Another tiny nail ...

[Alan Browne]

I shot some 120 C-41 last night (and a s- load of digital).

I told my buddy where to drop it off for me with the instructions, a
store with a really good lab about 20 minutes away. He dropped them off
this am. The store left me a message, so I called them...

Turnaround : 1 week.

They don't do 120 anymore (E-6 or C-41). 35mm only.

They don't do E-6 anymore for any format (not enough turnover to manage
the chems properly).

[Andreas Gugau]

Post by Alan Browne
I shot some 120 C-41 last night (and a s- load of digital).
I told my buddy where to drop it off for me with the instructions, a
store with a really good lab about 20 minutes away. He dropped them off
this am. The store left me a message, so I called them...
Turnaround : 1 week.
They don't do 120 anymore (E-6 or C-41). 35mm only.
They don't do E-6 anymore for any format (not enough turnover to manage
the chems properly).

So start doing it by yourself. It's easy.

Andreas

[Alan Browne]

Post by Andreas Gugau

Post by Alan Browne
I shot some 120 C-41 last night (and a s- load of digital).
I told my buddy where to drop it off for me with the instructions, a
store with a really good lab about 20 minutes away. He dropped them
off this am. The store left me a message, so I called them...
Turnaround : 1 week.
They don't do 120 anymore (E-6 or C-41). 35mm only.
They don't do E-6 anymore for any format (not enough turnover to
manage the chems properly).

So start doing it by yourself. It's easy.

I don't do enough to justify the chemicals eventually passing date
before used. Besides, I get my 120 back nicely cut and sleeved and dead
flat - ready for the scanner.

I just pulled down my B&W chems and realize that I never wrote a date on
them - there is no printed date on the dev/fixer (Kodak and Ilford) that
I have. I can toss the mixed developer - still have a lot of unmixed -
but there was air in the bottle. Fixer could be good...

But those bottles are at least 7 years old.

[Annika1980]

Post by Alan Browne
I shot some 120 C-41 last night (and a s- load of digital).
I told my buddy where to drop it off for me with the instructions, a
store with a really good lab about 20 minutes away.  He dropped them off
this am.  The store left me a message, so I called them...
Turnaround : 1 week.
They don't do 120 anymore (E-6 or C-41).   35mm only.
They don't do E-6 anymore for any format (not enough turnover to manage
the chems properly).
--

That seems more like a giant stake than a tiny nail.

[Draco]

Post by Alan Browne
I shot some 120 C-41 last night (and a s- load of digital).
I told my buddy where to drop it off for me with the instructions, a
store with a really good lab about 20 minutes away.  He dropped them off
this am.  The store left me a message, so I called them...
Turnaround : 1 week.
They don't do 120 anymore (E-6 or C-41).   35mm only.
They don't do E-6 anymore for any format (not enough turnover to manage
the chems properly).
--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

It looks like the only way to get fast turn around for any film is to
do it yourself. Now if you could find the chemistry easily...

Good luck.

Draco

[Bruce]

Post by Draco
It looks like the only way to get fast turn around for any film is to
do it yourself. Now if you could find the chemistry easily...

E-6 is fairly easy to do yourself. You need a daylight (light tight)
developing tank and chemicals, a changing bag to load the film, and a
thermometer. Processing is done at room temperature of 20 C (68 F)
and there's a couple of degrees latitude either side. The chemicals
are readily available.

C-41 is more difficult because it needs higher temperatures but can
still be done at home if you are determined.

I have an interest in a pro lab that processes film, mostly by mail
order. Film turnover held up very well until spring 2009 when it
suddenly fell off a cliff. Film totals for 2009 were less than half
those for 2008. The last quarter of 2009 was 61% down on Q4 2008.

We decided to discontinue stop developing film at the end of 2009. We
still offer printing services but they are all done from digital files
or scans of film.

Several other pro labs here in the UK have discontinued E-6.
Inevitably, there will be a steady consolidation into an ever-smaller
number of E-6 labs. Consumer C-41 is disappearing fast and many
retail minilabs are converting to digital only.

Film isn't dead, but its position as a mass market medium for
photography is coming to an end. Emerging economies are going
directly to digital, so film is rapidly becoming a niche market in the
developed world (no pun intended).

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Post by Bruce
Film isn't dead, but its position as a mass market medium for
photography is coming to an end. Emerging economies are going
directly to digital, so film is rapidly becoming a niche market in the
developed world (no pun intended).

Israel is like that. When I moved here in 1996 I sold all of my cameras
because the taxes on a camera were 140% (yes one and half times the
value) with new immigrant families allowed one tax free. This was before
eBay and I "took a bath" on them. :-(

At that rate no one really had any cameras except pros anyway.

Soon after digital cameras appeared as computer accessories which were taxed
at 2% over VAT (total then 20%) so everyone ran out and bought a digital
camera. Since then the extra 2% has been dropped and so has the taxes on
film cameras, film, etc, but it's a small comfort to the handful of
people that care.

Around 2002 the first all digital store opened.

There are still places that will develop C-41 film, but most of their
business is prints from digital media. You find them in places frequented
by tourists.

Geoff.

[Bill Graham]

Post by Geoffrey S. Mendelson

Post by Bruce
Film isn't dead, but its position as a mass market medium for
photography is coming to an end. Emerging economies are going
directly to digital, so film is rapidly becoming a niche market in the
developed world (no pun intended).

Israel is like that. When I moved here in 1996 I sold all of my cameras
because the taxes on a camera were 140% (yes one and half times the
value) with new immigrant families allowed one tax free. This was before
eBay and I "took a bath" on them. :-(
At that rate no one really had any cameras except pros anyway.
Soon after digital cameras appeared as computer accessories which were taxed
at 2% over VAT (total then 20%) so everyone ran out and bought a digital
camera. Since then the extra 2% has been dropped and so has the taxes on
film cameras, film, etc, but it's a small comfort to the handful of
people that care.
Around 2002 the first all digital store opened.
There are still places that will develop C-41 film, but most of their
business is prints from digital media. You find them in places frequented
by tourists.
Geoff.

Are these taxes a one time tax on initial purchase, or do they come after
you every year, like a property tax? Here in the US they will tax you any
way they can.....If your item is too large to hide, or you have to display
it to use it, (like an automobile) then they will tax it yearly and beat you
into the ground just for owning it. The only items that are not property
taxed are those that you can hide, or use without going on public property.
There is no fairness or logic about the system at all.....If they can steal
the money from you, they will......

[Robert Coe]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:33:10 -0700, "Bill Graham" <***@comcast.net> wrote:
:
: "Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <***@cable.mendelson.com> wrote in message
: news:***@cable.mendelson.com...
: > Bruce wrote:
: >> Film isn't dead, but its position as a mass market medium for
: >> photography is coming to an end. Emerging economies are going
: >> directly to digital, so film is rapidly becoming a niche market in the
: >> developed world (no pun intended).
: >
: > Israel is like that. When I moved here in 1996 I sold all of my cameras
: > because the taxes on a camera were 140% (yes one and half times the
: > value) with new immigrant families allowed one tax free. This was before
: > eBay and I "took a bath" on them. :-(
: >
: > At that rate no one really had any cameras except pros anyway.
: >
: > Soon after digital cameras appeared as computer accessories which were
: > taxed
: > at 2% over VAT (total then 20%) so everyone ran out and bought a digital
: > camera. Since then the extra 2% has been dropped and so has the taxes on
: > film cameras, film, etc, but it's a small comfort to the handful of
: > people that care.
: >
: > Around 2002 the first all digital store opened.
: >
: > There are still places that will develop C-41 film, but most of their
: > business is prints from digital media. You find them in places frequented
: > by tourists.
: >
: > Geoff.
: >
: Are these taxes a one time tax on initial purchase, or do they come after
: you every year, like a property tax? Here in the US they will tax you any
: way they can.....If your item is too large to hide, or you have to display
: it to use it, (like an automobile) then they will tax it yearly and beat you
: into the ground just for owning it. The only items that are not property
: taxed are those that you can hide, or use without going on public property.
: There is no fairness or logic about the system at all.....If they can steal
: the money from you, they will......

Why don't you move to Texas, Bill? The post-secession Principality of Texas
will probably have no taxes at all. With everything privatized and no
participatory government, there will be no need for them.

Bob

[Jeremy Nixon]

Post by Bruce
E-6 is fairly easy to do yourself. You need a daylight (light tight)
developing tank and chemicals, a changing bag to load the film, and a
thermometer. Processing is done at room temperature of 20 C (68 F)
and there's a couple of degrees latitude either side. The chemicals
are readily available.
C-41 is more difficult because it needs higher temperatures but can
still be done at home if you are determined.

C-41 is easy. You only have to maintain 100F for three and a half
minutes, which isn't hard at all.

If you do it yourself, you don't have to worry about availability of
processing, or whether the lab is any good, or whether the chemistry
is properly maintained, or whether they will scratch your film. You
didn't have to worry so much about that back in the day, but now, it's
a real concern. My advice is to just learn to do it yourself. Then
all you have to worry about is Kodak and Ilford continuing to make
the stuff.

[Alan Browne]

Post by Bruce
E-6 is fairly easy to do yourself. You need a daylight (light tight)
developing tank and chemicals, a changing bag to load the film, and a
thermometer. Processing is done at room temperature of 20 C (68 F)

E-6 is done at 38C (100F). B&W is done at 20C.

Other issues include drying without a curl of any kind and sleeving
without scratching or getting dust on the film.

I'd rather leave it to the labs since I only shoot a few rolls per year
so managing the chemicals becomes an issue.

[K W Hart]

Post by Alan Browne
I shot some 120 C-41 last night (and a s- load of digital).
I told my buddy where to drop it off for me with the instructions, a
store with a really good lab about 20 minutes away. He dropped them off
this am. The store left me a message, so I called them...
Turnaround : 1 week.
They don't do 120 anymore (E-6 or C-41). 35mm only.
They don't do E-6 anymore for any format (not enough turnover to manage
the chems properly).
--
gmail originated posts are filtered due to spam.

It looks like the only way to get fast turn around for any film is to
do it yourself. Now if you could find the chemistry easily...

Good luck.

Draco

Check out Trebla brand chems from CPAC. I buy C41 developer in five liter
kits. (Actually, 15 liter, but it's packaged to mix 3x5 liters). If you can
measure with syringes, you can mix as little as you want. Their RA4
chemicals can be used in low-utilization roller transport processors with
virtually no tar formation.

Ken Hart

[Noons]

Post by Alan Browne
I shot some 120 C-41 last night (and a s- load of digital).
I told my buddy where to drop it off for me with the instructions, a
store with a really good lab about 20 minutes away.  He dropped them off
this am.  The store left me a message, so I called them...
Turnaround : 1 week.
They don't do 120 anymore (E-6 or C-41).   35mm only.
They don't do E-6 anymore for any format (not enough turnover to manage
the chems properly).

You need to move to a civilized place...

[Robert Coe]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:04:24 -0700 (PDT), Noons <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: On Mar 19, 7:29 am, Alan Browne <***@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
: wrote:
: > I shot some 120 C-41 last night (and a s- load of digital).
: >
: > I told my buddy where to drop it off for me with the instructions, a
: > store with a really good lab about 20 minutes away.  He dropped them off
: > this am.  The store left me a message, so I called them...
: >
: > Turnaround : 1 week.
: >
: > They don't do 120 anymore (E-6 or C-41).   35mm only.
: >
: > They don't do E-6 anymore for any format (not enough turnover to manage
: > the chems properly).
:
:
: You need to move to a civilized place...

... and time. 1956 would be about right.

Bob

[David J. Littleboy]

Post by Robert Coe
: > I shot some 120 C-41 last night (and a s- load of digital).
: >
: > I told my buddy where to drop it off for me with the instructions, a
: > store with a really good lab about 20 minutes away. He dropped them
off
: > this am. The store left me a message, so I called them...
: >
: > Turnaround : 1 week.
: >
: > They don't do 120 anymore (E-6 or C-41). 35mm only.
: >
: > They don't do E-6 anymore for any format (not enough turnover to manage
: > the chems properly).
: You need to move to a civilized place...
... and time. 1956 would be about right.

They didn't have E6 in 1956, I think. And, anyway, they didn't have velvia.

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:53:57 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <***@gol.com>
wrote:
:
: "Robert Coe" <***@1776.COM> wrote in message
: news:***@4ax.com...
: > On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:04:24 -0700 (PDT), Noons <***@gmail.com>
: > wrote:
: > : On Mar 19, 7:29 am, Alan Browne <***@FreelunchVideotron.ca>
: > : wrote:
: > : > I shot some 120 C-41 last night (and a s- load of digital).
: > : >
: > : > I told my buddy where to drop it off for me with the instructions, a
: > : > store with a really good lab about 20 minutes away. He dropped them
: > off
: > : > this am. The store left me a message, so I called them...
: > : >
: > : > Turnaround : 1 week.
: > : >
: > : > They don't do 120 anymore (E-6 or C-41). 35mm only.
: > : >
: > : > They don't do E-6 anymore for any format (not enough turnover to
: > manage
: > : > the chems properly).
: > :
: > :
: > : You need to move to a civilized place...
: >
: > ... and time. 1956 would be about right.
:
: They didn't have E6 in 1956, I think. And, anyway, they didn't have velvia.

We had Kodachrome 25, which you can't get today. ;^)

Bob

[Frank ess]

Post by Robert Coe
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:53:57 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"

Post by David J. Littleboy

Post by Robert Coe
On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:04:24 -0700 (PDT), Noons

Post by Robert Coe
On Mar 19, 7:29 am, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne
I shot some 120 C-41 last night (and a s- load of digital).
I told my buddy where to drop it off for me with the
instructions, a store with a really good lab about 20 minutes
away. He dropped them off this am. The store left me a message,
so I called them...
Turnaround : 1 week.
They don't do 120 anymore (E-6 or C-41). 35mm only.
They don't do E-6 anymore for any format (not enough turnover
to manage the chems properly).

You need to move to a civilized place...

... and time. 1956 would be about right.

They didn't have E6 in 1956, I think. And, anyway, they didn't have velvia.

We had Kodachrome 25, which you can't get today. ;^)
Bob

Kodachrome 1956:
Loading Image...

[Robert Coe]

On Sat, 20 Mar 2010 20:41:11 -0700, "Frank ess" <***@fshe2fs.com> wrote:
:
:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 00:53:57 +0900, "David J. Littleboy"
: > <***@gol.com> wrote:
: >>
: >> "Robert Coe" <***@1776.COM> wrote in message
: >> news:***@4ax.com...
: >>> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 23:04:24 -0700 (PDT), Noons
: >>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
: >>>> On Mar 19, 7:29 am, Alan Browne
: >>>> <***@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
: >>>>> I shot some 120 C-41 last night (and a s- load of digital).
: >>>>>
: >>>>> I told my buddy where to drop it off for me with the
: >>>>> instructions, a store with a really good lab about 20 minutes
: >>>>> away. He dropped them off this am. The store left me a message,
: >>>>> so I called them...
: >>>>>
: >>>>> Turnaround : 1 week.
: >>>>>
: >>>>> They don't do 120 anymore (E-6 or C-41). 35mm only.
: >>>>>
: >>>>> They don't do E-6 anymore for any format (not enough turnover
: >>>>> to manage the chems properly).
: >>>>
: >>>>
: >>>> You need to move to a civilized place...
: >>>
: >>> ... and time. 1956 would be about right.
: >>
: >> They didn't have E6 in 1956, I think. And, anyway, they didn't
: >> have velvia.
: >
: > We had Kodachrome 25, which you can't get today. ;^)
: >
: > Bob
:
: Kodachrome 1956:
: http://www.fototime.com/3A548A515C8B19C/orig.jpg

Not exactly up to today's digital standard, is it? That one should probably
have had fill flash, but the dark shadows may be semi-intentional. We used to
underexpose slightly to keep the slides from looking washed out when
projected.

I'm 72 years old, so I'm not at all surprised at how far photography has come
in my lifetime. What I do find remarkable is that so much of the change has
come in the past 5-10 years. I'm not sure we fully appreciate the totality of
the digital revolution. In ten more years, barring another technological
revolution, film will be as rare as glass plates are today. No amount of
Luddite whining and handwringing can slow the trend down appreciably.

Bob

[Noons]

Post by Robert Coe
the digital revolution. In ten more years, barring another technological
revolution, film will be as rare as glass plates are today. No amount of
Luddite whining and handwringing can slow the trend down appreciably.

You know, I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard that stupid claim in
the last 10 years...

[tony cooper]

Post by Noons

Post by Robert Coe
the digital revolution. In ten more years, barring another technological
revolution, film will be as rare as glass plates are today. No amount of
Luddite whining and handwringing can slow the trend down appreciably.

You know, I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard that stupid claim in
the last 10 years...

And I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard "I wish I had
dollar for every time...".

[Noons]

Post by tony cooper

Post by Noons

Post by Robert Coe
the digital revolution. In ten more years, barring another technological
revolution, film will be as rare as glass plates are today. No amount of
Luddite whining and handwringing can slow the trend down appreciably.

You know, I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard that stupid claim in
the last 10 years...

And I wish I had a dollar for every time I've heard "I wish I had
dollar for every time...".

See? We'd both be rich!

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Robert Coe wrote:
In ten more years, barring another technological

Post by Robert Coe
revolution, film will be as rare as glass plates are today. No amount of
Luddite whining and handwringing can slow the trend down appreciably.

Just like all the painters since about 1850 are luddites for painting
and not joining that technological revolution.

And what to say of those current oil painters who use natural pigments
in their paint instead of synthetic ones... Extreme luddites!!!!??

Are people who also cook and bake using non genetically modified crops
also luddites?

People who blindly and unquestionalbly believe in "progress" for its own
sake are actually the real luddites in this world (as that mentality is
far outdated today)....

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:33:52 +0100, Rol_Lei Nut
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
: In ten more years, barring another technological
: > revolution, film will be as rare as glass plates are today. No amount of
: > Luddite whining and handwringing can slow the trend down appreciably.
:
: Just like all the painters since about 1850 are luddites for painting
: and not joining that technological revolution.

If I had said that, you'd certainly be justified in calling me stupid.

: And what to say of those current oil painters who use natural pigments
: in their paint instead of synthetic ones... Extreme luddites!!!!??

I'd say they must be rich. Every now and then my wife wrings her hands over
the current prices of, say, gold-based paints.

: Are people who also cook and bake using non genetically modified crops
: also luddites?

I don't think so, but I know next to nothing about such people. Which is why,
as you may have noticed, I said nothing about them or what they do.

: People who blindly and unquestionalbly believe in "progress" for its own
: sake are actually the real luddites in this world (as that mentality is
: far outdated today)....

I guess there's no reason not to keep telling yourself that if it makes you
feel better.

But I stand unequivocally behind what I said originally.

Bob


"The moving finger writes and, having writ,
Moves on, nor all your piety nor wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a line
Nor all your tears wash out a word of it."

Omar Khayyam

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Post by Robert Coe
But I stand unequivocally behind what I said originally.

Undoubtedly once upon a time you considered people who drove cars
without tailfins "luddites"...

[Alan Browne]

Post by Rol_Lei Nut

Post by Robert Coe
But I stand unequivocally behind what I said originally.

Undoubtedly once upon a time you considered people who drove cars
without tailfins "luddites"...

Rol: I used to have a lot of respect for your opinions, but you've
dissipated that rather quickly in the past few days with your
unnecessary babbling defense of film using statements like the above.
Your comparison to painting is just as stupid.

I say "unnecessary" only because it's not under attack, it is just
getting harder to get it processed.

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Rol_Lei Nut

Post by Robert Coe
But I stand unequivocally behind what I said originally.

Undoubtedly once upon a time you considered people who drove cars
without tailfins "luddites"...

Rol: I used to have a lot of respect for your opinions, but you've
dissipated that rather quickly in the past few days with your
unnecessary babbling defense of film using statements like the above.
Your comparison to painting is just as stupid.
I say "unnecessary" only because it's not under attack, it is just
getting harder to get it processed.

The comparison with painting is far from stupid: It is one of many
possible mediums.

Also, most (certainly not all) film users now chose that medium for
"artistic" purposes. I also use digital for many things, especially for
the more technical/reproduction uses.
If I decide to create some kind of image, it could be done with digital
imagery, photochemical imagery, paint, charcoal, pencil or many, many
others.

I am responding because there are people who still brand anyone who
doesn't always do things the same way they do as "luddites". That is an
attack on film users and gives a false picture (pun intended) of the
current film-using community.
Also, film is getting harder *for some people in some places* to get
processed. That isn't a universal truth.

Reciprocating, I could also question the intelligence and taste of your
orignal post title: Given past experiences, "another tiny nail" is a
direct reference to the many moronic "film is dead" posts and statements.

[Alan Browne]

Post by Rol_Lei Nut
orignal post title: Given past experiences, "another tiny nail" is a
direct reference to the many moronic "film is dead" posts and statements.

I'm sorry if the way I titled that tsunami'd your imagination.

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:42:30 +0100, Rol_Lei Nut
<***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: Robert Coe wrote:
:
: >
: > But I stand unequivocally behind what I said originally.
:
: Undoubtedly once upon a time you considered people who drove cars
: without tailfins "luddites"...

Actually, no. I hated tailfins. I considered people who drove cars WITH
tailfins "yokels".

Why don't you stop trying to put words in my mouth? You're quiibbling about
what I didn't say because you have no sensible contradictory answer to what I
did say.

Bob

[Savageduck]

Post by Robert Coe
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:42:30 +0100, Rol_Lei Nut
: >
: > But I stand unequivocally behind what I said originally.
: Undoubtedly once upon a time you considered people who drove cars
: without tailfins "luddites"...
Actually, no. I hated tailfins. I considered people who drove cars WITH
tailfins "yokels".

I'm hurt.
I loved my father's '58 Desoto Firedome.

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:04:08 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
: On 2010-03-21 10:20:58 -0700, Robert Coe <***@1776.COM> said:
:
: > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:42:30 +0100, Rol_Lei Nut
: > <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > : Robert Coe wrote:
: > :
: > : >
: > : > But I stand unequivocally behind what I said originally.
: > :
: > : Undoubtedly once upon a time you considered people who drove cars
: > : without tailfins "luddites"...
: >
: > Actually, no. I hated tailfins. I considered people who drove cars WITH
: > tailfins "yokels".
:
: I'm hurt.
: I loved my father's '58 Desoto Firedome.

My aunt had a '57 Dodge (Coronet?). My God, what a piece of junk!

My college roommate had a '58 or '59 Plymouth. He once had the hood fly up
while he was driving on a major highway.

Bob

[Savageduck]

Post by Robert Coe
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:04:08 -0700, Savageduck
: > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:42:30 +0100, Rol_Lei Nut
: > : >
: > : > But I stand unequivocally behind what I said originally.
: > : Undoubtedly once upon a time you considered people who drove cars
: > : without tailfins "luddites"...
: >
: > Actually, no. I hated tailfins. I considered people who drove cars WITH
: > tailfins "yokels".
: I'm hurt.
: I loved my father's '58 Desoto Firedome.
My aunt had a '57 Dodge (Coronet?). My God, what a piece of junk!
My college roommate had a '58 or '59 Plymouth. He once had the hood fly up
while he was driving on a major highway.
Bob

That '58 Desoto Firedome had the 361 Hemi and was solid as a rock. He
kept that car though until 1969, and it had over 200K on the clock when
he sold it and got a '69 Dodge Monaco 383. That was a dissapointment.

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 19:04:45 -0700, Savageduck
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
: On 2010-03-21 18:37:32 -0700, Robert Coe <***@1776.COM> said:
:
: > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:04:08 -0700, Savageduck
: > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
: > : On 2010-03-21 10:20:58 -0700, Robert Coe <***@1776.COM> said:
: > :
: > : > On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:42:30 +0100, Rol_Lei Nut
: > : > <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > : > : Robert Coe wrote:
: > : > :
: > : > : >
: > : > : > But I stand unequivocally behind what I said originally.
: > : > :
: > : > : Undoubtedly once upon a time you considered people who drove cars
: > : > : without tailfins "luddites"...
: > : >
: > : > Actually, no. I hated tailfins. I considered people who drove cars WITH
: > : > tailfins "yokels".
: > :
: > : I'm hurt.
: > : I loved my father's '58 Desoto Firedome.
: >
: > My aunt had a '57 Dodge (Coronet?). My God, what a piece of junk!
: >
: > My college roommate had a '58 or '59 Plymouth. He once had the hood fly up
: > while he was driving on a major highway.
: >
: > Bob
:
: That '58 Desoto Firedome had the 361 Hemi and was solid as a rock. He
: kept that car though until 1969, and it had over 200K on the clock when
: he sold it and got a '69 Dodge Monaco 383. That was a dissapointment.

That same year (1969) I bought a 383 Super Bee. It was a disappointment too in
several ways (impossible to keep alighed, for one thing), but it was a damned
fast car!

Bob

[Alan Browne]

Post by Robert Coe
In ten more years, barring another technological

Post by Robert Coe
revolution, film will be as rare as glass plates are today. No amount of
Luddite whining and handwringing can slow the trend down appreciably.

Just like all the painters since about 1850 are luddites for painting
and not joining that technological revolution.

Very poor comparison. Painting is artistic expression.

Photography is image capture, artistic or otherwise.

[Neil Gould]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Robert Coe
In ten more years, barring another technological

Post by Robert Coe
revolution, film will be as rare as glass plates are today. No
amount of Luddite whining and handwringing can slow the trend down
appreciably.

Just like all the painters since about 1850 are luddites for painting
and not joining that technological revolution.

Very poor comparison. Painting is artistic expression.
Photography is image capture, artistic or otherwise.

I served on the Ohio Arts Council's media panel about 25 years ago. At the
time, there was considerable hoopla locally and nationally about whether
photography could be considered art, and thus should qualify for the same
kind of support that artistic expressions received. I thought that question
was settled.

[Alan Browne]

Post by Neil Gould

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Robert Coe
In ten more years, barring another technological

Post by Robert Coe
revolution, film will be as rare as glass plates are today. No
amount of Luddite whining and handwringing can slow the trend down
appreciably.

Just like all the painters since about 1850 are luddites for painting
and not joining that technological revolution.

Very poor comparison. Painting is artistic expression.
Photography is image capture, artistic or otherwise.

I served on the Ohio Arts Council's media panel about 25 years ago. At the
time, there was considerable hoopla locally and nationally about whether
photography could be considered art, and thus should qualify for the same
kind of support that artistic expressions received. I thought that question
was settled.

Settled which way? And by one council. Do they speak for the world.
Or me?

I wouldn't bother tracking which council, panel, school or other
fuddleheads consider photography to be art or not.

It's safe to say that when funding is an issue there will be
considerable bias depending on who is opining in order to increase their
slice.

There is no honest settling such a question. Many (and nowhere near
all) non photographer art types sneer at photography as mere capture -
and such in the face of much artistic effort in photography.

It's safe to say that some portion of photography is not art.

It's possibly safe to say that some portion of painting is not art either.

IMO, there is a lot of photography that qualifies as art. So ordered by
the Great Council of 2010.03.21::13:27 at Montreal in a 1-0 vote.

[Neil Gould]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Neil Gould

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Robert Coe
In ten more years, barring another technological

Post by Robert Coe
revolution, film will be as rare as glass plates are today. No
amount of Luddite whining and handwringing can slow the trend down
appreciably.

Just like all the painters since about 1850 are luddites for
painting and not joining that technological revolution.

Very poor comparison. Painting is artistic expression.
Photography is image capture, artistic or otherwise.

I served on the Ohio Arts Council's media panel about 25 years ago.
At the time, there was considerable hoopla locally and nationally
about whether photography could be considered art, and thus should
qualify for the same kind of support that artistic expressions
received. I thought that question was settled.

Settled which way?

In favor of photography receiving funding if the work qualifies as art.

Post by Alan Browne
And by one council.

Nationally, in the U.S.

Post by Alan Browne
Do they speak for the world.

Why is that important?

Post by Alan Browne
Or me?

Are you an art funding source? If not, why would anyone care?

Post by Alan Browne
It's safe to say that some portion of photography is not art.

It's safe to say that there isn't any medium that is universally art... it's
the particular work that makes the difference, and the criteria are a moving
target.

[Alan Browne]

Post by Neil Gould
It's safe to say that there isn't any medium that is universally art... it's
the particular work that makes the difference, and the criteria are a moving
target.

That I agree with. I'd add that (IMO) "most paintings" are art whereas
"most photographs" are not.

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Neil Gould
It's safe to say that there isn't any medium that is universally art... it's
the particular work that makes the difference, and the criteria are a moving
target.

That I agree with. I'd add that (IMO) "most paintings" are art

That is a stretch..

Post by Alan Browne
whereas
"most photographs" are not.

I'd agree with that.

Stephanie

[David Nebenzahl]

There is no honest settling such a question [whether photography is
art]. Many (and nowhere near all) non photographer art types sneer at
photography as mere capture - and such in the face of much artistic
effort in photography.

I will move this discussion from abstraction to definitive statement:

In my view, photography is definitely *not* art. Never was, never will
be. (And no, I'm not a painter, though I have great respect for them.)

However, I also never expect to win this argument, so I'm going to leave
it at that.

[Bill Graham]

There is no honest settling such a question [whether photography is
art]. Many (and nowhere near all) non photographer art types sneer at
photography as mere capture - and such in the face of much artistic
effort in photography.

In my view, photography is definitely *not* art. Never was, never will be.
(And no, I'm not a painter, though I have great respect for them.)
However, I also never expect to win this argument, so I'm going to leave
it at that.

In my opinion, there is some art in most everything we do. You can go
through life just "doing" and you can add some style and panache to what you
do. Granted, I don't think there is much art in the way I brush my teeth
every night, but then after doing it a thousand times or more, it had become
pretty much of a drag. On the other hand, if I am going to bother to take a
photo of something, I will try to make it as good as possible, and if I can.
I will add that little something special to it to mark it as uniquely
"mine". This is, and is all that I believe it has to be, "art". To me,
anytime anyone does anything he likes doing, and tries to do well, he is
adding some art to the effort, and he is, in his own way, an artist.

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Robert Coe
In ten more years, barring another technological

Post by Robert Coe
revolution, film will be as rare as glass plates are today. No amount of
Luddite whining and handwringing can slow the trend down appreciably.

Just like all the painters since about 1850 are luddites for painting
and not joining that technological revolution.

Very poor comparison. Painting is artistic expression.
Photography is image capture, artistic or otherwise.

O.o LOL if nothing else your posts are entertaining

Stephanie

[Savageduck]

On 2010-03-21 08:29:25 -0700, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Robert Coe
In ten more years, barring another technological

Post by Robert Coe
revolution, film will be as rare as glass plates are today. No amount of
Luddite whining and handwringing can slow the trend down appreciably.

Just like all the painters since about 1850 are luddites for painting
and not joining that technological revolution.

Very poor comparison. Painting is artistic expression.

Not necessarily, consider Goya's "The Third of May 1808" and his 82
"Disasters of War" series. Also Picasso's "Guernica". These are graphic
expressions of highly political statements. Neither Goya nor Picasso
would have considered these "artistic expressions". Their intent to
make political statements is clear.
It is only in the light of the passage of time we choose to say, "What
a great work of art" that might be true, but it is only incidental to
the political intent.

Then there is Rembrandt and "The Night Watch." This work regardless of
its obvious artistic merit and a product of Rembrandt's genius, was a
commissioned documentation of the captain and 17 members of his civic
militia, which each of them paid for. Today this group would have paid
a photographer for a group photograph.
Certainly a masterpiece, but that was not Rembrandt's intent. He
recorded their likenesses flatteringly, and even labeled the work with
their names, as would be done in a group photograph. Once again it was
time and critical opinion which determined it is an artistic masterwork.

Post by Alan Browne
Photography is image capture, artistic or otherwise.

Agreed.
Photo-journalism, portraiture, wedding photography, sports photography,
etc. are not in and of themselves artistic expressions. That takes
another step in the creative process.

[Alan Browne]

Post by Savageduck
On 2010-03-21 08:29:25 -0700, Alan Browne

Post by Robert Coe
In ten more years, barring another technological

Post by Robert Coe
revolution, film will be as rare as glass plates are today. No amount of
Luddite whining and handwringing can slow the trend down appreciably.

Just like all the painters since about 1850 are luddites for painting
and not joining that technological revolution.

Very poor comparison. Painting is artistic expression.

Not necessarily, consider Goya's "The Third of May 1808" and his 82
"Disasters of War" series. Also Picasso's "Guernica". These are graphic
expressions of highly political statements. Neither Goya nor Picasso
would have considered these "artistic expressions". Their intent to make
political statements is clear.
It is only in the light of the passage of time we choose to say, "What a
great work of art" that might be true, but it is only incidental to the
political intent.

I'm very familiar with the Goyas, my mother studied fine art, so these
paintings were in several of the many, many books on the arts (esp.
painting, drawing) that my mother had - and I enjoyed.

Looking at Guernica (I don't recall seeing it before) it's art
regardless of the motive or message as are all of the Goyas. But hey,
that's just my opinion. There is no such thing that is "x percent art
and y percent not art". It is or it isn't.

Post by Savageduck
Then there is Rembrandt and "The Night Watch." This work regardless of
its obvious artistic merit and a product of Rembrandt's genius, was a
commissioned documentation of the captain and 17 members of his civic
militia, which each of them paid for. Today this group would have paid a
photographer for a group photograph.

As to the last, it may shock your skivies off, but people still have
their portraits made by painters.

As a painting, Night Watch, IMO, is art.

In Canada a national council wanted to award a courtroom sketch artist
an arts achievement award. Some of the puritanical types screamed foul.
However, looking at her sketches, these portraits, to call it anything
(documentation, reporting) was fine, but to exclude the word 'art' was
silly.

Post by Savageduck
Certainly a masterpiece, but that was not Rembrandt's intent. He
recorded their likenesses flatteringly, and even labeled the work with
their names, as would be done in a group photograph. Once again it was
time and critical opinion which determined it is an artistic masterwork.

Photography is image capture, artistic or otherwise.

Agreed.
Photo-journalism, portraiture, wedding photography, sports photography,
etc. are not in and of themselves artistic expressions.

Nor are all in and of themselves excluded despite that list. Esp. where
the photographer has taken pains with lighting (what is photography?)
whether available or set.

[Savageduck]

On 2010-03-22 13:01:47 -0700, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Savageduck
On 2010-03-21 08:29:25 -0700, Alan Browne

Post by Robert Coe
In ten more years, barring another technological

Post by Robert Coe
revolution, film will be as rare as glass plates are today. No amount of
Luddite whining and handwringing can slow the trend down appreciably.

Just like all the painters since about 1850 are luddites for painting
and not joining that technological revolution.

Very poor comparison. Painting is artistic expression.

Not necessarily, consider Goya's "The Third of May 1808" and his 82
"Disasters of War" series. Also Picasso's "Guernica". These are graphic
expressions of highly political statements. Neither Goya nor Picasso
would have considered these "artistic expressions". Their intent to make
political statements is clear.
It is only in the light of the passage of time we choose to say, "What a
great work of art" that might be true, but it is only incidental to the
political intent.

I'm very familiar with the Goyas, my mother studied fine art, so these
paintings were in several of the many, many books on the arts (esp.
painting, drawing) that my mother had - and I enjoyed.
Looking at Guernica (I don't recall seeing it before) it's art
regardless of the motive or message as are all of the Goyas. But hey,
that's just my opinion. There is no such thing that is "x percent art
and y percent not art". It is or it isn't.

Post by Savageduck
Then there is Rembrandt and "The Night Watch." This work regardless of
its obvious artistic merit and a product of Rembrandt's genius, was a
commissioned documentation of the captain and 17 members of his civic
militia, which each of them paid for. Today this group would have paid a
photographer for a group photograph.

As to the last, it may shock your skivies off, but people still have
their portraits made by painters.

Yup. I know a very talented portrait artist who works in charcoal and pastels.

Post by Alan Browne
As a painting, Night Watch, IMO, is art.
In Canada a national council wanted to award a courtroom sketch artist
an arts achievement award. Some of the puritanical types screamed
foul. However, looking at her sketches, these portraits, to call it
anything (documentation, reporting) was fine, but to exclude the word
'art' was silly.

OK, they are art for me as well.
I was playing Devil's advocate in making an attempt to demonstrate that
in these particular cases they were not deliberate efforts to create
works of "art". The result in all cases is without doubt some of the
greatest artistic masterpieces.
Having said all that, Rembrandt in another age would probably have been
a studio portrait photographer.

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Savageduck
Certainly a masterpiece, but that was not Rembrandt's intent. He
recorded their likenesses flatteringly, and even labeled the work with
their names, as would be done in a group photograph. Once again it was
time and critical opinion which determined it is an artistic masterwork.

Photography is image capture, artistic or otherwise.

Agreed.
Photo-journalism, portraiture, wedding photography, sports photography,
etc. are not in and of themselves artistic expressions.

Nor are all in and of themselves excluded despite that list. Esp.
where the photographer has taken pains with lighting (what is
photography?) whether available or set.

As I said in my post, "Photo-journalism, portraiture, wedding
photography, sports photography, etc. are not in and of themselves
artistic expressions. That takes another step in the creative process."
The "That takes another step in the creative process." Covers what the
photographer might have to do with preparation, including lens
selection, exposure adjustment, lighting, camera & subject position,
and post production.

I think we are on the same page here.

[Alan Browne]

Post by Savageduck
On 2010-03-22 13:01:47 -0700, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Savageduck
On 2010-03-21 08:29:25 -0700, Alan Browne

Post by Robert Coe
In ten more years, barring another technological

Post by Robert Coe
revolution, film will be as rare as glass plates are today. No amount of
Luddite whining and handwringing can slow the trend down appreciably.

Just like all the painters since about 1850 are luddites for painting
and not joining that technological revolution.

Very poor comparison. Painting is artistic expression.

Not necessarily, consider Goya's "The Third of May 1808" and his 82
"Disasters of War" series. Also Picasso's "Guernica". These are graphic
expressions of highly political statements. Neither Goya nor Picasso
would have considered these "artistic expressions". Their intent to make
political statements is clear.
It is only in the light of the passage of time we choose to say, "What a
great work of art" that might be true, but it is only incidental to the
political intent.

I'm very familiar with the Goyas, my mother studied fine art, so these
paintings were in several of the many, many books on the arts (esp.
painting, drawing) that my mother had - and I enjoyed.
Looking at Guernica (I don't recall seeing it before) it's art
regardless of the motive or message as are all of the Goyas. But hey,
that's just my opinion. There is no such thing that is "x percent art
and y percent not art". It is or it isn't.

Post by Savageduck
Then there is Rembrandt and "The Night Watch." This work regardless of
its obvious artistic merit and a product of Rembrandt's genius, was a
commissioned documentation of the captain and 17 members of his civic
militia, which each of them paid for. Today this group would have paid a
photographer for a group photograph.

As to the last, it may shock your skivies off, but people still have
their portraits made by painters.

Yup. I know a very talented portrait artist who works in charcoal and pastels.

Post by Alan Browne
As a painting, Night Watch, IMO, is art.
In Canada a national council wanted to award a courtroom sketch artist
an arts achievement award. Some of the puritanical types screamed
foul. However, looking at her sketches, these portraits, to call it
anything (documentation, reporting) was fine, but to exclude the word
'art' was silly.

OK, they are art for me as well.
I was playing Devil's advocate in making an attempt to demonstrate that
in these particular cases they were not deliberate efforts to create
works of "art". The result in all cases is without doubt some of the
greatest artistic masterpieces.
Having said all that, Rembrandt in another age would probably have been
a studio portrait photographer.

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Savageduck
Certainly a masterpiece, but that was not Rembrandt's intent. He
recorded their likenesses flatteringly, and even labeled the work with
their names, as would be done in a group photograph. Once again it was
time and critical opinion which determined it is an artistic masterwork.

Photography is image capture, artistic or otherwise.

Agreed.
Photo-journalism, portraiture, wedding photography, sports photography,
etc. are not in and of themselves artistic expressions.

Nor are all in and of themselves excluded despite that list. Esp.
where the photographer has taken pains with lighting (what is
photography?) whether available or set.

As I said in my post, "Photo-journalism, portraiture, wedding
photography, sports photography, etc. are not in and of themselves
artistic expressions. That takes another step in the creative process."
The "That takes another step in the creative process." Covers what the
photographer might have to do with preparation, including lens
selection, exposure adjustment, lighting, camera & subject position, and
post production.
I think we are on the same page here.

Yeah, but then we have to stop arguing.

[Savageduck]

On 2010-03-22 21:06:08 -0700, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Savageduck
On 2010-03-22 13:01:47 -0700, Alan Browne

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Savageduck
On 2010-03-21 08:29:25 -0700, Alan Browne

Post by Robert Coe
In ten more years, barring another technological

Post by Robert Coe
revolution, film will be as rare as glass plates are today. No amount of
Luddite whining and handwringing can slow the trend down appreciably.

Just like all the painters since about 1850 are luddites for painting
and not joining that technological revolution.

Very poor comparison. Painting is artistic expression.

Not necessarily, consider Goya's "The Third of May 1808" and his 82
"Disasters of War" series. Also Picasso's "Guernica". These are graphic
expressions of highly political statements. Neither Goya nor Picasso
would have considered these "artistic expressions". Their intent to make
political statements is clear.
It is only in the light of the passage of time we choose to say, "What a
great work of art" that might be true, but it is only incidental to the
political intent.

I'm very familiar with the Goyas, my mother studied fine art, so these
paintings were in several of the many, many books on the arts (esp.
painting, drawing) that my mother had - and I enjoyed.
Looking at Guernica (I don't recall seeing it before) it's art
regardless of the motive or message as are all of the Goyas. But hey,
that's just my opinion. There is no such thing that is "x percent art
and y percent not art". It is or it isn't.

Post by Savageduck
Then there is Rembrandt and "The Night Watch." This work regardless of
its obvious artistic merit and a product of Rembrandt's genius, was a
commissioned documentation of the captain and 17 members of his civic
militia, which each of them paid for. Today this group would have paid a
photographer for a group photograph.

As to the last, it may shock your skivies off, but people still have
their portraits made by painters.

Yup. I know a very talented portrait artist who works in charcoal and pastels.

Post by Alan Browne
As a painting, Night Watch, IMO, is art.
In Canada a national council wanted to award a courtroom sketch artist
an arts achievement award. Some of the puritanical types screamed
foul. However, looking at her sketches, these portraits, to call it
anything (documentation, reporting) was fine, but to exclude the word
'art' was silly.

OK, they are art for me as well.
I was playing Devil's advocate in making an attempt to demonstrate that
in these particular cases they were not deliberate efforts to create
works of "art". The result in all cases is without doubt some of the
greatest artistic masterpieces.
Having said all that, Rembrandt in another age would probably have been
a studio portrait photographer.

Post by Alan Browne

Post by Savageduck
Certainly a masterpiece, but that was not Rembrandt's intent. He
recorded their likenesses flatteringly, and even labeled the work with
their names, as would be done in a group photograph. Once again it was
time and critical opinion which determined it is an artistic masterwork.

Photography is image capture, artistic or otherwise.

Agreed.
Photo-journalism, portraiture, wedding photography, sports photography,
etc. are not in and of themselves artistic expressions.

Nor are all in and of themselves excluded despite that list. Esp.
where the photographer has taken pains with lighting (what is
photography?) whether available or set.

As I said in my post, "Photo-journalism, portraiture, wedding
photography, sports photography, etc. are not in and of themselves
artistic expressions. That takes another step in the creative process."
The "That takes another step in the creative process." Covers what the
photographer might have to do with preparation, including lens
selection, exposure adjustment, lighting, camera & subject position, and
post production.
I think we are on the same page here.

Yeah, but then we have to stop arguing.

We were arguing?

This is starting to become Pythonesque.
Now there is ...er performance art for you.

[Alan Browne]

Post by Savageduck
This is starting to become Pythonesque.
Now there is ...er performance art for you.

The new Canadian national anthem, as selected by the economist:

On that note, so to speak, G'night Gracie.

[Scott W]

Post by Robert Coe
Not exactly up to today's digital standard, is it? That one should probably
have had fill flash, but the dark shadows may be semi-intentional. We used to
underexpose slightly to keep the slides from looking washed out when
projected.
I'm 72 years old, so I'm not at all surprised at how far photography has come
in my lifetime. What I do find remarkable is that so much of the change has
come in the past 5-10 years. I'm not sure we fully appreciate the totality of
the digital revolution. In ten more years, barring another technological
revolution, film will be as rare as glass plates are today. No amount of
Luddite whining and handwringing can slow the trend down appreciably.

I did a lot of shooting on glass plates, I loved glass plates, of
course this was holography that I was shooting so there was a real
good reason to use them.

I think you have to qualify what you mean by film if you are going to
talk about it being extremely rare in 10 years time. Whereas I can
image color film pretty much gone in 10 years, maybe yes maybe so, I
can’t image all black and white film gone 10 years from now.

As to whether color film will be gone in 10 years I don’t know and I
don’t care.

[Michael]

Post by Robert Coe
: > : > I shot some 120 C-41 last night (and a s- load of digital).
: > : >
: > : > I told my buddy where to drop it off for me with the instructions, a
: > : > store with a really good lab about 20 minutes away. He dropped them
: > off
: > : > this am. The store left me a message, so I called them...
: > : >
: > : > Turnaround : 1 week.
: > : >
: > : > They don't do 120 anymore (E-6 or C-41). 35mm only.
: > : >
: > : > They don't do E-6 anymore for any format (not enough turnover to
: > manage
: > : > the chems properly).
: > : You need to move to a civilized place...
: >
: > ... and time. 1956 would be about right.
: They didn't have E6 in 1956, I think. And, anyway, they didn't have velvia.
We had Kodachrome 25, which you can't get today. ;^)
Bob

Actually we didn't have Kodachrome 25 in 1956. We had Kodachrome. ASA
10. Kodachrome II came next, ASA 25, in the 1960s. Later improved (they
said) and renamed Kodachrome 25.

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Post by Alan Browne
I shot some 120 C-41 last night (and a s- load of digital).
I told my buddy where to drop it off for me with the instructions, a
store with a really good lab about 20 minutes away. He dropped them off
this am. The store left me a message, so I called them...
Turnaround : 1 week.
They don't do 120 anymore (E-6 or C-41). 35mm only.
They don't do E-6 anymore for any format (not enough turnover to manage
the chems properly).

If you can't find Super Barricato di Bolgheri wine in your local shop,
do you assume that's disappearing from the planet as well?

[Bowser]

Post by Alan Browne
I shot some 120 C-41 last night (and a s- load of digital).
I told my buddy where to drop it off for me with the instructions, a
store with a really good lab about 20 minutes away. He dropped them off
this am. The store left me a message, so I called them...
Turnaround : 1 week.
They don't do 120 anymore (E-6 or C-41). 35mm only.
They don't do E-6 anymore for any format (not enough turnover to manage
the chems properly).

If you can't find Super Barricato di Bolgheri wine in your local shop, do
you assume that's disappearing from the planet as well?

If you can't find it, then the answer is yes.

[Noons]

Post by Bowser

Post by Rol_Lei Nut

Post by Alan Browne
I shot some 120 C-41 last night (and a s- load of digital).
I told my buddy where to drop it off for me with the instructions, a
store with a really good lab about 20 minutes away. He dropped them
off this am. The store left me a message, so I called them...
Turnaround : 1 week.
They don't do 120 anymore (E-6 or C-41). 35mm only.
They don't do E-6 anymore for any format (not enough turnover to
manage the chems properly).

If you can't find Super Barricato di Bolgheri wine in your local shop,
do you assume that's disappearing from the planet as well?

If you can't find it, then the answer is yes.

You know what's surprising?
The constant reinforcement that digital-heads need to reassure themselves they
made a good "choice". Or to try to explain to themselves the fortunes spent
chasing their whatever-megapixel whatsit.

Hey: if film is such a problem for any of you, just freakin STOP USING it and
piss off once and for all! Move on and get lost, for chrissakes.
Film users are sick and tired of all that "nail" bullshit: it's definitely
getting very rusty...

[Toxic]

Post by Noons
You know what's surprising?
The constant reinforcement that digital-heads need to reassure
themselves they made a good "choice". Or to try to explain to
themselves the fortunes spent chasing their whatever-megapixel whatsit.
Hey: if film is such a problem for any of you, just freakin STOP USING
it and piss off once and for all! Move on and get lost, for chrissakes.
Film users are sick and tired of all that "nail" bullshit: it's
definitely getting very rusty...

Sounds like the same attitude
overheard in a conversation
between the last two dinosaurs.

[Noons]

Post by Toxic

Post by Noons
You know what's surprising?
The constant reinforcement that digital-heads need to reassure
themselves they made a good "choice". Or to try to explain to
themselves the fortunes spent chasing their whatever-megapixel whatsit.
Hey: if film is such a problem for any of you, just freakin STOP USING
it and piss off once and for all! Move on and get lost, for chrissakes.
Film users are sick and tired of all that "nail" bullshit: it's
definitely getting very rusty...

Sounds like the same attitude
overheard in a conversation
between the last two dinosaurs.

Who cares? Move on!

[Annika1980]

Post by Noons
Hey: if film is such a problem for any of you, just freakin STOP USING it and
piss off once and for all!  Move on and get lost, for chrissakes.
Film users are sick and tired of all that "nail" bullshit: it's definitely
getting very rusty...

Most of us have stopped using it and one of the main reasons is that
it's too tough to find, and too tough to get processed. In my city of
a few hundred thousand people there used to be lots of places where
you could get slides or B&W film developed. Now, I think there is one
that still develops slides (but not B&W) , but that place won't be
there long. So be happy if you live in a place that still has film
developers, but know that your days are numbered as well. And if you
shoot Kodachrome you can always send it to Dwayne's Photo in
Kansas ... I think that's the only place left in the world that
develops it. But even that will end at the end of this year.

The point is that at some point the major manufacturers (FUJI) will
decide that film is no longer profitable to produce. When that
happens, what are you gonna do?

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Post by Annika1980
Most of us have stopped using it and one of the main reasons is that
it's too tough to find, and too tough to get processed.

Make that, most of "you" have stoped using it because you're too lazy to
find it, use it properly and process it...

Post by Annika1980
The point is that at some point the major manufacturers (FUJI) will
decide that film is no longer profitable to produce. When that
happens, what are you gonna do?

Just what I'm already doing: Using films called Lucky, Maco, Ilford,
Foma, Ferrania, Efke, ect...

And even if you insist on Fuji film, Fuji will probably end up licensing
the manufacture to somebody else.

[Bruce]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:32:45 +0100, Rol_Lei Nut

Post by Rol_Lei Nut
And even if you insist on Fuji film, Fuji will probably end up licensing
the manufacture to somebody else.

It is already the case that some Fuji black and white film is made by
Ilford, and all Kodak Gold C-41 process colour film is now made by
Lucky (?) in China.

[Bruce]

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:22:22 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980

Post by Annika1980
The point is that at some point the major manufacturers (FUJI) will
decide that film is no longer profitable to produce. When that
happens, what are you gonna do?

Small, specialist manufacturers will make it instead. We have already
seen several new entrants in the black and white market, and Ilford
are reporting an *increase* in sales of black and white films.

Film won't die, it will just become a niche market, with the vast
majority of people using digital.

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by Bruce
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 06:22:22 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980

Post by Annika1980
The point is that at some point the major manufacturers (FUJI) will
decide that film is no longer profitable to produce. When that
happens, what are you gonna do?

Small, specialist manufacturers will make it instead. We have already
seen several new entrants in the black and white market, and Ilford
are reporting an *increase* in sales of black and white films.
Film won't die, it will just become a niche market, with the vast
majority of people using digital.

Exactly. Just like 4X5 press cameras used to be very popular, now 4X5
cameras are a niche market. There are too many people who still like
shooting film for it to "die"

Stephanie

[Noons]

Post by Annika1980

Post by Noons
Hey: if film is such a problem for any of you, just freakin STOP USING it and
piss off once and for all! Move on and get lost, for chrissakes.
Film users are sick and tired of all that "nail" bullshit: it's definitely
getting very rusty...

Most of us have stopped using it and one of the main reasons is that
it's too tough to find, and too tough to get processed.

Good. Now, piss off and stop talking about it!

Post by Annika1980
In my city of
a few hundred thousand people there used to be lots of places where
you could get slides or B&W film developed.

WTH cares about "your city"?

Post by Annika1980
there long. So be happy if you live in a place that still has film
developers, but know that your days are numbered as well. And if you

I live in a city slightly larger than yours, where developing film is not the
slightest problem at all.

Post by Annika1980
shoot Kodachrome you can always send it to Dwayne's Photo in
Kansas ... I think that's the only place left in the world that
develops it. But even that will end at the end of this year.

I haven't shot Kodachrome since the 80s...

Post by Annika1980
The point is that at some point the major manufacturers (FUJI) will
decide that film is no longer profitable to produce. When that
happens, what are you gonna do?

Continue to use film. Just not Fuji. Why, is there a problem?

[Annika1980]

Post by Noons
I haven't shot Kodachrome since the 80s...

Why not? Maybe because it's is so tough to get developed?
My point exactly.

[Noons]

Post by Annika1980

Post by Noons
I haven't shot Kodachrome since the 80s...

Why not? Maybe because it's is so tough to get developed?
My point exactly.

Nope. Because I found better.
But in part yes: Kodak closed all development in Australia back then, so I
didn't bother indulging them if they didn't bother indulging me.
And no, digital wasn't a factor back then.
So your point is totally missed.

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by Annika1980

Post by Noons
I haven't shot Kodachrome since the 80s...

Why not? Maybe because it's is so tough to get developed?

Nope, E-6 film became so much better.

Post by Annika1980
My point exactly.

uh.. not really.

Stephanie

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by Noons
You know what's surprising?
The constant reinforcement that digital-heads need to reassure
themselves they made a good "choice". Or to try to explain to
themselves the fortunes spent chasing their whatever-megapixel whatsit.
Hey: if film is such a problem for any of you, just freakin STOP USING
it and piss off once and for all! Move on and get lost, for chrissakes.
Film users are sick and tired of all that "nail" bullshit: it's
definitely getting very rusty...

It's not shocking, these same people will do the same thing about the
brands they choose, the car they buy etc etc. It IS about "Their choice
is the correct choice for any reasoning person" and they will tell you
so :-)

Stephanie

[Alan Browne]

Post by Rol_Lei Nut

Post by Alan Browne
I shot some 120 C-41 last night (and a s- load of digital).
I told my buddy where to drop it off for me with the instructions, a
store with a really good lab about 20 minutes away. He dropped them
off this am. The store left me a message, so I called them...
Turnaround : 1 week.
They don't do 120 anymore (E-6 or C-41). 35mm only.
They don't do E-6 anymore for any format (not enough turnover to
manage the chems properly).

If you can't find Super Barricato di Bolgheri wine in your local shop,
do you assume that's disappearing from the planet as well?

Where did I suggest that? It just shows that if you live in the outer
'burbs where I am, the ability to get 120 or E-6 done conveniently is
disappearing.

As such, my inclination to shoot film is reduced another notch.

Yesterday I returned a BG to a friend of mine (a pro) who still shoots a
lot of 120 (mainly for weddings and portraits) and he goes all the way
into the city to develop his film.

He believes there is enough of a suburban market to justify a single
"pro point" developer of C-41 and E-6 and that the machines are (now)
ridiculously cheap to acquire. I'm tempted to invest, but I want to
know how many pros in the area think they'll be using film for the next
3 years, and how much film they do per year.

OTOH, the same guy said that he usually has 20 wedding bookings by this
point in the season and now he has only a few. People have gone down
market in wedding photography as anyone with a camera hangs out a
shingle declaring themselves to be wedding photogs. The current
recession doesn't help.

[Annika1980]

Post by Alan Browne
OTOH, the same guy said that he usually has 20 wedding bookings by this
point in the season and now he has only a few.  People have gone down
market in wedding photography as anyone with a camera hangs out a
shingle declaring themselves to be wedding photogs.  The current
recession doesn't help.

Funny you mentioned that. A few weeks ago I was talking to the
leading wedding photographer in my town. The last time I had spoken to
him (about 7-8 years ago) he was doing about 40-45 weddings a year.
Now he says he only does about 5 per year. I think even his studio
portraiture business is down as well for the reasons you mentioned.
We'll just let Aunt Jane take the pics ... she has a new point-and-
shoot.

[Noons]

Post by Annika1980

Post by Alan Browne
OTOH, the same guy said that he usually has 20 wedding bookings by this
point in the season and now he has only a few. People have gone down
market in wedding photography as anyone with a camera hangs out a
shingle declaring themselves to be wedding photogs. The current
recession doesn't help.

Funny you mentioned that. A few weeks ago I was talking to the
leading wedding photographer in my town. The last time I had spoken to
him (about 7-8 years ago) he was doing about 40-45 weddings a year.
Now he says he only does about 5 per year. I think even his studio
portraiture business is down as well for the reasons you mentioned.
We'll just let Aunt Jane take the pics ... she has a new point-and-
shoot.

Oh dear....
Is that the "death of digital" or "another nail in the coffin of photography"?
Apparently, it's not just film that is having a problem, eh?

[Alan Browne]

Post by Annika1980

Post by Alan Browne
OTOH, the same guy said that he usually has 20 wedding bookings by this
point in the season and now he has only a few. People have gone down
market in wedding photography as anyone with a camera hangs out a
shingle declaring themselves to be wedding photogs. The current
recession doesn't help.

Funny you mentioned that. A few weeks ago I was talking to the
leading wedding photographer in my town. The last time I had spoken to
him (about 7-8 years ago) he was doing about 40-45 weddings a year.
Now he says he only does about 5 per year. I think even his studio
portraiture business is down as well for the reasons you mentioned.
We'll just let Aunt Jane take the pics ... she has a new point-and-
shoot.

Or "a new, real pro camera. You know, with the lenses that come off and
on, yeah. Aunt Jane is really into photography now and looks like a pro
with all that gear. It must take real good pitchurs."

I have a wedding coming up (SO's niece) and the photographer will be a
school buddy of the bride. I'll bring my gear as backup - I just have
this feeling... hopefully I'm wrong.

[Michael Benveniste]

Post by Alan Browne
I have a wedding coming up (SO's niece) and the photographer will be a
school buddy of the bride. I'll bring my gear as backup - I just have
this feeling... hopefully I'm wrong.

A while back, I decided that I wasn't going to bring a camera
to a wedding unless a) specifically asked to do so by the bride,
and b) the couple had already hired a professional photographer.

The next wedding I attended, one of my in-laws handed me their
point-and-shoot and told me to start shooting. It was, of course,
a camera model I'd never used before.

So now I take a camera with me, but it stays in the car or other
hiding place unless I need it for self-defense.

[tony cooper]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:30:27 -0400, "Michael Benveniste"

Post by Michael Benveniste

Post by Alan Browne
I have a wedding coming up (SO's niece) and the photographer will be a
school buddy of the bride. I'll bring my gear as backup - I just have
this feeling... hopefully I'm wrong.

A while back, I decided that I wasn't going to bring a camera
to a wedding unless a) specifically asked to do so by the bride,
and b) the couple had already hired a professional photographer.
The next wedding I attended, one of my in-laws handed me their
point-and-shoot and told me to start shooting. It was, of course,
a camera model I'd never used before.

This morning I was taking some candid "people" shots at an art
festival in a park. I had two Nikons around my neck, one with a 18/55
and one with a 55/200.

A couple was taking a photographs of their child...one parent with the
child and then the other parent with the child. The husband saw me
with the cameras and asked me to take a photo of both parents with the
child with their P&S camera.

I did, but I asked them to turn a different direction because of the
sun, to turn their faces up a bit instead of looking down at the
child, and to move a few feet to a different place because the row of
Porta-Potties was in the background.

The husband snapped "Just take the picture, please. It's not a big
deal.".

[Savageduck]

Post by tony cooper
On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:30:27 -0400, "Michael Benveniste"

Post by Michael Benveniste

Post by Alan Browne
I have a wedding coming up (SO's niece) and the photographer will be a
school buddy of the bride. I'll bring my gear as backup - I just have
this feeling... hopefully I'm wrong.

A while back, I decided that I wasn't going to bring a camera
to a wedding unless a) specifically asked to do so by the bride,
and b) the couple had already hired a professional photographer.
The next wedding I attended, one of my in-laws handed me their
point-and-shoot and told me to start shooting. It was, of course,
a camera model I'd never used before.

This morning I was taking some candid "people" shots at an art
festival in a park. I had two Nikons around my neck, one with a 18/55
and one with a 55/200.
A couple was taking a photographs of their child...one parent with the
child and then the other parent with the child. The husband saw me
with the cameras and asked me to take a photo of both parents with the
child with their P&S camera.
I did, but I asked them to turn a different direction because of the
sun, to turn their faces up a bit instead of looking down at the
child, and to move a few feet to a different place because the row of
Porta-Potties was in the background.
The husband snapped "Just take the picture, please. It's not a big
deal.".

That father deserves to have the snapshot showing him with the
porta-pottie growing out of his head.

[Noons]

Post by tony cooper
A couple was taking a photographs of their child...one parent with the
child and then the other parent with the child.  The husband saw me
with the cameras and asked me to take a photo of both parents with the
child with their P&S camera.
I did, but I asked them to turn a different direction because of the
sun, to turn their faces up a bit instead of looking down at the
child, and to move a few feet to a different place because the row of
Porta-Potties was in the background.  
The husband snapped "Just take the picture, please.  It's not a big
deal.".  

You see, this is precisely what you lot miss about photography.
It's not a clinical activity to be undertaken only in perfect
conditions. It's not a "big deal"!
If you know photography, you take a shot at the time concentrating on
the image you want to show and fogging out the background either via a
wide open lens or later with PS.
In that father's mind, that is what happens and he doesn't need any of
that.
This is precisely why mobile phone cameras are winning the battle for
consumer $$$.

[tony cooper]

Post by Noons

Post by tony cooper
A couple was taking a photographs of their child...one parent with the
child and then the other parent with the child.  The husband saw me
with the cameras and asked me to take a photo of both parents with the
child with their P&S camera.
I did, but I asked them to turn a different direction because of the
sun, to turn their faces up a bit instead of looking down at the
child, and to move a few feet to a different place because the row of
Porta-Potties was in the background.  
The husband snapped "Just take the picture, please.  It's not a big
deal.".  

You see, this is precisely what you lot miss about photography.
It's not a clinical activity to be undertaken only in perfect
conditions. It's not a "big deal"!
If you know photography, you take a shot at the time concentrating on
the image you want to show and fogging out the background either via a
wide open lens or later with PS.

Evidently, you did not read what you responded to. I was handed a
P&S, and not a P&S plus the Owner's Manual for that camera. From the
looks of it - a cheap Samsung - I doubt if it had aperture choice. I
seriously doubt if the owner owns Photoshop.

Since I couldn't make those assumptions, I wanted to do a work-around
and present the best image possible.

Post by Noons
In that father's mind, that is what happens and he doesn't need any of
that.
This is precisely why mobile phone cameras are winning the battle for
consumer $$$.

[Noons]

Post by tony cooper
Since I couldn't make those assumptions, I wanted to do a work-around
and present the best image possible.  

He wouldn't care a single iota.
All he wants is what his mind sees. Won't even notice anything you
do.

Post by tony cooper

Post by Noons
In that father's mind, that is what happens and he doesn't need any of
that.
This is precisely why mobile phone cameras are winning the battle for
consumer $$$.

[tony cooper]

Post by Noons

Post by tony cooper
Since I couldn't make those assumptions, I wanted to do a work-around
and present the best image possible.  

He wouldn't care a single iota.
All he wants is what his mind sees. Won't even notice anything you
do.

Post by tony cooper

Post by Noons
In that father's mind, that is what happens and he doesn't need any of
that.
This is precisely why mobile phone cameras are winning the battle for
consumer $$$.

You said: "You see, this is precisely what you lot miss about
photography. It's not a clinical activity to be undertaken only in
perfect conditions. It's not a "big deal"."

Why should his lack of interest in a good photograph affect me? I
don't think I'm being overly-clinical in my approach because I try to
take the best photograph I can even if he won't see the difference.

I'm not in "you lot". He is.

[Noons]

You said:  "You see, this is precisely what you lot miss about
photography. It's not a clinical activity to be undertaken only in
perfect conditions. It's not a "big deal"."

Exactly.

Why should his lack of interest in a good photograph affect me?  I
don't think I'm being overly-clinical in my approach because I try to
take the best photograph I can even if he won't see the difference.

He couldn't care less what you consider "the best photograph".
All he asked you to do is take a snappie.

No one said you did wrong. What you did was assume your "good" is
everyone else's "good".
Nothing could be more removed from reality, as you have found out.

I'm not in "you lot".  He is.

Sure. Depends on which lot we talking? ;)

[Bill Graham]

Post by tony cooper
A couple was taking a photographs of their child...one parent with the
child and then the other parent with the child. The husband saw me
with the cameras and asked me to take a photo of both parents with the
child with their P&S camera.
I did, but I asked them to turn a different direction because of the
sun, to turn their faces up a bit instead of looking down at the
child, and to move a few feet to a different place because the row of
Porta-Potties was in the background.
The husband snapped "Just take the picture, please. It's not a big
deal.".

You see, this is precisely what you lot miss about photography.
It's not a clinical activity to be undertaken only in perfect
conditions. It's not a "big deal"!
If you know photography, you take a shot at the time concentrating on
the image you want to show and fogging out the background either via a
wide open lens or later with PS.
In that father's mind, that is what happens and he doesn't need any of
that.
This is precisely why mobile phone cameras are winning the battle for
consumer $$$.

Well, I would have handed the camera back to the hubby, and said, "If you
want any hack job, then find someone else. But I am an artist, and I refuse
to do poor work, so to me, it is a "big deal".

[Noons]

Post by Noons

Post by tony cooper
The husband snapped "Just take the picture, please. It's not a big
deal.".

You see, this is precisely what you lot miss about photography.
It's not a clinical activity to be undertaken only in perfect
conditions. It's not a "big deal"!
If you know photography, you take a shot at the time concentrating on
the image you want to show and fogging out the background either via a
wide open lens or later with PS.
In that father's mind, that is what happens and he doesn't need any of
that.
This is precisely why mobile phone cameras are winning the battle for
consumer $$$.
Well, I would have handed the camera back to the hubby, and said, "If
you want any hack job, then find someone else. But I am an artist, and I
refuse to do poor work, so to me, it is a "big deal".

Good for you! Unfortunately in this day and age, no one gives a toss about art...

[Bill Graham]

Post by Noons

Post by Noons

Post by tony cooper
The husband snapped "Just take the picture, please. It's not a big
deal.".

You see, this is precisely what you lot miss about photography.
It's not a clinical activity to be undertaken only in perfect
conditions. It's not a "big deal"!
If you know photography, you take a shot at the time concentrating on
the image you want to show and fogging out the background either via a
wide open lens or later with PS.
In that father's mind, that is what happens and he doesn't need any of
that.
This is precisely why mobile phone cameras are winning the battle for
consumer $$$.
Well, I would have handed the camera back to the hubby, and said, "If you
want any hack job, then find someone else. But I am an artist, and I
refuse to do poor work, so to me, it is a "big deal".

Good for you! Unfortunately in this day and age, no one gives a toss about art...

Well, It's been my experience that few people have ever cared anything about
art unless they did it themselves. I certainly didn't care anything about it
until I retired, or at least grew close to retirement. And I came from a
family of artists.....Both my parents painted, and my dad did photography.
The whole history of art shows that most of the great artists in history
died broke. Even today, most parents consider their artistic children to be
"deadbeats" unless they are holding down a, "daytime job", and dabbling with
their chosen art as a sideline.

[Noons]

Post by Bill Graham

Post by Noons
Good for you! Unfortunately in this day and age, no one gives a toss about art...

Well, It's been my experience that few people have ever cared anything
about art unless they did it themselves. I certainly didn't care
anything about it until I retired, or at least grew close to retirement.
And I came from a family of artists.....Both my parents painted, and my
dad did photography. The whole history of art shows that most of the
great artists in history died broke. Even today, most parents consider
their artistic children to be "deadbeats" unless they are holding down
a, "daytime job", and dabbling with their chosen art as a sideline.

Heh! Good old "kid: I wanna be a movie star! dad: you want to get a real job,
you idiot!"

[tony cooper]

Post by Noons

Post by tony cooper
A couple was taking a photographs of their child...one parent with the
child and then the other parent with the child. The husband saw me
with the cameras and asked me to take a photo of both parents with the
child with their P&S camera.
I did, but I asked them to turn a different direction because of the
sun, to turn their faces up a bit instead of looking down at the
child, and to move a few feet to a different place because the row of
Porta-Potties was in the background.
The husband snapped "Just take the picture, please. It's not a big
deal.".

You see, this is precisely what you lot miss about photography.
It's not a clinical activity to be undertaken only in perfect
conditions. It's not a "big deal"!
If you know photography, you take a shot at the time concentrating on
the image you want to show and fogging out the background either via a
wide open lens or later with PS.
In that father's mind, that is what happens and he doesn't need any of
that.
This is precisely why mobile phone cameras are winning the battle for
consumer $$$.
Well, I would have handed the camera back to the hubby, and said, "If you
want any hack job, then find someone else. But I am an artist, and I refuse
to do poor work, so to me, it is a "big deal".

I wouldn't do that. That would make me as surly as the father and
deprive him of the photo. As it was, the father did comply with my
requests - although not graciously - and now has what I think will be
a good photo.

A few years from now, both the father and I will have forgotten the
circumstances. But, he will have a reminder of what he and his family
looked like on that day.

[John McWilliams]

Post by tony cooper

Post by Noons

Post by tony cooper
A couple was taking a photographs of their child...one parent with the
child and then the other parent with the child. The husband saw me
with the cameras and asked me to take a photo of both parents with the
child with their P&S camera.
I did, but I asked them to turn a different direction because of the
sun, to turn their faces up a bit instead of looking down at the
child, and to move a few feet to a different place because the row of
Porta-Potties was in the background.
The husband snapped "Just take the picture, please. It's not a big
deal.".

You see, this is precisely what you lot miss about photography.
It's not a clinical activity to be undertaken only in perfect
conditions. It's not a "big deal"!
If you know photography, you take a shot at the time concentrating on
the image you want to show and fogging out the background either via a
wide open lens or later with PS.
In that father's mind, that is what happens and he doesn't need any of
that.
This is precisely why mobile phone cameras are winning the battle for
consumer $$$.
Well, I would have handed the camera back to the hubby, and said, "If you
want any hack job, then find someone else. But I am an artist, and I refuse
to do poor work, so to me, it is a "big deal".

I wouldn't do that. That would make me as surly as the father and
deprive him of the photo. As it was, the father did comply with my
requests - although not graciously - and now has what I think will be
a good photo.
A few years from now, both the father and I will have forgotten the
circumstances. But, he will have a reminder of what he and his family
looked like on that day.

You done good, tony. You don't need to defend yourself against boors.

[K W Hart]

Post by Noons

Post by tony cooper
A couple was taking a photographs of their child...one parent with the
child and then the other parent with the child. The husband saw me
with the cameras and asked me to take a photo of both parents with the
child with their P&S camera.
I did, but I asked them to turn a different direction because of the
sun, to turn their faces up a bit instead of looking down at the
child, and to move a few feet to a different place because the row of
Porta-Potties was in the background.
The husband snapped "Just take the picture, please. It's not a big
deal.".

You see, this is precisely what you lot miss about photography.
It's not a clinical activity to be undertaken only in perfect
conditions. It's not a "big deal"!
If you know photography, you take a shot at the time concentrating on
the image you want to show and fogging out the background either via a
wide open lens or later with PS.
In that father's mind, that is what happens and he doesn't need any of
that.
This is precisely why mobile phone cameras are winning the battle for
consumer $$$.
Well, I would have handed the camera back to the hubby, and said, "If you
want any hack job, then find someone else. But I am an artist, and I
refuse to do poor work, so to me, it is a "big deal".

A slightly more tactful answer might be "But I think it will be a much more
memorable and attractive photograph if we move over here a little bit..."

[Bill Graham]

Post by K W Hart

Post by Noons

Post by tony cooper
A couple was taking a photographs of their child...one parent with the
child and then the other parent with the child. The husband saw me
with the cameras and asked me to take a photo of both parents with the
child with their P&S camera.
I did, but I asked them to turn a different direction because of the
sun, to turn their faces up a bit instead of looking down at the
child, and to move a few feet to a different place because the row of
Porta-Potties was in the background.
The husband snapped "Just take the picture, please. It's not a big
deal.".

You see, this is precisely what you lot miss about photography.
It's not a clinical activity to be undertaken only in perfect
conditions. It's not a "big deal"!
If you know photography, you take a shot at the time concentrating on
the image you want to show and fogging out the background either via a
wide open lens or later with PS.
In that father's mind, that is what happens and he doesn't need any of
that.
This is precisely why mobile phone cameras are winning the battle for
consumer $$$.
Well, I would have handed the camera back to the hubby, and said, "If you
want any hack job, then find someone else. But I am an artist, and I
refuse to do poor work, so to me, it is a "big deal".

A slightly more tactful answer might be "But I think it will be a much
more memorable and attractive photograph if we move over here a little
bit..."

I agree, but I might not be in a tactful mood.....:^)

[Robert Coe]

On Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:30:27 -0400, "Michael Benveniste" <***@murkyether.com>
wrote:
: "Alan Browne" <***@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote:
:
: > I have a wedding coming up (SO's niece) and the photographer will be a
: > school buddy of the bride. I'll bring my gear as backup - I just have
: > this feeling... hopefully I'm wrong.
:
: A while back, I decided that I wasn't going to bring a camera
: to a wedding unless a) specifically asked to do so by the bride,
: and b) the couple had already hired a professional photographer.
:
: The next wedding I attended, one of my in-laws handed me their
: point-and-shoot and told me to start shooting. It was, of course,
: a camera model I'd never used before.
:
: So now I take a camera with me, but it stays in the car or other
: hiding place unless I need it for self-defense.

Sounds like exactly the right approach.

Bob

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by Alan Browne
As such, my inclination to shoot film is reduced another notch.

And we should care? Like OMG Alan Browne stopping shooting film so film
is now dead! XD

Stephanie

[Bruce]

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by Alan Browne
As such, my inclination to shoot film is reduced another notch.

And we should care? Like OMG Alan Browne stopping shooting film so film
is now dead! XD

He has merely changed from one medium he can't use to another. ;-)

[Noons]

Post by Bruce

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by Alan Browne
As such, my inclination to shoot film is reduced another notch.

And we should care? Like OMG Alan Browne stopping shooting film so film
is now dead! XD

He has merely changed from one medium he can't use to another. ;-)

ouch!....
XD

[s***@yahoo.com]

Post by Bruce

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by Alan Browne
As such, my inclination to shoot film is reduced another notch.

And we should care? Like OMG Alan Browne stopping shooting film so film
is now dead! XD

He has merely changed from one medium he can't use to another. ;-)

Hehe :-)

Stephanie

[John McWilliams]

Post by Bruce

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by Alan Browne
As such, my inclination to shoot film is reduced another notch.

And we should care? Like OMG Alan Browne stopping shooting film so film
is now dead! XD

He has merely changed from one medium he can't use to another. ;-)

You two guys (tony and alan) just can't stop sniping at one another,
huh? How long has it been?

[tony cooper]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:24:52 -0700, John McWilliams

Post by John McWilliams

Post by Bruce

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by Alan Browne
As such, my inclination to shoot film is reduced another notch.

And we should care? Like OMG Alan Browne stopping shooting film so film
is now dead! XD

He has merely changed from one medium he can't use to another. ;-)

You two guys (tony and alan) just can't stop sniping at one another,
huh? How long has it been?

You have the wrong combatants. Alan and I have never sniped at one
another. At least not that I know of. I've greatly liked some of
Alan's Shoot-In shots and found some of them rather prosaic, but never
intentionally said anything unkind about Alan himself.

I've taken some potshots at Bruce over his comments about the
Shoot-In. He constantly whinges about the poor quality of the
photographic efforts displayed there, but never says what he finds
lacking in the images or contributes anything himself.

[tony cooper]

On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 14:35:57 -0400, tony cooper

Post by tony cooper
On Wed, 24 Mar 2010 09:24:52 -0700, John McWilliams

Post by John McWilliams

Post by Bruce

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by Alan Browne
As such, my inclination to shoot film is reduced another notch.

And we should care? Like OMG Alan Browne stopping shooting film so film
is now dead! XD

He has merely changed from one medium he can't use to another. ;-)

You two guys (tony and alan) just can't stop sniping at one another,
huh? How long has it been?

You have the wrong combatants. Alan and I have never sniped at one
another. At least not that I know of. I've greatly liked some of
Alan's Shoot-In shots and found some of them rather prosaic, but never
intentionally said anything unkind about Alan himself.
I've taken some potshots at Bruce over his comments about the
Shoot-In. He constantly whinges about the poor quality of the
photographic efforts displayed there, but never says what he finds
lacking in the images or contributes anything himself.

OK...I'm dense. I'll admit it. Whenever I see "Tony" used I think
the reference is to me. My excuse, Sir, is that I was not reading
this group when "Bruce" was posting under the name "Tony Polson".
Since I've been reading the group, the only "Tony" here is me.

It's all about me, you know.

[Annika1980]

OK...I'm dense.  I'll admit it.  Whenever I see "Tony" used I think
the reference is to me.  My excuse, Sir, is that I was not reading
this group when "Bruce" was posting under the name "Tony Polson".
Since I've been reading the group, the only "Tony" here is me.
It's all about me, you know.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

You mean there's more than one of you? Oh God.

[Tim Conway]

OK...I'm dense. I'll admit it. Whenever I see "Tony" used I think
the reference is to me. My excuse, Sir, is that I was not reading
this group when "Bruce" was posting under the name "Tony Polson".
Since I've been reading the group, the only "Tony" here is me.
It's all about me, you know.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
You mean there's more than one of you? Oh God.

LOL wow, sometimes this NG is just plain fun. :-)

[Alan Browne]

Post by John McWilliams

Post by s***@yahoo.com

Post by Alan Browne
As such, my inclination to shoot film is reduced another notch.

And we should care? Like OMG Alan Browne stopping shooting film so
film is now dead! XD

He has merely changed from one medium he can't use to another. ;-)

You two guys (tony and alan) just can't stop sniping at one another,
huh? How long has it been?

Where in this thread did I snipe at Tony?

I don't go out of my way to rile him, but he'll take opportunities to
potshot me. I really don't care, but when he opens up, I'll reply in
kind if in the mood.

The little shot above is not worth the bother.

BTW: Have you ever seen a decent photo posted by Tony/Bruce?
Not even great or good, merely decent?

[Noons]

Post by John McWilliams

He has merely changed from one medium he can't use to another.  ;-)

You two guys (tony and alan) just can't stop sniping at one another,
huh? How long has it been?

Off your meds again, dickhead?
You really don't have a clue, do you?

[John McWilliams]

Post by Noons

Post by John McWilliams

Post by Bruce
He has merely changed from one medium he can't use to another. ;-)

You two guys (tony and alan) just can't stop sniping at one another,
huh? How long has it been?

Off your meds again, dickhead?
You really don't have a clue, do you?

OK, now we've heard from the lunatic fringe. I am out on this thread.

Yeech.

[Noons]

Post by John McWilliams

Post by Noons

Post by John McWilliams
You two guys (tony and alan) just can't stop sniping at one another,
huh? How long has it been?

Off your meds again, dickhead?
You really don't have a clue, do you?

OK, now we've heard from the lunatic fringe. I am out on this thread.

Good. Should have stayed in the hillbilly ones.
Go back to the hellhole you belong:
http://john.mcwilliams.mediafetcher.com/news/top_stories/worldrecord.php
oh, wait: swing by here first:
http://thingsboganslike.wordpress.com/
and on the way don't forget to drop by:
http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/

Post by John McWilliams
Yeech.

[Scott W]

Post by Alan Browne
I shot some 120 C-41 last night (and a s- load of digital).
I told my buddy where to drop it off for me with the instructions, a
store with a really good lab about 20 minutes away.  He dropped them off
this am.  The store left me a message, so I called them...
Turnaround : 1 week.
They don't do 120 anymore (E-6 or C-41).   35mm only.
They don't do E-6 anymore for any format (not enough turnover to manage
the chems properly).

Film is not dead or even dying, I know this because I saw a roll of
film being developed at Costco the other day. Having f roll of film
being processed there shows a real resurgence in the use of film,
since it had been a long time since I had seen any film being
processed there. And I am sure that the low volume that Costco has
had up to this point is because the aggressive ma and pa shops have
been pulling the processing business away from them.

[Alan Browne]

Post by Scott W

Post by Alan Browne
I shot some 120 C-41 last night (and a s- load of digital).
I told my buddy where to drop it off for me with the instructions, a
store with a really good lab about 20 minutes away. He dropped them off
this am. The store left me a message, so I called them...
Turnaround : 1 week.
They don't do 120 anymore (E-6 or C-41). 35mm only.
They don't do E-6 anymore for any format (not enough turnover to manage
the chems properly).

Film is not dead or even dying, I know this because I saw a roll of
film being developed at Costco the other day. Having f roll of film
being processed there shows a real resurgence in the use of film,
since it had been a long time since I had seen any film being
processed there. And I am sure that the low volume that Costco has
had up to this point is because the aggressive ma and pa shops have
been pulling the processing business away from them.

Never said it was dead, just harder and harder to get done.

That's called a trend.

Trends reverse - but so far here it is one way.