On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:09:55 -0700, Fred Abse <excretatauris@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 17:01:57 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>
>> I thought B&W photography and wet room work was a lot of fun.  I did a lot
>> (10-15 rolls a week) in college.  I did very little color, though.  It
>> never held any attraction.
>
>I always preferred B&W. The world's best pictures, Robert Capa, Ansel
>Adams, the Paris Match photojournalists, etc, were almost exclusively B&W.

Right.  Color makes great snapshots but lousy art.  B&W gives much better
contrast and texture.  

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 12:58:43 -0700, Fred Abse
<excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:09:08 -0400, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
>
>> I had a Durst M301 WAYYYY back.
>
>I had a Durst, can't remember the model number, for 35mm and 2 1/4"
>square, and a Japanese Astron for 5" x 4". Both with color filter drawers.
>I coveted a DeVere, too expensive.
>
>(2 1/4" square is 6 x 6 cm, for Jan's benefit ;-) )
>
>Most of what I did was 2 1/4" sq. (Mamiya C33, which had full double
>extension, same-size focusing.) Couldn't afford a Hasselblad.
>
>For 5" x 4". I had an ancient Speed Graphic, and a British-made MPP
>Technical camera, with every-which-way motions, and triple extension.
>Macro was outstanding with that.
>
>I'd *love* a large-format digital camera, and professional (dye sub?)
>printer.
>
>Right now, I'm eyeing a Nikon, with a 24 x 36 mm. CCD, that'll take all
>the Nikon F lenses. Be still, my heart!

Assuming you're talking about the D800, it has even dyed-in-the-wool
Canonites talking about making a switch. Relatively reasonable price
for a full-frame too. 

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:09:08 -0400, Spehro Pefhany wrote:

> I had a Durst M301 WAYYYY back.

I had a Durst, can't remember the model number, for 35mm and 2 1/4"
square, and a Japanese Astron for 5" x 4". Both with color filter drawers.
I coveted a DeVere, too expensive.

(2 1/4" square is 6 x 6 cm, for Jan's benefit ;-) )

Most of what I did was 2 1/4" sq. (Mamiya C33, which had full double
extension, same-size focusing.) Couldn't afford a Hasselblad.

For 5" x 4". I had an ancient Speed Graphic, and a British-made MPP
Technical camera, with every-which-way motions, and triple extension.
Macro was outstanding with that.

I'd *love* a large-format digital camera, and professional (dye sub?)
printer.

Right now, I'm eyeing a Nikon, with a 24 x 36 mm. CCD, that'll take all
the Nikon F lenses. Be still, my heart!

-- 
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence 
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
                                       (Richard Feynman)

On a sunny day (Wed, 08 Aug 2012 14:09:08 -0400) it happened Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in
<1pa528lb95o3paulgnu0u6e61hbeiapgbn@4ax.com>:

>On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 17:43:45 GMT, Jan Panteltje
><pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On a sunny day (Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:09:55 -0700) it happened Fred Abse
>><excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote in
>><pan.2012.08.06.18.24.40.715235@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>>On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 17:01:57 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>
>>>> I thought B&W photography and wet room work was a lot of fun.  I did a lot
>>>> (10-15 rolls a week) in college.  I did very little color, though.  It
>>>> never held any attraction.
>>>
>>>I always preferred B&W. The world's best pictures, Robert Capa, Ansel
>>>Adams, the Paris Match photojournalists, etc, were almost exclusively B&W.
>>
>>I did a lot in BW, had an enlarger (Durst),
>>developed the films and the prints.
>
>I had a Durst M301 WAYYYY back. 

Yes could have been that one, not sure.
I did put on a better lens, I remember that.

Was a pretty decent enlarger.
Gave it away together with cameras one day.

On Wed, 08 Aug 2012 17:43:45 GMT, Jan Panteltje
<pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On a sunny day (Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:09:55 -0700) it happened Fred Abse
><excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote in
><pan.2012.08.06.18.24.40.715235@invalid.invalid>:
>
>>On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 17:01:57 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>
>>> I thought B&W photography and wet room work was a lot of fun.  I did a lot
>>> (10-15 rolls a week) in college.  I did very little color, though.  It
>>> never held any attraction.
>>
>>I always preferred B&W. The world's best pictures, Robert Capa, Ansel
>>Adams, the Paris Match photojournalists, etc, were almost exclusively B&W.
>
>I did a lot in BW, had an enlarger (Durst),
>developed the films and the prints.

I had a Durst M301 WAYYYY back. 

>I am so glad all is digital now!
>
>I remember pulling film out under a blanket,
>and putting it in a small container, and then shaking it..
>
>Miracle it all worked.
>Apart from 35 mm there also was 6x6cm films.
>
>

On a sunny day (Wed, 08 Aug 2012 10:09:55 -0700) it happened Fred Abse
<excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote in
<pan.2012.08.06.18.24.40.715235@invalid.invalid>:

>On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 17:01:57 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>
>> I thought B&W photography and wet room work was a lot of fun.  I did a lot
>> (10-15 rolls a week) in college.  I did very little color, though.  It
>> never held any attraction.
>
>I always preferred B&W. The world's best pictures, Robert Capa, Ansel
>Adams, the Paris Match photojournalists, etc, were almost exclusively B&W.

I did a lot in BW, had an enlarger (Durst),
developed the films and the prints.

I am so glad all is digital now!

I remember pulling film out under a blanket,
and putting it in a small container, and then shaking it..

Miracle it all worked.
Apart from 35 mm there also was 6x6cm films.

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 17:01:57 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

> I thought B&W photography and wet room work was a lot of fun.  I did a lot
> (10-15 rolls a week) in college.  I did very little color, though.  It
> never held any attraction.

I always preferred B&W. The world's best pictures, Robert Capa, Ansel
Adams, the Paris Match photojournalists, etc, were almost exclusively B&W.

-- 
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence 
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
                                       (Richard Feynman)

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 11:25:09 -0700, Fred Abse <excretatauris@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 13:59:08 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 10:42:24 -0700, Fred Abse
>> <excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 13:36:43 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 10:09:34 -0700, Fred Abse
>>>> <excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>>On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 23:48:40 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You can get tinted neutral density filters?
>>>>>
>>>>>Green Ray-Bans, for a start...
>>>> 
>>>> If they're green they're not "neutral".
>>>
>>>Strictly no, but they aren't green either. Similar to a 3.0 ND filter
>>>plus a 0.25G filter. Largely neutral, with a green bias.
>> 
>> Would you use such a filter for color photography?  ;-)
>
>I've used fairly odd filter packs for negative color printing. The
>difference is that the filters were complementary colors, say 0.5C plus
>0.5Y, producing a magenta (minus green) correction in the end result
>(subtractive process). The more expensive enlargers, like Macbeth, had
>dial-in filters. All I had was a drawer you put a stack of actual gelatin
>filters in. Then you had to recalculate the exposure.

Post processing, sure.  You don't throw away information in the camera or on
the film, though.

>I'm glad that digital got rid of the tiresome chemistry part of
>photography, playing with test strips, and so on.

I thought B&W photography and wet room work was a lot of fun.  I did a lot
(10-15 rolls a week) in college.  I did very little color, though.  It never
held any attraction.

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 13:59:08 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 10:42:24 -0700, Fred Abse
> <excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 13:36:43 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 10:09:34 -0700, Fred Abse
>>> <excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 23:48:40 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You can get tinted neutral density filters?
>>>>
>>>>Green Ray-Bans, for a start...
>>> 
>>> If they're green they're not "neutral".
>>
>>Strictly no, but they aren't green either. Similar to a 3.0 ND filter
>>plus a 0.25G filter. Largely neutral, with a green bias.
> 
> Would you use such a filter for color photography?  ;-)

I've used fairly odd filter packs for negative color printing. The
difference is that the filters were complementary colors, say 0.5C plus
0.5Y, producing a magenta (minus green) correction in the end result
(subtractive process). The more expensive enlargers, like Macbeth, had
dial-in filters. All I had was a drawer you put a stack of actual gelatin
filters in. Then you had to recalculate the exposure.

I'm glad that digital got rid of the tiresome chemistry part of
photography, playing with test strips, and so on.

-- 
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence 
over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
                                       (Richard Feynman)

On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 10:42:24 -0700, Fred Abse <excretatauris@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

>On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 13:36:43 -0400, krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 05 Aug 2012 10:09:34 -0700, Fred Abse
>> <excretatauris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> 
>>>On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 23:48:40 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote:
>>>
>>>> You can get tinted neutral density filters?
>>>
>>>Green Ray-Bans, for a start...
>> 
>> If they're green they're not "neutral".
>
>Strictly no, but they aren't green either. Similar to a 3.0 ND filter plus
>a 0.25G filter. Largely neutral, with a green bias.

Would you use such a filter for color photography?  ;-)