Shameless self-promotion but FYI
|
View:
New views
11 Messages
—
Rating Filter:
Alert me
|
 |
Shameless self-promotion but FYI
by ADavidhazy-2
::
Rate this Message:
Published a vanity press, illustrated, Lulu book on the Phoenix Process.
http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/fleeting-phoenix-figures/3994306 Andy |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Shameless self-promotion but FYI
by ADavidhazy-2
::
Rate this Message:
I was wondering about that ... does 1970 - 1999 count
as being late 1900s or am I confused - age you know. and I REALLY would like to know ... did I make a grammatical or other snafu with this statement? help! andy wpettit@... wrote: > "It is intended to be record of the work produced by Andrew Davidhazy in the late 1900s." > > Gee Andy, We had no idea you were that old..... > > > Bill > > -----Original Message----- > >>From: ADavidhazy <andpph@...> >>Sent: Jun 29, 2009 1:10 PM >>To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@...> >>Subject: Shameless self-promotion but FYI >> >>Published a vanity press, illustrated, Lulu book on the Phoenix Process. >> >>http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/fleeting-phoenix-figures/3994306 >> >>Andy >> > > |
|
|
RE: Shameless self-promotion but FYI
by John Klasey
::
Rate this Message:
Andy:
"Late 20th Century" would have been a better choice and less subject to misinterpretation (and accusations of premature aging). Jack Klasey -----Original Message----- From: owner-photoforum@... [mailto:owner-photoforum@...] On Behalf Of ADavidhazy Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 2:13 PM To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students Subject: Re: Shameless self-promotion but FYI I was wondering about that ... does 1970 - 1999 count as being late 1900s or am I confused - age you know. and I REALLY would like to know ... did I make a grammatical or other snafu with this statement? help! andy wpettit@... wrote: > "It is intended to be record of the work produced by Andrew Davidhazy in the late 1900s." > > Gee Andy, We had no idea you were that old..... > > > Bill > > -----Original Message----- > >>From: ADavidhazy <andpph@...> >>Sent: Jun 29, 2009 1:10 PM >>To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students >>Subject: Shameless self-promotion but FYI >> >>Published a vanity press, illustrated, Lulu book on the Phoenix Process. >> >>http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/fleeting-phoenix-figures/399430 6 >> >>Andy >> > > |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: Shameless self-promotion but FYI
by Marilyn Dalrymple
::
Rate this Message:
Late 1900s sounds right to me, Andy. Anytime before that would be referred
to as the early 1970s, etc. And, say for instance the 1920s would be referred to as the early 1900s. Marilyn ----- Original Message ----- From: "ADavidhazy" <andpph@...> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@...> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 12:12 PM Subject: Re: Shameless self-promotion but FYI >I was wondering about that ... does 1970 - 1999 count > as being late 1900s or am I confused - age you know. > > and I REALLY would like to know ... did I make a > grammatical or other snafu with this statement? > > help! > > andy > > > > > wpettit@... wrote: > >> "It is intended to be record of the work produced by Andrew Davidhazy in >> the late 1900s." >> >> Gee Andy, We had no idea you were that old..... >> >> >> Bill -----Original Message----- >> >>>From: ADavidhazy <andpph@...> >>>Sent: Jun 29, 2009 1:10 PM >>>To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students >>><photoforum@...> >>>Subject: Shameless self-promotion but FYI >>> >>>Published a vanity press, illustrated, Lulu book on the Phoenix Process. >>> >>>http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/fleeting-phoenix-figures/3994306 >>> >>>Andy >>> >> >> > |
|
|
Re: Shameless self-promotion but FYI
by Marilyn Dalrymple
::
Rate this Message:
OOOPS - Jack is right. It should be the late 20th century.
Marilyn ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Klasey" <jwklasey@...> To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" <photoforum@...> Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 12:22 PM Subject: RE: Shameless self-promotion but FYI > Andy: > "Late 20th Century" would have been a better choice and less subject to > misinterpretation (and accusations of premature aging). > Jack Klasey > > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-photoforum@... > [mailto:owner-photoforum@...] On Behalf Of ADavidhazy > Sent: Monday, June 29, 2009 2:13 PM > To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > Subject: Re: Shameless self-promotion but FYI > > I was wondering about that ... does 1970 - 1999 count > as being late 1900s or am I confused - age you know. > > and I REALLY would like to know ... did I make a > grammatical or other snafu with this statement? > > help! > > andy > > > > > wpettit@... wrote: > >> "It is intended to be record of the work produced by Andrew Davidhazy in > the late 1900s." >> >> Gee Andy, We had no idea you were that old..... >> >> >> Bill >> >> -----Original Message----- >> >>>From: ADavidhazy <andpph@...> >>>Sent: Jun 29, 2009 1:10 PM >>>To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students > <photoforum@...> >>>Subject: Shameless self-promotion but FYI >>> >>>Published a vanity press, illustrated, Lulu book on the Phoenix Process. >>> >>>http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/fleeting-phoenix-figures/399430 > 6 >>> >>>Andy >>> >> >> > |
|
|
Re: Shameless self-promotion but FYI
by Roger Eichhorn
::
Rate this Message:
Andy,
The folks on the list seem to be more interested in your choice of phrase than your work. The volume looks interesting. Too bad Polaroid has gone bye-bye, but you've documented an unorthodox use. Roger On 29 Jun 2009, at 11:10 AM, ADavidhazy wrote: > Published a vanity press, illustrated, Lulu book on the Phoenix > Process. > > http://www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/fleeting-phoenix-figures/3994306 > > Andy > |
|
|
|
|
|
Re: photos at the end of the century
by ADavidhazy-2
::
Rate this Message:
Hi AZ,
I was trying to express the span of years which is from about the mid 1970s to about now ... anyway I am using up the last remaining exposures I have left of type 667 ... of course no more Polagraph. That combo was a real "winner" imo. Now I am doing the reversal with PS and adding a bit of grain to try to simulate the Polagraph but it is not quite the same. I call this a hybrid. ;) Wonder if I am eligible for a government rebate?! The other thing I should have mentioned is that it is a book illustrated with "figures" - a euphemism for _nude_ figures. Ever since I started to elaborate the technique or process it seemed to lend itself to that subject. Although what I was originally trying to save were some of the rollout or peripheral portraits I used to make at PhotoPlus in NYC and at various science fairs and similar conferences for over 20 years. For several years Polaroid supplied me with a significant amount of film. I wonder if I contributed to their demise. You know ... people would see their distorted mug on Polaroid film and they might have said: No way Jose" no Polaroid for me!! (joke) Oh, well ... today I "labored" over an article on schlieren photography. It was a pretty goo day. Hope you all had a good day and will have another tomorrow. andy lookaround360@... wrote: > Andy, I think it should more properly read "in the 1980's" or whatever > decade. Anyhow, way to go. We should all be doing more books of our > stuff. > > C.2009, AZ > > Build a 120/35mm Lookaround! > The Lookaround E-Book 5ed. > NOW SHIPPING > http://www.panoramacamera.us |
|
|
RE: photos at the end of the century
by Chris-723
::
Rate this Message:
With regard to the use of Polaroid I say this:
When I retired from working in the computer lab I was told that "old computer engineers use old computers"! So I suppose "old photographers use old cameras". I like old cameras and I am still considering buying an old plate camera (well 1/4 plate) made of wood and brass and buy a newish lens for it. I think the film will be available for a long time yet because, so far, digital replacements are hyper-expensive. I like the old cameras because of the effort required to set up an exposure. At least 15 minutes. You first have to unpack the camera having loaded a couple of plates into the carriers, set it up on its very heavy tripod, point it in the direction for the view required, select a lens, open the camera, put I the frosted glass plate, bury yourself and the camera under the cloth, red inside, black outside, focus it, move the lens to the best position to get minimum distortion and maximum range of focus, clamp up all the setting, cock the lens and close it, put in the plate in its plate carrier, take out the black cover, and press the shutter on a timer with a cable release. After the 5 minute exposure, put the dark plate back, take out the plate and turn it round and repeat for another exposure. Then take the whole thing down and move elsewhere to repeat for the next exposure. Continue until you have used your three dark slides and return home to develop the film sheets or take them to a lab for processing. Then you have to print them on the BIG enlarger. I must admit I do prefer digital but the old plate camera is a wonderful discipline when learning photography. By the way I have only exposed about 5 slides in my life! Chris http://www.chrisspages.co.uk -----Original Message----- From: owner-photoforum@... [mailto:owner-photoforum@...] On Behalf Of ADavidhazy Sent: 01 July 2009 01:24 To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students Subject: Re: photos at the end of the century |
| Free embeddable forum powered by Nabble | Forum Help |
