"Are you shooting Polaroid?"

I was wondering the same thing. Even black and white takes a minimum of 30 seconds and preferably longer, and if that means taking your film holder in and out of the camera, even if your film is double-stick taped in, you risk mis-registration in that process.

Most of the time Auto Align is pretty good but there have been plenty of times when high res files tripped it up and it's more like Auto Almost Align. Thankfully there's still PT Gui.

"I've used that process many times, except I am setting lights so that but one exposure is necessary."

You did see the thread I started a couple of weeks ago on product photos. We really did set the lights so it was all captured in one exposure. It took hours, actually 4-5 per shot and at one point I had 18 C-Stands holding lights, gels, reflectors, flags and scrims. A great way to study lighting is to go to the movies and try and figure out how they light each scene, remembering that, for the most part, they have to light it right in camera.

You use a press shutter, self cocking no need to touch the camera just the cable release.

You leave the film and holder in the camera and you do not need to shield the film from the light except with the shutter.

You expose the sheet several times if need be could be even twenty or thirty times.

You move the lights around, adjust the power and how many times you want them to fire and yes you use polaroids. No need to take the polaroids out of the camera. You do have to have experience with this and be able to judge, but that like all things comes with experience though I have never had such a problem.

So the film stays in the camera and you expose it and then you look at the polaroids and she how you now want to adjust the the lights, the output power, the number of times they fire the distance and location from the subject.

From what you right here and you have written it before you do not relate to this technique at all even though it has been around from a time before they even had such a thing as a shutter.

You have it all worng and if I was thinking the way you were I would have to jump on digital myself.

"From what you right here and you have written it before you do not relate to this technique at all even though it has been around from a time before they even had such a thing as a shutter. "

See, there you go again. You have no idea of what I've done and what techniques I've used. All I know from your writing is that you're god's gift to everything photographic. Once again, all you can do is tell us how great you are what how the rest of us don't know what the **** we're doing. Give it a break Wade. You're not all that.

I actually have used it Wade, but so what? I didn't own one. I used it when I rented a lens with that shutter. I googled Press shutter to find out what it was, and immediately recognized it.

BTW, their reliability isn't as good as the more common version. One I tried stuck and wouldn't re-cock fully. They also take more effort to shoot. The energy to re-cock has to come from somewhere.

look. It's results that matter. You use Mac. I use PC. There is no way in hell to know which machine processed which image from the results. But you can get all holier than thou because I don't use Safari, and think it refers to a trip in the Sahara.

>It is a very old technique and it is tried and true.

Very well, Wade. Show us an example, please?

I'm missing nothing, Wade, no thing. No opportunities. No nuttin'!
(I'm absolutely certain that on my deathbed, I will not be saying "I shudda used Press shutters".)

As Peter stated, cocking the shutter is a no brainer. If you mess up my alignment cocking the shutter, I sure would not want you loading the film holder in the back! :D

Not quite, Wade, but keep it up and I may fake it.:D

Probably regret this but here goes <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=11DGNlG5ywe1XIlIwFh5T hm7ijEt0" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/11DGNlG5ywe1XIlIwFh5Thm7ijEt0_th umb.jpg" border="0" /> <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1JQ0vwmSbrZqrbORz8Xa2 PTnhF3yEK0" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1JQ0vwmSbrZqrbORz8Xa2PTnhF3yEK0_ thumb.jpg" border="0" /> <br /> <br />It is a very old technique and tried and true. Not much to it.

If someone wants to know and asks I will respond

Well we all see things differently i guess, and who is right or wrong. Wade continually talks down to just about everyone that comes here, and then tries to make it seem like we are all unenlightened and are just not capable of seeing a real artist at work. certainly the other guy referenced was not perfect,but as far as the two shots wade shared, i am not particularly impressed. Now he will come back and rehash how i like perfection and am chasing some elusive dream,but to me those shots are flat and unexciting.

I certainly am not saying they are worthless,but for all the constant reminding we get how great he is and how everyone around the world worships the ground he walks on, i honestly keep waiting to see these jaw dropping shots, and then i see something he finally posts, and i think this is what all the fuss was about?

I must temper my comments with the fact that i have never attempted to do architecture in the sense we are referencing,and would never pawn myself off as someone experienced in that genre, but i know what i like and dont like, and i have seen enough images to know what the cream of the crop are doing,and i cant remember the last time i saw something wade posted,and said holy ****,how on earth did you create such atmosphere and beauty in a room.

Perhaps i should have just stayed away from this forum, but as i have read topics over the past weeks, i find wade berating guys like peter,that i know are tops in the profession,and i think what the sam hill is wrong with this guy that he cant find a way to at least be friendly to the regulars here. He could offer advice in his field of expertise, without trying to belittle everyone else that comes here to interact with like minded creative people. At this point i feel like there must be numerous photographers who would make this place a joy to interact,but who stay away because of his ********. I swore the days of him getting under my skin were over, but he has a knack of not only putting himself on a pedestal,but also trying to minimize every other person who comes along.

Thank you Donald.

Donald, I agree with you. 100%

In my opinion, the best way to deal with a troll is to ignore him.

Can't stand it anymore ... coming out of lurk mode ...

As I've said before, talk is cheap. You're not going to impress me with obscure technical jargon wrapped around an indecipherable post. SHOW ME that you know what you're talking about photographically and you'll gain my photographic respect. In 7-8 years, our resident legend-in-his-own-mind has yet to do that. Not once.

The two images that are supposed to illustrate to us mere mortals what we can't possibly understand? WEAK! For all the posturing and talk of self-cocking shutters, the lighting in the living room shot is terrible. Not just flat, but BAD. And what the heck is that dark mess on the left? The bathroom image is marginally better but I suspect that's only because there was benefit of spill because of the close quarters (or lots of natural light). Even so, the point where Wade called it done would have only been the beginning for a any photographer with a decent understanding of light. Both of those images could have been vastly better with an experienced DSLR shooter who knows light.

While some of the work of the photographer referenced in the other thread is a bit gawdy for my taste (some of it I really like), it's quite evident he could light circles around our resident architectural "expert". While I might not care for the treatment, I can still respect the knowledge required to achieve the results.

Wade trying to teach Peter something about photography ... LOL ... that's a good one!

-phil

Phil,

I had a feeling you'd chime in sooner or later. All along I had hoped that Wade would give examples that would help anyone who was interesting in WHY you might use a particular technique or piece of equipment and show how it actually improved the image. So far I've seen nothing that approaches that. To show an image and claim that it could only be made by using a certain technique, without showing the same (presumably inferior) image made without is asking the veiwer to make a leap of faith, and that's a pretty big leap in this case. The opportunity was there for Wade to actually redeem himself and share some useful information and he let us down with insults. I'm inclined to think that he feels threatened by the fact that several of us actually do understand what he's doing (or at least trying to do) and that it isn't all that unique. It then becomes easier to tell us that we can't possibly understand or know, without actually understanding or knowing what we do know.

FWIW, I just finished the '08 version of the Manhattan Beach Wine Auction poster and when I get back in the studio and can pull a composite version I'll post it, as it's a fun image that I think everyone will enjoy.

Please do post it Peter. Always a pleasure seeing your work.

I am looking forward as well.

&gt;You can confirm it as being a dream go and research all the masters of photography or if you wish ten great master of photography. <br />And then select from their work one photograph that actually is jaw dropping,. <br />Yes Surprise there are none! <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=14vCZyWhE1NLf8BWKSBHD bOqSOmRSL0" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/14vCZyWhE1NLf8BWKSBHDbOqSOmRSL0_ thumb.jpg" border="0" /> <br /> <br /> <a href="http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1H9icnSus56fHboBAsRQd VecGxkt2e1" /></a> <img alt="Picture hosted by Pixentral" src="http://www.pixentral.com/hosted/1H9icnSus56fHboBAsRQdVecGxkt2e1_ thumb.jpg" border="0" /> <br /> <br />Perhaps it's just me, but that's some pretty jaw-dropping ****! (Pardon my French.) <br /> <br />Credit: The late, great Eddie Adams

I saw a video of that shooting not long ago. It was just as horrifying, but maybe because I knew the still i was pre-conditioned.

I feel the same way. they were taken under extraordinary circumstances, which certainly makes for some dramatic images, but i would not say its amazing photography. just a terribly sad moment captured on film. I wonder how one finds themselves in that situation and actually shoot that shot,knowing whats going to happen.