RE: coil photography

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: Nick Andrews <nicothefabulous@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Hello Bart,

I would agree that 35mm is far better.  I bulk load mu own film, both 
color and B&W from 100' rolls.  Costco in Denver wouldn't develop the 
film because the black reloadable cans did not have the film type 
printed on them, and my masking tape tags weren't enough for the 
moron manger.  I told him it was pro grade film, but still C-41 
process.  I ended up taking about 16 rolls from a bike trip to a 
place up in Brighton.  It was a real photo shop.  Cost more, but got 
good prints, and the people there were impressed by my pics, so that 
was nice.  Better prints anyway from them.  I develop my own B&W 
film, so can control the whole process.

Nick A


----------
> Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 00:03:36 -0600
> To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
> From: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: coil photography
>
> Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson" <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> I've got a decent Canon Digital, but still, there is no comparison to
> using my old Minolta XG1 35mm Film Camera (IMHO). If you have or can
> find a 35mm film camera with a half decent lens, it's really hard to
> beat. The problem with 35mm camera's is that developing businesses
> are going out of business due to the digital craze. The art of
> development is being lost. Nowadays, the set parameters of a
> developing machine determine the quality of your pics. Often, if the
> light level is too low, they won't even print the pic (I have to tell
> them to print everything regardless of exposure) and when I see them
> looking for the manual to the system to set the parameters, I know I
> went to the wrong place. So, I have chosen these days for
> convenience, to swap quality pics for something I can at least
> control (my digital).
>
> The camera is important (especially digital). Having control over
> exposure is very helpful. Good digitals are expensive however. If you
> do have a developing business near you that is good, 35mm is the way
> to go. But, if the people running the system are high school age
> getting paid minimum wage, chances are they won't know anything about
> the systems their using (just a monkey throwing the switch).
>
> Some of the film developers will copy the files to CD (including
> film). So, scanner is not a requirement. Somewhat larger cities will
> usually have a decent development house where the employees actually
> know what their doing. You just have to find it. Often, if you walk
> in and there's a single machine and 1 or 2 employees, don't even
> waist your time. Walk out and find a development house that has
> several systems. BTW, really good development houses also do many
> other types of printing technology. So, if you see a lot of machines,
> there's a good chance they actually know what their doing and can
> develop the film to your taste.
>
> Take care,
> Bart
>
> Tesla list wrote:
>
> >Original poster: "Scott Bogard" <teslas-intern@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> >Greetings all,
> > I am having trouble getting good pictures of my Tesla coil in
> > operation. It seems the cameras I have available, do not have a
> > very adjustable exposure time (and I don't have any clue how to
> > take a double exposure, without using conventional film, which is
> > useless to me as I don't have a scanner, so I cannot put my
> > pictures on the computer). I can get "decent" videos, but still
> > shots captured from them generally only show the arcs, and not the
> > coil (which gives no perspective of actual size), plus the DPI is
> > too low for my taste anyway. Any suggestions would be appreciated
> > (even referrals to the archives would be great, if you could give
> > me a general place to look, they are vast, and I am pressed for
> > time!) Thanks a heap.
> >Scott Bogard.
> >
> >_________________________________________________________________
> >Exercise your brain! Try Flexicon.
> >http://games.msn.com/en/flexicon/default.htm?icid=flexicon_hmemail 
taglineapril07
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>