polonois Loc: Lancaster County,PA.

I just went there. A box popped up that said Translate. I clicked on it now the site is in English.
I am using google chrome as a browser.

Ted H. Funk

Just for your information---even though you don't appear qualified to know it---is that my professional work was ALL done with color slides because that's what magazine & book publishers demanded for their superior quality. My work for National Geographic was put on a total CD set by them and they are readily viewable via your computer that way. I don't have a scanner of any kind and none of mine have been scanned by anybody else (except my son). My other pro work
was published (if you know the meaning of that term!) in many magazines around the world, sold
by several of the biggest Stock Photo Agencies (Japan, Paris, & NYC).

chaman

Cool story bro. Convenient too. Refer to my signature. Have a good day.

Ted H. Funk

My reply above was directed to "chaman" who hides behind his moniker and although always insisting that others "post" their pictures, he never seems to do this---I wonder why?!

chaman

Your not too smart right? Ive posted plenty of my images and even have a link to my Flickr site in my sig. Good day....pro.

R. Bush Loc: Ogden, UT

I'm an old fart who converted to digital. I love it for many of the reasons already stated, but I still shoot film. Yes, film is more expensive and many of my old film favorites are no longer available. But, a broad range of films can still be ordered from B & H and other major camera chains.

When I first got into photography as a hobby, I bought 35mm film in 100 foot rolls and rolled my own cassettes. I still do. I also develop my b/w film in a daylight tank. It really isn't too hard to do.

The big difference is that I don't enlarge and print any more. I now scan all my film with an Epson film scanner. Once my film is in the digital format I can do an amazing amount of the post processing at my computer. If I choose to shoot color negative film or slides, again, I can then scan those rolls after they've been developed by photo labs.

By no means is film vs digital an either/or choice. Quit throwing bows and arrows at each other and use all of today's tech to live in both worlds.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Quinn, if you're such a FILM NUT, then what in the heck are you doing wasting TIME on a Digital forum???
Are you a glutton for being beat over the head with digital information!?
I disagree 100% with your faulty fantasy.
Yes, everybody here grew up on film, most made the jump into the 21st century, a few were caught out and now trying to justify themselves by trying to belittle those that had more sense then those had.
I've been shooting DSLR now for ten years. Like you, I was a little slow to adapt, especially to AF!! LoL
I have had a few decent digital cameras over the years and have always managed to sell my obsolete models for more than 1/2 of what they cost me!
So I sold/gave away all my junky antiquated film cameras and bought ONE to be my main film camera. I now shoot film with a Canon 1n. I found a nice used one at KEH, it cost me a whopping $125.
You're a big film guy, I don't have to tell you what a Pro EOS film body cost new, vs what I paid for it...., you do the math!!!
I hope I NEVER do THAT poorly selling one of my digital bodies!!! LoL
SS

RichardSM Loc: Back in Texas

To who are you speaking too? It helps if you use quote reply!

jsmangis Loc: Peoria, IL

I enjoy shooting with both my D610 DSLR, and my N8008 film camera. I also have a N70, but I prefer the older Nikon because it uses AA Penlight batteries instead of the $6 batteries my newer film camera uses. Yes it is noisier and slower than the newer models, but I like the heaver and more solid feel it has. I made a New Years resolution to shoot more film this year and will be posting some of my shots here.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

SharpShooter, that nice price on the 1n reminds me of the time we switched over from optical/film processes to digital processes in the school portrait world. We recycled millions of dollars' worth of optical printers, processors, and film cameras. We had to PAY $75 each to dispose of our long roll Camerz film cameras, that had cost $7,000 to $15,000 each! They had to be disassembled for recycling.

You couldn't give away a long roll film camera in 2006. You can buy them now for $45, plus $129 shipping! But fresh film is *not* available.

R. Bush Loc: Ogden, UT

Fresh film is available, but probably not from your average drug store. Yes, it takes some effort, but the film and chemistry are still available.

Stephan G

This is another version of the pot vs the kettle.

Too easy is flailing those brushes.

There are many photographers who prefer film over digital. Just as many who prefer digital over film. However the majority of serious photographers use both. The main thing about digital is that, yes, many shots can be taken all at "once" as compared with film. Also with digital, it is easy to come out with videos (another version of many shots all at "once"). But as photographers, we are after *that image*. And that can be just one shot. Why is it that many digital users do not include their man-hours in their cost for getting the one picture?

The "21st century" innovations just added more tools. It did not replace anything. When it comes down to the basics, they form the springboard to images using any means or materials, be it analog or digital.

I will say that all cameras do require digital manipulation. ( or is it ? Whichever digit is used to push the shutter release.)

anderzander

I am somewhat perplexed by Hedgehog, I have picked up several tips from this site but it appears some photographers know nothing.
I started out OLD SCHOOL 4x5 view cameras with interchangeable lens and Pan 32 ASA my favorite, using Acufine Dev. or Ilford later on with Acufine. (Also Kodachrome 25 ASA) Then 35 mm and then 2 1/4, so film is wonderful if you have a dark room, that is where the magic begins, if you can't develop your own film and prints, guess what you don't know photography, I still have all of my dark room equipment, I shoot digital because I'm not a professional photographer, I document events places and history for a specific reason, some of the great places in America and other places I have traveled are dis-appearing or have changed enough that you can barely recognized the location site. And, I do my own digital prints except for poster size beyond 17 x 22. I was in charge of two programs for the State of Utah so documenting rural life in Utah (Economic Development) was more important than being a professional photographer. I would have enjoyed that opportunity but it never came my way, my files have significant historical value because they represent the good and bad changes where ever I travel; spending a weekend in the dark room is a lost art and anyone who wants to keep it alive, should go for it before it is to late. I also did a lot of B&W Infrared because it was fun to play with. I don't mean to offend anyone, but posting information or ideas that can help in the pursuit of knowledge is where I'm at!

dragonfist Loc: Stafford, N.Y.

Chaman why don't you go to the Critique section and show Ted that you are qualified to judge anyone's work. Ted can then judge whether or not you know enough to judge another's photographic efforts. You establish your bona fides and perhaps he will post some of his work to establish his.

chaman

Where do you get your numbers? The majority of serious photographers use both? Really?