Seeking recommendation for used SLR gears

My classes were individule and I believe in using lots of film - it is cheap
and there is no better way (until now with digital) to try out over and
under-exposure, slow shutter vs fast, wide open vs f22 etc etc etc. My
students tended to use a couple rolls of film every time we went out, and
more for certain classes (Like the grey card class where we used slide film
and compared exposures using the meter on the entire scene or metering off
the card, etc.) where each shot was actually 5 shots with bracketing.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Tony Spadaro wrote:

Someone who is actively pursueing photography would be on a much higer
rate
than your couple dozen rolls a year - I know that I started bulk rolling
film less than a week after getting my SLR because 70 cents a roll for
Tri-X
would have driven me broke pretty fast. My students probably averages
two or
three rolls of film per lesson and most of them shot more than just when
they were at lessons. Considering how much faster one can learn the
basics
of photography with digital I don't see any advantage of film except for
the
casual snaps man - the "dozen or two rolls a year" type - why does that
shooter need an expensive bulky SLR though?

I guess your classes were much different than what I had in college, or
what is
available locally at colleges in my area. Our classes were never more than
two
hours, and rarely more than twice a week. Part of the class was lecture,
part
was assignment, and some was in the lab. Our requirements also included
spending a great deal of time outside of class time in the lab producing
printed images for critiques. The B/W oriented classes assignments were
done in
the darkroom lab, while the colour imagery classes were largely finished
in the
art building computer lab.

A typical assignment would get critiqued the following week, during the
class
period. Our usual requirement was two rolls of film, and three or four
final
printed images. Editing was one of the skills we needed to learn, and we
always
handed in a contact sheet (or similar print done through the computer for
the
colour classes). Anyway, when one considers the number of classes, and
number
of weeks in each semester, not much more than two dozen rolls each
semester got
exposed.

When you look at large format classes, substantially less film gets
exposed. Of
course, earlier classes on more simple aspects of photography are required
prior to getting in any large format classes.

I also shot images for use in my painting classes, and for graphic design
projects, so I always did more than two rolls a week. Many others barely
did
the minimum, giving barely 48 images a week. Some did quite well at the
low
number, and some did substantially worse at even greater rates of film
usage.
The volume of images was not a direct indication of the quality of those
images
made by any individual.

I wish we had more opportunities to actually take shots then, but I know
it
would have made editing quite a bit more difficult to learn. Good editing
does
more to make a photographer appear to be a good photographer than being
lucky.
Studio only, or lighting instruction could benefit from high volume
shooting,
though I tried an entirely different approach, I took motion imagery
classes.

I suggested a couple rolls a week, since that is what I saw, and continue
to
see with people taking photography classes now. Obviously some places do
things
differently. Hey, now I do four to ten rolls at a one day commission, and
that
is much more than I ever did in college.

The one skill in which film is still quite valid is B/W imagery. There is
a
skill in learning how to make darkroom prints. One could start off with
negatives printed from digital images, so that still offers the
possibility of
originating on direct digital cameras (Dan Burkholder methods or similar).
If
one has no desire to learn B/W printing, then by all means ignore film.

I don't think a high volume of shots makes one a better photographer.
Those who
will learn to produce compelling images will be able to do so with a slow
and
careful approach, or with a high volume approach. Those who will rarely
produce
anything compelling will not gain anything from either approach. Editing
done
on the LCD on the back of a camera is a very careless approach to editing,
and
misses the fact that editing is something that requires careful
consideration.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

Of course they would exist - you simply would not be able to correct them. I
do some printing of digitally taken pictures. There are different problems
but nothing worse than I deal with all the time on film based pics and no
scanning involved - therefore no scanner to add its own artifacts.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Dallas" wrote in message
newsan.2004.08.21.05.08.59.827000@southafrican.. .
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 00:09:19 +0000, Tony Spadaro wrote:

I can tell you that Maisel considers the shot to be the shot. All this
business about everyone "fixing" everything in Photoshop later is pretty
much mullarley. It is a slow and expensive way to work. People doing
commercial photography need to do it both now and in budget, so they do
the same thing they did with film. ]
Yes there is a lot of Photoshop being used for FX but mostly for FX
you
simply cannot do in camera. You should read the interview with Maisel. I
can tell you that Wolfe and Lepp allow nothing more to be done with
thier
nature and wildlife shots than colour and exposure tweaking that would
be
consistant with any printing lab twenty five years ago. They depend on
thier shots being 100% natural - most nature and wildlife shooters have
that attitude.

Tony, you need to get some experience on using a DSLR before you make
statements such as the one you have made up here.

I was using my D60 to take photographs of various installations for my
business' full colour brochure. I designed the brochure in Photoshop using
all the images I had taken and worked on until they looked right on my
screen. The colours I got in litho print varied a great deal from what
they should have been - so much so that I am continually having to explain
to my customers that the colours they see in the brochure are not
accurate. It's a pain in the ass. That's digital reality.

You talk about being 100% natural, well, try shooting with a DSLR and
getting that 100% natural look. Not as easy as you might think. There are
a huge amount of variables at play, none of which would exist if you are
shooting slide film and giving that into your design & repro house.

--
Dallas
www.dallasdahms.com
"Is that a Nikon? Omigod! Can I touch it?"

Of course they would exist - you simply would not be able to correct them. I
do some printing of digitally taken pictures. There are different problems
but nothing worse than I deal with all the time on film based pics and no
scanning involved - therefore no scanner to add its own artifacts.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Dallas" wrote in message
newsan.2004.08.21.05.08.59.827000@southafrican.. .
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 00:09:19 +0000, Tony Spadaro wrote:

I can tell you that Maisel considers the shot to be the shot. All this
business about everyone "fixing" everything in Photoshop later is pretty
much mullarley. It is a slow and expensive way to work. People doing
commercial photography need to do it both now and in budget, so they do
the same thing they did with film. ]
Yes there is a lot of Photoshop being used for FX but mostly for FX
you
simply cannot do in camera. You should read the interview with Maisel. I
can tell you that Wolfe and Lepp allow nothing more to be done with
thier
nature and wildlife shots than colour and exposure tweaking that would
be
consistant with any printing lab twenty five years ago. They depend on
thier shots being 100% natural - most nature and wildlife shooters have
that attitude.

Tony, you need to get some experience on using a DSLR before you make
statements such as the one you have made up here.

I was using my D60 to take photographs of various installations for my
business' full colour brochure. I designed the brochure in Photoshop using
all the images I had taken and worked on until they looked right on my
screen. The colours I got in litho print varied a great deal from what
they should have been - so much so that I am continually having to explain
to my customers that the colours they see in the brochure are not
accurate. It's a pain in the ass. That's digital reality.

You talk about being 100% natural, well, try shooting with a DSLR and
getting that 100% natural look. Not as easy as you might think. There are
a huge amount of variables at play, none of which would exist if you are
shooting slide film and giving that into your design & repro house.

--
Dallas
www.dallasdahms.com
"Is that a Nikon? Omigod! Can I touch it?"

I wish I had the guts to charge what you do. I recently went to 100 to cut
down on requests -- but I still get them. Maybe I'll quote you. On the other
hand, when I can work, the money comes in handy. Right now I've had a
cataract removed from my left eye, and next week I go for the right. My
colour sense is all screwed up by the fact that I've had a deep yellow
shadow taken off the one eye but still on the other - colour corrections
that were easy before (I apparnetly corrected for the yellow pretty well
since EVERYTHING was yellow) are now very time consuming - I'm hoping that
doesn't last long. I used to do 36 exposures for my wife in about 15
minutes - the last roll took me 3 hours. I'm avoiding all really critical
work for the moment.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Gordon Moat" wrote in message
...
Tony Spadaro wrote:

I can tell you that Maisel considers the shot to be the shot. All this
business about everyone "fixing" everything in Photoshop later is pretty
much mullarley. It is a slow and expensive way to work. People doing
commercial photography need to do it both now and in budget, so they do
the
same thing they did with film. ]

Absolutely, though it is surprising how many amateurs, and even some
clients,
believe that PhotoShop can fix anything later. I usually charge $150 an
hour to
PhotoShop any one image, with a two hour minimum, though it is special
effects.
Of course, getting as much right as possible in the camera is the key to
good
imagery, and I doubt many would stay in this business for long without
practising that.

I am a fan of Maisel's imagery. I don't think that direct digital has
diminished his older work on film. I also find his newer images just as
compelling as some of his older images, meaning that direct digital has
not
diminished the appeal of his newer work. Ideally, nothing should change in
the
resulting images when someone uses either film, or direct digital.


Yes there is a lot of Photoshop being used for FX but mostly for FX
you
simply cannot do in camera.

Which is about all I ever use PhotoShop to do for images not done in
camera.
Some clients want composite images, or special effects. Other than that,
PhotoShop is a good pre-press preparation tool.

You should read the interview with Maisel. I can
tell you that Wolfe and Lepp allow nothing more to be done with thier
nature
and wildlife shots than colour and exposure tweaking that would be
consistant with any printing lab twenty five years ago. They depend on
thier
shots being 100% natural - most nature and wildlife shooters have that
attitude.

With Art Wolfe, I know that he PhotoShopped several wildlife images. When
I was
in college from 1994 through 1998, his use of PhotoShop specifically was
an
item of discussion, especially concerning getting a shot in camera, and
the
authenticity of an image. Today, someone using PhotoShop, or digitally
post
processing an image gets barely noticed, with a few recent notable
exceptions.
Anyway, I believe the main book of his that brought up the image
manipulation
issue was Migrations. We even had an assignment to create an alternative
cover
idea for a similar fictitious book project.

I would like to read the latest Maisel interview. Which magazine? Also, I
am
not familiar with Lepp, nor of his photographic speciality. I am not
really
into wildlife photography, though I do enjoy National Geographic, and the
Discovery Channel.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

Jay Maisel does commercial photography. I didn't mention sports etc as they
are usually downe direct with no art director. Maisel always works with an
art director.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Dallas" wrote in message
newsan.2004.08.21.05.21.58.527000@southafrican.. .
On Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:04:59 -0700, Gordon Moat wrote:

Unfortunately, at many levels of being a professional, getting the shot
is only part of the process. There is quite often post processing to do,
though that could be hired out to someone else. I think one must know
PhotoShop in order to be a professional, but that is very different than
the approach needed by amateurs and enthusiasts.

Some professional realms, like photojournalism, sports, and product
photography, are heavily direct digital. Product photography benefits by
high volume, meaning quicker turnaround. The other two can involve
little to no post processing, other than caption writing, though again
the time to press is often quite short, so this is the true advantage of
direct digital.

I always wonder why enthusiasts write about professional photographers,
and usually only mention photojournalism and sports. Perhaps those are
more in the public eye, or those are the areas that enthusiasts
endeavour to emulate. Wedding photography is another realm, though I
will let someone else comment on that, though according to Rangefinder
magazine, this too is going heavily direct digital.

Advertising, editorial, automotive, architecture, and fashion are other
areas of professional photography. Film costs are billed out to the
clients, and are a net zero expense. Scanning often now needs to be
included, just like direct digital gives an implied concept of no cost
(or low cost) to the clients. There is indeed some creative descriptions
and billing needed to recoup the outlay on digital gear (scanners,
direct digital cameras, software, computers, et al).

Many in these specific professional photography realms (above paragraph
only) are still using film for a few reasons. One of those is colour,
since the RGB Bayer pattern sensors, and somewhat subjective white
balance can add some unpredictability into colour capture, or just
simple inaccurate colours. Some use Polaroids to test lighting and
images, though it could be argued that direct digital, a tethered
computer monitor, or an LCD on the back of a camera could replace the
Polaroid. The reality is that in some cases, the Polaroid is more
accurate than the LCD, or the computer monitor.

To illustrate that, I just completed a job and got back the printed
version today. Intermediate approval images were done as Adobe PDF
files, though an explanation was needed for a particular greenish
colour. The problem was that particular green would not display on a
computer monitor. I supplied a dye sub proof with the closest
approximate, and the printing company understood what I wanted. The end
result was that the colour came out correct in the final print, and the
client is happy. The original transparency shows the correct colour, a
Polaroid also shows that colour, but it is not viewable on a monitor.
This is only one example, but this comes up in my work all the time.

You can advocate chimping all you want, but the reality is that there is
no one only choice. If someone finds something that they feel works best
for them, then great news for them. Trying to extend that to others
without considering that others have very different end needs, ignores
that there are other choices, and there are valid reasons for making
other choices.

If someone wants to do something because some professional works that
way, that is fine. Just don't take that practice as an absolute, and
certainly not the way I, nor anyone else, do work. I use film, scanned
film, Polaroids, and direct digital, and I find them more complimentary
than exclusionary.

An outstanding post, Gordon. Sometimes people just don't realise exactly
how much work is involved in shooting digitally. A case in point is the
"Parting Shot" post I made a couple of days ago. See the opening shot on
www.musikland.co.za.

It was an extremely difficult image to make because of the mixed lighting
and high contrast caused by the Musikland sign. I spent hours fixing it up
in Photoshop and in fact it was the second time I had been to the shop to
get the shot. On the first occasion the shots I took looked great in the
LCD, but as soon as I got home and took a closer look on my monitor, all
sorts of garish errors became apparent.

It would have been more difficult to shoot on film, but I think that if I
had been shooting film, I would have gotten it right on the first attempt
because I would have had to follow the parameters of choosing the
correctly balanced film, as well as making sure of my exposures (the
little LCD is a frikking liar!).

--
Dallas
www.dallasdahms.com
"Is that a Nikon? Omigod! Can I touch it?"

Tony Spadaro wrote:

My classes were individule and I believe in using lots of film - it is cheap
and there is no better way (until now with digital) to try out over and
under-exposure, slow shutter vs fast, wide open vs f22 etc etc etc. My
students tended to use a couple rolls of film every time we went out, and
more for certain classes (Like the grey card class where we used slide film
and compared exposures using the meter on the entire scene or metering off
the card, etc.) where each shot was actually 5 shots with bracketing.

Okay, I think I understand the differences in our class experiences. You had
much more time each class, and the emphasis was on the technical aspects of the
gear. We had very little technical emphasis, with the bulk of emphasis going to
compositions and concepts. Our emphasis pushed getting resulting images of a
compelling nature.

When we had critiques, then there was a review of contact sheets to determine
exposure issues, depth of field issues, or editing choices. These issues were
secondary to producing compelling compositions. We were required in my early
classes to submit camera settings for our shot, usually in a shot log format.
After those first two classes like that, all following classes involved only
composition and concept issues at critique time.

Large format photography is an exception to most of my class experiences. In
those classes, we did learn and practice more with technical issues, since
there are more aspects of using a view camera that require some repetition to
make techniques more natural an instinctive.

Basically, I will agree with you that if someone wants to learn subtle
differences of the technical aspects of photography, then direct digital might
provide an easier learning path, or at least could potentially be less
expensive. My colour imagery classes that were mostly digital imaging did cost
me slightly less than my B/W classes, though we spent more time on the computer
than behind the camera.

I know some students, or recent students have likely followed our exchange of
views. I wish a few would contribute, since I would be interested in what
others see of our differing methods of learning photography. I would be
inclined to teach others as I learned (if I were a full time teacher), and
emphasize fundamentals such as drawing and composition. Maybe that is too
traditional, or behind the times, though I think it provides an alternative.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com Updated!

Tony Spadaro wrote:

I wish I had the guts to charge what you do. I recently went to 100 to cut
down on requests -- but I still get them. Maybe I'll quote you. On the other
hand, when I can work, the money comes in handy. Right now I've had a
cataract removed from my left eye, and next week I go for the right. My
colour sense is all screwed up by the fact that I've had a deep yellow
shadow taken off the one eye but still on the other - colour corrections
that were easy before (I apparnetly corrected for the yellow pretty well
since EVERYTHING was yellow) are now very time consuming - I'm hoping that
doesn't last long. I used to do 36 exposures for my wife in about 15
minutes - the last roll took me 3 hours. I'm avoiding all really critical
work for the moment.

Wow, sorry to hear about that Tony. Hope you are feeling better soon, and that
all turns out for the better. Something that can help greatly in PhotoShop is
heavy use of the Eyedropper tool. Using the Shift key, you can lock spots to
check colours. On the Info Palette, these locked values will display. When you
go to change anything, the old and new values display together prior to
confirming changes. That one tool is an immense help in tracking colour
information. Of course, it is tough to replace a good set of eyes, but it can
help a bit.

As to the rates and charges, I know some people who charge more than I do, and
do a worse job. When I get a really tough composite job, I switch over to using
LivePicture instead of PhotoShop. The best I can tell you is that when you have
confidence in your work and abilities, you charge what the market will bear for
that work, and something close to industry standard rates.

Best of luck to you, and thanks for the conversation.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

I was using my D60 to take photographs of various installations for my
business' full colour brochure. I designed the brochure in Photoshop using
all the images I had taken and worked on until they looked right on my
screen. The colours I got in litho print varied a great deal from what
they should have been - so much so that I am continually having to explain
to my customers that the colours they see in the brochure are not
accurate. It's a pain in the ass. That's digital reality.

That's pretty ridiculous - on your part. Did you bother getting a color
proof before the job went to press? Did you try to reconcile the CMYK
gamut's limitations with a color profile in Photoshop? If the answer
was "yes" to those two questions - why didn't you fire the printer,
refuse to accept the work and go someplace else?

You talk about being 100% natural, well, try shooting with a DSLR and
getting that 100% natural look. Not as easy as you might think. There are
a huge amount of variables at play, none of which would exist if you are
shooting slide film and giving that into your design & repro house.

The only difference is your typical design and repro house has people
who know what the hell they're doing in Photoshop - that and a high-end
scanner. But, like Tony said, that introduces its own set of problems,
most notably color shifts, dust and potential loss of detail.

As someone who has spent too many hours color correcting, de-dusting and
sharpening film images for print, all I can say is the current crop of
high-end digital cameras is nothing but a godsend. The color accuracy
tends to be higher, the images sharper (for print use, at least) and the
workflow MUCH, MUCH shorter.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

In article , says...
Basically, I will agree with you that if someone wants to learn subtle
differences of the technical aspects of photography, then direct digital might
provide an easier learning path, or at least could potentially be less
expensive. My colour imagery classes that were mostly digital imaging did cost
me slightly less than my B/W classes, though we spent more time on the computer
than behind the camera.

Well, the most important issue for any beginning photographer is cost,
convenience and feedback. Digital might cost a little more up front,
but not having to develop prints offsets that some, and the instant
feedback of the medium tends to make composing, focusing and exposing
much more interactive and enriching.

I shot film for some years but never was able to get the results I
wanted. When digital came around, I was skeptical, but I learned to
appreciate the advantages of instant feedback and capture. Now, after
shooting strictly digital for a couple of years, I am thinking about
going back to film (for black and white, mostly) because I feel more
confident in my abilities to compose, focus and expose pictures
properly.
--
http://www.pbase.com/bcbaird/

Matthew McGrattan wrote:

On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 08:13:45 -0500, Nick Zentena
wrote:


Matthew McGrattan wrote:


Of course this isn't going to take pictures quite as good as a decent
modern film SLR or dSLR but it's also not going to cost me hundreds of
pounds in a single outlay that I - as a student - can't afford.


Why would you think that? You're able to use the same modern film. The
better M42 lenses are very good. At least if you avoid the zooms. If the
shutter is reasonably accurate then there is no reason the camera can't take
great pictures. It's all up to the person behind the camera. The camera does
little more then hold the lens and film in proper relation.



Good point. I assumed that the modern lenses will outclass most m42
lenses.

That's probably not a fair assumption unless we are comparing basic
m42 lenses with their modern counterparts.

None of my lenses are really high-end however... although my Rikenon
f1.7 takes very nice pictures

Keep in mind that many of the "improvements" in modern lenses has more
to do with cutting costs than with increasing quality.

At least in Europe you can get Schneider, Schacht, Zeiss Jena and many
others (including of course Pentax Takumar) quite cheaply.

Many of these compare favorably (and often beat) current lenses. It is
typically (though not always) zooms, and extreme focal lengths (less
than 20, more than 200/300) and very fast lenses which have benefitted.
Your old good quality standard f/2.8 or 4.0 wide or short tele has an
even chance of being better than its current equivalent.

My own M42 favorites:

Vivitar 17mm f/3.5 (yes, believe it or not!)
Zeiss Jena 20mm f/4.0 (Distortion? What's distortion?)
Zeiss Jena 25mm f/4.0 (Distortion? What's distortion?)
Schneider Curtagon 35mm f/2.8 (one of my absolute favorite lenses - has
a wonderful "look" to its images)
Schacht-Ulm 90mm f/2.8
Meyer 100mm f/2.8
Zeiss Jena 200mm f/2.8 (another true great)
Meyer 300m f/4.5
Meyer 400mm f/5.5 (huge & heavy but sharp)