Re: Photo of WDW Welcome arch over Road 536-RODNEY (and everyone)

I have found that I've strayed the other way. Digital images remind me of Television Soap Operas of the 70's, unnaturally sharp and vibrant.

Looking at that statement I must be crazy. But I love to be able to coax images from medium format in the developing and printing that's just not the same dodging and burning with Photoshop or Gimp.
When I went to stereo-optical imaging (3D like viewmaster) I found that I liked the results of matched twin 16mm Bolex in black & white negative. With 400 foot rolls I can either shoot a great number of stills in stereo without having to reload, or lock down for some amazing time lapse or, oh what the hell am I talking about, it's cumbersome, expensive, and by the time I'm ready to snap, the moment's gone because it takes forever to set up a shot. So to reduce the set up time I use a matched pair of Cannon zoom 8's.
Labs are also a problem. No one develops negative anymore, so in 8mm, I'm forced to use inter-negative or dye. I still would rather spend the money and the time to craft the image on film.

Digital is great for documentary, on the spot shots are improved with all of the automatic settings available. And yet I turned away from digital in favor of the perfection available on emulsion. I'm certain to return to digital when the accouterments of film vanish. Already I have to stock my own 2 inch stock in my refrigerator, I was told the fridge at Push 1 Photolab would never be restocked. I can't find a place to rent lab space. The only place to by raw stock is on eBay, and it's expired.

Clean reliable all-weather transportation once reigned in Los Angeles, in 1890 when the best roads were electric railroads. With film, high resolution images can be viewed with the naked eye, without need of a screening device. Both the Pacific Electric Big Red Car and the filmed image fall to inexpensive, personal convenience, the automobile and the digital camera. The difference is I don't see film returning like the clamoring demand for clean, efficient, high speed light rail.

And now, because no-one else is building them, I have to go build my own buggy whip, too.
-- Wiz.


Keane wrote:

On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 23:32:44 -0400, "Rob Steere" <steerr@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Not as cheap as $3, but for people who don't have a place near them that'll do it I know that Kodak does mail-in film processing for about $6 a roll.
They send you postage-paid mailers, and you mail them up to 5 rolls (or one single-use camera) per envelope (convenient if you're still on vacation). They develop the film, mail you back the negatives about a week later, and then your photos are posted to your online Kodak account. From there, you can purchase prints. The only catch is that you don't get a digital copy of the photo to keep yourself unless you pay for the Premier service, which is $2.50 a month or $25 a year, which allows you to download full-size photos. (For people who get lots of prints, $50 a year gets you 10-cent prints) -Rob


For the most part, years and years ago, I shot mostly slide film.
(I could also develop my own slides, and slide-to-print was
easier to do than negative-to-print at home. Studios were
crap to do enlargements, since 35mm is 3:2, and an 8x10 is
5:4, and always cut someone's head off. This got worse when
everyone fell in love with borderless...)

And If you developed it yourself, you could push it to all
sorts of speeds. It didn't look that bad pushed 2 1/2 stops,
but you can clearly see the grain:

http://home.uchicago.edu/~kean/keanespics/OtherStuff/1979Yes.htm <http://home.uchicago.edu/%7Ekean/keanespics/OtherStuff/1979Yes.htm>


Folks, don't forget he has other theme park shots, the ones I like are at:
http://home.uchicago.edu/~kean/keanespics/ThemeParks/DLR.htm <http://home.uchicago.edu/%7Ekean/keanespics/ThemeParks/DLR.htm>

In high school, I got a job at a place that owned some dozen
camera stores around the area. I used to buy Ektachrome by
the 20 roll packs. *That* was the cheapest way I could go.

Anyway, the most I can get scanning 35mm is 3600x2400px
and I don't think there's much more information I can get from
a 35mm negative/slide.

My current G7 does 3648x2736px, but has more detail than
35mm. It allows me to shoot 2 frames per second until
it runs out of memory. It has the equivalent of about a 35mm
to 250mm zoom on it. Two 2GB cards hold 400 images, more
than I'd ever shoot in a day, and the camera, extra card and
battery will fit in an oversized pocket. Try that with an equivalent
of 11 rolls of film and another lens or two. And I don't
have to scan them into my computer.

And it cost about the same as my Nikon F3 body alone did
decades ago...

I do agree that film does give more depth of color, and
has more latitude than digital, but that hasn't stopped
me from shelving my F3 years ago. Some decent 8MP
cameras are on the market that aren't that expensive.
I'm not sure I see a reason to stay with film anymore...

Keane
===
When stars are born, They possess a gift or two,
One of them is this, They have the power to make a wish come true...
- Wishes


.... and I have to make my own cedar shake shingles too, what a pain in the adz.

--
All ladders in the Temple of the Forbidden Eye have thirteen steps.
There are thirteen steps to the gallows, firing squad or any execution.
The first step is denial... Don't be bamboozled:
Secrets of the Temple of the Forbidden Eye revealed!
Indiana Jones Discovers The Jewel of Power!
visit --(o=8> http://disneywizard.angelfire.com/ <8=o)-- visit
^^^ NEW ADDRESS ^^^
.

Loading