Author Topic: Photography... (Read 151701 times)

UDead · « **Reply #680 on:** June 16, 2009, 07:11:55 AM »

Well sorry to get everyone off topic my bad, any new photos anyone?

S8NSSON · « **Reply #681 on:** June 16, 2009, 10:43:03 AM »

I have some new photos, but I am currently at work and don't have access. Will post this afternoon when I get home.

Been focusing more on people and portrait photography lately.
I have a few shoots coming up:
1) I'm going to shoot a senior segment of one of the dancers. Dance themed of course.
2) Going to shoot one of the dance teachers. She's going to American Idol auditions and is a country music singer. Doing a portfolio shoot for her singing career.
3) Several family shoots from the dance studio.

coLa · « **Reply #682 on:** June 22, 2009, 03:12:38 AM »

Ran out of the letter "E"

KnacK · « **Reply #683 on:** June 22, 2009, 05:00:01 AM »

I wish that the digital age had not exploded as it has as I believe that there are so many pictures taken that finding a true photograph is rare.

With that being said, there have been several photographs posted in this thread by several forum members that are truly enjoyable.

With that being said, I have no idea if local community colleges are teaching beginning *film* photography classes any more. I think that there are a lot of people here that would learn a lot by shooting and developing their own b/w stills and refining the basics, but I'm afraid that most film classes have gone the way of the Polaroid camera.

On a positive note: Just keep posting those pics! I for one have enjoyed looking at everyone's.

coLa · « **Reply #684 on:** June 22, 2009, 11:33:25 AM »

With that being said, wut?!

KnacK · « **Reply #685 on:** June 22, 2009, 02:09:51 PM »

Quote from: coLa on June 22, 2009, 11:33:25 AM

With that being said, wut?!

In a nutshell:

I miss shooting in film.

KnacK · « **Reply #686 on:** June 22, 2009, 02:19:06 PM »

Just as I made the above post:

http://www.reuters.com/article/technologyNews/idUSTRE55L3CZ20090622?feedType=RSS&feedName=technologyNews

I have THOUSANDS of Kodachrome slides that both my father and I took. Back in the day, there really wasnt anything better.

Here's a shot that could have only bee ncaptured on Kodachrome - I know most of you have seen it before. Steve McCurry - http://www.stevemccurry.com/ shot it.

coLa · « **Reply #687 on:** June 22, 2009, 02:31:06 PM »

Quote from: KnacK on June 22, 2009, 02:09:51 PM

In a nutshell:

I miss shooting in film.

Lol... I want to try it. Something I've been wanting to do for a while.

lilb990 · « **Reply #688 on:** June 22, 2009, 02:42:00 PM »

Hey KnacK, that picture that you posted have you seen her now? After like i think 20 years...she's about 34 or 40 one of them and she looks a mess. Because where she comes from they have a harsh living..she's around that age but looks like she's 70

UDead · « **Reply #689 on:** June 22, 2009, 05:05:38 PM »

i thought that was his wife...lol

KnacK · « **Reply #690 on:** June 22, 2009, 07:33:22 PM »

Her in 2002

wafflez205 · « **Reply #691 on:** June 22, 2009, 08:31:48 PM »

Quote from: KnacK on June 22, 2009, 05:00:01 AM

I have no idea if local community colleges are teaching beginning *film* photography

My high school offers a film photography course. i took it and shooting with film was so cool.

S8NSSON · « **Reply #692 on:** June 22, 2009, 10:11:45 PM »

film is nostalgic but the digital age has overcome and it is only the beginning

consumer 50, 100, 500 megapixel imaging will become commonplace

the art of film sits with the vinyl record

I have no desire to shoot another roll of film...inferior technology

wafflez205 · « **Reply #693 on:** June 22, 2009, 10:31:19 PM »

the only bad part is that your hands smell like chemicals the rest of the day

UDead · « **Reply #694 on:** June 23, 2009, 06:52:52 AM »

amazing how knack does not respond to my comment, well nice photos

KnacK · « **Reply #695 on:** June 23, 2009, 07:20:52 AM »

Quote from: S8NSSON on June 22, 2009, 10:11:45 PM

film is nostalgic but the digital age has overcome and it is only the beginning

consumer 50, 100, 500 megapixel imaging will become commonplace

the art of film sits with the vinyl record

I have no desire to shoot another roll of film...inferior technology

I agree 100% but I consider the whole concept of shooting with film from the camera to the lab an art form.

I enjoyed shooting then going off to the lab to develop my own negs and making prints. Fortunately for me, I had one heck of a teacher ( co-worker in the PR department)

I have noticed that Hasselblad has digital backs for their medium and large format cameras. That might be a great niche to get into.

S8NSSON · « **Reply #696 on:** June 23, 2009, 07:56:12 AM »

Knack...you hit the nail on the head...LAB.

Just try to take a well thought and planned roll of film to Wal-mart, or some other lab that still handles film. You are more than likely placing your hard work into the hands of some person that does not understand the "art" of developing, or they will simply toss the film into a machine for processing.

As much as shooting film is an art, developing the film is even more so. A B&W darkroom, although still expensive, is feasible. A color darkroom is more expensive and complex.

If you know/have a really good lab to handle your film you are lucky. I think those are rare, but not impossible, today.

As for digital...
I RSS a few science sites. Lately science has made some major breakthroughs on the way light collectors handle photons. They have devised a way to get the collectors to gather more excitons per photon. Until now they could only coax one exciton per photon into the sensor.

Exciting stuff...Read on: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090618144004.htm

This, and other, advancements are going to make light gathering for cameras, solar arrays, and other light gathering instruments take off!

KnacK · « **Reply #697 on:** June 23, 2009, 12:06:53 PM »

Agreed yet again.

I hate to see film die.

To me, it's like the old debate of tube type amplifiers and solid state amplifiers.

Remember McIntosh?

I hate to see it go.

S8NSSON · « **Reply #698 on:** June 23, 2009, 01:48:17 PM »

LOL
I do think the tube vs solid state amp is a little different, although close.
As much as solid state may be able to simulate the sound of a tube amp, they can't match the "feel" of the sound.

Marshal amps are a prime example. You can buy a solid state 100W Marshal head. But place it side by side with a tube 100W Marshal head and you quickly learn why the body, power and fullness of the tube amplifier cannot be overcome by solid state.

There is a similar comparison in film vs digital. Sadly the average eye, and what is mostly the target eye, cannot readily recognize these differences. The trained eye can.

Justinph5 · « **Reply #699 on:** June 24, 2009, 09:21:04 AM »

Quote from: KnacK on June 23, 2009, 12:06:53 PM

I hate to see film die.

I was one of the last in my University to take our beginning photography (film) class. It ended the next semester... But it then became digital, same as the intermediate and advanced were digital...

I must say, I hated the class, and the extra steps needed just to make the prints. (not enough time with other classes) But atleast it teaches a lot more than digital can, and helps you understand what your doing, even in digital. Our school even had all those discussions on if photography could stay an art form, or if it was moving away from art into commercialism because of digital. It was a back and forth debate.

Something I'd be excited to see is the advancement of RAW formats. They already allow so much more control than other formats (if some didnt know about it

, you should try it)