From: Annika1980 on
On Jul 28, 10:58 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> At the Orlando Camera Club, they have monthly competitions.  The
> categories are color prints, color slides, monochrome print, and
> digital (on-line).  Several of the members are still using film.  One
> of the most proficient members shoots nothing but medium format.
>
> The digital group was added only recently.  While the color print and
> monochrome print category can be captured by digital cameras, the
> members who always seem to get the highest score in the judging are
> shooting film.  I'm not inferring that the get the highest scores
> because they are using film, though.

In the camera club I used to belong to they would have quarterly
contests. You could submit prints made from film or digital or slides
(they accept digital files now as well). I noticed that the winners
would always come from the slide submissions, not because they were
better than the prints (they weren't), but because they would pass the
relatively small prints around and compare them to these huge images
projected on a giant screen. Size matters.

From: tony cooper on
On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:38:05 -0700 (PDT), Annika1980
<annika1980(a)aol.com> wrote:

>On Jul 28, 10:58�pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>> At the Orlando Camera Club, they have monthly competitions. �The
>> categories are color prints, color slides, monochrome print, and
>> digital (on-line). �Several of the members are still using film. �One
>> of the most proficient members shoots nothing but medium format.
>>
>> The digital group was added only recently. �While the color print and
>> monochrome print category can be captured by digital cameras, the
>> members who always seem to get the highest score in the judging are
>> shooting film. �I'm not inferring that the get the highest scores
>> because they are using film, though.
>
>In the camera club I used to belong to they would have quarterly
>contests. You could submit prints made from film or digital or slides
>(they accept digital files now as well). I noticed that the winners
>would always come from the slide submissions, not because they were
>better than the prints (they weren't), but because they would pass the
>relatively small prints around and compare them to these huge images
>projected on a giant screen. Size matters.

I'm a new member in the Orlando Camera Club. I've only been to three
meetings. The last meeting's theme was informal critiques of member's
efforts.

They had five tables set up with a professional or very experienced
amateur at each table, and six or eight people to each table showing
their stuff. (The average meetings are 50 to 70 members) I wandered
around the tables and stopped at each for a short time. One lady
brought in some (really bad) 4 x 6s, and about half the rest brought
in 8 x 10s. Maybe a few 5 x 7s. The other half brought in
enlargements up to almost poster size. Just about everyone except the
lady with the 4 x 6s brought mats to place over the pix as they showed
them. Some bucks were spent on printing for that "informal critique"
night.

The critiques were a little too gentle, but the "judges" are all
members and I guess members don't treat members rudely face-to-face.

The thing that bothered me was that there were so many pictures of so
few subjects. Take away the shots of birds, bugs, boats, and flowers,
and you couldn't keep one table busy. These are the easiest subjects
to find in Central Florida, but I got awfully tired of pictures of
herons and ibises. (Is that the plural of an ibis?) Yeah, a few
osprey shots, too. Surprisingly, I didn't see a picture of a house
pet.

The best picture was of a pooping pelican. It was not intended as a
shot of a pooping pelican, but that's what was captured when the guy
shot off a series of some pelicans in flight, and that's the picture
he chose to enlarge. Nice composition with the line of poop running
diagonally from bottom right to the bird in the upper left. Rule of
turds, I guess.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: ASAAR on
On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 01:15:42 -0400, tony cooper wrote:

> Nice composition with the line of poop running
> diagonally from bottom right to the bird in the upper left.
> Rule of turds, I guess.

<g> I guess. Like, but not like the golden rule. :)

From: Neil Harrington on

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dgsv84hm6h1m01fl9i91nhe2bs212fmds6(a)4ax.com...

>
> The best picture was of a pooping pelican. It was not intended as a
> shot of a pooping pelican, but that's what was captured when the guy
> shot off a series of some pelicans in flight, and that's the picture
> he chose to enlarge. Nice composition with the line of poop running
> diagonally from bottom right to the bird in the upper left. Rule of
> turds, I guess.

Ow!

Neil


From: Neil Harrington on

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gnjv845pg4drv4mlg5g7p3i22bldpq445m(a)4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:39:34 -0400, "Rita Berkowitz"
> <ritaberk2008(a)aol.com> wrote:
>
>>Neil Harrington wrote:


>>>
>>> Thanks. But after checking eBay I've sort of changed my mind anyway.
>>> I saw a Leitz Focomat at $150 and only one bid (a Leitz Focomat!),
>>> and about 14 hours to go when I looked at it. Others like a nice
>>> Beseler or two with no bids at all. Interest in enlargers seems to be
>>> even lower than I expected . So I don't think I'll bother -- my local
>>> community college still has photography classes using 35mm, and I
>>> think I'll just give the Durst to them. But thanks anyway.
>>
>>Yeah, that kinda doesn't make it worth the effort. Always factor in the
>>dollar/weight ratio before embarking on the journey. Too many eBay
>>sellers
>>don't. Donating it is a good deed.
>
> The only was to ascertain the going price is to look at completed
> auctions only. Current auctions, with 14 hours to go, don't tell you
> anything.

I think it does tell you something when there are no other bids (remember,
this was a Leitz Focomat!), and no other enlargers there receiving any bids
at all, except for one cheapie that had a couple of bids topping out at $12
or so.

>
> It still may not be worth the effort, but you'll have a better handle
> on the going prices.

With more popular items I agree, only the final prices matter since
invariably there are a lot of snipers coming in in the last minutes and
seconds. (I'm one of 'em, if it's something I want. I usually get it in
within five seconds of the close.) But in the case of these enlargers, some
very good ones, the almost total lack of interest was pretty obvious. Maybe
a little better during the winter months but I don't think there'd be *that*
much difference.

I sure wish I'd sold all my 35s a few years ago. Now I'm hoping prices may
recover a little as the dedicated film users' cameras wear out or break
down, and they have to start shopping for replacements. But my level of hope
is not high.

Neil