joemcl1

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Your attitude will go a long way toward determining your success. Or, you can buy a new camera.

radiojohn

I've just started writing a small semi "how to" book after publishing "How To Buy Your First Digital Camera" years ago and a follow-up, "How To Use The Digital Camera You Just Bought."

The working title is "The Spirit Of Photography" and is a overview of decades of cameras found everywhere and how they differ in use.

This book is NOT for this crowd. It is for the post-smartphone crowd who "discovers" some older film or digital camera and needs some basic guidance about how it works.

I was inspired by the sudden surge of interest in adapting 70's lenses and now the idea that CCD digital cameras deliver images that are more "film-like." I don't agree, but I see an opportunity to fill a need.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Those old 1970s lenses are okay for some things, mostly producing results that look like old '70s lenses. Many of them do not measure up to the best modern sensors, which is why manufacturers have re-designed most of their lenses for their new MILCs. Clinical sharpness, however, isn't appealing to everyone.

The difference between film and digital "looks" is largely erased with the right knowledge, careful testing, color management, and high end "giclée" grade pigment inkjet printing.

There has been a huge tendency for those who grew up on film to avoid the learning curve required to be fully conversant with digital technology. It's a significant barrier for those who didn't ride the first wave at an early age. It's not insurmountable, but if you lack technical knowledge and can't type, it's a challenging problem to overcome. Many of my generation (I'm 68) have that problem.

I spent decades in specialist, project management, and department management roles a first-rate portrait lab. I stlll say the best thing we ever did in our business was spend ten years transitioning from film/optical silver halide printing to full digital printing using a combination of different technologies. Our best inkjet prints were more "life-like" than any of the millions of silver halide chromogenic prints we made each year. We pulled more detail from color negatives with scanners and digital silver halide printers than we did with direct-to-paper optical printers.

Craig Meyer Loc: Sparks, NV

I'm glad I have company disagreeing with many valid points.

And it's FUN, too, when those valid folks get their safety straps in a wad!

Made me smile.
C

Toby Cole Loc: Newport, Oregon

Toby Cole Loc: Newport, Oregon

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Please use the Quote Reply button instead of the Quick reply field, so we know whose post you responded to.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Why cares?

Toby Cole Loc: Newport, Oregon

radiojohn

I may want to quote you with the above in a new lightweight book [Tentatively, "The Spirt Of Photography"] that discuses a lot of he wonderland and garbage dump of used photo gear being "discovered" in a camera-phone world.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

That is priceless and why are those not the titles of the books?

radiojohn

Those were real. The first was a multimedia CD. The second was a printed book.

The rights to the multimedia one was sold to a [then] big dot.com and incorporated into a million-dollar website. That's all gone now, but I got paid!

The next one will be an ebook.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Quote away... I've been digitizing images made with '60s-'70s lenses. Part of the look is due to the lenses I used 50+ years ago. Part of it is the old films we had. And part of it is the process of macro photographing negatives and processing raw files in Negative Lab Pro and Lightroom Classic. Then part of it is my mood and taste or tastelessness...