Scruples wrote:
I have yet to use any of these software packages. Part of the reason is I have always worked with the camera. Everything I do is in the camera. Besides, my computer is from the year of the flood. Not
only is it so antiquated, it asks, “Who am I?” I guess I need to stumble into this year’s technology.
"I have always worked with the camera. Everything I do is in the camera."
65 years ago I had a Kodak camera and I got prints "straight out of the camera"
50 years ago I had a Nikon, shot B&W, developed the film and made prints in my darkroom. That ended "straight out of camera"
30 years ago I lost the darkroom in a work related move, was given a Nikon P&S for recording family stuff and it was back to "straight out of camera".
10 years ago I heard about Lightroom, RAW and a Sony RX100. I rediscovered the joy of creative post processing. Recording the image is the first half of the fun. The second half is making it look like my mind's eye saw it, printing it and hanging it on the wall.
Scruples, I hope you can find a way to discover some of the excitement of post processing.
Equivalency! NOTHING is ever as good as "full frame." ....which used to be critsized as being way to tiny to be able to capture ANY detail. Stop it!!!
Smartphones don’t have "real cameras" — they do.
Bridges
Loc: Memphis, Charleston SC, now Nazareth PA
burkphoto wrote:
I'll start:
> The cost of subscription software — Either subscribe or buy a stand-alone license for something else.
> The fact that subscription software is a thing — Developers have to eat, too.
> The cost of decent lab prints — If you ever worked in a lab, you would know why good prints cost good money — especially in today's low volume environment!
> The cost of ink and inkjet papers for dedicated photo inkjet printers — Do you want the best? Yes? Then hush. It's five times the price of silver halide, and worth it.
> The cost of film for film photography — Run the prices through an inflation calculator. You'll be shocked at what a bargain it is — IF you still use film. I know I paid more than $3.26 a roll for the same film in 1980 that costs $12.00 a roll today. But I'll take a $12.00 64GB SDXC card over a roll of film, today.
> Raw vs. JPEG — They both have their uses as workflows. Life is full of trade-offs. Pick yours today!
I'll start: br br > The cost of subscription s... (
show quote)
What camera/lens should I take on a trip. Take as much as you can without creating extra expenses such as additional baggage fees on airlines. It is always better to have the equipment and not use it than to need it and not have it. Even if you leave the second body and two lenses in the hotel room while wandering around at least you won't be in a situation where your camera is dropped, broken, or stolen and you have to go through the remainder of your trip with no photos.
Retina
Loc: Near Charleston,SC
burkphoto wrote:
I'll start:
> The cost of subscription software — Either subscribe or buy a stand-alone license for something else.
> The fact that subscription software is a thing — Developers have to eat, too.
> The cost of decent lab prints — If you ever worked in a lab, you would know why good prints cost good money — especially in today's low volume environment!
> The cost of ink and inkjet papers for dedicated photo inkjet printers — Do you want the best? Yes? Then hush. It's five times the price of silver halide, and worth it.
> The cost of film for film photography — Run the prices through an inflation calculator. You'll be shocked at what a bargain it is — IF you still use film. I know I paid more than $3.26 a roll for the same film in 1980 that costs $12.00 a roll today. But I'll take a $12.00 64GB SDXC card over a roll of film, today.
> Raw vs. JPEG — They both have their uses as workflows. Life is full of trade-offs. Pick yours today!
I'll start: br br > The cost of subscription s... (
show quote)
I don't know first hand, but I would guess that most professional photographers and busy amateurs do not complain about the cost of subscription licenses. The convenience may be well worth the expense vs the time spent looking for deals, new installations, etc. Time is money.
lamiaceae wrote:
...
...
Remember It Is April 1!
I found the one that is different....
Lirpa Loof.
Retina wrote:
I don't know first hand, but I would guess that most professional photographers and busy amateurs do not complain about the cost of subscription licenses. The convenience may be well worth the expense vs the time spent looking for deals, new installations, etc. Time is money.
Taxes...income...living in the stream...it's a different perspective...pro and hobbyist.
Many times...my accountant would call me near the end of the year...'you need to spend 50k'...on something.
Okay...will do.
It's different.
DirtFarmer
Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA
Longshadow wrote:
I found the one that is different....
Lirpa Loof.
You are causing loss of time for a lot of AFs.
rehess
Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA
CHG_CANON wrote:
The mistake of owning inferior camera brands
Person who seems to believe “Canon” is in the answer to every photo question.
Me? A few things:
1) that RAW is the only way to go
2) that I need to “go mirrorless”
3) that everyone needs a D850 or Z9
I wish folks would stop complaining about my doing nude photography.
I'm getting tired of them telling me to put my clothes back on when I walk around with my camera around my neck.😜
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.