Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Yes, you're right, R ... 30 come up, but, sadly - my two Topic Posts referencing Ansel Adams, are not part of them!!!

rplain1 Loc: Dayton, Oh.

lakeside Loc: Texas

If you like bird photography, this guy is awesome. Yes, he uses a scope to get close and not disturb the birds.


https://otwtb.birdwatchersdigest.com/uncategorized/introducing-robert-wilson-digiscoper/

btbg

Mark Adamus for landscape photography. https://www.marcadamus.com/
Neil Leiffer for sports photography http://neilleifer.com/

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Not me. A modern day Weegee.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

You mean - the guy only shoots Crime Scenes?

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Although he was famous for his crime scene photos, that wasn't by any means the only subject Weegee shot. He shot a lot of great street photography.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Oh, did he? ... I didn't know ...

So - that guy in the pic with the Crown Graphic's a street photographer, then - is he?

Always been a little wary of doing that ... people get so uptight, when they know you're photographing them ...

Shame!!!!

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Bob,

I checked your information and found something really bad about it...

https://gearmashers.com/meet-arsenal-smart-camera-assistant-review-2018/

Scroll to the review and list of updates...

eskimoky

Edward curtis is one of my favs,photography isnt all about art,as the many combat photographers and life magazine contributors have shown.but art is good too!lol

Spirit Vision Photography Loc: Behind a Camera.

Yes, he was shooting with that Crown Graphic.

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

It looks fairly new, too - doesn't it, Kiron?

I wonder if Crown is still making those things!!!!

At least, he's also carrying a "miniature" around his beltline ...

So, he's got the best of both worlds, there ...

Kudos to him!!!!

PatrickAtty Loc: The Woodlands, TX

Interesting thought. The other evening I found myself wondering if the shift from film to digital has made photography less of an artistic pursuit and more a function of data processing. I am scanning decades of old color negatives and slides, and, with Photoshop, I can coax good photos from bad shots originally made on film. I guess you could always do this if I had had a darkroom and large budget for post-production, but digital cameras and software have made it easy. Don't get me wrong, there are millions of great photos out there. But are they the work of great photography or expert operators of the post-production software?

A corollary is the use of digital photography means that, instead of shooting 36 shots and then having to change rolls, the photographer can fire away endlessly. Film and processing cost money, while electrons are free. An amateur might have spent half a roll on a shot, and hoped he got one good photo. Now the same amateur can shoot a virtually unlimited number of shots. This drastically increases the chance of finding a prince among the frogs. The software manipulation increases the likelihood of a good photo.

I think of Joe Rosenthal and the Iwo Jima flag raising. He had only one chance to get it right.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Photo software is only a tool, like the darkroom. You might be able to "save" a badly exposed negative or digital capture with either, but that's not what they do best. That is to take a negative or digital capture that is as good as it can be out of the camera, and then enhance it further. I don't see much difference between becoming proficient with the darkroom or with post processing software. And if Photoshop is so easy, why is there so much lousy Photoshop work out there?

Chris T Loc: from England across the pond to New England

Good point, John ... and results from prints manipulated in the darkroom are not as obvious as Photoshop gaffs, either!!!