographer.
If you were in
Canada, you could look at any place served by Cara
(largest food service
company in the country), my images are there, do you
drink wine coolers? I
have shot a large amount of headers and POP cards for
Seagrams, in years
past I shot most of the catalogues for Hagen (pet
products . . . hated the
work, but it paid well) . . . read medical trade rags?
Boehringer Mannheim,
my trade ads, me doing the manuals, Pepsico, fridge
headers and dispensing
machine headers. Virtually every major fast food
franchise on the east coast
of Canada has my imagery . . . numerous trade and
editorial pages and covers
. . . all commercial work, but you know what? I am 51,
and semi-retired . .
. I work when I want and for whom I want . . . and ALL
of that effort allows
me now to pursue what I want to do (I forgot to
mention in my previous lines
. . . I don't owe a cent for anything, not the house,
the car, my 3
daughters university, NOTHING, it is all paid . . .
discipline and
intelligent management, thank you).

I don't maintain a web site as I don't want to involve
myself with an
obligation that I feel is unnecessary. I have a
co-ordinator/assistant who
pushes me for it, but she, nor I, want to be bothered
about the extra
hassle. I have been looking/talking, and there is a
"trial balloon", but as
I said, I don't need it . . .

>Where may we view your superior work?

by the way, what a comment from a monkey.




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily
digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your
Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal
attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or
argumentative users may be removed from the membership
without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group
topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently
make off-topic posts may be removed from the
membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the
actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in
the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY
UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd
OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING
TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.


      

      SPONSORED LINKS  
                                               
Digital photography technique                         
          Digital photography                         
          Photography school                          
                                     Professional
digital photography                                   
Stock photography                                     
 
    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

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

Well said, Woody. This is the reason I only read the very first answers on a particular post and then delete the remainder. There is a possibility I might miss something important but I surely don't miss the participants abusing each other.
 
T

Elwood Spedden <elwood@...> wrote:
Paul

I am sure that at heart you are a really good man and
a worthwhile photographer. But you are lowering
yourself to a position where you will have no respect
with these kinds of posting.

Why doesn't everyone go back to adding comments of
value to what has always been a tremendous forum. This
bickering in public does no one good and the forum at
large suffers.

If you can't stop, please take it off forum and beat
each other up at your private web addresses.

In the name of peace and harmony

Woody Spedden

--- Paul Aparycki <tawow@...> wrote:


---------------------------------
I have never, ever reffered to my work as "superior"
and never will. I am a
very good, and very competent commercial photographer.
If you were in
Canada, you could look at any place served by Cara
(largest food service
company in the country), my images are there, do you
drink wine coolers? I
have shot a large amount of headers and POP cards for
Seagrams, in years
past I shot most of the catalogues for Hagen (pet
products . . . hated the
work, but it paid well) . . . read medical trade rags?
Boehringer Mannheim,
my trade ads, me doing the manuals, Pepsico, fridge
headers and dispensing
machine headers. Virtually every major fast food
franchise on the east coast
of Canada has my imagery . . . numerous trade and
editorial pages and covers
. . . all commercial work, but you know what? I am 51,
and semi-retired . .
. I work when I want and for whom I want . . . and ALL
of that effort allows
me now to pursue what I want to do (I forgot to
mention in my previous lines
. . . I don't owe a cent for anything, not the house,
the car, my 3
daughters university, NOTHING, it is all paid . . .
discipline and
intelligent management, thank you).

I don't maintain a web site as I don't want to involve
myself with an
obligation that I feel is unnecessary. I have a
co-ordinator/assistant who
pushes me for it, but she, nor I, want to be bothered
about the extra
hassle. I have been looking/talking, and there is a
"trial balloon", but as
I said, I don't need it . . .

>Where may we view your superior work?

by the way, what a comment from a monkey.




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily
digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your
Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal
attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or
argumentative users may be removed from the membership
without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group
topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently
make off-topic posts may be removed from the
membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the
group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the
actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in
the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY
UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS”
OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL,
SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING
BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN
IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING
TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.


      

      SPONSORED LINKS  
                                               
Digital photography technique                         
          Digital photography                         
          Photography school                          
                                     Professional
digital photography                                   
Stock photography                                     

    
---------------------------------
  YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS

  
    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on
the web.
   
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.

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





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.




SPONSORED LINKS 
Digital photography technique Digital photography Photography school Professional digital photography Stock photography 

---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS 


    Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint" on the web.
  
    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
 DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
  
    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 


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



		
---------------------------------
 Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> Are there any workshops to help get a grip on the mechanics
> of shooting with a LF camera?

Tillman Crane occasionally teaches one at the Maine Photographic Workshops 
and/or Peters Valley Craft Center. Steve Simmons teaches one at the Sante Fe 
Photographic Workshops. John Sexton's workshops usually have some large 
format instruction even though they aren't labelled as such. You just need 
to go to the web sites or get the catalogs of the major workshops, i.e. 
Maine, Sante Fe, Anderson Ranch, Palm Beach et al and you'll likely find a 
large format workshop being taught at one of them. However, I don't think 
you need a workshop to get into large format photography, there are several 
good books, one by Leslie Stroebel, another by Jim Stone, from which you can 
learn all you need to know to get started.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Scott McLoughlin" <scott@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 7:11 PM
Subject: LF Workshops? was - Re: [Digital BW] A bit OT....MF to b/w print


> Are there any workshops to help get a grip on the mechanics
> of shooting with a LF camera?
>
> Scott
>
> ccolbertbw wrote:
>
>> Diane,
>> I shoot most of my BW (which by anyone's standards is woefully little),
>> using a 4x5 field camera. I also have a 20D, which I use for all
>> sorts of photography. No doubt the 4x5 wins - big surprise. It is easy
>> to scan on a desktop scanner (an EPSON 3200), whereas 35 mm does
>> not scan very sharply at all. I like the tons of small detail that
>> comes from
>> the large format. One thing I don't see mentioned much, is that the
>> printers can really print with a lot of resolution. You can see the
>> difference
>> in the print from large files with lots of data, even in a relatively
>> small print. Not to say that the smaller formats - digital or film -
>> can't make a nice large image. It is more a question of visible
>> detail. And
>> the ease in which you can transfer it to paper.
>>
>> A great way to see whether a larger format will make any difference
>> to your final product is to try printing some big files. There are a 
>> large
>> number of scans in the library of congress. For
>> example, some of my favorites are Lewis Hines' images of children
>> working in mills. Or the Wright brother's plane. You can download scans
>> of their glass plates - 5x7 usually. I have used these for test prints
>> sometimes when trying to tweak the printer. Download a couple of
>> these and print them to see if they look any different than your
>> current equipment. These ancient images look just wonderful and
>> I think show off what a print from a big piece of film looks like.
>> There are also test images from big Dslrs (say on dpreview) that you can
>> download and compare. Never know which one you will like best.
>>
>> A view camera does take a lot more work than a hand held SLR,
>> whether digital or not. Once you start putting the camera on a tripod,
>> and with practice, the difference is somewhat less. After getting used
>> to the view camera, and this is a big point, you feel like you have much
>> less control of the camera when you don't have movements. Sure, the
>> bigger format needs the movements to get acceptable depth of field,
>> but all in all there are just more choices than deciding what's in the
>> frame. That's fun and useful to some people, not so to others.
>>
>> Hope that adds something to the thread.
>>
>> Costa
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Diane Fields"
>> <picnic@c...>
>> wrote:
>> > Ken, I am, indirectly, asking about this also. I understand that
>> there is bias on all sides,
>> but I also would like input from all sides. I can remain 'all digital'
>> or I can veer off and
>> incorporate film/MF also---but realize that I will have to incorporate
>> a whole new support
>> system for a different format--and that's not inexpensive. I'm quite
>> good at PS---and
>> have done b/w conversions for a number of years, so that's not the
>> issue. The real issue
>> is---will I find that I will end up with a 'better' image than I can
>> with digital. Today, the
>> assumption by the salesperson was that I'm not 'contemplative' about
>> my photography--
>> with the reality that that is part of most people's approach to
>> digital--lots of shots on a
>> card, etc. However---I AM slow, contemplative, etc.--its part of my
>> creative nature (if you
>> spent over 20 years as a textile artist/craftsperson with the many
>> MANY layers of
>> 'process'---you learn how to plan and never ever have quick
>> gratification). So--I'm trying
>> to determine where I want to go with this--and I am most interested in
>> the b/w print.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
>> resources as they are often being updated.
>>
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>>
>> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish
>> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
>> this same page.
>>
>> Please follow these basic guidelines:
>> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
>> keep them short.
>> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
>> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from
>> the membership without notice.
>> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital
>> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be
>> removed from the membership.
>> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
>> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group
>> Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the
>> Files section:
>> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>>
>> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
>> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd
>> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
>> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
>> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
>> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE
>> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
>> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES),
>> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
>> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
>> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD
>> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
>> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>>
>>     * Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>>       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint>" on
>>       the web.
>>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>> 
>> <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
> they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
> page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner 
> and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files 
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND 
> \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO 
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR 
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF 
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE 
> \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN 
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE 
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) 
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) 
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Paul,

I know I'll regret this but I just can't let this pass.

For some odd reason, I have far, far greater affinity to the drugstore
snapshots of my dearly departed dog that are lovingly displayed via framed
glass and cutesy frig magnets than any deftly illuminated, glycerine
spritzed, $75 per-hand-made plexi ice cubed, pricey duratrans image of a
freakin' wine cooler.

And you claim to be an arbiter and benchmark of creative success??

Give me a break!

The vacation pictures that you refer to as "mediocre, shitty, drippy, etc"
are extremely real and meaningful to those who created them and serve a far,
far more important purpose than the relentless, socially irresponsible,
culturally erosive visual blight produced by money grubbing and mindless
commercial studios and ad agencies that end up clogging our minds, arteries
and landfills.

Talk about wasted band width?!?

Can't remember the last time I was moved by a POP display of an icy can of
Mountain Dew or backlit Duratrans of cheesy nachos. (Wait, the photo at my
local Jack&DaBox of the new ciabatta chicken .......)

From another "monkey" who will continue to snap massive numbers of photos of
my aging mother, cute little granddaughter, upcoming vacation and whatever
the hell I feel like taking.

ciao,

-- rm



www.richardmurai.com
http://www.hawaii.edu/mjournal/text/issues/descriptions/cambodia04.html

> I have never, ever reffered to my work as "superior" and never will. I am a
> very good, and very competent commercial photographer. If you were in
> Canada, you could look at any place served by Cara (largest food service
> company in the country), my images are there, do you drink wine coolers? I
> have shot a large amount of headers and POP cards for Seagrams, in years
> past I shot most of the catalogues for Hagen (pet products . . . hated the
> work, but it paid well) . . . read medical trade rags? Boehringer Mannheim,
> my trade ads, me doing the manuals, Pepsico, fridge headers and dispensing
> machine headers. Virtually every major fast food franchise on the east coast
> of Canada has my imagery . . . numerous trade and editorial pages and covers
> . . . all commercial work, but you know what? I am 51, and semi-retired . .
> . I work when I want and for whom I want . . . and ALL of that effort allows
> me now to pursue what I want to do (I forgot to mention in my previous lines
> . . . I don't owe a cent for anything, not the house, the car, my 3
> daughters university, NOTHING, it is all paid . . . discipline and
> intelligent management, thank you).
> 
> I don't maintain a web site as I don't want to involve myself with an
> obligation that I feel is unnecessary. I have a co-ordinator/assistant who
> pushes me for it, but she, nor I, want to be bothered about the extra
> hassle. I have been looking/talking, and there is a "trial balloon", but as
> I said, I don't need it . . .
> 
>> Where may we view your superior work?
> 
> by the way, what a comment from a monkey.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNER” AND
> “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

I should probably let a reply pass, also, but this was _extremely_ well
done, reflecting some of the same thoughts I had.  At least I found out that
a wine cooler was not the big jobbers I have my wines stored in, but a
beverage sort of. There's always more to learn.  Insofar as art/commerce, I
do think an exception would be the food shots in the ZZ Top albums-
"enchiladas for everyone".  BTW I continue to enjoy your images in Lenswork.
Lots of soul, whatever the medium.

Best regards,

Ken Carney
www.kencarney.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On 
> Behalf Of R Murai
> Sent: Saturday, August 27, 2005 11:53 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] A bit OT....MF to b/w print
> 
> Paul,
> 
> I know I'll regret this but I just can't let this pass.
> 
> For some odd reason, I have far, far greater affinity to the 
> drugstore snapshots of my dearly departed dog that are 
> lovingly displayed via framed glass and cutesy frig magnets 
> than any deftly illuminated, glycerine spritzed, $75 
> per-hand-made plexi ice cubed, pricey duratrans image of a 
> freakin' wine cooler.
> 
> And you claim to be an arbiter and benchmark of creative success??
> 
> Give me a break!
> 
> The vacation pictures that you refer to as "mediocre, shitty, 
> drippy, etc"
> are extremely real and meaningful to those who created them 
> and serve a far, far more important purpose than the 
> relentless, socially irresponsible, culturally erosive visual 
> blight produced by money grubbing and mindless commercial 
> studios and ad agencies that end up clogging our minds, 
> arteries and landfills.
> 
> Talk about wasted band width?!?
> 
> Can't remember the last time I was moved by a POP display of 
> an icy can of Mountain Dew or backlit Duratrans of cheesy 
> nachos. (Wait, the photo at my local Jack&DaBox of the new 
> ciabatta chicken .......)
> 
> From another "monkey" who will continue to snap massive 
> numbers of photos of my aging mother, cute little 
> granddaughter, upcoming vacation and whatever the hell I feel 
> like taking.
> 
> ciao,
> 
> -- rm

Once again I will ask the members to stay on topic. Off topic threads 
dilute the content and value of the group. Please desist.

Many thanks and appreciation to the large majority who follow the 
guidelines and take the time to contribute.

Best,
Martin Wesley
Group Owner

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Carney" 
<kcarney1@c...> wrote:
> I should probably let a reply pass, also, but this was _extremely_ 
well
> done, reflecting some of the same thoughts I had.  At least I found 
out that

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Aparycki" 
<tawow@s...> wrote:
> I have never, ever reffered to my work as "superior" and never will. 
I am a
> very good, and very competent commercial photographer. 

You may not have refered to your work as superior, but in you list of 
different categories of photographers, you definitley give the 
impression that you consider commercial photogrpahers to be at the top 
of the food chain. I find this quite amusing, as most people who 
consider themselves artist, look down on commercial photography, and 
only lower themselves to do it as a last resort so support their art.

Scott -

My attention was just drawn to your post; apologies for the late
reply.

I teach Intro to Large Format workshops several times each year. I 
don't know where you're located, but the next session will be in the 
Smokies, based in Townsend, TN and runs 15-16 October 2005.

More detailed info is available on my website:

http://www.dannyburk.com/introduction_to_large_format_workshop.htm

If you have questions, I'll be glad to help.

Regards,
Danny