LOL!

Yes, I was joking, and yes, they are available.


jps wrote:
In article .com,
says...

Harry Krause wrote:
jps wrote:


"The Photographer" is an image in your (evidently narrow) mind. In my
mind, the photographer uses whatever equipment he freaking well pleases
for the purpose at hand.

What matters is what's captured in the frame, not what it's captured by.



What's the problem with sacrificing quality for convenience?
If you want convenience instead of quality, use a 110 Instamatic.

What an idiotic statement. I'm sure there's plenty of pinhole
photographers who can make your efforts look like amateur snapshots.


The best camera equipment no more makes a photographer than a fast car
makes a driver or a big boat makes a boater.

jps


Speaking of "pinhole" photographers...
While tramping around Mindanao
between '77-'79 an old Yashica TL Super with the stock 50m lens with a
2x adaptor served me verrrry well. the light meter quit, and after
being dropped so many times, the viewfinder was actually like looking
though an angular sight. but I got used to that.

I haven't used it in many years, but I keep toying with the idea of
digging it back out.
Seeing I can't get good quality flash cubes for my instamatics
anymore... ?:

I had great luck finding bulbs for my Rollei TLRS on ebay. I realize
you're joking but I'm sure flashcubes are just as available.

jps

On Tue, 1 Aug 2006 21:42:42 -0700, jps wrote:

In article .com,
says...

jps wrote:
I've owned everything from a 120 box camera, .."

BTW, you know were I can get some decent paper film for my old Brownie
6-16?

Wow. It's been a while since brownies were the rage...

I actually took my first pictures on a 620 box camera with the
viewfinder on the corner of the camera.

jps

Mine was the 'Brownie Hawkeye'. Took a lot of pictures with that thing.

http://www.brownie-camera.com/27.shtml
--
******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

John

In article ,
says...
wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
jps wrote:

"The Photographer" is an image in your (evidently narrow) mind. In my
mind, the photographer uses whatever equipment he freaking well pleases
for the purpose at hand.

What matters is what's captured in the frame, not what it's captured by.


What's the problem with sacrificing quality for convenience?
If you want convenience instead of quality, use a 110 Instamatic.
What an idiotic statement. I'm sure there's plenty of pinhole
photographers who can make your efforts look like amateur snapshots.


The best camera equipment no more makes a photographer than a fast car
makes a driver or a big boat makes a boater.

jps


Speaking of "pinhole" photographers...
While tramping around Mindanao
between '77-'79 an old Yashica TL Super with the stock 50m lens with a
2x adaptor served me verrrry well. the light meter quit, and after
being dropped so many times, the viewfinder was actually like looking
though an angular sight. but I got used to that.

I haven't used it in many years, but I keep toying with the idea of
digging it back out.
Seeing I can't get good quality flash cubes for my instamatics
anymore... ?:


I remember the old Yashica Mat twin lens cameras, less expensive
knock-offs of the Rolleiflex. Nice cameras (both of them).

I was always impressed by their looks and engineering but I was even
more impressed by what I was able to capture. I borrowed a friend's
Rollei when in my twenties and loved it. Ended up buying a whole Rollei
kit with telephoto attachment for $400 from a retired wedding
photographer. Lots of fun to play with, great images. That pushed me
to reassemble my darkroom to do b&w. Very satisfying to dodge and burn
as if Ansel and watch the results develop. Lot of info on well-exposed
piece of 120 film.

jps

Out of curiosity, I was wondering what Ansel Adams would do in today's
world. Would he get rid of his bulky, heavy wooden, paper/glass
negative cameras and go digital? Actually Ansel took pictures, but it
was his dark room expertise that gave him his benchmark prints.

Or do you think that "Weedgie" would trade in his beat up old
Speed-Graphics for an 8 pixel???


I was simply wondering what the results would be if you turned these
guys loose with digital.

Tim



jps wrote:


"The Photographer" is an image in your (evidently narrow) mind. In my
mind, the photographer uses whatever equipment he freaking well pleases
for the purpose at hand.

What matters is what's captured in the frame, not what it's captured by.

jps wrote:

I remember the old Yashica Mat twin lens cameras, less expensive
knock-offs of the Rolleiflex. Nice cameras (both of them).


I was always impressed by their looks and engineering but I was even
more impressed by what I was able to capture. I borrowed a friend's
Rollei when in my twenties and loved it. Ended up buying a whole Rollei
kit with telephoto attachment for $400 from a retired wedding
photographer. Lots of fun to play with, great images. That pushed me
to reassemble my darkroom to do b&w. Very satisfying to dodge and burn
as if Ansel and watch the results develop. Lot of info on well-exposed
piece of 120 film.

jps


You guys are making me think of digging out my Yashica D and run a few
rolls through it.
http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Yashica_D

OK, "weegie", would he still trade it in for an 8 pixel?


Harry Krause wrote:
wrote:
Out of curiosity, I was wondering what Ansel Adams would do in today's
world. Would he get rid of his bulky, heavy wooden, paper/glass
negative cameras and go digital? Actually Ansel took pictures, but it
was his dark room expertise that gave him his benchmark prints.

Or do you think that "Weedgie" would trade in his beat up old
Speed-Graphics for an 8 pixel???


I was simply wondering what the results would be if you turned these
guys loose with digital.

Tim




Weegie, not Weedgie.

Don White wrote:
You guys are making me think of digging out my Yashica D and run a few
rolls through it.
http://www.camerapedia.org/wiki/Yashica_D

That Yashica D reminds me of my Dad's old Rolleiflex.

Wonder who copied
who?http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...lex_camera.jpg

In article . com,
says...

Out of curiosity, I was wondering what Ansel Adams would do in today's
world. Would he get rid of his bulky, heavy wooden, paper/glass
negative cameras and go digital? Actually Ansel took pictures, but it
was his dark room expertise that gave him his benchmark prints.

Or do you think that "Weedgie" would trade in his beat up old
Speed-Graphics for an 8 pixel???


I was simply wondering what the results would be if you turned these
guys loose with digital.

Tim

I'm guessing he'd still be waiting for higher resolution. The amount of
information on a 8x10 or even 4x5 is orders of magnitude greater than
the highest res chip available.

Even pro digital can barely rival 35mm today. I'm guessing Weegie would
be still playing with formulas, emulsions, dodging and burning.

jps

"jps" wrote in message
...
In article . com,
says...

Out of curiosity, I was wondering what Ansel Adams would do in today's
world. Would he get rid of his bulky, heavy wooden, paper/glass
negative cameras and go digital? Actually Ansel took pictures, but it
was his dark room expertise that gave him his benchmark prints.

Or do you think that "Weedgie" would trade in his beat up old
Speed-Graphics for an 8 pixel???


I was simply wondering what the results would be if you turned these
guys loose with digital.

Tim

I'm guessing he'd still be waiting for higher resolution. The amount of
information on a 8x10 or even 4x5 is orders of magnitude greater than
the highest res chip available.

Even pro digital can barely rival 35mm today. I'm guessing Weegie would
be still playing with formulas, emulsions, dodging and burning.

jps

He also processed each negative differently according to how the range of
light in the original scene corresponded to his zone system. I suspect he
would've stayed with film for this reason.

I looked it up Harry. We're both wrong:


"WEEGEE"
http://www.profotos.com/education/re...e/weegee.shtml

Harry Krause wrote:
wrote:
Out of curiosity, I was wondering what Ansel Adams would do in today's
world. Would he get rid of his bulky, heavy wooden, paper/glass
negative cameras and go digital? Actually Ansel took pictures, but it
was his dark room expertise that gave him his benchmark prints.

Or do you think that "Weedgie" would trade in his beat up old
Speed-Graphics for an 8 pixel???


I was simply wondering what the results would be if you turned these
guys loose with digital.

Tim




Weegie, not Weedgie.