CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Great, although it's CANON, the five most important characters in photography.

My oldest camera was an AE-1, I think, as the F-1 New was newer. I have a lot of pictures for those cameras to be proud of. Today, pretty much only the highest quality film is still available. Even my cheapest T50 got better with better film.

wide2tele Loc: Australia

I totally agree. Any editing I do digitally is only what I would've done in a darkroom if making a print and that amounts to very little editing.

Leitz Loc: Solms

Did you see this, RWR? The leopard has not changed its spots.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

[quote=CHG_CANON]Great, although it's CANON, the five most important characters in photography.

Yes, I saw it. I had just had a fine beef rib supper and didn’t want to puke it up, so I just ignored the post.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

"My stick figure family beat up your stick figure family." (i.e.; "Mine's better than yours" is pointless. Better for doing what? Better for whom? Good, better, best are only relative to you, your needs, hopes, dreams, desires, budget, hangups, and where & when you need whatever.)

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Often times people who are insecure in their choices need to denigrate other options in order to make themselves feel better.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You wouldn't worry so much about what others think of your camera if you realized how seldom they do.

wide2tele Loc: Australia

Haven't shot film in at least 15 years I would say but I certainly will again. Digital has many cost and convenience aspects. I still prefer film and could not care less if we had to go back to film permanently tomorrow. In fact, I'd celebrate!

Quite simply, film is more of a challenge and always forced me to become a better photographer.
Digital made photography easy and gave the opportunity for anyone to call themselves a pro.
Mirrorless will be the beginning of the phone photographer except with big phone camera that doesn't come with a phone.

Many will now get angry at me. lol

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

wide2tele, I'm not arguing with you, rather, arguing what my experiences have taught me. That is: I'm a much better film photographer because of shooting digitally. You can't practice enough with film to 'learn'. Even if film was free, the time to develop and to track the shooting variables is not unlimited. In digital I can walk directly from the shooting situation to displaying the results on a full screen for the pixel-level analysis in seconds.

My appreciation of successful film photographers has grown immensely, realizing the passion and dedication needed to achieve technical and artistic skills at just 36 to 100 frames at a time, rather than thousands in an hour or two.

wide2tele Loc: Australia

I'm sure you are. I think many who started with film understand photography requires a great deal of learning. I also think many thought to themselves when digital arrived, "Yay! Finally I don't have to learn so much and this digital camera will take care of a bunch of things on it's own."

Those brought up with digital cameras exclusively, heck, how many would even understand why you might point the camera at grass for example? Many would have no idea. If you let them work with center-weighted metering only, gave them a grey card and a light meter, told them here are a bunch of tools for you, they would be thinking, "Wtf is all this for???"

I printed consumer films back in the day. 90% were 1-3 stops or more underexposed. People struggled to even create anything worthy of showing to others. There was an almost desperate "need" to learn photography and become better. Modern gear and digital has taken this "need" to learn away. People, their photography is less for it imo.

anotherview Loc: California

The standards for a worthy photograph remain the same as during the film era.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

... and sometimes they’re just trying to be humorous. The problem with blogs is, there are no intonations or inflections or facial expressions to clue us about the context.

I don’t take stuff on the ‘net TOO seriously. Doing that could make me depressed and suicidal! There’s enough drama on the news and from my kids... worrying about brand hubris is just noise.

Arca

CHG-CANON

Paul, I have found there are only a few stellar members (IMHO) who routinely provide sound information, guidance and can demonstrate their points. At this moment only a few names come to mine, You, Burkphoto, El Shapiro and Gene 51. I KNOW there are others but their names escape me at the moment and it is not my intent to offend anyone by not mentioning their names, just an oversight on my part. In the past, there was Nikonian and Mt. Shooter. There is also Linda from Maine, a gentleman from Colorado and a gentleman from San Francisco who are very helpful and positive. I know that I have inadvertently left some names off this list, and that is my bad. Mea culpa.

My point in giving these 'attaboys' is that I appreciate all of you and your collective knowledge and your devotion to a volunteer club, UHH. You guys are just trying to be helpful, positive and likely want to see the questionner improve to the maximum of his/her potential. Positive strokes are hard to come by. In my line of work I find the criticisms or complaints to complements ratio runs about ten to one.

In sum, I just want to thank these named people and COUNTLESS OTHERS for their willingness to share their expertise, gratis. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Arca

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Thank you Arca! Glad to help. Most of us are here trying to help. As a social site based on photography, some others sometimes seem to be here for other reasons. Thankfully, they're a smaller percentage.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Life is a two way street.