New Camera
Film? What is this film thing you mention?
mikoyan29 Wrote:Film? What is this film thing you mention?

oh Shocked you mean there is a digital pentax k1000?
Maybe they do sell digital backs for the K1000?
(just kidding)
Film is good. I never discourage anyone from using film. And I don't churn my own butter either if that is what some of you are thinking.

When I was just a teenage lad and using my K1000 I only used film already in rolls and somehow got into the habit of only buying 24 exposure rolls. Sometimes for one reason or another, 36 exposure would get caught up and not feed well towards the end of the roll. The only thing I could think of was the fact that it was more film so I ignorantly use only 24 exposure film 95% of the time.
I shot both color and black and white although I will admit to those reading that often when I shot black and white it was "candy shots" of my girlfriend at the time and other more art like images. I developed my own black and white but was too lazy to learn the added steps and expenses of developing color.
Oh I shot some swimsuit and sexy images of my girlfriend with color also. There were still a lot of places that would develope questionable film like that. Some of them would just put a sheet over the end of the machine so the public could not see the final prints as they rolled out.
I still photograph some weddings with black and white film as well , though not with my K1000 but it has been many years since I did any developing at home and conversely, next month may be my first wedding shot with a digital camera.
Black and white, especially these days is very, very abstract if you have any imagination at all because everything is color. Everything we see, we see in color and black and white or sepia just adds a different mood or emotion and tends to alter our perceptions I think. There are definite moments when a image should be viewed in color and other times when black and white makes it unique.
I guess Jonny is in school.
I photographed a wedding this passed weekend for a friend and I think it went well. My flash phototgraphy still lacks punch and I had some technical issues I dealt with the best I know how but I know the bride and groom and bride's mother will be pleased.
I hate to be a tease and all but I will wait a little longer to post a few examples around the forum. I just got the prints today and will present the bride and groom with their collection soon.
I wanted to test the Costco online experience so I had some printed by uploading to their site, they print in about an hour and you can have them mailed or go pick them up. 15 cents per image I think and I can say that they do look good.
Also a little tip for some of you. Check out your local Ritz/Wolf Camera stores. On Tuesdays and Wednesdays, our area stores boast 5 cent prints ready at the end of the day. Now the prints are only 3 1/2 by 5 but I dropped off 60 or so images to see what kind of work they do. $4 for little 3 X 5 digital prints sounds fun and compares to 4 x 6 film with double prints. Cheaper than I can print at home and I could get use to 3 x 5 again in short usage.
That's all.
Finally got around to putting up more pictures...
We went to the Wright Patterson Air Force Museum once when we were kids and my father still has that 30 year old plus book somewhere which is one of the reasons I like to "antique" some of my photos of aircraft. I just looks cool in some instances.
I saw the Red Wings play the Blackhawks in Chicago in 95 and have gotten to see probably 7 other regular season NHL games but I do not share the same jealousy for Patrick Roy. The man was great.
I have some old photos taken with my K1000 at an IHL game in '91 somewhere. My area had a successful International Hockey League team The Kansas City Blades for about ten years, winning the Turner Cup in their second year and going to the playoffs at least five times. I have some game worn jerseys and a practice jersey from former team members.
Perhaps get a monopod before you go back to the museum and get some steadier shots of the aircraft. Or at least a big external flash.

[Image: IMGP0101.jpg]
That is my only complaint with the air force museum. I wish the lighting were a little brighter. But the sight lines on the planes are awesome. For the most part you can get a decent shot of a plane without getting too much of other planes in it. I don't like to use a flash because if everyone used a flash, there could be fading issues on the paint. :)
Are you suggesting that hours upon hours of tungsten and fluorescent lighting does not do considerably more damage than impudent camera flash units from various point and shoot or even prosumer slrs?
You may be mislead.
I know what you are saying though and I suppose that is the spliel in most museums. I've just never gotten it in any aircraft museum.
I am probably going to invest in a monopod at some point though.
mikoyan29 Wrote:I am probably going to invest in a monopod at some point though.

It really does not have to be an expensive one. I just noticed recently a tripod that has a single leg in the middle as well so it operates like a monopod when needed.
But generally, tripods are not allowed in museums either while a monopod is much easier to conceal and even allowed infrequently.
But compared to a tripod, a monopod would be better for shooting aircraft in motion if using a long lens.

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  I have a video camera that uses film, How do I paparazzi! 0 602 06-28-2007, 08:25 AM
Last Post: paparazzi!

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)