[AGL] Mike Attack

[Michael Eisenstadt]

i hadnt seen the bottom part of Ewie's supercilious email.

Ewie, you do nature photography, right?

IMHO, a photographer should be allowed to shoot one sunset a
year.

my taste in photography is more oriented towards Diane Arbus.

like Hans Otto a professional photographer on our list, having
learnt how photography is/has been done starting with t-shirts
ruined by doing chemical processing, i dont need your introductory
instruction on color casts and what it doesnt say on the little yellow
boxes. and your advice to get my monitor adjusted because i seem
to be a self-admitted computer something. this from a guy who cant
do multiplication by threes.

weren't you the guy with the self-nullifying philosophy mantra a
few threads back on this list?

i met you briefly at a Dave Moriaty party. you didnt want to talk
about your heroic sailboat adventure that landed you in Hawaii
in one piece. you are married to a chinese woman and we have
met your ex-wife who does artistry hereabouts involving birdcages.

well howdy there pardner. Dave Martinez told me he used to
room with you in Austin

on a not unrelated subject, when is the next reunion? where
everyone, even me, is invited to.








----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bill Irwin" <billi at aloha.net>
To: "survivors' reminiscences about Austin Ghetto Daze in the 60s" 
<austin-ghetto-list at pairlist.net>
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 4:31 PM
Subject: Re: [AGL] Mike Attack



> Mike, maybe you don't understand this resolution thing, it is confusing.

> The D5 does not produce a 39meg file, if it did they would be advertising

> the fact all over the place.

> Here is a quote from the Cannon site:

> File size:

> (1) Large/Fine: Approx. 4.6MB (4,368 x 2,912) (2) Large/Normal 2.3MB 

> (4,368

> x 2,912) (3) Medium/Fine: Approx. 2.7MB (3,168 x 2,112) (4) Medium/Normal:

> Approx. 1.4MB (3,168 x 2,112) (5) Small/Fine: Approx. 2.0MB (2,496 x 

> 1,664)

> (6) Small/Normal: Approx. 1.0MB (2,496 x 1,664) (7) RAW: Approx. 12.9MB

> (4,368 x 2,912)

>

> If it could produce a 39meg file they would certainly say so.

>

> I didn't see Polidori's photos but if they all look a little blue to you

> that may be a sign that you monitor is not color corrected.  Since you 

> seem

> to be a computer buff I guess you know that monitors do not always display

> the correct colors and for critical work they need to be calibrated so

> things have the correct color.   I have been doing this stuff for a few

> years and it is true if a scene is illuminated just by sky light only such

> as in the shade,  can have a bit of a blue cast.  But if you have a blue 

> sky

> that means you have the sun out and scenes in sunlight never have this 

> blue

> cast - the engineers at Kodak have figured this out and make their film to

> show pretty damn good colors.

>

> Better get your monitor calibrated if you want to peruse a career as photo

> critic.

> Aloha

>

> ----- Original Message ----- 

> From: "Michael Eisenstadt" <mike.eisenstadt at gmail.com>

>

>

>> Ewie,

>>

>> You've got the numbers right and wrong at the same time.

>>

>> The Canon D5's sensor is 35.8 x 23.9 mm, the same size

>> as a frame of 35mm film. It has 12.7 million pixels, its

>> maxiumum resolution being 4368 x 2912. Multiply that

>> and you get 12.7 million. Then multiply 3x for the 3 primary

>> colors and the raw file size is 39Megs, the same in effect as

>> the 40Megs you mention.

>>

>> Same as your camera and scanner without the muss and bother of

>> film and chemical darkrooms.

>>

>> As for speed, this camera shoots 3 frames a second in

>> burst mode. The specs do not supply shutter lag time

>> if any. Body is made of magnesium, the lightest metal.

>>

>> $2700 is Amazon's discount price for the camera new.

>> It will take some years before a used one will come

>> close enough to my money comfort zone, maybe never.

>> Meanwhile, i will use film in my Canon cameras,

>> process the slides, chose the keepers, scan them

>> for $1.90 a frame, correct the scan's levels in Photoshop,

>> and print on 8x11 inch glossy fake photography paper.

>>

>> Meanwhile, looking at Polidori's indoor shots of ruined

>> interiors in post-Katrina New Orleans, it is hard to overlook

>> the blue color casts of his incompetence. He was shooting

>> without a flash indoors on a sunny day. Objects in the

>> shadow on a sunny day are of course illuminated by

>> the blue light of the sky. So photos not shot in direct

>> light, sunlight or flash, are caca: Aunt Tilly under a tree when

>> she comes back from the drugstore is colored blue. They

>> don't tell you about that on the little yellow boxes. Might

>> reduce sales.

>>

>> Mike

>>

>>

>> > Well, Mike the Cannon D5 is a nice camera and I would like somebody to

>> > give

>> > me one but it is 3 times the price of a Cannon Elan7 and scanner combo.

>> > Another problem for me with expensive cameras is the problem of them

>> > getting

>> > stolen, I had one stolen in China but it was only a $500 loss, can't

>> > afford

>> > the $3000 loss.  A 35mm slide scanned at 4000 DPI comes to about 40 

>> > meg,

>> > the

>> > Cannon D5 only 12.8 meg.  I don't know if the Cannon has this problem

> but

>> > many digital cameras have a significant lag between pushing the shutter

>> > and

>> > the actual scan making them a little difficult for capturing fast

> action.

>> > Film cameras only 1/60 sec. or less.

>> >

>> > Now if you are a real purest you can get the Hasselblad for only 

>> > $31,995

>> > but

>> > sill you will not get the resolution of a scanned 35mm slide.  But if

> you

>> > are a real resolution fanatic get the 4x5 camera - the only way to go!!

>> > You

>> > can buy them on Ebay for around $500.

>> >

>> > The processing of color film is a bit of a problem but you can do it

>> > yourself or send it out.  Doing it yourself and sending it out cost

> about

>> > the same price.  Only problem is not instant gratification.  Some art

>> > forms

>> > require a little work.

>> >

>

>