Yes, that's right... My box turtle has brown eyes. She's about 26 years old now. I had a male and he had red eyes but he is the dumbest turtle I've ever seen. They have the run of the house and could even get into the walled in yard thru the dog door. We wanted babies but gave up hope when we found him in the corner trying to mate with a potato he had cornered....

I never left. I love film and the older the camera, the better. I just bought a 1903 Kodak No. 2 folder with a red bellows. This is the first camera Kodak designed 120 film for. I do use, at times, a Nikon D60 and see no reason to upgrade. This Nikon and the tiny digital P60 point and shoot do poster size images. But being able to cut down 120 to 127 for my very first camera, a Kodak Starlet 127 from 1959 and it's like new, keeps photography magic. I have many antique cameras and use antique methods such as tintypes. With film you have to slow down and think, so you don't 'waste' any film. You have to set up a shot, think about f stops and shutter. I also bracket a lot, which some call 'cheating'. With digital one simply shoots everything and toss the crap later. My little Kodak Starlet holds only 12 images. I took an extra roll or two. It's been to Niagara Falls in '59, in the '60's it went to the NY Worlds Fair twice, and to Canada, the St. Lawrence River, Old Fort Henry, Camp Drum, many town parades, fireworks, and just snapshots. And it still does. Because one has to count the images, every one is completely different. And the memories and history is incredible. This antique 1903 Kodak that I'm waiting for was nine years old when the Titanic sailed...there may have been a few of this model on board. Imagine owning a camera that 120 was first designed for.... 104 years later we can still buy this film. I read these posts here about digitals that conk out, muff up, stop focusing, and my antique cameras still work after 100 years simply because I dusted them. I kitchen sink b&w and colour, scan it, and with minimal digital processing I get great images. With 120 to 4x5 I can contact print beautiful little images. Sorry for the long post... Hugs... Nyms

My personal, perhaps wrong, feeling, is that when you shoot film and scan the slide, keep off the 'sharpness' buttons. For me, that is the dead giveaway that a picture is digital. No matter how good a lens is, there is still a very slight softness to it. That is what makes the film 'look' so endearing to us. I saw a photo from a local photographer (who I hated for his attitude) that had a beautiful 18"x24" image of a crane like bird. It was surreal because everything on the blowup was too perfect. Too sharp. Almost like a contact print from some unknown 18x24 camera. I use digital for quicky stuff but still use medium and large format. For 120/620/127 I use film and for 4x5 I use film and tinype and glass negatives...then I scan with a light box and Nikon D60. I still use a Yashica D and a Kiev Hassy copy, and an RB67. I won't get rid of them or the antique 620/127 folders. You CAN scan good slides and negatives and get beautiful prints if you don't over process everything in the digital domain. I make sure the camera focus is perfect, scan the slide, and in digital, I spot, adjust tint and cropping. Only. I do develop all my film, b&w and colour, in the kitchen sink. It's easy and you'll save a fortune by not sending it out. I get about 15 rolls out of an E6 kit that's $32 or so.
You have good cameras and unless you're broke, you'll get pennies on the dollar if you sell them to a camera store. All of this rambling is just my opinion and how I do things. Digitally, I'm not a fan of the un-sharp and sharpness tools. All of that defeats the purpose of the lens characteristics, IMHO. Sorry for the long message..... Nyms

Beautiful work..!! Nyms

WOW....!! Just.....wow.... Those are beautiful. I always wanted to go to London. Nyms

With all the embarrassingly good cell phone photos today, it's almost impossible to bar photography.

I used to use Tempe Camera. They could fix anything and have been around for so long they have used pieces to fit almost anything. Once I took a 1969 Nikkormat to see if it were possible to make the meter work while they did a CLA on it. They scraped together all the old 'not available since Watergate', including the weird ASA innards, and it still works after 17 years. Yes, I could have bought a better replacement. I have many Nikons but the original Nikon F and the Nikkormat just feel..good..in my hands. Nyms

Right you are..!! We call them 'Professional Picture Takers'..... Nyms

Very good photo..!! Composition is spot on, and the interesting photo tells the story without words. I was a college photography teacher. This photo gives you a 100..!! ( A+) Nyms

Ektachrome never left for me...I have a bunch of it in the deep freezer. I process my own, scan it, and go from there. Nyms

I was upset when Fuji stopped their Instant B&W 3000 because it fits in my old Polaroid Big Swinger, which I painted white to look like the original 1963 Swinger. The Fuji film pack was better than the Polaroid. Nyms

I think since the tree is small and very movable, move it to a different location, later in the day, so the background is in deeper shadow and the sun is still on the tree. Definitely open up the aperture for a more shallow DOF. A white or silver reflector below the lens can bring light into the tree's lower areas as a fill light. No need for another flash. I use two 8x10 gray cards, one with the standard white on the back and one with crumpled aluminum foil, smoothed back out and glued to the back of the gray card. These go with me everywhere, fit into my camera bag back pocket, and I use them almost always for plants and flowers. Sometimes, a little cheap fill light is all you need. And your Bonsai tree is very beautiful. Nice job with it. Nyms

Just curious, not wanting to start anything, but Fujichrome is still available, although my favourite Velvia 50 is not. I use Velvia 100 and pull it to ISO 50 and it's about the same. But with the availability of Fujichrome, why aren't you people speaking of slide projectors and film cameras using it..? Again, just curious. Ektachrome has always been my #1 film, and I still have a lot of it in deep freeze, along with Verichrome b&w 120 frozen. I use the 120 and convert to 620, and slit to 127 and the remnant is 16mm for my 110 Minolta. I know Fuji is different than Ektachrome but is it that bad not to use for your film cameras and slide projectors..? I've got Ektachrome's from the early 70's, not stored specially except for the carousels and boxes, and they have not faded at all.
Here is an Ektachrome 100 120, slit to 127, shot in my 1959 Brownie Starlet, my first camera. The film has been frozen since 2000. If I had none I would have used Fuji. Nyms

They had to pay the tux shop for replacement of the tux's, pre sliced for the EMS. This was told to me by the bride when I gave her the shots. The fight was near the end of the reception, people had been drinking and worse. I never found out what the fight was about. If I had been a reporter there, I completely muffed up the job...no info on the fight, two or three blurry "action" photos.... Just wasn't prepared for shooting the far end of the room when I was shooting people dancing.... Nyms

I should have... I never even thought about it until you mentioned it. This was about 1995 and I wasn't computer savvy yet. But I really should have tried The Enquirer, etc. I only got two or three blurred images, though. Mostly, I was getting equipment, and me, out of the way. Lots of screaming females, bride.... I never did find out what the fight was about. Everything was happening so fast. Nyms