Why?

OK guys,

Why this social group? Poor hybridphoto.com! I ranted, raved, begged and nagged for there to be more of a art discussion/social aspect to 'hybrid'. The only thing that accomplished was embarrassing myself. Having a group that adds a new aspect to photography is a fantastic idea, but what's wrong with taking the party across the street? There's already a crowd there, waiting in the wings, just praying someone will bring a cake and noisemakers (and take the damned 'under construction' sign off the door.)

Denise

This place isn't meant to sub for hybridphoto. It's meant as a place where people can have quick questions without having to be members of two 'clubs'. Some folks like me aren't members of hybridphoto. There's not much there that interests me.

I also don't see why we have 'to go across' the street. I want to play here.

Denise, start a thread about the artistic aspects of hybrid here. Maybe you'll get what you want. I certainly would particpate, and I think many more will too.

Regards, Art.

This place isn't meant to sub for hybridphoto. It's meant as a place where people can have quick questions without having to be members of two 'clubs'. Some folks like me aren't members of hybridphoto. There's not much there that interests me.

I also don't see why we have 'to go across' the street. I want to play here.

Denise, start a thread about the artistic aspects of hybrid here. Maybe you'll get what you want. I certainly would particpate, and I think many more will too.

Regards, Art.

Thanks, Art, for the invitation. I'll give it some thought, but it'll be hard for me . I gave my little heart to hybridphoto. I really thought we had started something wonderful there. I'll probably never figure out why it didn't take off.

Best of luck here, though. Hopefully, you'll get a great conversation going - not just digital neg Q&A (although that would be good, too).

Denise

Thanks, Art, for the invitation. I'll give it some thought, but it'll be hard for me . I gave my little heart to hybridphoto. I really thought we had started something wonderful there. I'll probably never figure out why it didn't take off.

Best of luck here, though. Hopefully, you'll get a great conversation going - not just digital neg Q&A (although that would be good, too).

Denise

dwross said:

I'll probably never figure out why it didn't take off.

Click to expand...

Because it's the bastard little half-brother web site.

JD Callow says he "runs" hybrid, but I'm suspicious that any "work" is done on it. It still has a link on the front page of hybrid that says "Foto3 conference announce" !!! How many months ago was that, and how many months ago did the whole APUG-Foto3 nuclear meltdown happen?

They are right on top of stuff there, and working hard to make it a success...

That's one reason that it never took off...

dwross said:

I'll probably never figure out why it didn't take off.

Click to expand...

Because it's the bastard little half-brother web site.

JD Callow says he "runs" hybrid, but I'm suspicious that any "work" is done on it. It still has a link on the front page of hybrid that says "Foto3 conference announce" !!! How many months ago was that, and how many months ago did the whole APUG-Foto3 nuclear meltdown happen?

They are right on top of stuff there, and working hard to make it a success...

That's one reason that it never took off...

The why for me is a little bit about efficiency, a little bit personal, and it's a little bit about philosophy.

Is more efficient for me to stay in one website.

Hybrid was a good idea and then ... I can't explain it really ... the whole site kind of just 'changed', it wasn't updated, it was all about technique, there was digital camera posts, there were inkjet printing posts - not just for negatives but for prints, it wasn't kept up to date, it was too much equipment talk, it's kind of cliquish, kind of snobbish, and finally it had an inkjet print exchange where I wasn't allowed to particpate with a hybrid print - that threw me for a loop and was the last straw for me.

Now the philosophy part is more contraversial. Like some out there 'hating' on Kodak or LOMO, where really on the whole, both organizations, IMO have done a hack of a lot promote traditional film photography, I believe the hybrid processes will also play a major contribution to that effort. It should be part of APUG. Even if it's a sort of secret social group ...

Anyway people, enough of the 'why'. Time to move on. Let's make some great photography using film and some hybrid processes along the way. Whaddayaallsay?

Regards, Art.

The why for me is a little bit about efficiency, a little bit personal, and it's a little bit about philosophy.

Is more efficient for me to stay in one website.

Hybrid was a good idea and then ... I can't explain it really ... the whole site kind of just 'changed', it wasn't updated, it was all about technique, there was digital camera posts, there were inkjet printing posts - not just for negatives but for prints, it wasn't kept up to date, it was too much equipment talk, it's kind of cliquish, kind of snobbish, and finally it had an inkjet print exchange where I wasn't allowed to particpate with a hybrid print - that threw me for a loop and was the last straw for me.

Now the philosophy part is more contraversial. Like some out there 'hating' on Kodak or LOMO, where really on the whole, both organizations, IMO have done a hack of a lot promote traditional film photography, I believe the hybrid processes will also play a major contribution to that effort. It should be part of APUG. Even if it's a sort of secret social group ...

Anyway people, enough of the 'why'. Time to move on. Let's make some great photography using film and some hybrid processes along the way. Whaddayaallsay?

Regards, Art.

Good morning;

Also, "Hello" to Denise; nice to see you here also.

On the question of "Why?" there may not be a clear answer. The topic certainly has merit. Sometimes it just seems to take a little bit of luck to get the right mix of people that form something others refer to as "chemistry," and it just takes off. I cannot really identify any specific characteristics that will promote this. I just recognize when it has happened. There is another group on another site that has demonstrated this. The original group had just stagnated. One fellow decided to just do another one to try avoiding the reputation of the original group. He had hoped to get perhaps 5 posts per week. The group is running about 600 posts per month now, and is quite healthy. It just seemed to have that right "mix."

Why am I looking at "hybrid photography?" Well, how else can I share a nice photograph unless I have the ability to scan and post it over the internet? My main reason for being here is to listen, observe, and learn from others who are doing this now.

On the subject of "hating Kodak;" well, I don't hate them. I am just not sure that I will ever forgive them for dropping FX-32, KM-25, and TP-25. It seems that the really high resolution emulsions do not seem to be important any more. I do not understand why.

Good morning;

Also, "Hello" to Denise; nice to see you here also.

On the question of "Why?" there may not be a clear answer. The topic certainly has merit. Sometimes it just seems to take a little bit of luck to get the right mix of people that form something others refer to as "chemistry," and it just takes off. I cannot really identify any specific characteristics that will promote this. I just recognize when it has happened. There is another group on another site that has demonstrated this. The original group had just stagnated. One fellow decided to just do another one to try avoiding the reputation of the original group. He had hoped to get perhaps 5 posts per week. The group is running about 600 posts per month now, and is quite healthy. It just seemed to have that right "mix."

Why am I looking at "hybrid photography?" Well, how else can I share a nice photograph unless I have the ability to scan and post it over the internet? My main reason for being here is to listen, observe, and learn from others who are doing this now.

On the subject of "hating Kodak;" well, I don't hate them. I am just not sure that I will ever forgive them for dropping FX-32, KM-25, and TP-25. It seems that the really high resolution emulsions do not seem to be important any more. I do not understand why.

On the subject of "hating Kodak;" well, I don't hate them. I am just not sure that I will ever forgive them for dropping FX-32, KM-25, and TP-25. It seems that the really high resolution emulsions do not seem to be important any more. I do not understand why

Click to expand...

.

Check out the new Ektar 100 - you won't be disappointed.

On the subject of "hating Kodak;" well, I don't hate them. I am just not sure that I will ever forgive them for dropping FX-32, KM-25, and TP-25. It seems that the really high resolution emulsions do not seem to be important any more. I do not understand why

Click to expand...

.

Check out the new Ektar 100 - you won't be disappointed.

donbga said:

.

Check out the new Ektar 100 - you won't be disappointed.

Click to expand...

Good morning, Don Bryant;

Thank you for the recommendation. My real point of concern at the loss of the really slow emulsions is the effect it has when doing unusual things, like making lens tests in sunlight. Full sunlight is a fairly repeatable lighting condition. When using film of ASA rating 25 or 32, a normal starting exposure for that EV is 1/30 second at f 16. When you open up to f 2.8, you are at 1/1000 second. That is the limit for most camera shutters. There are faster ones; my Nikon F2 goes to 1/2000 second, and the Minolta Maxxum 9 goes to 1/12,000 second, but the point remains that trying to check a lens at f 1.4 with ASA 25 or 32 film will still need 1/4000 second exposure time. This is not in the range of most cameras, even factoring in reciprocity failure. Then there is the question of how to fit the lens to a faster camera body if the normal matching body does not have the higher speeds. Going up to ASA 100 will only make the problem worse in this case. And, even with the Ektar 100, I do not recall from my memories of the Kodak Film Characteristics that Ektar 100 has the ultimate resolution of Technical Pan 25.

I admit to you that this is a complaint about an unusual application, but it is still a loss in our range of capabilities.

At least we can use a cloudy day (we get a lot of those out here in Latte Land) and a calibrated exposure meter to get us into the range needed, but that does add another variable to the system; something I prefer to avoid.

Again, thank you for the recommendation. I will be trying it for "normal" camera work.

donbga said:

.

Check out the new Ektar 100 - you won't be disappointed.

Click to expand...

Good morning, Don Bryant;

Thank you for the recommendation. My real point of concern at the loss of the really slow emulsions is the effect it has when doing unusual things, like making lens tests in sunlight. Full sunlight is a fairly repeatable lighting condition. When using film of ASA rating 25 or 32, a normal starting exposure for that EV is 1/30 second at f 16. When you open up to f 2.8, you are at 1/1000 second. That is the limit for most camera shutters. There are faster ones; my Nikon F2 goes to 1/2000 second, and the Minolta Maxxum 9 goes to 1/12,000 second, but the point remains that trying to check a lens at f 1.4 with ASA 25 or 32 film will still need 1/4000 second exposure time. This is not in the range of most cameras, even factoring in reciprocity failure. Then there is the question of how to fit the lens to a faster camera body if the normal matching body does not have the higher speeds. Going up to ASA 100 will only make the problem worse in this case. And, even with the Ektar 100, I do not recall from my memories of the Kodak Film Characteristics that Ektar 100 has the ultimate resolution of Technical Pan 25.

I admit to you that this is a complaint about an unusual application, but it is still a loss in our range of capabilities.

At least we can use a cloudy day (we get a lot of those out here in Latte Land) and a calibrated exposure meter to get us into the range needed, but that does add another variable to the system; something I prefer to avoid.

Again, thank you for the recommendation. I will be trying it for "normal" camera work.