Oh heck, that particular cat got out of the bag in the "Yum vs. Ah" thread. Everybody knows you're dating just about every chick in the cellar! :D

I spent most of my day riding from here to Marcus Hook, re-unfucking a friends' computer (I accidentally deleted a batch of his .mp3s and he made a royal mess trying to find them again).

In retaliation, I made him buy R-Undelete ($54.99), my gas ($10) and my dinner (<>$8 cheesesteak). Plus I got some more of his goat pr0n! hehe.. At this rate, he won't have any left.

Then I got to ride home and discovered that although it may be 70 in Phila, it was 50 in the Poconos! I was an icicle by the time I got home and it took me three tries to open my front door due to numbness in my hands! Next time, long johns and heavy gloves.

Brian

Tri-X eh? Wow, haven't uttered those words since photography classes (and even then, my choice of B&W film was T-Max 3200). I've heard that it's a pretty good film though...good for contrast, but just enough grain to give the shot just enough of a gritty feel. T-Max is more "warm" and soft in comparison...it was good for the portrait-type shots that I did in class and years later.

Ever worked with any other type of B&W film?

I haven't gone digital yet (can't afford it), and yet everything seems to be going in that direction.

I love Shutterbug magazine...is that one of your rags?

How old is the Canon? Mine is circa 1991 (EOS Rebel when Canon rebuilt it with a lighter body).


Whoops, once you get me talking about photography, I could go on for days...but I won't (at least in this thread..lol).

:D

I love the grittyness of Tri-X, for me it is one of the few films that I feel I cannot emulate well digitally, thus I like playing with it. The camera is a veeeerrry (circa late 70s I think) old totally manual jobbie with a 50mm lens, it's not really mine but I am the first person to use it in years. Tri-X is pretty much the only thing I use with it. I'm kinda bassakwards with the film thing - early digital introduced me into photography and it's only more recently I've played a little more with film. Part of it is that with digital, once you've got the upfront (and admittedly far, far higher) costs out of the way, the pictures feel free, whereas with film I feel under pressue to get every shot perfect because it costs money to develop, thus I find I work far better with digital, partly because I can be as liberal as my memory cards will allow.

On the flipside I have moral qualms about digital manipulation. I refuse point blank to do any more than adjust contrast, balance and do a little cropping where needed and even that feels a tad wrong. With good RAW files you can do an incredible amount of manipulation in terms of colour balance, white balance and contrast.

One day, after I buy an island or two, I'd love to get my hands on a Leica rangefinder.

Rags are Popular Photography, Pratical Photography, American Photographer (i think that's the name, more recent discovery) and a french B&W mag I can never remember the name of.

I have teal ones. For home use only. We go through too damn many staples at work to have pretty ones.

Tri-X and Pan-X were the two that I remember most ... bought in bulk and hand-loaded into the cassettes. Only way to go.

Hard to find and harder to get developed these days.

As far as what I did today? Went to a Partylites™ Party. Partylites™ are the candle and candleholder equivalent of Tupperware. They are GREAT candles though. as close to pure paraffin as you can get. No metal in the wicks and their votives burn to liquid, which depending on the holder you are using can really add to the effect (I have these holders that look like wineglasses, so burning a deep red candle in them, it looks like a glass of wine on fire. Very pretty.)

Not too hard to find Tri-X at any major photography store, in England I deal with Jessops, big gear i'm buying from B&H Photo in the US - cheap and wonderful service.

I can dig that. I guess because I started out on film, I'm more partial to that format.

Quote:

On the flipside I have moral qualms about digital manipulation. I refuse point blank to do any more than adjust contrast, balance and do a little cropping where needed and even that feels a tad wrong. With good RAW files you can do an incredible amount of manipulation in terms of colour balance, white balance and contrast.

Indeed. While many photos have looked flawless thanks to digital technology, sometimes the no-so-perfect shots are cool too...character shots I call them.

Quote:

One day, after I buy an island or two, I'd love to get my hands on a Leica rangefinder.

Whooo, good luck! :D
http://www.leica-camera.com/kultur/m...r/index_e.html

Quote:

Rags are Popular Photography, Pratical Photography, American Photographer (i think that's the name, more recent discovery) and a french B&W mag I can never remember the name of.

Ah, I like Pop Photog myself and American Photo. And of course, Shutterbug is like the photographer's "bible" lol.

Do you have your photos online? I don't have a lot of mine up yet. I'm working on it. :D

It's around 3-4k for one of the decent ones, one day..... My Dd1MII is setting me back a bit more than that but that's a full-on workhorse.

Nothing online at the moment, building a portfolio site at the moment, that'll be up in a couple of months.

This is my makeshift gallery so far:
http://members.tripod.com/dmdevout/photogallery.html

Definitely need more shots. :p

Ooooo, sounds pretty. I'm pretty much a candle ho for hire, so can you hook a sistah up? :D

Hmmm,......time to put some candles in DoDads.;)

I approach some guys taking pictures of bears in Denali Park. While trying to hide my paltry Nikon 6006 behind my back, I asked them how much the lenses, that looked like howitzers, they were using, cost. They laughed and said “You can’t buy these lenses, if you have the credentials, you can rent them” Damn.:eek3:

The only lenses I can think of like that would be the HUGE Canon 1.3m super-tele lenses. Normal tele lenses from both canon and nikon go up to about 600mm, Canon is the only one I know of that does anything bigger but I know there is some ultra-sepcial stuff out there in the 100,000k+ range.

These were about a foot in diameter and 18 inches long. they mount directly to a heavy duty tripod and the camera body looks like a zit on the butt of the lens. I didn't bug them much because they were working on a sow bear and two cubs that were tearing up the alpine vegetation, chasing rodents. The bears were maybe a mile away across the ravine on the opposite slope.

Thanks, for hijacking this thread... But I'm more interested in what you did on week-end than about these super-monster-over-seized cameras... ;)