At the request of BigV

Here are a few of my photos. These are older because they are the only ones I've scanned. Maybe this winter I'll have time to scan some of my newer work.

.

..

/

You don't appear to suck much f^3. Bravo!

Yes. Those are really nice. Good job!

Thank you footfootfoot for the beautiful pictures. I love walking through the woods, and this is an artistic walk indeed.

The water ones are my favorites. I love the water.

Thank you all. I reserve suction activities for special occasoins, thus you shouldn't see much of it here. ;)

Damn Nice Foots !!!!
Dude get a flickr page so we can see the full size pics !!!

Great talent. I always love the B/W shots. Guess it opens the imagination.

What lenses are you using FFF? I'm trying to research a good pair of lenses for my next camera purchase (Canon 30D.. my frist dSLR!) sometime next summer. I hope you don't say any L lens.. because those are a liiiitle out of my price range to say the least.

Bullitt,
I refer you to http://photo.net for up to the minute discussions about lenses for the 30D. I don't do digital, those shots were made with a c.1954 Leica, a c. 1939 Rolleiflex, and a couple of more modern view cameras, mostly with schneider lenses.

But, regardless of the camera body, the most important link in the chain (besides you) is the lens. You'd do better to buy a box of quaker oats and a $3,000 lens than buying a $3,000 camera and a p.o.s. aftermarket lens.

Would you want to drive into the sun with a dirty, pitted windshield? It doesn't much matter what kind of car it is if you can't see where youa re going.

Unless of course, you shoot exclusively soft and atmospheric shots. :)

That's my spiel on lenses. They are the thing that focuses the light, the rest is just a fancy light proof box.

Ask Spexxvet what he thinks.

Beautiful. :thumb2:

footfootfoot wrote:

Bullitt,
I refer you to http://photo.net for up to the minute discussions about lenses for the 30D. I don't do digital, those shots were made with a c.1954 Leica, a c. 1939 Rolleiflex, and a couple of more modern view cameras, mostly with schneider lenses.

But, regardless of the camera body, the most important link in the chain (besides you) is the lens. You'd do better to buy a box of quaker oats and a $3,000 lens than buying a $3,000 camera and a p.o.s. aftermarket lens.

Would you want to drive into the sun with a dirty, pitted windshield? It doesn't much matter what kind of car it is if you can't see where youa re going.

Unless of course, you shoot exclusively soft and atmospheric shots. :)

That's my spiel on lenses. They are the thing that focuses the light, the rest is just a fancy light proof box.

Ask Spexxvet what he thinks.

Okay, that is the kind of response I am getting from alot of people in other photography forums. I'm thinking of getting a used nice digital, then getting one nice lens, then building up. I'm aborting the film route I learned in high school because I would rather have a nice digital which can do 5 shots per second, then have to shell out for a nice scanner and printer in order to digitally archive my photos

That makes sense to me, for you. I have so many negatives that I'd really want to get a scanner first.

A friend of mine has completely left his wet darkroom and has invested a humongous pile of coin into a new digital darkroom. Not such a fancy camera and it doesn't take interchangeable lenses either.

His work is amazing, mainly because of his eye. The digital part of it is just capture and printing. Even with the best digital darkroom gear his prints are just begining to approach what he regularly achieved in the wet darkroom.

By the way, nice work on your blogspot page. You don't need another camera.

footfootfoot wrote:

...digital darkroom...

This just an expression, right? Or do you actually require darkness for some aspect of digital printing?

Clodfobble wrote:

This just an expression, right? Or do you actually require darkness for some aspect of digital printing?

Here is my snide take: Yes, you require a darkness of the soul in order to embrace any aspect of digital printing.

But no, it is just an expression. After the divorce, digital decided to keep the name darkroom since it didn't really have a maiden name to which it could revert.

Let me just climb up on this soap box for a moment:

The comparisons between digital photography and "traditional" or "wet" or "silver" photography are specious at best. The only thing they have in common is using a lens to focus light. One isn't better or worse than the other; they each have their merits.

It reminds me of the 80's "CDs are better than vinyl" crap.

blah blah blah :sniff:

the pic on the left in post #2 is scary for some reason. Something almost menacing about the left one in post #4 too. Maybe I shouldn't have watched scary stuff on the internets last night...

Hmm. On my screen post number 2 is over and under.

A good friend of mine was distrubed to the point of nausea by the left picture in the first thread.

When I made the photo I was deep in the woods on an autumn day about sunset. The exposure was over two minutes long. I began to get really creeped out for some reason as I waited for the exposure to finish. When the time was up I pretty much ran all the way out of the woods, the hair on the back of my neck was standing up.

Well, Duh! It's not every photographer that can get a demon to stand still that long just to be photographed!

Unless they belong to the same lodge, Wolf. :lol:

All four posts have the pictures side by side on my screen (19"diag)

footfootfoot wrote:

By the way, nice work on your blogspot page. You don't need another camera.

Thanks footness.. I think I am gonna invest in a new laptop next summer and some noise reducing software and stick with this camera. I don't think I'm ready yet for a full dSLR, plus my pockets aren't exactly deep enough to get a range of decent lenses either after paying over a grand for the body & kit lense plus case, lens and sensor cleaning supplies, CF cards, etc.

I scanned three more prints the other night.

,

Thank you for the glads...I needed that.

The shot of the flowers is amazing. I love the composition.

Thanks guys. Glads are a favorite of mine. Which reminds me I need to dig up the bulbs if they haven't frozen yet...

here are a couple more. that's prolly it for a while. there's still much buttoning ahead.
The scans are not quite up to par, but it's what it is.

.

What is the third photo, foot? (Post #25) I keep staring at it but my brain can't interpret it.

If you really can't help yourself, I remembered this site where a few more of my images are uploaded. http://www.photo.net/photodb/member-photos?user_id=514069

Clodfobble wrote:

What is the third photo, foot? (Post #25) I keep staring at it but my brain can't interpret it.

It is an abstract. I shan't tell you; I used to tell people and it ruined it for them.

To me, it is the cosmos.

footfootfoot wrote:

It is an abstract. I shan't tell you; I used to tell people and it ruined it for them.

To me, it is the cosmos.

You fell down the stairs at the Corning Museum of Glass.

damn good work... please keep it coming.

Those photos are fine , but they are incredibly boring because one sees photos like that all over the place . People are blasé . My father who grew up in a tiny Welsh village is a passionate advocate of National Geographic . He took out a subscription long ago for his grandchildren . I think we have been receiving National Geographic for nigh on eighteen years . The children have never marvelled at the photographs .

Again, love the flowers, foot3. What delicate texture.

How was the NYC job?

Buddug wrote:

Those photos are fine , but they are incredibly boring because one sees photos like that all over the place . People are blasé .

Does berating on someone's obvious talent give you a hard-on or something?

Buddug wrote:

Those photos are fine , but they are incredibly boring because one sees photos like that all over the place . People are blasé . My father who grew up in a tiny Welsh village is a passionate advocate of National Geographic . He took out a subscription long ago for his grandchildren . I think we have been receiving National Geographic for nigh on eighteen years . The children have never marvelled at the photographs .

We're still waiting for you to make good on your word.

Of course, you'd know from boring. As for originality your trolling is anything but.

Buddug doesn't sound like a chic, does it?

It sounds more like buttplug to me.

breakingnews wrote:

Again, love the flowers, foot3. What delicate texture.

How was the NYC job?

The Job went well, thanks. I forgot my gaffer's tape and just as I was finishing up the masking tape holding the duvetyne to the window gave out.

Perfect timing. Although I still haven't gotten the film back yet...
Not a problem with digital.

Right now I'm jonesing for this P2 in Taipei. I'm seriously thinking about misappropriating fundage...

footfootfoot wrote:

Right now I'm jonesing for this P2 in Taipei. I'm seriously thinking about misappropriating fundage...

Too bad I can't find an address from their ebay storefront ... I'd track them down and try to work a little bargain action for you. (I like to call it the "fellow yellow hookup.")

But more than likely it's a shop on Bo Ai Lu ... that area is three square blocks of nothing but camera stores.

On a sorta related note, Canon/Nikon equipment is WAY expensive here (but Sigma/Tamron/Tokina is dirt cheap). I've been deciding between a Canon 70-200L f4 USM or a 70-300 IS USM ... both were almost $800. Redonkulous.

breakingnews wrote:

Too bad I can't find an address from their ebay storefront ... I'd track them down and try to work a little bargain action for you. (I like to call it the "fellow yellow hookup.")

But more than likely it's a shop on Bo Ai Lu ... that area is three square blocks of nothing but camera stores.

On a sorta related note, Canon/Nikon equipment is WAY expensive here (but Sigma/Tamron/Tokina is dirt cheap). I've been deciding between a Canon 70-200L f4 USM or a 70-300 IS USM ... both were almost $800. Redonkulous.

Hey cool!Thanks for the thought, I'd be honored to be a fellow yellow. I noticed that ebay store had a bunch of canon lenses that seemed just as much as b&h, I couldn't figure how a cherry looking p2 could be so cheap. Well, cheap is a relative word. That's a half a year's mortgage payments...

I'd take either of those lenses. How fast is the 70-300? And avoid the aftermarket glass. Friends don't let friends, etc.

The 70-300 is 4-5.6. I've been reading that the IS works amazingly well, and the lens itself is moderately heavy (for a compact zoom - 1.4 lbs), so should be pretty stable. At this point I'd rather have the extra 100mm and IS than a piece of L glass ... but then again, I really have no idea what I am doing. Me spending money on photo gear is like letting a blind person drive a car.

And I confess, I own third-party glass. I bought a Sigma 17-70 2.8 - it actually is a great lens. Fast, quiet, crisp focus. Only complaint is using AF for macro is a little inconsistent, but only when I am close to min focus distance.