Poldy

In article <[email protected]>,
Mxsmanic <[email protected]> wrote:

    > If you meter the scene properly, you don't need to bracket. When
    > shooting MF film, I often take only a single shot, after carefully
    > metering for a few minutes with a spot meter.

So not one for spontaneous shots?

Mxsmanic

poldy writes:

    > So not one for spontaneous shots?

Not with MF, although sometimes I shoot handheld, with is moderately
spontaneous. The high quality of MF tends to demand careful exposure
(LF, I presume, would be even more so). For spontaneous shots I shoot
35mm. For throwaway shots I sometimes shoot digital.

--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.

The Reids

Following up to Mxsmanic

    >> The best thing for me, is with this 'smallish' camera is that I get
    >> back use of my filters with its adaptor ring.
    >Filters? I can't remember the last time I used a filter.

apart from polariser, correction, ND, its better to do anything
like that in photshop, hopefully we have seen the end of grad
tobacco.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reids

Following up to Mxsmanic

    >Not with MF, although sometimes I shoot handheld, with is moderately
    >spontaneous. The high quality of MF tends to demand careful exposure
    >(LF, I presume, would be even more so). For spontaneous shots I shoot
    >35mm. For throwaway shots I sometimes shoot digital.

Yes, if you look through photo books, its fairly obvious to see
that MF LF work doesn't have the spontaneity of 35mm.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reids

Following up to [email protected]

    >It is easier to be objective about a country, when you don't live in
    >it. Like every country, UK has good things and bad things.

certainly.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

nitram

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 23:48:37 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to [email protected]
    >>What *you* actually watch has nothing to do with the number of ads on
    >>UK TV.
    >>>so you are saying there is no TV without ads?
    >>No I am saying that there is nothing like the level of ads on UK & US
    >>TV.
    >do you have add free channels?

Not always, because the three national Dutch channels are shared by a
multitude of "omroeps" - program providers. Some omroeps are ad free.
I was hoping somebody Dutch would have explained by now. Almost
certainly they will as soon as I get it wrong.
The omroeps get an allocation of time on a channel depending on the
number of members they have. The number of members is determined by
the number of people buying their TV magazines. So every omroep has
it's own TV magazine. Many seem to be based on religious
organisations. Evangelical Omroep (EO), Catholic Omroep ( KRO),
Peoples Protestant Omroep VPRO - ( the first channel to show full
frontal nudity in Europe!) etc.
I don't recall EO showing adverts, their programs consist of hymn
singing, UK railway anorak programs and talking heads having deep
theological discussions. I guess this doesn't attract advertisers of
condoms etc.
The omroeps have special offers of "take out a subscription now and
get three months free" for example to distort the number of members in
their favour. On the three national channels news and weather
forecasts are provided by the state. There are also lots of commercial
Dutch channels, many Luxembourg owned, most show US made crap or very
old UK comedy series. At peak times some of these channels do have
very long periods of adverts, I've measured up to 10 minutes once,
during a film.
--
Martin

nitram

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:11:30 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to [email protected]
    >>Were you a member then Mike?
    >yes, I think I was. There were good points, like testing
    >ventilation, which Jeremy clarkeson types didnt do, but on the
    >whole it didnt tell me what I wanted to know, but then I'm a boy
    >racer, always will be till that take my licence away.

Keep drinking the Limoncello :-)

If Floyd could get away with it for 40 plus years, there is hope for
you :-)
--
Martin

nitram

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:11:31 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to [email protected]
    >> I am not particularly anti New
    >>Labour although most people in UK claim to be, despite voting them
    >>into power twice and probably they will again next May.
    >The trouble is , who the **** else do you vote for? (Thanks for
    >your succinct comments).

I recognise that problem. Politicians are at an all time low in most
countries, it's why so few turn out to vote. I have only voted once in
my life - in a council election, when I was about 19.

On the other hand, compared to some major European countries, the UK
is reasonably well managed, whatever you think of the personalities
involved. To a visitor UK feels like a prosperous country nowadays,
it's only about 12 years since parts felt like visiting the third
world. The amount of debt people have accumulated is very worrying, as
are the ridiculous house prices.
--
Martin

nitram

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:11:32 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to [email protected]
    >>>My image screen shows my about 102% of the full aperture version
    >>>of what the lens sees, pretty accurately as far as I can tell.
    >>and how do know what we see through our digital view finders.
    >I don't.

    :-)
--
Martin

nitram

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 00:11:32 +0000, The Reids
<[email protected]> wrote:

    >Following up to Mxsmanic
    >>The only natural light is the light of dusk behind the cathedral. It
    >>was Provia 100F by the way.
    >>> Nice shot!
    >>Thanks.
    >seconded.

Turded!
--
Martin

nitram

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:30:20 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] writes:
    >> I suppose that's good news :-)
    >Not for me.

It rarely is, whatever the context :-)
--
Martin

nitram

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:32:24 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] writes:
    >> Look through your view finder and then look at the object directly.
    >> If you can't see a difference then have your eyes tested.
    >Tested for what?

glaucoma?
--
Martin

nitram

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:35:05 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] writes:
    >> and the 95% of your shots that you discard?
    >I only took one shot, and I did not discard it.

You claimed elsewhere to only use 5% of your shots.

--
Martin

nitram

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:35:34 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] writes:
    >> and taking photos in low light situations with an SLR using film have
    >> never deceived you?
    >No.
    >> Hint: The eyes sensitivity is different to a film sensitivity.
    >I don't use eyes. I use exposure meters.

How do you frame a shot and judge how the colour is going to appear on
the negative?
--
Martin

nitram

On Sat, 27 Nov 2004 20:36:50 +0100, Mxsmanic <[email protected]>
wrote:

    >[email protected] writes:
    >> and in this respect, how does this differ to the image in an SLR view
    >> finder?
    >The SLR shows what's actually there.

So do some digital cameras, mine does for example.
--
Martin