>"default" settings for sunny, cloudy, indoors, and night shots that
>I could begin with, in the interest of avoiding too many wasted
>shots as I learn the ropes?

>
> How long does it take to have your film processed?

> Can you get multiple prints (and negatives for future reprints)?

> Does anyone have any MF stereo slide for sale? (I have yet to see
> any on eBay, but I've seen some samples from John, who was nice
> enough to lend me a viewer and some pics to whet my appetite!) I'm
> interested in at least enjoying some stereoviews while I learn about
> the TL120.

> Given that I would be completely new to film photography, I know I
> can use my W3 to get some sample settings (aperture and shutter
> speed), but are there any safe "default" settings for sunny, cloudy,
> indoors, and night shots that I could begin with, in the interest of
> avoiding too many wasted shots as I learn the ropes?

> And finally, what are your honest opinions about whether handheld
> digital viewing will catch up to film regarding the fine detail?

> Does anyone have any MF stereo slide for sale?

> Most people shoot slide film, no prints. If you have the film scanned
> you can print from the digital files.

> The best way to see most MF3D is to join a folio. Most folios expect
> you to submit slides to the folio (not viewing aonly).

> I doubt it will happen. Consumer products advance until they readh
> the level of "good enough", and then they stop.

> Yes, I have a large quantity of MF stereo slides for sale, mostly scenic but
> some glamour too. Most come in sets of 10 with one topic. These come from 3-D World, the company that makes the TL-120 camera, viewers and mounts.

> I also sell all the 3-D World products: TL-120 camera, simple viewer,
> lighted viewer, exhibition rotary viewer, MF mounts.

>> Most people shoot slide film, no prints. If you have
>> the film scanned you can print from the digital files.
>
> What I meant was duplicate slides, not paper prints
> (unless by prints you mean slides as well). And speaking
> of printing from digital files, how about creating slides
> from W3 pictures? Do these come out anywhere near the
> quality of film exposed pictures?

>> The best way to see most MF3D is to join a folio. Most
>> folios expect you to submit slides to the folio (not
>> viewing aonly).
>
> Here again is where lack of duplicates would be a
> concern. So, if you develop slide film into slides, you
> can only get one set of pics, not duplicates?

> What I'm after, quite frankly, is MF slide quality in a
> handheld, and if MF is the only way to get it, I may have
> to bite the bullet and spring for the camera, though
> obviously my wallet would prefer if there was some way of
> getting there (or close to there) with the W3.

> joetunon@bellsouth.net wrote:
> >
> > Given that I would be completely new to film photography, I know I
> > can use my W3 to get some sample settings (aperture and shutter
> > speed), but are there any safe "default" settings for sunny, cloudy,
> > indoors, and night shots that I could begin with, in the interest of
> > avoiding too many wasted shots as I learn the ropes?
>
> You could use a digital camera to meter for your film camera, but
> you'll want to test to make sure the cameras "see" the scene the same
> way. If nothing else you want the cameras to have the same field of
> view.
>
> I found that my Pentax K-20D at ISO 200 is very good for figuring out
> exposures on my Sputnik with Kodak E100G pushed a stop, but that it is
> easier to carry around a small Sekonic L-308 light meter.

> That's it. When I send you a box of slides, they are one-off
> originals. If you munge the box, those images are gone. This
> is a significant factor in the folios circulating only among
> contributers. Most contributers want to have some assurance
> that their images will be handled by others with "skin in
> the game" and will treat them with care.

> joetunon@bellsouth.net wrote:
> - snip -
> > What I'm after, quite frankly, is MF slide quality in a
> > handheld, and if MF is the only way to get it, I may have
> > to bite the bullet and spring for the camera, though
> > obviously my wallet would prefer if there was some way of
> > getting there (or close to there) with the W3.
>
> I don't think you are the only one seeking this.
>
> The only way to get the image quality of MF3D is with a
> large slide in a hand-viewer. To get this costs a lot of
> money up front, a lot of time and care in image creation,
> and the recognition that it isn't easily sharable.

> Brian Reynolds wrote:
> > The best way to see most MF3D is to join a folio. Most folios expect
> > you to submit slides to the folio (not viewing aonly).
>
> Here again is where lack of duplicates would be a concern. So, if
> you develop slide film into slides, you can only get one set of
> pics, not duplicates?

> Pure speculation here, but WTF:
>
> 1) Handheld digital (or HMD) vs. original MF transparency equivalence, probably not in
> my lifetime (but I'm pretty old...). There is no demand (beyond HD) for such a device.
> Maybe HD handhelds (which is on the margin of greatness, especially for motion 3D)
> someday. But what will these things be marketed for: The Smurfs?
>
> 2) 4K digital displays can deliver the MF experience (but ain't gunna be handheld, and
> won't be consumer available for a year or more, and won't initially be affordable). Few
> people have material for these (W3, most routine film-scans, etc., won't cut it). IMHO
> better than handheld 'cause they are open-view, multiple viewer, etc., but cost-wise, no
> comparison.
>
> 3) The Art Gallery at NSA provides a nice venue to check out a lot of different high-Q
> formats. Large prints are very good (like the David Lee award-winning mirror-view print
> display). MF film-recorder, and MF dupes are similar in quality (maybe a little better
> than 35mm orignal hand-views, but not as good as MF originals).
>
> If you like the hand-viewing experience (solo, small group, limited sharing, slow-go),
> and your favorite subjects are compatible with the MF format cameras, go for it.
>
> John
>
>

> The very best MF dupes I have seen were John Hart's dupes of his
> fractals and colored water droplets shown at the gallery in Loveland
> last month. That was the first I'd seen an MF dupe that impressed me.

> John, perhaps out of modesty, did not mention his own slides. I
> believe they were done by Gammatech. And maybe John could weigh in on
> how he achieved such a stunning result. Sharp and vibrant.

>

> I'm going to weigh in on several things stated in this post.
>
> Dan Vint mentioned sunny 16 and moony 11. I'm good with sunny 16. But
> moony 11? Maybe I'm missing something here.

> But this page shows a nice chart of EV values ranging from 2 stops brighter that "sunny 16" all the way down to starlight
> illumination (a 25 stop range):

On Aug 6, 2011, at 12:56 AM, John Thurston wrote:

> Bob Venezia wrote:
> - snip -
> > The very best MF dupes I have seen were John Hart's dupes of his
> > fractals and colored water droplets shown at the gallery in Loveland
> > last month. That was the first I'd seen an MF dupe that impressed
> me.
>
> These, I think, are superior to other "dupes" we have seen
> because they are actually first-generation "dupes". When John
> creates his digital files, he knows everything in his image
> and can control the color and contrast in the image. If he
> creates his images in the sRGB space (which Gamma Tech's film
> recorders use), then he knows the colors will be available.
>
> > John, perhaps out of modesty, did not mention his own slides. I
> > believe they were done by Gammatech. And maybe John could weigh in
> on
> > how he achieved such a stunning result. Sharp and vibrant.
>
> If you refer to my gallery display, the results were
> relatively easy to achieve.... I displayed originals and
> hoped like hell that no one spilled drinks on them.
>
> If you refer to my small box of dupes (I had three at the
> convention along with their originals), I actually carry
> those around as examples of disappointment. After investing
> weeks of work (and a several hundred dollars in software and
> production costs), I had one dupe'd slide I wouldn't be
> ashamed to submit to a folio. The others are interesting to
> trot out as a parlor trick, but like a three dollar bill,
> would never pass for real.

> Actually I was referring to John Hart's dupes throughout. Those are
> the first I've seen that don't look to me like dupes. They were as
> impressive, to me, as original MF slides.

On Aug 6, 2011, at 10:14 AM, George Themelis wrote:
> What exactly is a "dupe"? For me, it is an image captured on film
> and then
> duplicated on film again. This duplication can be done
> photographically or
> digitally. The duplicate picture is normally not as sharp or of the
> same
> quality as the original and one can tell the original from a dupe.
>
> If an image is captured digitally and then transferred on film (as
> John
> Hart's pictures) I would not call this a "dupe". It is missing the
> very
> critical step of the duplication, the first step, either scanning or
> photographing the original to create the "internegative" or digital
> copy and
> it is this step that contributes mostly to the loss of quality.
>
> That being said, the digital images that I have transferred to film
> do look
> like "dupes" but this might be the fault of the quality of the
> digital image
> (from my W3 or other compact digital cameras).
>
> George
>

> I think for me the real issue is
> what is the best we can expect from a film recorder? I think I saw
> that in John Hart's slides. A good MF original slide has always been
> the gold standard for me, and John H's slides were on par.

> Whenever you transfer an image from one medium to another, a little something is

>

> ----- "Bob Venezia" <bob@chairboy.com> wrote:
> > I'm going to weigh in on several things stated in this post.
> >
> > Dan Vint mentioned sunny 16 and moony 11. I'm good with sunny 16. But
> > moony 11? Maybe I'm missing something here.
>

> Moony 11 is not a phrase I have previously hear of, but it is
> apparently referring to photos _of_ the full moon, not photos of the
> earth illuminated by moonlight. Since the moon is actually in
> sunlight, it is really part of the sunny 16 rule. Some recommend f16
> for fully zoomed in clear sky full moon shots rather than f11. Not
> something one would be likely to do with MF stereo. 8-) But there is
> an example image on this page:
> http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/3762805