Very, very nice photos. Great subjects. I live in Goodyear, AZ, and we haven't hit Bisbee yet but will. Jerome and ghost town Jerome are great...been there, and Williams on Route 66 is worth a look. Nyms

I'm using the clone tool in Photoshop Elements 10. Nothing special, no learning curve... Clone(stamp..?) tool>Alt Click next to the light pole or wire>Click hold and brush it out. I try to avoid situations and crop in the viewfinder but with wires it's often hard to keep them away. Sometimes the wires add something more that I had not noticed. As in this shot....it just helped to have them and I never even noticed them in the viewfinder, everything there is included. Removing all intruders in a scene tends to make things look fake and surreal, and in press photography it used to be a no-no, although these days... (shot with a 1986 Lomo Kompakt Automat (USSR), and Eastman 5222 35mm b&w movie stock, 200 ISO, if anyone wonders...) Nyms

This is really cool..!! Nyms

I was at MOMA in NYC. (Okay..Museum of Modern Art...) There was an empty frame left on a wall as a marker for spacing. I liked the frame...nothing special but I needed one like that. Some people gathered behind me and stared at it as well. One finally said, "It's so minimalist." I simply closed my eyes and left the square of white wall inside the frame. What can one say after that...? Nyms

Thank you, Eric. Nyms

I'm sorry you have to go through that. I'm starting to see double. I can still see in stereo but now I'm afraid all the cross eyed viewing of my 3D stuff is affecting me. I see the eye people next month.

This one didn't work too well.....but in stereo it's not bad either...it's soft. If you don't have a viewer, stare at the centre line, slowly cross your eyes till you see three identical size pictures. Concentrate on the centre image, try to focus, and when your forehead starts to ache it should pop into 3D. It takes some tries for some people. Nyms

Really..!! I thought about doing my Lomo stereo photos with this. In black and white they are fine but in colour they are just....TOO colour. So, I may try this out for the old postcard/stereopticon look.

I've only done one photo and that was two days ago. I tried it and liked the very old hand tinting job it did, a not super accurate job. I used a photo that was on old, 1989 expired 110 Kodak. The colour in the original was spotty at best so I processed it as b&w. It looked really good. By re-tinting it, it looked the way I hoped the original should have looked. Instead, it was better...very soft tint as opposed to the new colourization of old movies. I haven't downloaded the program or bought anything yet but I like what I see....it looks like tinting with a soft Q-tip, and in original type Marshal Oils or pencil. I don't like the banner/logo at the bottom of my photo...I don't know if it goes away with purchase. Remember, this is a 110 negative and is soft anyway. The camera is a Kodak Tele-Instamatic 608 from 1975. I felt like hanging up all my Nikons for awhile and working in 110. The original hasn't been spotted yet. Hope this can help you. Nyms

Or this..... http://demos.algorithmia.com/colorize-photos

Wow..!!

I use Tempe Camera as well. I live near them and everything I've taken to them they have fixed. They seem to have a huge supply of parts cameras so even my old stuff has been fixed....such as parts for a 40 year old Nikormat and they made the meter work again. Nyms

That has incredibly smooth gradients, from jet black to pure white. I'll have to try Tri-X again. I use antique cameras and toy cameras lately so I've been using my frozen Verichrome 120. Except for speed, how do you think Tri-X compares to Verichrome? And I really like your photo...a fun and happy photo. Nyms

I ask everyone NOT to use flash because it sets off mine. I tell them if they want to snap the pose AFTER I shoot mine they are welcome to. One problem is that after I shoot mine and I tell the posers to stay put, they don't. Nowadays, with the advent of inexpensive digitals, the photo quality is much higher, but usually the shooters are not savvy enough to stand where I stood. Their photos have ten posers looking off to one side. Composition is your weapon here. I went to a wedding that had a pro shooter, so I used a small palm size High-8 video cam on still mode. I sent my 20 or so shots to the couple in a short slide style video. I thought they came out well. The pro never delivered, I don't know why, and my 'snapshots' (although done well) were the ONLY wedding photos. They wanted everything I had shot, along with everything my husband had shot. In keeping out of the way of the pro with non-obtrusive cameras and shooting the way WE usually shoot weddings, we were able to completely save my niece's large wedding.

I have a Nikon D60. I used a 300 Nikkor lens (old) with a 40 year old Vivitar tele-extender that is a doubler (2x) It's NOT the one with the 7 elements. Except for a slight amount of low contrast and slight bit of 'soft', this combo works great for me. Since everything goes through Photoshop Elements, any problems are corrected easily. And, it's easier than setting up my 8" reflector telescope, which is 6' tall with the massive tripod. IMHO, people worry a lot about searching for 'perfect' and spending lots of money in not finding it. A used tele-extender can be found for dirt cheap and is worth trying. Or, ask your local photo emporium and see if they will let you borrow or rent a used one for the day. I've even stacked two doublers on the 300mm, and a cheap 500mm mirror lens. Again, tightened up in Photoshop. Here is a shot with the 500mm mirror lens and one 2x Vivitar. Nyms

(Download)