=======================================================
-> This is The 'SPORRS' Mailing List
-> Info File: http://www.anet-stl.com/acphotog/sporrs/infosporrs.htm
-> Note: Remember to include your name in each list post or reply.
-> Please delete all unnecessary quoted text from the original message!
=======================================================

Brian Jennison wrote:

> My point was that Kodachrome changed in  1974, from KII to K25, and the >
change was significant. 

That's not the way I read your post because that's not the way it looks
like.  OK, so scratch your first post for whatever reasons, and tell us
about the changes in Kodachrome.  I'm interested.  

> You're the one who needs to learn to read
> more carefully,

I quote you again:

>   K25 and K64 were introduced when, 1973 or 1974?  So we now have 25
> years of experience with them.  From an archival perspective, the K25s
that
> I
> shot in 1974 still look good, formaldehyde or not.  And the Ektachromes
> that I shot in 1973 still suck!  Brian  

Now be so kind as to take this subject to private E-mail because this
thread is closed on this list.  Thank You.  

> If you were really as serious a rail photographer as you
> claim to be, we'd see some of your published work once in awhile.
My IRS 1040 says Photographer on it, but that doesn't mean I'm doing it for
charity.  My published work is frequently in corporate brochures,
instruction and operation manuals, real-estate ads, point of purchase
displays,  advertisements and catalogs.  I don't submit shots to railfan
magazines frequently, mostly because it's not worth my time and postage,
even if I do like the magazine.  You probably don't realize this, but when
I send my transparencies to my customers, it goes on their courier
accounts, insured, because that's the way it should be.  Why would I want
to pay shipping to send my work to my customers?  And the last time I had
eight shots in CTC Board, I got a check for $80.  Then I deducted how much
shipping I lost out of that.  I just charged a customer $280 just for the
MISC ITEMS column for the last shoot I did for them, and they never even
ask me why, even when I itemize it for them.  I have to make a living.  I
shoot trains for a hobby, not for a living, and I don't do business like
it's a hobby.  You may not understand that or like that, but if you really
want to get a feel for why I don't need to send in my RR shots for $10,
then shoot for a living.  I don't know what you do for a living, but I know
damn well that you wouldn't do it for $10.  And another thing is, sometimes
one of the last things I want to do on the weekend after I did it during
the week is to shoot more film.  When I do get out trackside, I am damn
serious about it because I owe it to myself to do the best I can, and that,
I get a great deal of satisfaction from, which is why I still shoot trains,
despite blowing through more film on some projects than you probably shoot
all year.

If you would like to see my published RR photography, then look at the
SPORRS web site, or wait until my friend Jack Wolf's new UP Sherman Hill
book comes out or other projects that I have my hand in currently.  And you
can be damn sure that when you do see my shots in those books that it was
worth my while for whatever reason of mine.

Regards,

Dave

Dave Cohen
Photographer, Member ASMP
Action Photographic Webmaster
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.anet-stl.com/acphotog/home/.

 




  I'll
> stand by mine.   Brian
> 
> 
> 
> =======================================================
> -> SPORRS: 'Serious Photographers Of Railroad Related Subjects'
> -> Web Site: http://www.anet-stl.com/acphotog/sporrs/
> -> Message © 1998 SPORRS® - All Rights Reserved
> =======================================================

=======================================================
-> SPORRS: 'Serious Photographers Of Railroad Related Subjects'
-> Web Site: http://www.anet-stl.com/acphotog/sporrs/
-> Message © 1998 SPORRS® - All Rights Reserved
=======================================================


Reply via email to