>I am enabled only with 4 years old Galia this far... ;-). She's however >one of the main if not *the main* reason for me to return to >photography... I suppose my response to "What inspired you?" thread >would be - my baby daughter.
So far IMHO, I find this the best answer on "What inspired you?". A shame you did not state this in the right thread. Thats passion, thats love. And love is what makes the world go round(?) Anyway, I believe passion is what really makes a picture more that just a, ... picture. I find your statement very photographically/politically correct. Tim Mostly harmless (just plain Norwegian.) Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large crowds (Very freely after Arthur C. Clarke, or some other clever guy) -----Original Message----- From: Boris Liberman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 25. juli 2005 06:49 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PESO - Raw Strength Hi! > I appreciate the attempt. My current issues are, like many, time and > money. When I was shooting the Pentax 67ii's, I found that the cost > of film/developing was really starting to hamper my ability to shoot. > For local processing/proofing along with purchase of film from B&H, > the cost per frame was about $1.35. Certainly significant enough for > me to shoot very sparingly unless it was a paid shoot (wedding, > portrait, event). On top of that, the cost to get a large, high > quality print made was very expensive. There are no non-digital pro > labs left in Sacramento. So I was faced with having a drum-scan high > end print made (20 inch by 30 inch) in the neighborhood of $150. Since I > wasn't making any money off those type of prints, it seemed foolish > for me to deal with. My local lab that does all my > wedding/portrait/event work is all digital using Agfa D-Labs. The > scanners on those are not very high res so I was not seeing the > quality difference of the 67 negative as you would expect. I agree... The film related process is more involved and hence more costly than digital. At least so is the case as you describe it. > Since shooting digital, my quanity and quality have picked up. > Quantity because I can now afford to speculation shoot (events, > sports). Quality because of my ability to practice and learn at a > much faster pace. Likewise. I've been told that my quality improved. In fact, I may be so bold as to say that I can feel it myself. > Landscape, while I thoroughly enjoy it, is not where most of my > shooting ends up. It really is the portraits, events and weddings. > For that stuff, digital is adequate. When I have more disposable > income and time, perhaps I will delve into large format. Dealing with > four kids ages 17, 15, 8 and 4 uses up most of my time and money right > now. I am enabled only with 4 years old Galia this far... ;-). She's however one of the main if not *the main* reason for me to return to photography... I suppose my response to "What inspired you?" thread would be - my baby daughter. But that wouldn't be photographically correct, would it? ;-) > I hope this helps explain why I am not jumping right into LF right > now. I do appreciate your ideas and comments, though. Gee, hope you're not mad at my thumping on your brains... You do produce some amazing landscape that would be breathtaking if shot in larger format... We need to find a way to teleport Bill Robb to these locations... ;-) Boris
