Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Film Photography / 35 mm / October 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Someone else post a film thread.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Scott W - 07 Sep 2008 06:05 GMT
I note that there has been virtually no threads dealing with film on
this group, other then the few I started.  If no one else is going
start a film related thread then I really don’t want to hear about how
this is a 35mm “film” group.

Scott
tony cooper - 07 Sep 2008 07:02 GMT
>I note that there has been virtually no threads dealing with film on
>this group, other then the few I started.  If no one else is going
>start a film related thread then I really don’t want to hear about how
>this is a 35mm “film” group.

How many rectangular holes are in a roll of 36 exposure Tri-X Pan Film
TX?

Discuss.

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Mark Thomas - 07 Sep 2008 07:20 GMT
>> I note that there has been virtually no threads dealing with film on
>> this group, other then the few I started.  If no one else is going
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Discuss.

Points for nearest, and also fastest response?  I'm stabbing at 628.
Scott W - 07 Sep 2008 07:33 GMT
> >I note that there has been virtually no threads dealing with film on
> >this group, other then the few I started.  If no one else is going
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Discuss.

Ok, a film thread.

So there are 16 hole/frame, but there is the leader to think about, I
am guessing about 3 frames worth of leader.

So I put my guess in at 624, I could go look at a strip but too lazy
right now.

Scott
Colin.D - 07 Sep 2008 10:39 GMT
tony cooper, 9/7/2008 6:02 PM:

>> I note that there has been virtually no threads dealing with film on
>> this group, other then the few I started.  If no one else is going
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
> Discuss.

None; the holes are not rectangular, they have rounded corners.

Ok, so I'm a pedant ;)

Colin D.
Ken Nadvornick - 07 Sep 2008 07:33 GMT
> I note that there has been virtually no threads dealing with film on
> this group, other then the few I started.  If no one else is going
> start a film related thread then I really don’t want to hear about how
> this is a 35mm “film” group.

Pssst...  The problem does not involve threads...

Ken
D-Mac - 07 Sep 2008 07:54 GMT
> I note that there has been virtually no threads dealing with film on
> this group, other then the few I started.  If no one else is going
> start a film related thread then I really don’t want to hear about how
> this is a 35mm “film” group.
>
> Scott

What's 35mm "film"?
Pete D - 07 Sep 2008 09:06 GMT
I note that there has been virtually no threads dealing with film on
this group, other then the few I started.  If no one else is going
start a film related thread then I really don’t want to hear about how
this is a 35mm “film” group.

Scott

I'm sorry Scott but this group charter does dot include the word "film",
therefore using the word film would be off topic.

Regrads.

Pete
Noons - 07 Sep 2008 11:11 GMT
Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 7/09/2008 3:05 PM:
> I note that there has been virtually no threads dealing with film on
> this group, other then the few I started.  If no one else is going
> start a film related thread then I really don’t want to hear about how
> this is a 35mm “film” group.

the real film users left ages ago. the only
thing left is the shills and scammers for Canon
and pbase. been like that for a long time.
David Nebenzahl - 07 Sep 2008 22:01 GMT
On 9/7/2008 3:11 AM Noons spake thus:

> Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 7/09/2008 3:05 PM:
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
> the real film users left ages ago.

Not completely true. There are still a few on-topic posts about 35mm
film usage here. Far fewer than in the days of yore, but there are still
some.

> the only thing left is the shills and scammers for Canon and pbase.
> been like that for a long time.

Yup.

Signature

 Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

- Paulo Freire

Helen - 07 Sep 2008 15:29 GMT
> I note that there has been virtually no threads dealing with film on
> this group, other then the few I started.  If no one else is going
> start a film related thread then I really don’t want to hear about how
> this is a 35mm “film” group.
>
> Scott

I use film now and then.  As a matter of fact one of my SI submissions
(the old man) was done using film on an old rangefinder camera back in
July.  I used TMX 400 ISO.
Scott W - 07 Sep 2008 16:57 GMT
> > I note that there has been virtually no threads dealing with film on
> > this group, other then the few I started.  If no one else is going
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> (the old man) was done using film on an old rangefinder camera back in
> July.  I used TMX 400 ISO.

I am not saying that there are not people on this group who use film.
What gets me is there are a few film users who complain about posts
dealing with DSLRs, but who never seem to be able to do a post that is
35mm film realated.

So far Noons is the only one to step up and do a film related post, I
sure hope he is not the only one.

Scott
Alan Browne - 07 Sep 2008 18:04 GMT
>>> I note that there has been virtually no threads dealing with film on
>>> this group, other then the few I started.  If no one else is going
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> So far Noons is the only one to step up and do a film related post, I
> sure hope he is not the only one.

My SLR is a Hassy, so it would be Off-T.

Signature

-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
--        r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
--      [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
--                   e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Scott W - 07 Sep 2008 19:06 GMT
On Sep 7, 7:04 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
wrote:

> >>> I note that there has been virtually no threads dealing with film on
> >>> this group, other then the few I started.  If no one else is going
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> My SLR is a Hassy, so it would be Off-T.

Yes it would.

At one time you said you were going to keep shooting some 35mm film
even after getting the DSLR, how much 35mm film are you shooting a
year do you figure?

Scott

Scott
Alan Browne - 07 Sep 2008 19:09 GMT
> On Sep 7, 7:04 am, Alan Browne <alan.bro...@Freelunchvideotron.ca>
> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> even after getting the DSLR, how much 35mm film are you shooting a
> year do you figure?

about 6 rolls of 135 in the past year; 25 or so of 120.

Signature

-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
--        r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
--      [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
--                   e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Robert Coe - 14 Sep 2008 16:24 GMT
: I note that there has been virtually no threads dealing with film on
: this group, other then the few I started.  If no one else is going
: start a film related thread then I really don’t want to hear about how
: this is a 35mm “film” group.

Richard Nixon always claimed that a vast "Silent Majority" of American voters
favored his policies (such as maintaining an "enemies list" and prolonging the
Vietnam war). When the Watergate scandal broke and the future of his
presidency was in doubt, Nixon's retainers couldn't understand why this Silent
Majority didn't finally break their silence and rally to his defense. The
answer was quite simple: the Silent Majority didn't exist except in their (and
Nixon's) imaginations.

I know two (2) photographers who I think still use film.

Bob
Scott W - 14 Sep 2008 17:29 GMT
> : I note that there has been virtually no threads dealing with film on
> : this group, other then the few I started.  If no one else is going
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
>
> Bob

Then you know two more then I do.

Scott
Paul Furman - 15 Sep 2008 05:47 GMT
> Then you know two more then I do.

THAN I do, not then I do

ACK!
Scott W - 15 Sep 2008 07:00 GMT
> > Then you know two more then I do.
>
> THAN I do, not then I do
>
> ACK!

I stand corrected.

Still, I don't know anyone that is still shooting film, at least
people I know in real life.

Scott
David Nebenzahl - 14 Sep 2008 20:55 GMT
On 9/14/2008 8:24 AM Robert Coe spake thus:

> : I note that there has been virtually no threads dealing with film on
> : this group, other then the few I started.  If no one else is going
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> I know two (2) photographers who I think still use film.

Note that this may say more about you than about how many photographers
still use film.

Signature

 Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the
powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral.

- Paulo Freire

Robert Coe - 15 Sep 2008 02:09 GMT
: On 9/14/2008 8:24 AM Robert Coe spake thus:
:
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
: Note that this may say more about you than about how many photographers
: still use film.

Really? What does it say about me? That I associate only with digital
photographers? That film photographers won't associate with me? That I have
any control at all over what equipment others use? (Well, I have bought my
wife a couple of digital cameras. But her old Nikkormat is still in the closet
if she ever wanted to use it.)

It's over, David. Time to move on. You know those guys who drive antique cars
in Fourth of July parades? You're their photographic equivalent. But even they
drive real cars the other 364 days of the year.

Bob
Noons - 15 Sep 2008 12:37 GMT
Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 15/09/2008 11:09 AM:

> It's over, David. Time to move on. You know those guys who drive antique cars
> in Fourth of July parades? You're their photographic equivalent. But even they
> drive real cars the other 364 days of the year.

Funny enough, with all the "it's over" and
other utter crap, there are thousands of film
photos being posted daily in flickr and other
sites where film users are not ridiculed by
morons who should concentrate more on real
photography and less on how it is taken.

Oh, and BTW: Kodak just released yet another
new 35mm film.  Not bad for a "dead" medium,
isn't it?  Then again: the only ones calling
it "dead" are those running around with their
hands over their ears yelling "la-la-la-la!"...
Scott W - 15 Sep 2008 21:58 GMT
> Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 15/09/2008 11:09 AM:
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> morons who should concentrate more on real
> photography and less on how it is taken.

Over all I agree that getting out and taking photos is far more
important then what one uses to take the photographs.  But this is an
equipment forum after all, so some discussion on what photographic
equipment makes sense here.

As to film photos being posted, I just found something on pbase of
interest, if you go to the camera data base and then go to Fuji, at
the bottom them have user images taken with different Fuji films, the
same is true of Kodak and Ilford.

For example here are the photos from people using Ilford films,
http://www.pbase.com/cameras/ilford

> Oh, and BTW: Kodak just released yet another
> new 35mm film.  Not bad for a "dead" medium,
> isn't it?  Then again: the only ones calling
> it "dead" are those running around with their
> hands over their ears yelling "la-la-la-la!"...

Well... film may not be dead, but around these parts I see almost none
being used any more.
Even a couple of years ago I saw a few strips of negatives at Costco
being printed, now I can't remember the last time I saw negatives
there.  I did see a film camera being used a couple of weeks ago
however.

For me there is little point if 35mm film anymore, MF film still seems
to have a use, it is still not easy for to beat the resolution of a
6x7 or 6x9 format camera with an afordable digital camera.

No running around with hands over ears yelling "la-la-la-la!", just
looking around at the signs of the times.

So if I don't use 35mm film cameras why am I here, simple the camera
has always been the cheap part of photography, it all the other stuff
you need to go with the camera that really counts, like lenses for
example.  My tripod and tripod heads cost more then a new DLSR, and
you could get two nice DSLRs for the cost of my 300mm lens.  And this
is as it should be, the tripod and lenses I will use for many years to
come, the body will last me 3-4 years.

Scott
Bruce - 15 Sep 2008 22:10 GMT
>Even a couple of years ago I saw a few strips of negatives at Costco
>being printed, now I can't remember the last time I saw negatives
>there.  I did see a film camera being used a couple of weeks ago
>however.

My local Costco minilab does over 30% of its D&P turnover in film.  My
local Wal-Mart minilab estimates it is around 40%.

So film is a long way from being dead.
That Rich - 16 Sep 2008 00:00 GMT
> the body will last me 3-4 years.

Why does the body last you *only* three to four years?

RP©
Scott W - 16 Sep 2008 00:49 GMT
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 13:58:08 -0700 (PDT), Scott W
>
> <biph...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > the body will last me 3-4 years.
>
> Why does the body last you *only* three to four years?
I use my cameras a lot, the shutter only has so many clicks on it.

I have 73,489 clicks on the 350D, I will be lucky if it goes much past
100,000 time will tell, it could die tomorrow.

I  Don't know what I will get to replace it, maybe another 350D, they
are pretty cheap at $410, or I might pickup a 5D once the 5D Mark II
comes out and drives the price of the 5D down, or I might get the 5D
Mark II, I will see when the time comes.

It really does not seem to make sense to have the shutter replaced at
a cost of $160-180, that is almost half the cost of a new camera.

The only shutter I have had go bad so far was on an older Canon film
SLR, we got a whole lot of photos with only one half exposed.

In the end the cost of a new body every few years is pretty cheap, a
new boat every few years gets to be much more money.

Scott
Ken Hart1 - 16 Sep 2008 03:36 GMT
snip

The only shutter I have had go bad so far was on an older Canon film
SLR, we got a whole lot of photos with only one half exposed.

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

Please don't be offended if I state what may be obvious to you, but by any
chance could this have been pictures taken with a strobe and the shutter
speed set too high? As some may know (and some may not know), with a focal
plane shutter and strobe, the fastest shutter speed that can be used is one
where both shutter curtains are fully open. At faster shutter speeds, the
first curtain starts to open and the second curtain starts to close shortly
after-- at no time is the entire frame exposed.
On some of my older SLR's, the "X" sync speed (typically 1/50 second for a
horizontal shutter) has gotten faster or out of sync, and I have to drop
down to 1/30 second for flash.
Scott W - 16 Sep 2008 04:53 GMT
> snip
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> horizontal shutter) has gotten faster or out of sync, and I have to drop
> down to 1/30 second for flash.

Not offended at all, no they were mostly out side photos taken on a
vacation.  It was my wife doing the shooting, and of course there was
no way to know things were not working well untill we saw the film.

Scott
Noons - 16 Sep 2008 12:51 GMT
Scott W wrote,on my timestamp of 16/09/2008 6:58 AM:

> Over all I agree that getting out and taking photos is far more
> important then what one uses to take the photographs.  But this is an
> equipment forum after all, so some discussion on what photographic
> equipment makes sense here.

Sure, no problem. Let's leave it at discussion of
digital or discussion of film, where appropriate.
To try and deride one over the other, I'm afraid
doesn't score much as "discussion"...

> As to film photos being posted, I just found something on pbase of
> interest, if you go to the camera data base and then go to Fuji, at
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> For example here are the photos from people using Ilford films,
> http://www.pbase.com/cameras/ilford

Cool!  Thanks a lot, an invaluable resource.
I use this one a lot in flickr, for MF:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/120/pool/
Not as well split by film type, but huge
amount to go through.

> Well... film may not be dead, but around these parts I see almost none
> being used any more.

See? That's what you get for living in a backwater...
(just kiding!)

> For me there is little point if 35mm film anymore, MF film still seems
> to have a use, it is still not easy for to beat the resolution of a
> 6x7 or 6x9 format camera with an afordable digital camera.

Two generations from now, it'll be very near.
If 35mm dslrs survive that long in their current
format:
http://www.bythom.com/
read the bit about "other developments"...
This is along the lines of what I see as well.

I reckon in the medium term, aps-c dslrs as we know
them will mostly vanish, replaced by much more convenient
EVIL cams. The ones left will be the top of the line
"pro" FX dslr gear.  With rez approaching MF. Which
will then be more convenient than existing MF film, of
course.

The *real* trend imho is for miniaturization,
with weight a major consideration.  In the consumer
volume market.  Of course there will always be
enthusiasts prepared to haul around a cartwheel
of equipment.  And guess what?  4X5 as well!
:)

> example.  My tripod and tripod heads cost more then a new DLSR, and
> you could get two nice DSLRs for the cost of my 300mm lens.  And this
> is as it should be, the tripod and lenses I will use for many years to
> come, the body will last me 3-4 years.

If FX takes off to 25-35MP, you and I *will*
need new lenses all over again...
Fortunately, I'm perfectly happy with
16MP tops: don't need anymore even if available.
Robert Coe - 16 Sep 2008 03:04 GMT
: Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 15/09/2008 11:09 AM:
: > It's over, David. Time to move on. You know those guys who drive antique
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
: it "dead" are those running around with their
: hands over their ears yelling "la-la-la-la!"...

You tell 'em, Noons. As for this moron, I'll stand by my previous statement.

Bob
Harold Gough - 16 Sep 2008 18:13 GMT
I use film camera bodies I bought 20 or more years ago and many manua
focus lenses which ceased manufacture not long after that. Strangely
with an occasional service, and with my 20 years of additiona
experience, the results are often superb and when they are not it i
usually my fault.

For the car analagy, those who drive the best e.g Rolls Royce, Bentley
are not over-concerned as to the year of the model, which they driv
everywhere, and the performance and reliability are legendary.

Noons;756247 Wrote:
> Robert Coe wrote,on my timestamp of 15/09/2008 11:09 AM:
> -
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> it "dead" are those running around with their
> hands over their ears yelling "la-la-la-la!"..

--
Harold Gough
Ken Hart1 - 17 Sep 2008 04:00 GMT
> I use film camera bodies I bought 20 or more years ago and many manual
> focus lenses which ceased manufacture not long after that. Strangely,
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> are not over-concerned as to the year of the model, which they drive
> everywhere, and the performance and reliability are legendary.

In the studio, the cameras I use are all mechanical- no battery required.
Once you get familiar with such cameras, you can hear and feel that it's
working properly. When I'm shooting for myself, my camera of choice is a
forty year major brand mechanical camera with a wide selection of lenses.
When you get familiar with a mechanical camera, you can usually hear and
feel when it's not functioning properly.

From a distance, you can't tell that my camera and lens is 40 years old, and
from close-up, most people I've asked guess about 20 years old. Those people
are generally also impressed with the weight and feel of the camera.
Harold Gough - 19 Sep 2008 18:22 GMT
With my totally mechanical Horizon 202 swing lens panoramic everythin
about the feel of it gives doubt as to whether it is working (frame
often overlap) and, if it is, that it won't for much longer. Buit th
non-overlapping results are stunning.

Ken Hart1;756575 Wrote:

> I use film camera bodies I bought 20 or more years ago and man
> manual
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
> people
> are generally also impressed with the weight and feel of the camera

--
Harold Gough
Paul Furman - 29 Sep 2008 02:42 GMT
> With my totally mechanical Horizon 202 swing lens panoramic everything
> about the feel of it gives doubt as to whether it is working (frames
> often overlap) and, if it is, that it won't for much longer. Buit the
> non-overlapping results are stunning.

is that MF or 35mm?
http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/horizon202/

Signature

Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Noons - 29 Sep 2008 14:06 GMT
Paul Furman wrote,on my timestamp of 29/09/2008 11:42 AM:
>> With my totally mechanical Horizon 202 swing lens panoramic everything
>> about the feel of it gives doubt as to whether it is working (frames
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> is that MF or 35mm?
> http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/horizon202/

35
Harold Gough - 23 Oct 2008 11:58 GMT
Both. It is fixed focus (28mm) and uses the full height of the frame.

Paul Furman;758799 Wrote:
> Harold Gough wrote:-
> With my totally mechanical Horizon 202 swing lens panorami
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> is that MF or 35mm?
> http://cameras.alfredklomp.com/horizon202/

--
Harold Gough
Scott W - 17 Sep 2008 17:29 GMT
On Sep 16, 9:10 am, Harold Gough <Harold.Gough.
315d...@photobanter.com> wrote:
> I use film camera bodies I bought 20 or more years ago and many manual
> focus lenses which ceased manufacture not long after that. Strangely,
> with an occasional service, and with my 20 years of additional
> experience, the results are often superb and when they are not it is
> usually my fault.
How many photos do you figure you have taken with that camera?

> For the car analagy, those who drive the best e.g Rolls Royce, Bentley,
> are not over-concerned as to the year of the model, which they drive
> everywhere, and the performance and reliability are legendary.

To really get a good analogy it is as if new cars started to get 1,000
miles/gal, but some people just loved the feel of driving an older car
that gets 20/mile.  Now don't get me wrong, if your camera is more for
show then use then it really does not matter that you have to pay for
film and processing.  If on the other hand you really use your cameras
then that film processing starts to get very expensive indeed.

Scott
David Starr - 17 Sep 2008 22:32 GMT
>To really get a good analogy it is as if new cars started to get 1,000
>miles/gal, but some people just loved the feel of driving an older car
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>Scott

How expensive are photo quality printers, paper & ink?

I do all my own film processing & printing; color & B&W.  I can process color
film for less than $1.00 per roll.  Color 8x10 prints cost me about $0.35 each.
No constant, expensive, software updates.  No running out to buy the latest
software that's supposed to make things easier & quicker.  No buying a new
camera every year to get the latest & greatest features you "just can't be
without".  

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Retired Shop Rat: 14,647 days in a GM plant.
Speak softly and carry a loaded .45
Lifetime member; Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
Web Site: www.destarr.com
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
That Rich - 17 Sep 2008 23:45 GMT
>To really get a good analogy it is as if new cars started to get 1,000
>miles/gal, but some people just loved the feel of driving an older car
>that gets 20/mile.  Now don't get me wrong, if your camera is more for
>show then use then it really does not matter that you have to pay for
>film and processing.  If on the other hand you really use your cameras
>then that film processing starts to get very expensive indeed.

This coming from a person that replaces his digital bodies every two
years...

                         <chuckle>

So you claim to have taken something like 70,000 pictures this year (I
don't recall the numbers but it was indeed outrageous). What do you do
with all that.. ahem.... crap.

RP©
Scott W - 18 Sep 2008 03:38 GMT
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 09:29:15 -0700 (PDT), Scott W
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> This coming from a person that replaces his digital bodies every two
> years...

More like 3-4 years, which is I believe what I said, but feel free to
change my words.

> So you claim to have taken something like 70,000 pictures this year (I
> don't recall the numbers but it was indeed outrageous). What do you do
> with all that.. ahem.... crap.

Again, you might wish to read my words with just a bit more care, the
camera has around 74,000 clicks on it, but the camera is 2.5 years
old. I take about 30,000 photos a year, does this seem like a lot to
you?

On a two week assinment a National Geographic photographer would go
through 200-300 rolls of film.

"your first 10,000 photographs are your worst" Henri Cartier-Bresson.
Are you through your worst yet, or still working on them? Actually
what Henri said was nonsense but I do love the quote.  Still over time
I keep learning, and shooting is, for me, a great way to lean.  I
believe that I am a much better photographer now then I was 37 years
ago, when I was in high school using a darkroom and doing a lot of B/W
prints.

For me a rather large number of my photographs are from canoe races, I
will shoot on the order of 1,000 photos at a race, if this seems like
a lot keep in mind there maybe 280 teams competing at a given race.
Our own club will race in maybe 30 races in a day.

Getting a good photo of 6 people all at the same time is not easy.
Here is a case where the timing is not at all good
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/103287787

This one is much better, not perfect, but much better
http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/103287802

Keep in mind they are paddling around 65 to 70 strokes/minute bit more
then 1 a second, so an error of even 50ms can be the difference
between a good photo and a not so go one.  When I am shooting I am
trying to get one good photo per stroke, there might be 10 strokes
that give me a chance a this.

Then there are all the people shots during the races, that give it a
human feeling, people watching the race, the people getting out of the
boat after winning, or lossing, people just sitting around chatting,
all of these photos are needed to give a feel for the day.

Of the 1,000 photos maybe 20% will find there way into a slide show.
The first slide show I did I had close to 300 photos in it from a
number of races.  I played this during our clubs annual party and
though no one would watch the whole think, this was running on a
monitor that people could go up to and stand and watch.  Not only did
people watch the whole thing but they had to watch it all over again a
number of times, you might think my photos are crap, but opinions
vary.

I also put up a lot of photos on our clubs web site, people love
seeing photos of themselves.

On a vacation I will often shoot between 1,000 photos a day to 2,000;

I believe I am a fair bit older then you and so have a longer history
of photographing.  I can tell you then in going over my photo
collection from over the years there is not place where I has wished I
took fewer photo, but many places where I wish I had taken more.
Trying to have every photo a work of art is a great way to miss
getting the photos that will have the most value in years to come.

A new body every 3-4 years, big deal, either you are paying more then
that for film now, or in 20 years you will have wished you had.

Scott
That Rich - 18 Sep 2008 10:43 GMT
>A new body every 3-4 years, big deal, either you are paying more then
>that for film now, or in 20 years you will have wished you had.

Why?

RP©
Scott W - 18 Sep 2008 13:14 GMT
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:38:33 -0700 (PDT), Scott W
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> Why?

How many photos a year do you figure you are taking now?

Scott
That Rich - 18 Sep 2008 22:45 GMT
>> On Wed, 17 Sep 2008 19:38:33 -0700 (PDT), Scott W
>>
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>
>How many photos a year do you figure you are taking now?

After giving a quick look at my archive cabinet which goes back about
ten years, I'd guess there is about 200 rolls of film in there. so if
my math is correct that would be about 7200 shots. In ten years I've
shot less than 10% of what you have in two years.... whoa.

You mentioned Bressons famous quote about the first 10,000 photos... I
don't *think* he anticipated somebody exposing those first ten
thousand in a year  ;)

RP©
Scott W - 18 Sep 2008 23:33 GMT
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 05:14:26 -0700 (PDT), Scott W
>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> don't *think* he anticipated somebody exposing those first ten
> thousand in a year  ;)

But I bet he did his first 10,000 in far less then 10 years, don't
worry you will get there yet.

Another way to think about this is this,  you have shot less in the
last 10 years then a National Geographic photographer will shoot in
two weeks, there is a reason they shoot that much.

Figure you average 720 shots in a year, you could almost cover a canoe
race with that number.

The slide show I am working on, photos from races over the last 12
months, will have something like 2000 photos in it.

But my real point is that if you are shooting that little it most
likely means you are only shooting what seems worthy of using film
on.  If you really have only been shooting for 10 years then I have
been shooting a very much longer time then you, and looking back at
photos from 30 years ago I can say that I really wish I had taken far
more, as there are many things that I did not get photograph that I
now regrett not having photos of.

As one example, I have photos of my co-workers going back around 9
years ago, but I don't have photos of co-worker going back 30 years
ago, or photos of where I worked.  The dumb part is that part of my
job 30 years ago was doing some photography, so I had the camera right
there, all I would have needed to do was take a few photos, but I was
young at the time and it just did not occur to me that 30 years later
I would have really like to have had a few photos from the work place.

And it is not just work, favorite restaurants, friends, parks, the
neighborhood, stores, you name it.

My wife and I go on walks in the morning, we meet a lot of people
during these walks, I am photographing all of them over time, the
photographs have little value at to us at this point in time, but in
30 years they will have a lot more value.

Life is a wonderful thing, it is well worth documenting and
documenting well, at least IMO.

Scott
That Rich - 19 Sep 2008 00:20 GMT
>> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 05:14:26 -0700 (PDT), Scott W
>>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>But I bet he did his first 10,000 in far less then 10 years, don't
>worry you will get there yet.

I doubt that. He was much more thoughtful in his "art"... hence the
defining moment. I don't think Bresson pushed down the shutter and
exposed a roll of film in seconds *hoping* for the defining moment.
Many of his shots, spontaneous as they seem, I'd bet were well thought
out in advance.

>Another way to think about this is this,  you have shot less in the
>last 10 years then a National Geographic photographer will shoot in
>two weeks, there is a reason they shoot that much.

Indeed there is... to make money and sell magazines. Something neither
of us do.

>Figure you average 720 shots in a year, you could almost cover a canoe
>race with that number.

I am confident I could cover one of your canoe races on a roll or two
of film.

>The slide show I am working on, photos from races over the last 12
>months, will have something like 2000 photos in it.

That's absurd... IMO

>But my real point is that if you are shooting that little it most
>likely means you are only shooting what seems worthy of using film
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>more, as there are many things that I did not get photograph that I
>now regrett not having photos of.

I have been dabbling in photography for 36 years... still have the
first camera I owned.. Pentax H3V. The cabinet I speak of has the most
recent ten years. I have a steamer trunk which goes back many more
years. Personally, I have too many photos from thirty years ago. My
habits haven't changed much since then... one or two photos of the
subjects I find most interesting is plenty, provided the photos were
well thought out before pushing the shutter. When it comes to
photography, I will not allow myself to be rushed. ONE of THE
important things I've learned about this hobby over the last three
decades.

>As one example, I have photos of my co-workers going back around 9
>years ago, but I don't have photos of co-worker going back 30 years
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>young at the time and it just did not occur to me that 30 years later
>I would have really like to have had a few photos from the work place.

Work place photos are not appealing to me although I do have pictures
of co-workers that I respected from 30 years ago... and thirty days
ago.... the rest can go to hell  :)

>And it is not just work, favorite restaurants, friends, parks, the
>neighborhood, stores, you name it.

Same here but again, I only need a "good" shot or two... not
ten-thousand.

>My wife and I go on walks in the morning, we meet a lot of people
>during these walks, I am photographing all of them over time, the
>photographs have little value at to us at this point in time, but in
>30 years they will have a lot more value.

I doubt it.

How does your wife feel about this obsession of yours?

>Life is a wonderful thing, it is well worth documenting and
>documenting well, at least IMO.

Photographing well is more important to me.

Great to be alive,

RP©
Scott W - 19 Sep 2008 06:25 GMT
> On Thu, 18 Sep 2008 15:33:24 -0700 (PDT), Scott W
>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
> Indeed there is... to make money and sell magazines. Something neither
> of us do.
Oddly even though I don't pursue  it at all a few of my photographs
still end up being published, local paper airline magazines, that kind
of thing, not to the level of N.G, still it is kind of fun to see your
photos in print.

> >Figure you average 720 shots in a year, you could almost cover a canoe
> >race with that number.
>
> I am confident I could cover one of your canoe races on a roll or two
> of film.
My advice to you is, don't take up sports photography.

> >The slide show I am working on, photos from races over the last 12
> >months, will have something like 2000 photos in it.
>
> That's absurd... IMO
A couple of years ago I would have agree, but after having people sit
through 300-400 slides three or four times I realized that I did not
put in nearly enough photos, ideally someone watching the show would
be able to watch for as long as they might want and not see a photo
repeat, I really thougth 300-400 photos would have been enough, turns
out I was way under.

> >But my real point is that if you are shooting that little it most
> >likely means you are only shooting what seems worthy of using film
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> important things I've learned about this hobby over the last three
> decades.
To each his own.  My photography has changed over the years and my
photos are better for it.
As for not being rush, again don't take up sport photography, you
don't have the mind set for it.

> >As one example, I have photos of my co-workers going back around 9
> >years ago, but I don't have photos of co-worker going back 30 years
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> of co-workers that I respected from 30 years ago... and thirty days
> ago.... the rest can go to hell  :)

I guess I have gotten along with my co-workers a bit better then you
have.
I had a whole lot of fun at the first real place I worked, I have
memories but no photos,
it sounds like you don't even have good memories.

In fact just about everywhere I have worked I have had a really good
time, and really wish I had photos going back many years, live and
learn.

> >And it is not just work, favorite restaurants, friends, parks, the
> >neighborhood, stores, you name it.
>
> Same here but again, I only need a "good" shot or two... not
> ten-thousand.

> >My wife and I go on walks in the morning, we meet a lot of people
> >during these walks, I am photographing all of them over time, the
> >photographs have little value at to us at this point in time, but in
> >30 years they will have a lot more value.
>
> I doubt it.
You might I don't.

> How does your wife feel about this obsession of yours?

I have a 350D she has a 20D, works great as we can share lenses back
and forth.

> >Life is a wonderful thing, it is well worth documenting and
> >documenting well, at least IMO.
>
> Photographing well is more important to me.
You sound like a number of people I run into on the forums, so worried
that their photogrpah is "good" that they almost don't dare take
something that might be viewed as just a snap shot.

> Great to be alive,

At least we agree on something.
tony cooper - 19 Sep 2008 06:34 GMT
>A couple of years ago I would have agree, but after having people sit
>through 300-400 slides three or four times I realized that I did not
>put in nearly enough photos, ideally someone watching the show would
>be able to watch for as long as they might want and not see a photo
>repeat, I really thougth 300-400 photos would have been enough, turns
>out I was way under.

These people who watch a 300-400 slide show program of a canoe
race...is the alternative having a root canal done by a cross-eyed
dentist with palsy?

Signature

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

Scott W - 19 Sep 2008 06:47 GMT
> >A couple of years ago I would have agree, but after having people sit
> >through 300-400 slides three or four times I realized that I did not
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> race...is the alternative having a root canal done by a cross-eyed
> dentist with palsy?

Keep in mind these are photos taken over a full year, and these are
paddlers.
To be truthful really did not think any one would watch the whole
thing, it was set up to repeat, but people just stayed and watch the
thing go through a number of time, with rather a lot of comments being
made.

Photos that show real people doing what they love are going to hold
peoples attention a whole lot better then photos that try to be
artistic.  Try to get people so sit through 400 photo of say, the
southwest, it just isn’t going to happen.  The photos need to show
something of interest to the intended audience, I paddle and so have a
pretty good idea of what will be of interest, and what will not.

The slide show is set up off to the side during our annual party,
anything but a captive audience.

Scott
Annika1980 - 19 Sep 2008 01:04 GMT
> Another way to think about this is this,  you have shot less in the
> last 10 years then a National Geographic photographer will shoot in
> two weeks, there is a reason they shoot that much.

Wow, those guys must not be very good photographers, huh?
SMS - 16 Sep 2008 19:39 GMT
> I note that there has been virtually no threads dealing with film on
> this group, other then the few I started.  If no one else is going
> start a film related thread then I really don’t want to hear about how
> this is a 35mm “film” group.
>
> Scott

Well the charter doesn't say that it's a film group, and that should be
the end of it.

But okay, here's some film stuff. I took my old Olympus XA up to
Yosemite a few weeks ago and got the prints back and they were awesome.

I had almost forgotten how much of a pain in the butt it was to focus
the XA, and I really missed having a zoom lens. OTOH, it was nice to not
have to worry about batteries and chargers. It was a last minute
decision and the only film I could buy without buying four rolls was
some Fuji 200 ASA, which wasn't really my first choice. I didn't bring
the A16 flash with me. I dropped the camera in 1987 in China and broke
the A11 flash (lucky the flash hit the ground first), and was fortunate
to be able to still find an A16 flash for sale in San Francisco.

Now I'm tempted to use my Canon EOS-5QD again.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.