[ratpack] Re: Blew my own mind

Yeah.  Photo.net.  It's almost as bad as usenet. 

Back in the day, I used a lotta Tri-X, but I've been told and read that Fuji's Velvia.  I dunno about Ilford current offerings, but I DO remember when they brought out their 800 ASA stuff.  I couldn't wait to get my hands on some.  Man, was that early stuff grainy or what? 

I've gone the rounds with the cheap photo processors.  I'll take mine to Borg-Andersen and pay a little more to have it done right.  I took one roll of KodaColor (I think that's what it's called now) to a local quickie processing outlet and asked to have the images on a CD.  They told me that the way they did that was to process the film as prints, then scan 'em into digital form.  Uhhh....no thanks.

I was gonna be out at the track today but I've got a case of the "zacklies."  I feel zackly like shit.  I just watched the Turkish GP on the DVR and Indy is recording now, then NASCAR Coke 600 at Charlotte.  I think I'll be able to rest for the day.  :)  Gonna try to make it out tomorrow.  I've got a general admission ticket and I'm hoping that'll give me access to a coupla places to shoot from.  I called and was told that the GA ticket included a "pit pass" (paddock access for the road racers.)  We'll see.  2 years ago I got what was to me a mind-blowing shot of Noriyuki Haga...



...as he was riding a pit scooter after breaking his collarbone in a qualifying accident.  I dunno if ya remember, but he raced with the broken bone(s), finished 6th (I think) in the first race, then crashed again in the 2nd.  He called it quits for the day after that.

r

Sent from my Dreadnought using that barely tolerable Thunderbird email program

O Yeh...a lot of the forums (fora??) have a group of so-called "experts", and some are quite good... giving advice like it was actually worth something, and otherwise reinforcing their particuar prejudices. Photo.net is the worst, imo.  There are a few, however, The Nikon Cafe, and Nikonians, which are more user friendly, and actually friendly, too.  Don't ask a question regarding third party equipment (Tamron, Sigma, Sunpak) on Nikonians, tho.  (with hauteur)  "Really, Old Boy, none of us here have had much experience with third party equipment!"  Other than that, a great bunch.  Dunno about Canon sites, tho.

 

The "Old Technology" still lasts forever, and works a treat!  And doesn't need a damn computer to translate your eye into reality.  I've been considering buying a Nikon F 100, just for "old time's sake.  You can get some of the classic lenses for Nikon or Canon for a song off daBay, but you do have to watch out for the sharpies.   All of my lenses would  fit, and film, while expen$ive compared to free pixels, can be converted to electronic media for just a few $ at the time of processing.  Just be sure your 18 1/2 year old "processing professional"  understands the process, and doesn't faint at the suggestion that C-41 processing IS designed for modern chromogenic black and white films like Ilford XP, and the Kodak  films.  The Kodak offerings are, or at least the last time I tried them,  were not on the same level as the Ilford chromogenic film, or the ancient Plus-X or Tri-X  in D-76 1:1, either.  But, that's just me.

 

Whoooo knows,  I might have to find all the film processsing stuff I have in my basement, and become a darkroom monkey again. (I think I will take 3 aspirin, and lay down in a  dimly-lighted room, listening to soft, soothing music till this passes.)    : ) 

 

Photography is a Magical  pastime...or profession!

 

 

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ray Buck" <rbuck@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: ratpack@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2010 8:04:50 PM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
Subject: [ratpack] Blew my own mind

Sent from my Dreadnought using that barely tolerable Thunderbird email program

I've been on a coupla DSLR forums recently (I think I'm gonna dump one of 'em: photography board.net) trying to get a handle on my 7D's autofocus issues.  The problem is that it generally doesn't.  In the course of on discussion one alleged gentleman suggested that I not use autofocus because it "had limitations."  He cited his "all-manual Leicaflex SL2" as an example of something where manual focus worked just fine.  I replied, "apples and oranges" and got out my old Pentax Spotmatic and 300mm lens. 

I was floored.  I remember using that combo and thinking how large and unwieldy it was.  Holy shit, Batman!  It's tiny and could almost be considered a toy camera.  It's not a toy; the photos I got from it were very good when decent processing could be found.  Its light metering/exposure control consisted of a needle on the left side (I think) of the viewfinder that one centered by adjusting shutter speed and aperture.  It was considered to be state of the art in the mid 60s.  Focus was done manually with a fresnel dot in the center of the viewfinder.  Not quite as good as a split image, but still, pretty decent when ya got used to it. 

But the size in comparison to the 7D and 100-400 lens blew my mind.  Interestingly enough, the weight of the cameras is pretty close.  Maybe a coupla ounces light for the Pentax.  If I removed the 7D's battery grip, they'd probably be equal.

Blew my own mind right out the left ear (the right one has a bluetooth earpiece in it or it would have gone in both directions. :) )

I spose I'm gonna have to buy a roll or two of Fuji Velvia monochrome and see what I can come up with using an ancient piece like that.

RtR

-- 
Sent from my Dreadnought using that gawdawful Thunderbird email program