[pure-silver] Re: pure-silver Digest V6 #129
- From: Les Myers <baroque-2@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:46:23 -0800
Re: color discussion on the list\
Pardon my ignorance, but although I am a comparatively new subscriber to pure
silver, I didn't know it was restricted to b&w. But b&w is all I do in the
darkroom, so while I may pick up some tidbits about color processing, it is
highly unlikely that I will engage in it in the darkroom. I vote for a separate
"pure silver color" list with the same high quality of contributors that we
enjoy and learn from in this group.
FWMOIW (for what my opinion is worth...)
Les Myers
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:09:20 -0400 (EDT)
> To: ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: pure-silver Digest V6 #129
>
> pure-silver Digest Fri, 12 Jun 2009 Volume: 06 Issue: 129
>
> In This Issue:
> [pure-silver] Re: Trap Focus
> [pure-silver] Re: Trap Focus
> [pure-silver] Re: Trap Focus
> [pure-silver] Re: Trap Focus
> [pure-silver] Re: Trap Focus
> [pure-silver] Re: AZO and Benzotriazole for anti-fogging
> [pure-silver] Beautiful Photography
> [pure-silver] Re: AZO and Benzotriazole for anti-fogging
> [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> From: janet ness <nessj@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Trap Focus
> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:32:09 -0700
>
> In the February 1998 issue of Photo Techniques is an article, "Trap focus
> is the Desert" by Roger Layton. He used a Pentax PZ-70 with a
> "snap-in-focus" feature and a medium telephoto manual focus lens. When
> the shutter was released, the AF system, which couldn't do anything with
> a manual focus lens, wouldn't fire until an object entered the focusing
> area and the camera judged it to be in focus. At the time of the
> article, all Pentax autofocus cameras had this feature.
>
> Janet Ness
>
>
>
> From: mail1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Trap Focus
> Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:33:59 -0700
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If you mean by trap focus you release the
> shutter and when a moving object comes into focus the shutter trips.
> Pentax has
> the feature in both some select digital cameras and 35m/m auto focus film
> cameras.
>
> My Pentax K10D has this feature.. I think I remember an article in Photo
> Techniques about the
> Pentax ZX-5n trap focus feature. In the Pentax ZX-5n manual they call it
> the ?snap
> in focus function? ?When the subject comes to the point where the
> lens was prefocused, the shutter automatically released?
>
> Jonathan Ayers
> [mail1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> From:
> pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of ATIPPETT@xxxxxxx
>
> Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2009 3:40
> PM
>
> To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Trap Focus
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I am looking for details on Trap
> Focus. Sounds like a neat idea but I can not seem to find complete
> plan.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Google has lots of raves but each posting
> lacks complete details/options Auto-focus lens vs manual focus.
>
>
>
>
>
> Also digital vs analog???
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I work with film so digital would be my
> second choice if this is not possible with film.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Camera Choice
>
>
>
>
>
> Lens suggestions
>
>
>
>
>
> f-stop do's and
> don'ts.
>
>
>
>
>
> depth of field
> thoughts
>
>
>
>
>
> Technical details
>
>
>
>
>
> Pit falls
>
>
>
>
>
> Other considerations.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Alan Tippett
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dell
> Deals: Don't miss huge summer savings on popular laptops starting at
> $449.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
>
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.64/2170 - Release Date:
> 06/11/09 17:59:00
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:01:11 +0000 (GMT)
> From: John Stafford <john@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Trap Focus
>
> To the best of my knowledge, trap focus is strictly a digital camera
> trick.
> It is a custom function (at least in the Nikons) in which the shutter is
> triggered when something moves into a preset focus range. (hence the
> 'trap'
> term).
> I used pre-focus a lot in sports photography back in the sixties and
> seventies, long before autofocus. You can do the same but, of course,
> there'sno auto-magic about it.
>
> john
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2009, ATIPPETT@xxxxxxx wrote: I am looking for details on Trap
> Focus. Sounds like a neat idea but I can not seem to find complete plan.
> Google has lots of raves but each posting lacks complete details/options
> Auto-focus lens vs manual focus. Also digital vs analog??? I work with
> film so digital would be my second choice if this is not possible with
> film.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:18:42 +0200
> From: Horvath Krisztian <hkcsii@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Trap Focus
>
> It's not digital at all. At least AFAIK all Pentax AF film SLRs can be
> used for trap focus, if you put a manual focus lens on. Set camera to
> AF, and in the custom functions that only shoot if AF find things in
> focus, and thats all. One more thing to mention, trap focus also works,
> if you hold down the shutter release button, and turn the focusing ring
> on lens. When AF finds focus, shutter will be triggered.
>
> Chris
>
> John Stafford wrote:
>> To the best of my knowledge, trap focus is strictly a digital camera
>> trick. It is a custom function (at least in the Nikons) in which the
>> shutter is triggered when something moves into a preset focus range.
>> (hence the 'trap' term).
>>
>> I used pre-focus a lot in sports photography back in the sixties and
>> seventies, long before autofocus. You can do the same but, of course,
>> there's no auto-magic about it.
>>
>> john
>>
>>
>> On Jun 11, 2009, *ATIPPETT@xxxxxxx* wrote:
>>
>> I am looking for details on Trap Focus. Sounds like a neat idea
>> but I can not seem to find complete plan.
>>
>> Google has lots of raves but each posting lacks complete
>> details/options Auto-focus lens vs manual focus.
>> Also digital vs analog???
>>
>> I work with film so digital would be my second choice if this is
>> not possible with film.
>>
>> =============================================================================================================
>> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to
>> your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
>> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:19:34 +0000 (GMT)
> From: John Stafford <john@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Trap Focus
>
>
> Interesting! Thank you. I stand corrected.
>
>
> On Jun 12, 2009, hkcsii@xxxxxxxxx wrote: It's not digital at all. At
> least
> AFAIK all Pentax AF film SLRs can be
> used for trap focus
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Speedy <speedgraphic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Trap Focus
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:22:43 +0000
>
>
> This was available on my Nikon F100 as a custom function.
>
> Speedy
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:01:11 +0000
> From: john@xxxxxxxxxxxx
> To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Trap Focus
>
> To the best of my knowledge, trap focus is strictly a digital camera
> trick. It is a custom function (at least in the Nikons) in which the
> shutter is triggered when something moves into a preset focus range.
> (hence the 'trap' term).
>
> I used pre-focus a lot in sports photography back in the sixties and
> seventies, long before autofocus. You can do the same but, of course,
> there's no auto-magic about it.
>
> john
>
>
> On Jun 11, 2009, ATIPPETT@xxxxxxx wrote:
>
>
> I am looking for details on Trap Focus. Sounds like a neat idea but I
> can not seem to find complete plan.
>
> Google has lots of raves but each posting lacks complete details/options
> Auto-focus lens vs manual focus.
> Also digital vs analog???
>
> I work with film so digital would be my second choice if this is not
> possible with film.
>
>
============================================================================================================To
> unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
> account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
> _________________________________________________________________
> Insert movie times and more without leaving Hotmail..
> http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/QuickAdd?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_QuickAdd_062009
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:21:52 -0400
> From: "Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee"
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: AZO and Benzotriazole for anti-fogging
>
> Hi Richard,
>
> Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. The only developer we
> use in Amidol. I haven't used D-72 since I worked with 35mm
> negatives--and that would be 42 years ago.
>
> Unfortunately, we have no time for experimenting with things like
> different developers. When we go into the darkroom there is not
> enough time to print all the prints we need to make.
>
> We keep working--harder than ever and have lots of new work. We may
> get to LA in August and if we do, maybe we can meet up.
>
> A handshake,
>
> Michael
>
> >----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael A. Smith and Paula
> >Chamlee" <michaelandpaula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >Sent: Wednesday, May 20, 2009 4:06 PM
> >Subject: [pure-silver] Re: AZO and Benzotriazole for anti-fogging
>>
> >>Greeting Richard. It has been a long time. The amount of KBr I
> >>recommend is to get the "right" print color, at least to my eyes.
> >>Other factors are secondary.
>>>
> >>Michael A. Smith
>>>
>> Too long. I am still in there pitching for Fox TV, I wish I
> >could afford to retire.
>> Have you and Paula ever experimented with a Phenidone based
> >developer for Azo or one using ascorbic acid in place of the
> >hydroquinone in Dektol? I think it is the hydroquinone that is
> >mainly responsible for the greenish tinge in Dektol. AFAIK the only
> >Phenidone/ascorbic acid developer available commercially was made by
> >Agfa Neutol Plus but I am not absolutely sure of its contents.
> >Amidol works well without carbonate because it is the most powerful
> >of the developing agents. Others need an accelerator more alkaline
> >than sulfite. Since Amidol is not readily available it might be
> >useful to see if some variation on a standard formula could be made
> >to approximate it, at least to get the green out.
>> I've also seen sodium carbonate blamed for the green. It would
> >be interesting to make up something like D-72 with potassium
> >carbonate or with sodium metaborate to see what difference, if any,
> >it makes. Curiously, the green tinge does not seem to show up in any
> >paper in the Kodak sample books I have. Maybe heat drying did it.
>>
> >--
> >Richard Knoppow
> >Los Angeles, CA, USA
> >dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
> >=============================================================================================================
> >To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to
> >your account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when
> >you subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:47:08 -0500
> From: Tim Daneliuk <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Beautiful Photography
>
> ... even if it is in color:
>
> http://public.fotki.com/JohNik/net/lj/dima-chatrov/
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: AZO and Benzotriazole for anti-fogging
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:28:45 -0700
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michael A. Smith and Paula Chamlee"
> <michaelandpaula@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:21 PM
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: AZO and Benzotriazole for
> anti-fogging
>
>
>> Hi Richard,
>>
>> Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. The only
>> developer we use in Amidol. I haven't used D-72 since I
>> worked with 35mm negatives--and that would be 42 years
>> ago.
>>
>> Unfortunately, we have no time for experimenting with
>> things like different developers. When we go into the
>> darkroom there is not enough time to print all the prints
>> we need to make.
>>
>> We keep working--harder than ever and have lots of new
>> work. We may get to LA in August and if we do, maybe we
>> can meet up.
>>
>> A handshake,
>>
>> Michael
> And a handshake back. Give me a head's up when you have
> definite plans. My time is not always predictible but I
> would very much like to get together again.
>
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:36:44 -0700
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Daneliuk" <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <undisclosed-recipients:>
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:47 PM
> Subject: [pure-silver] Beautiful Photography
>
>
>> ... even if it is in color:
>>
>> http://public.fotki.com/JohNik/net/lj/dima-chatrov/
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>
> I am beginning to wonder if this list should continue
> to be confined to B&W. The reasoning is that "chemical"
> color photography is based on the same silver emulsion
> technology as B&W. Since the whole field of chemical
> photography (my term) has shrunk so much since the
> introduction of electronic (digital) photography perhaps
> such restrictions should not continue. What say others?
>
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 15:41:51 -0500
> From: Tim Daneliuk <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
>
> Richard Knoppow wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Daneliuk"
>> <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: <undisclosed-recipients:>
>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:47 PM
>> Subject: [pure-silver] Beautiful Photography
>>
>>
>>> ... even if it is in color:
>>>
>>> http://public.fotki.com/JohNik/net/lj/dima-chatrov/
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>>
>> I am beginning to wonder if this list should continue to be
>> confined to B&W. The reasoning is that "chemical" color photography is
>> based on the same silver emulsion technology as B&W. Since the whole
>> field of chemical photography (my term) has shrunk so much since the
>> introduction of electronic (digital) photography perhaps such
>> restrictions should not continue. What say others?
>>
>>
>
> When I originally conceived Pure-Silver, there was no good B&W
> oriented forum around other than the very noisy rec.photo* groups
> on USENET. I later added the chroma and silver-bits mailing lists
> which never got any real traction. But things - as you say -
> are rather different today. It seems to me that with chemical
> photography really shrinking, there is strength in numbers and
> that we should embrace all manner of chemical photography including
> traditional techniques, color, and even chemical-digital hybrids.
> If and when the traffic becomes large enough to be a nuisance,
> another mailing list can always be instantiated.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:47:27 -0400 (EDT)
> From: "Dr. Benjamin R. McRee" <ben.mcree@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
>
> As a long-time black and white worker who has begun to do wet color work
> in the last year, I would welcome the addition of color discussion. I'm
> not sure I would have had the confidence to venture into color without
> the resources available in the color forum on APUG.
>
> --Ben
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 4:36:44 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Daneliuk" <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <undisclosed-recipients:>
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:47 PM
> Subject: [pure-silver] Beautiful Photography
>
>
>> ... even if it is in color:
>>
>> http://public.fotki.com/JohNik/net/lj/dima-chatrov/
>>
>>
>> --
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>
> I am beginning to wonder if this list should continue
> to be confined to B&W. The reasoning is that "chemical"
> color photography is based on the same silver emulsion
> technology as B&W. Since the whole field of chemical
> photography (my term) has shrunk so much since the
> introduction of electronic (digital) photography perhaps
> such restrictions should not continue. What say others?
>
> --
> Richard Knoppow
> Los Angeles, CA, USA
> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> =============================================================================================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
> account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:47:58 -0400
> From: Jean-David Beyer <jeandavid8@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
>
> Richard Knoppow wrote:
>
>> I am beginning to wonder if this list should continue to be confined to
>> B&W. The reasoning is that "chemical" color photography is based on the
>> same silver emulsion technology as B&W. Since the whole field of
>> chemical
>> photography (my term) has shrunk so much since the introduction of
>> electronic (digital) photography perhaps such restrictions should not
>> continue. What say others?
>>
> I consider black-and-white photography and color photography to be two
> different media that happen to use the same equipment and similar
> processing. These days I am more likely to lump them together as chemical
> photography (that, perhaps, includes processes such as Polaroid -- I am
> not
> sure about that). In view of the huge swing to bicycling (inside joke) --
> digital photography, I think those interested in any form of chemical
> (wet
> process?) photography should unite just to keep a few black and white
> films
> and papers, and a few color films and papers, alive.
>
> Just because I think the two are different media (and my color work is
> seriously inferior to my black and white work), that is no reason for any
> particular individual to practice only one.
>
> --
> .~. Jean-David Beyer Registered Linux User 85642.
> /V\ PGP-Key: 9A2FC99A Registered Machine 241939.
> /( )\ Shrewsbury, New Jersey http://counter.li.org
> ^^-^^ 16:40:01 up 17:29, 3 users, load average: 4.13, 4.15, 4.17
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:16:06 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Charlie Thorsten <charlie_thorsten@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
>
>
> I worked for almost ten years in the color darkroom before
> digital printing took over the industry. I think discussion
> of chemical color processes would be fun, although I don't
> know how much would actually occur. Tim created the Chroma
> list for just that purpose, but it didn't get the following
> of pure-silver. Perhaps allowing color discussion on pure-
> silver would help everyone "band together".
>
> I would welcome discussion of color films and printing,
> especially if there are any Cibachrome printers out there.
> Jim, are you still working with Ciba/Ilfochrome? I'd also
> like to hear from those working with RA4. I started out
> working with transparencies, but I was always amazed at the
> "natural" quality of a good print from a large format color
> negative.
>
> -Charlie
>
>
>
> --- On Fri, 6/12/09, Richard Knoppow <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I am beginning to wonder if this list should continue to be confined
> to B&W. The reasoning is that "chemical" color photography is based on
> the same silver emulsion technology as B&W. Since the whole field of
> chemical photography (my term) has shrunk so much since the introduction
> of electronic (digital) photography perhaps such restrictions should not
> continue. What say others?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:21:03 -0700
> From: Peter De Smidt <pdesmidt@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
>
> I'm in favor of including color processes.
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:25:20 -0700
> From: "Dana H. Myers" <dana.myers@xxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
>
> Tim Daneliuk wrote:
>
>> When I originally conceived Pure-Silver, there was no good B&W
>> oriented forum around other than the very noisy rec.photo* groups
>> on USENET. I later added the chroma and silver-bits mailing lists
>> which never got any real traction. But things - as you say -
>> are rather different today. It seems to me that with chemical
>> photography really shrinking, there is strength in numbers and
>> that we should embrace all manner of chemical photography including
>> traditional techniques, color, and even chemical-digital hybrids.
>
> Complete agreement from me.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 23:25:52 +0200
> From: Claudio Bonavolta <claudio@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
>
> No problem for me to see either color, hybrid or alternative processes in
> this mailing-list ...
>
> Claudio Bonavolta
> http://www.bonavolta.ch
>
> ----- Message d'origine -----
> De: "Richard Knoppow" <dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:36:44 -0700
> Sujet: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> @: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Tim Daneliuk" <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >To: <undisclosed-recipients:>
> >Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:47 PM
> >Subject: [pure-silver] Beautiful Photography
>>
>>
>>> ... even if it is in color:
>>>
>>> http://public.fotki.com/JohNik/net/lj/dima-chatrov/
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>>
>> I am beginning to wonder if this list should continue
> >to be confined to B&W. The reasoning is that "chemical"
> >color photography is based on the same silver emulsion
> >technology as B&W. Since the whole field of chemical
> >photography (my term) has shrunk so much since the
> >introduction of electronic (digital) photography perhaps
> >such restrictions should not continue. What say others?
>>
> >--
> >Richard Knoppow
> >Los Angeles, CA, USA
> >dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
> >=============================================================================================================
> >To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
> account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "David Swinnard" <davidswinnard@xxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:26:23 -0700
>
> FWIW, so am I.
>
> I keep being tempted to stray back into 4x5 colour neg. territory after
> leaving it behind when I stopped working commerically (late '80s), but
> doing
> the C-41 processing myself. So far I've resisted, but perhaps if the talk
> here starts to include it, I might actually get off the fence and have a
> bash at it.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter De Smidt
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 4:21 PM
> To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
>
> I'm in favor of including color processes.
> ============================================================================
> ===================
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "K W Hart" <kwhart1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:20:13 -0400
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tim Daneliuk" <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 4:41 PM
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
>
>
>> Richard Knoppow wrote:
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Daneliuk"
>>> <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: <undisclosed-recipients:>
>>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:47 PM
>>> Subject: [pure-silver] Beautiful Photography
>>>
>>>
>>>> ... even if it is in color:
>>>>
>>>> http://public.fotki.com/JohNik/net/lj/dima-chatrov/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>>>
>>> I am beginning to wonder if this list should continue to be
>>> confined to B&W. The reasoning is that "chemical" color photography is
>>> based on the same silver emulsion technology as B&W. Since the whole
>>> field of chemical photography (my term) has shrunk so much since the
>>> introduction of electronic (digital) photography perhaps such
>>> restrictions should not continue. What say others?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> When I originally conceived Pure-Silver, there was no good B&W
>> oriented forum around other than the very noisy rec.photo* groups
>> on USENET. I later added the chroma and silver-bits mailing lists
>> which never got any real traction. But things - as you say -
>> are rather different today. It seems to me that with chemical
>> photography really shrinking, there is strength in numbers and
>> that we should embrace all manner of chemical photography including
>> traditional techniques, color, and even chemical-digital hybrids.
>> If and when the traffic becomes large enough to be a nuisance,
>> another mailing list can always be instantiated.
>>
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>
>
> I agree with the responders so far. IMHO, both B&W and color are based on
> a
> silver emulsion, and color work is a lot easier if you have a basic
> grounding in B&W. If there is to be a vote, I vote in favor of merging
> the
> lists into one.
> I just hope that it's a long time before a silver-based mailing list
> needs
> to be merged with another fine list, IDCC!
>
> (BTW Mr Daneliuk, your recent five point post regarding maturing as an
> artist is hanging on my darkroom wall right beside the ring-around.)
>
> Ken Hart
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "BOB KISS" <bobkiss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:44:57 -0400
>
> Don't forget that there is the Chroma (not sure if that is the right
> name)
> list but, come to think of it, I haven't seen a posting from them in a
> while. The last major thread for which I received postings was an
> extended
> discussion of Ciba/Ilfo-chrome and where to get chemistry.
> Should we approach them about combining? No opinion here, just an idea.
> CHEERS!
> BOB
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Swinnard
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 5:26 PM
> To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: David Swinnard
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
>
> FWIW, so am I.
>
> I keep being tempted to stray back into 4x5 colour neg. territory after
> leaving it behind when I stopped working commerically (late '80s), but
> doing
> the C-41 processing myself. So far I've resisted, but perhaps if the talk
> here starts to include it, I might actually get off the fence and have a
> bash at it.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Peter De Smidt
> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 4:21 PM
> To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
>
> I'm in favor of including color processes.
> ============================================================================
> ===================
>
> ============================================================================
> =================================
> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
> account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>
> __________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus
> signature
> database 4151 (20090612) __________
>
> The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
>
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Speedy <speedgraphic@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 22:22:46 +0000
>
> PLEASE NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> My vote - whatever it is worth is to keep this list devoted to Black and
> White.
>
> If people want to create a second list that would be cool, and I would
> certainly
> want to be a member of a color list of the calibur of Pure Silver.
>
> Speedy
>
>
>
>
>> From: dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
>> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:36:44 -0700
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Tim Daneliuk" <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: <undisclosed-recipients:>
>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:47 PM
>> Subject: [pure-silver] Beautiful Photography
>>
>>
>>> ... even if it is in color:
>>>
>>> http://public.fotki.com/JohNik/net/lj/dima-chatrov/
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>>
>> I am beginning to wonder if this list should continue
>> to be confined to B&W. The reasoning is that "chemical"
>> color photography is based on the same silver emulsion
>> technology as B&W. Since the whole field of chemical
>> photography (my term) has shrunk so much since the
>> introduction of electronic (digital) photography perhaps
>> such restrictions should not continue. What say others?
>>
>> --
>> Richard Knoppow
>> Los Angeles, CA, USA
>> dickburk@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>>
============================================================================================================>
>> To unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your
>> account (the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you
>> subscribed,) and unsubscribe from there.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live?: Keep your life in sync.
> http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_BR_life_in_synch_062009
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: KironKid@xxxxxxx
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:25:13 EDT
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
>
> I concur with Speedy.
>
> KK
>
>
> In a message dated 6/12/09 3:23:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> speedgraphic@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> PLEASE NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> My vote - whatever it is worth is to keep this list devoted to Black and
> White.
>
> If people want to create a second list that would be cool, and I would
> certainly
> want to be a member of a color list of the calibur of Pure Silver.
>
> Speedy
>
>
>
>
> **************Shop Dellb??s full line of Laptops now starting at $349!
> (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221881320x1201406166/aol?redir=http:%2F%2
> Fad.doubleclick.net%2Fclk%3B215218036%3B37264217%3Bz)
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: "K W Hart" <kwhart1@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:56:48 -0400
>
> Reversal product is just as silver-based as B&W film. I vote to merge
> them
> all together.
> And to Mr Swinnard-- get off the fence and jump right in, the developer's
> at
> 100F!
>
> Ken Hart
>
>> Don't forget that there is the Chroma (not sure if that is the right
>> name)
>> list but, come to think of it, I haven't seen a posting from them in a
>> while. The last major thread for which I received postings was an
>> extended
>> discussion of Ciba/Ilfo-chrome and where to get chemistry.
>> Should we approach them about combining? No opinion here, just an idea.
>> CHEERS!
>> BOB
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> [mailto:pure-silver-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of David Swinnard
>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 5:26 PM
>> To: pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Cc: David Swinnard
>> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
>>
>> FWIW, so am I.
>>
>> I keep being tempted to stray back into 4x5 colour neg. territory after
>> leaving it behind when I stopped working commerically (late '80s), but
>> doing
>> the C-41 processing myself. So far I've resisted, but perhaps if the
>> talk
>> here starts to include it, I might actually get off the fence and have a
>> bash at it.
>>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:50:03 -0500
> From: Tim Daneliuk <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
>
> K W Hart wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Daneliuk"
>> <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> To: <pure-silver@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 4:41 PM
>> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
>>
>>
>>> Richard Knoppow wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Daneliuk"
>>>> <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> To: <undisclosed-recipients:>
>>>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2009 12:47 PM
>>>> Subject: [pure-silver] Beautiful Photography
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> ... even if it is in color:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://public.fotki.com/JohNik/net/lj/dima-chatrov/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>>>>
>>>> I am beginning to wonder if this list should continue to be
>>>> confined to B&W. The reasoning is that "chemical" color photography is
>>>> based on the same silver emulsion technology as B&W. Since the whole
>>>> field of chemical photography (my term) has shrunk so much since the
>>>> introduction of electronic (digital) photography perhaps such
>>>> restrictions should not continue. What say others?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> When I originally conceived Pure-Silver, there was no good B&W
>>> oriented forum around other than the very noisy rec.photo* groups
>>> on USENET. I later added the chroma and silver-bits mailing lists
>>> which never got any real traction. But things - as you say -
>>> are rather different today. It seems to me that with chemical
>>> photography really shrinking, there is strength in numbers and
>>> that we should embrace all manner of chemical photography including
>>> traditional techniques, color, and even chemical-digital hybrids.
>>> If and when the traffic becomes large enough to be a nuisance,
>>> another mailing list can always be instantiated.
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>>>
>>
>> I agree with the responders so far. IMHO, both B&W and color are based
>> on a silver emulsion, and color work is a lot easier if you have a basic
>> grounding in B&W. If there is to be a vote, I vote in favor of merging
>> the lists into one.
>> I just hope that it's a long time before a silver-based mailing list
>> needs to be merged with another fine list, IDCC!
>>
>> (BTW Mr Daneliuk, your recent five point post regarding maturing as an
>> artist is hanging on my darkroom wall right beside the ring-around.)
>>
>
> Wow - that's two of you. Perhaps I should have charged for my
> "wisdom" :)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Tim Daneliuk tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> From: Peter Badcock <peter.badcock@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Sat, 13 Jun 2009 11:33:26 +1000
> Subject: [pure-silver] Re: Beautiful Photography
>
> Thanks Tim,
> Those photos have a vivid variety of colours. I was unable to find any
> information about the type of film used. Here <http://tinyurl.com/ndqgw4>
> is
> the photographer's blog translated from Russian into English.
> I support the idea of merging the B&W and Colour discussions together.
>
> regards
> Peter
>
> 2009/6/13 Tim Daneliuk <tundra@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> ... even if it is in color:
>>
>> http://public.fotki.com/JohNik/net/lj/dima-chatrov/
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of pure-silver Digest V6 #129
> *********************************
____________________________________________________________
FREE 3D MARINE AQUARIUM SCREENSAVER - Watch dolphins, sharks & orcas on your
desktop!
Check it out at http://www.inbox.com/marineaquarium
============================================================================================================To
unsubscribe from this list, go to www.freelists.org and logon to your account
(the same e-mail address and password you set-up when you subscribed,) and
unsubscribe from there.
Other related posts:
- » [pure-silver] Re: pure-silver Digest V6 #129 - Les Myers