I thought we might have a thread on last night's episode (4th. June) which
involved photography. Spot the errors, most cringeworthy moment, that sort
of thing. I have to go so I'll check back later. Have fun.
Message-ID: <fdGdnS8QyuNxVv7bnZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d@bt.com> from Mark Dunn
contained the following:
>I thought we might have a thread on last night's episode (4th. June) which
>involved photography. Spot the errors, most cringeworthy moment, that sort
>of thing. I have to go so I'll check back later. Have fun.
Well, I thought it was pretty good on the whole. The quality of the
image on the 9am photo was dreadful, far less than I'd expect from a neg
that size and it was much too dull to be 1/30 at f22.
The worst moment was the camera shootout at the exhibition. Pure farce.
What was interesting was how nostalgic it made me feel about my old film
gear. The intimacy of the darkroom, the excitement of open dish
developing, the smell of developer and hypo. Which reminds me, those
white lab coats should have had a few stains!
Digital is great, but we've lost a heck of a lot of the fun. I think
I'll hang on to my Rolleicord.

Signature
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
A.Lee - 04 Jun 2007 16:17 GMT
> Which reminds me, those
> white lab coats should have had a few stains!
H+S innit.
I kid you not. We have to use disposable gloves and aprons now, as even
if lab coats are washed after a spillage, they are still deemed to be
'contaminated'.
We used to use cotton lined long rubber gloves for putting our hands
into chem tanks. They were really good, and didnt make your hands too
sweaty when in use. They also lasted 2 or 3 months.
Now we use a thin pair of latex disposables covering the hand, then a
pathetically thin pair on 'vets' gloves which go mostly up the arm. You
could drain them off after use, and fill a cup with the sweat inside
them.
Snag them on a little nick in the tank, and your hand gets soaked in
chem, without you knowing it.
Thats progress apparently.
Alan.

Signature
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.
Mark Dunn - 04 Jun 2007 17:31 GMT
> Message-ID: <fdGdnS8QyuNxVv7bnZ2dnUVZ8tChnZ2d@bt.com> from Mark Dunn
> contained the following:
>
> Well, I thought it was pretty good on the whole. The quality of the
> image on the 9am photo was dreadful, far less than I'd expect from a neg
> that size and it was much too dull to be 1/30 at f22.
Well, that would be right for overcast weather with about a 200-400 ISO
film. Though I don't know why you wouldn't use FP4.
Sorry, Delta 100.
Then he went on to print the 5x4 negs (might even have been 5x7) on a 6x6
enlarger. I've never cropped negs with a pair of scissors, myself.
> The worst moment was the camera shootout at the exhibition. Pure farce.
>
> What was interesting was how nostalgic it made me feel about my old film
> gear. The intimacy of the darkroom, the excitement of open dish
> developing, the smell of developer and hypo. Which reminds me, those
> white lab coats should have had a few stains!
At one time the fellow seemed to be getting colour prints out of a 2-bath
process. Perhaps he had a stock of 20-year-old Agfachrome-Speed.
> Digital is great, but we've lost a heck of a lot of the fun. I think
> I'll hang on to my Rolleicord.
I'd love to, but I've got awfully keen on not buying film.
Geoff Berrow - 04 Jun 2007 17:56 GMT
Message-ID: <L6OdnXvu-8rCo_nbRVnyuAA@bt.com> from Mark Dunn contained
the following:
>> Well, I thought it was pretty good on the whole. The quality of the
>> image on the 9am photo was dreadful, far less than I'd expect from a neg
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>film. Though I don't know why you wouldn't use FP4.
>Sorry, Delta 100.
Well if they were purists I doubt they'd be using any new fangled stuff.
>> Digital is great, but we've lost a heck of a lot of the fun. I think
>> I'll hang on to my Rolleicord.
>
>I'd love to, but I've got awfully keen on not buying film.
I'm not either, but don't you think the expense focuses the mind?

Signature
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
I thought it was funny that the film guys were all portrayed as old codgers
who walked round in photo vests the whole time whereas the digital guys all
wore black and looked like members of the paparazzi.
The "safelight" they had in the darkroom must have been pretty impressive
not to fog the prints too.
Also, I'd have thought that the surest way to kill someone with a D2x would
be to hit them with it, not strangle them with the strap!

Signature
Dave Lawrance
http://www.davelawrance.co.uk
http://www.northernlandscape.co.uk
http://www.cyclingphotos.co.uk
>I thought we might have a thread on last night's episode (4th. June) which
> involved photography. Spot the errors, most cringeworthy moment, that sort
> of thing. I have to go so I'll check back later. Have fun.