RE: coil photography

["Tesla list" <tesla@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Original poster: "Michael Strube" <mjstrube@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

A couple of years ago I did a fairly extensive project on coil photography
using my Sony CyberShot digital camera (and some comparisons with my Canon
AE-1).  Results can be found here:

http://hot-streamer.com/temp/MichaelStrube/

Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: Tesla list [mailto:tesla@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, April 20, 2007 12:39 AM
To: tesla@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: coil photography

Original poster: "Barton B. Anderson" <bartb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Nick,

Yep, I understand completely. BTW, when it comes to spark
photography, I find that B&W is very impressive in most instances
(but not all). My best pics are B&W. I think it makes the sparks look
great without all the color clutter. Just my opinion and preference.
It's especially effective for long exposure sparks.

Take care,
Bart

Tesla list wrote:

>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_hmemai
> l taglineapril07
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>