RE: [Leica] B. D.'s SortaPAW

["B. D. Colen" <bdcolen@earthlink.net>]

Could be a cast - she broke her arm - and it could be any sort of toy...

As to the whole thread regarding tonality, tri-x and digital - the shot in
question is a digital shot, not a film shot...and I for one don't notice any
tonality problems.
http://www.leica-gallery.net/bdcolen/image-33190.html

I use Tri-X rather than Ilford for two reasons - One, I like the look of
Tri-X. I know it's different from the 60's Tri-X look, but it's close. And,
second, it's cheaper than dirt---something like $2.10 for a 36 exp import
roll from B&H.

And to answer your processing question...I don't do my own processing, but
have it done...in Xtol....

B. D>

- -----Original Message-----
From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Jeffery
L.Smith
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 4:49 PM
To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Leica] B. D.'s SortaPAW


Is that blur in her hand a small dog?

B.D., why do you prefer Tri-X over HP5+ (in 25 words or less) and what do
you soup it in?

Jeffery

At 04:25 PM 9/16/02 -0400, you wrote:
>So I Saturday I spent blowing through 25 rolls of Tri-X during 11 hours
with
>a family....But Sunday I took two shots at a friend's house - here's one of
>them.
>
>http://www.leica-gallery.net/bdcolen/image-33190.html
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>[mailto:owner-leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us]On Behalf Of Mark
>Rabiner
>Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 2:23 AM
>To: leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
>Subject: Re: [Leica] Re: Slashdot meets the wedding photographer
>
>
> ><Snip>
> >
> > The proper business model is a large upfront fee, an ample album, and a
>fee
> > for the negatives or a CD of the images.  You save time, get your money
up
> > front, and the family likes you instead of curses you for your
outrageous
> > fee ($20.00) for a reprint.
> >
> > Just my two cents.
> >
> > Don
>
>
>There seems to be two modes of doing business.
>
>Commercial photographer charge big up front for their time but will give
>you a 11x14 for 20 or 30 bucks which is a break even price for them.
>
>Portrait photographers charge very little for the session, fifty bucks
>say. But a print costs two hundred bucks.
>
>But it's not as if this is not clearly in the contrast. The client can
>add 50 to 200 and see that its going to cost them 250. If they thought
>that either the session costs or print costs were to high he'd hire
>someone else i guess. Not claimed he'd been ripped off.
>
>By the way i used to charge $10 for 8x10's or 5x7's when placed with the
>main wedding order.
>When orders come in piecemeal 8x10's were my normal 25 or 30 bucks with
>the same price for 5x7s,
>
>The old fashion idea of a wedding book was about 8 to 12 8x10's and
>these of course were all formals shot earlier in the day from the wedding.
>
>The modern ideal of a wedding book is hundreds of little 4x6's. Just
>like a snapshot album but tackier and with a picture on the front.
>
>My wedding books were usually 30 or 40 8x10's. 9 inch squares printed
>full frame black border by myself.
>The did buy a lot more prints then they planned usually but they knew
>what the prices were and knew if i did a real good job that would happen.
>
>I think as long as costs are really not hidden then everyone is in the
>clear. But when costs are hidden we're talking about a more intense
>breed of swine than what we are talking about here.
>
>
>Mark Rabiner
>Portland, Oregon USA
>http://www.markrabiner.com
>--
>To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html
>
>--
>To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html


- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html

- --
To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html