<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Thanks for the compliment. A compliment a day keeps the doctor away.
<p>My dad was quite a photographer too. He ran several portfolios
for the Photographic Society of America. Started several camera clubs
in his life ... one of them is still very active in Lancaster. He
loved it when a new member wanted him to teach her (they were mostly women)
photographic techniques. It gave his ego a good shot.
<p>Put it on the web, Matt? I'm 60 years old and I have a love for
older technologies. The older systems allowed much higher quality
reproductions. (Look at <i>The Age of Steam</i> by Beebe and Clegg
that was printed by rotogravure process.) Although I, for example,
recognize that Polaroid picture-in-a-minute technology has great advantages
for proofing the picture before exposing a "true" sheet of film, for real
estate pictures (before digital cameras), for making charts for projection
(they used to have a great line copy film), for taking pictures of children
on Santa's lap, I never developed a fondness for that technology.
It just didn't have the quality. I feel the same way about very low
resolution digital prints on the web. It is very unlikely, therefore,
that I would consider using the WWW as a method of displaying my pictures.
<p>I've spent most of my life working in medium and large format because
very sharp images can be produced. My training was on a 3 1/4
x 4 1/4 and also a a 4x5 Speed Graphic. I still shoot about
100 to 200 sheets of 4x5 film a year, mostly making continuous tone copy
negatives from prints or black and white internegatives from slides.
Even though I did shell out for a 4x5 view camera (separate from the copy
camera), most of my field work since 1957 has involved medium format 2
1/4 x 2 1/4 cameras, starting with a Minolta Autocord, and including three
Mamiya reflex cameras, a Rollei, a Yashica, and my dad's Hassalblad.
These are not lightweight beasts and I carried them for many a mile.
Most of the Pittsburgh pictures that have drawn remarks from this group
involved a lot of stomping around. It wasn't unusual for me to start
out of East Pittsburgh in the morning on foot and be in Aspinwall in the
late afternoon, or from Carnegie in the morning to McKees Rocks in the
mid afternoon to dawntawn several hours later. I've hoofed every
inch of the Library and Drake lines, much of it two or three times.
I walked every inch of the Shaker Rapid at least once, several trips on
the P&W, one one over the entire length of the Newark City Subway (ask
Bruce Bente about the hike through the tunnel). When I quit walking
and started driving, the quality went down. I was crazier and less
timid then, and the cities were nicer. <b>Simply put, I worked for
those pictures. I think I worked every bit as hard as Dick Steinheimer,
Phil Hastings, Bill Middleton, and others did. </b>
<p>I apologize if I sound possessive of my camera work, but I'm the one
who put up with the snow storms, heat waves, rain, darkness, and cold.
And I will be just as adamant about someone else's right to preserve control
of his or her images. I always liked Ara Mesrobian's picture looking
down Pennsylvania Avenue SE from the Treasury on a summer evening (it's
in "Coast to Coast") ... knowing how hot, humid, and downright miserable
Washington can be, I thought it was great that he braved it to take the
picture and even nicer that he allowed me to publish it.
<p>A number of my own images have been displayed as 11x14s or 16x20s at
the Pennsylvania Trolley Museum in the last three exhibits ... I certainly
like to present the public with that sort of quality image. I'm no
different than anyone else in that respect. It really helps the ego
to stand back and watch the museum visitors study the pictures. And,
as long as there is still a market for books, I appreciate that avenue.
Also, no one will every recover anywhere near total costs from the hobby.
It just isn't in the cards. But if WQED offers me $100 for rights
to one picture for a TV show, why should I put it on the Internet for nothing?
<p>Am I totally down on computer technology? No. In fact I
would like to work into colorizing <b>old</b> pictures on the computer
to produce acceptable display prints.
<p>And I keep thinking I might make a little money in retirement by selling
sets of prints at shows. What is stopping me is the knowledge that
some of them will end up just where I don't want them.
<br>And example ... I was selling prints at a show from the Frank Goldsmith
negatives which I bought. I put a rubber stamp on the back which
credited Frank and my collection. One of the purchasers was very
indignant ... didn't want the stamp on it ... he told me it was now his
to do as he pleased. The language was just a hair short of "go take
a flying leap if you think you can control what I do with the print."
<p>Oh yes, maybe the introduction I received to Arthur Ritis also helped
to make me possessive. I can no longer comfortably carry two Nikons,
a Mamiya, a light meter, a dozen filters, four to six extra lenses for
the Nikons and two for the Mamiya, and 50 rolls of film plus the suitcases
on to a USAir flight to London or Frankfurt like I once did. Last
February I went to England for a week and only toted one Nikon, four lenses,
and 10 rolls of film. The aging process sucks!
<p><b>HAVE WE BEAT THIS SUBJECT TO DEATH YET?</b>
<br>
<p>mrb190 wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>Fred,
<p>Sounds like you have a decent collection of Pgh Railways photos.
Any
<br>chance you'll be placing some on a website?
<p>Matt
<p>"Fred W. Schneider III" wrote:
<p>> I THOUGHT SO WHEN I TOOK IT!
<br>>
<br>> mrb190 wrote:
<br>>
<br>> > <a href="http://davesrailpix.railfan.net/pitts/htm/jfp086.htm">http://davesrailpix.railfan.net/pitts/htm/jfp086.htm</a></blockquote>
</html>