TMax 3200 . .. "TMZ" by code, love that code
name, cuz I think when said aloud it SOUNDS
like TMX images LOOK. Or mebbe just mental
short circuiting ....

OK mebbe that sounds crazy, or not. But I've
shot miles and miles of TMZ and I looooved it.
Never used any "fine grain" developers on it.
Always in HC110.

But that was then, and this is now. My taste in
grain was formed by TMZ back then, but now I
hafta carry that taste forward as a metric even
tho nothing digital truly compares.

Remember how TMZ made projected enlarger
images sooper easy to focus ? No eyestrain :-)

`

`

As to "creative use" of noise, most camera original
noise has no creative use. You have little to no real
control over it other than sweepingly large control
as in "Hugely more of it" as you really crank up the
ISO. But the "aethetic quality" rather than quantity
of camera noise is not readily controlled.

OTOH there are "add noise" filters in post that are
very versatile, and when used properly will pass for
camera noise. So sometimes I'll "add noise to hide
noise". Explanation and example to follow :-)

In many night scenes, there's visible noise that
looks OK, meaning it's sorta evenly applied, much
like our beloved old [real] film grain. Problem is it
won't look so "even" throughout the image. This
seems governed by the subject details or textures
that are rendered differently throughout an image,
and also by the brightness of various areas.

Often, and fortunately, the areas where in-camera
noise looks worse, not MORE but WORSE, are just
a bit brighter than the very darkest areas, and are
areas where detail or texture [if any] are not very
sharply focused.

OK. Areas not crisply rendered and-or kinda dark
must be areas that are NOT the centers of interest.
They may be parts OF the SUBJECT of interest, but
to the eye they lack what it takes to hold interest.
IOW these are areas where we can, if needed, do
somewhat crude things without drawing too much
attention from our viewers.

Sometimes ... too often ... the areas in question
are negatively drawing attention cuz they tend to
display ugly, uneven noise and artifacts. Easily we
can use various tricks to soften or blur away such
stuff. Easy enuf to make it gone, but what remains
also draws attention. What remains is not ugly but
it IS different looking than the rest of the image
where we have visible noise that we will "let live",
cuz it's "even" and not ugly ... "well behaved" like
our bygone film grain.

So ... we have multiple smallish areas where we
treated the uglier camera noise but the treatment
has left them looking different, texture-wise, than
the untreated majority of the image area. And they
look just different enuf to draw some attention to
themselves ... IOW distracting. Use of "add noise"
filters can put fake noise patterns into those areas
to make them match the visual texture of the rest
of the image. Fake noise is very adjustable so you
can tweak it to match the rest of the image. Fake
noise has no disturbing artifacts like the ugly real
in-camera noise we removed.

Top image is the whole frame.
2nd image is some ugly noise before treatment.
3rd image is same area but softened by noise
reduction treatments, then fake noise added.
4th image is a detail of untreated noise within a
section of the center of interest. Not distracting
nor ugly, due to the tone and detail in this area.

`

Below is digital fake grain. Depending on the
nature of your image, tone breaks, "mood",
smooth or textured subjects, it will pass as
real or look really fake. It is Olympus' grain
"filter", and I've read that it is considered to
be exceptional, so maybe other grain filters
will be less acceptable.

Yup. There is no enhanced market value to a chemical
print, unless it's a surviving relic. New prints are to be
digital to be valued. There are very good reasons, too.
I'll skip over the reasons and just say that lab prints are
inferior in every way. Surviving relics are valued NOT
because they're "better and they don't make them like
that anymore". They are valued because they are relics.
New lab prints, if you can make any, will not be relics.

BTW, mounting the slide in the matt is silly, pretentious
BS ... but if he has his believers, good for him. If I hand
you a slide, can you determine if it's a duplicate ? I am
not saying he's dishonest about his one-of-one. I'm just
saying that the symbol of it, the "proof" of it, is merely
theater. Also, assuming the "proof" has real meaning, it
only "proves" that no further lab prints could possibly be
made [by him, anyway]. Did you know that lab prints
can be made from digital files ? Also, even if he sells the
slide along with the lab print, where is the interneg ?

BTW, is the slide canceled, or still usable ? That affects
fru-fru value as well ! Again, not accusing dishonesty.
Just saying that there is more theater than substance to
his one-of-one pony show. Prints are one-of-one becuz
his word is his bond, not becuz of providing any material
proof of it when that proof technically proves not a thing
and so is merely symbolic. Symbols do have value. But
symbols themselves are not substantial goods.

My thinking is that it's best to file that encounter among
your memories of "encounters with curious fellows" and
then go about your business. I do hope your business
model is not perching on a stool at an "art fair", wearing
a beret, and expecting strangers to buy framed prints by
someone they never heard of. Sure, a few prints will sell
to certain patrons of the arts who don't judge the work
by who-made-it:

"Oh look, Muffy ! Wouldn't that horse picture go nicely in
our spot at Saratoga ? $350 and already framed. I'd pay
that just to never speak again to that grumpy bastard in
that framing shop in the West Nineties. Yes, Mister Artist,
kindly ship it to this address. There you are. Thank you."

`

Canon is soooo behind the curve.
Sonys have a Roomba in there !

`

As safe as factory sealed brand new, at
least with BH and other honest dealers.

Words do matter. I believe you mean
refurbished, which at the extreme will
mean that a new product was returned
for a real OR imagined malfunction and
was either correctly repaired OR found
upon testing to have NO malfunction.

A refurb NOT "at the extreme" could
well be just a display item for which
the original packaging is lost. I have a
refurb SLR, bought from the maker's
USA refurb page, and it came in a box
for a video outfit. Doesn't really matter
how that came to pass :-)

Reconditioning would imply a definitely
used item that has been CLA'd and any
necessary repairs were performed.

That won't fly. I am published cuz I'm a retired staff
photographer. Work in advertising, in-house graphics/
publications departments, etc. So when my employer
bulk mails its College Catalog full of my pix, who will
say I'm not published, even tho I'm an institutional
cog on a wheel with no way, and no reason, to draw
attention to myself. Staff photos in marketing material
are not credited. The work itself BELONGS to the same
institution whose name is on the catalog. It does not
belong to me. I get less credit than the worker whose
name is on the garment tag that reads "Inspected by
Kim". Lotta good a credit does Kim ! But same for me,
so lack of credits is no problem. Woe unto Kim if his
name is tagged into a whole batch of faulty product !

As a staff photographer, all my work belongs to my
employers. If the employer lets the newspaper print a
photo from us, it will likely say "HVCC Staff Photo" or
"NYS DOT Staff Photo" or whoever I was working for
at the time. The owner gets credit ... for having the
good sense to hire brilliant and reliable staff ! Just as
you might wanna get credit for learning how to shoot
football or whatever. Then YOU are the institution that
produced the photo, even an institution with a staff of
only one [yourself]. "Game Photo by [You]"!

`

Not cheap, but less than half the price of its
competitors, it's the Tamron 45/1.8 SP, with
IS and internal focus and no external moving
moving components. If all those other "exotic"
oversize normal lenses might "lab test" even
better than this, I can only ask how anybody
ever sees the difference in real pictures, even
verrrrrrrrry carefully executed pictures.

Referring to the category of oversize normal
lenses I'm not excluding this one. It, too, is a
very oversize normal, prolly a Distagon type,
but, thankfully, not as oversize as the others.


I've got two [EF and NF], and both deliver pix
that beautifully blossom, even explode, when
processed. AF usually too fast to see, without
little double motions at the stop, just Bingo !
OK, well VERY damnt near always a Bingo :-)

If the other giant normals for 2X and 3X this
price ... $400 with hood and baggie ... are in
any measure better at imaging, it's rather a
moot point in practical terms. But the several
hunnert extra USA sheckels is hardly moot !

I did check some reviews, which were crazy
positive, but all I cared about was to avoid a
doggie and to get a fast normal with IS. IOW
it didn't hafta live up to all the hype, not for
$400, as long as I got IS and lens speed. So
it was a wham-bam sooprize to see it live up
to the hype, every inane word of it. This was
the one time I'd ordered an "overpriced" lens
and so I strongly suspected I'd return it the
day after it arrived ... but it shocked me, so
I bought the second one !

Did I mention it's weather resistant:

`

No one can tell you everything you need
to know about bags. But, I CAN tell you
THE most important thing to know:

Avoid black interiors. You can't find stuff
or can't find it fast enuf or fail to notice
that you didn't pack something ... cuz so
many things, including small things, are
black in this game.

I feel very strongly about that one piece
of advice, and have nothing else to offer.

`

Of course. Just speaking for MAYBE a few of
your tourists, never believing it myself. But
the one thing I did really mean to express is
that I really do think that wearing a brightly
colored P&S in plain sight has got to lead to
a feeling of common identity, and of reduced
social distance, between you and the tourist
audience on your tour bus ... and that it's a
really nice touch, wardrobe accessory-wise !

Making the occasional shot as you pass any
special subject matter would only reinforce
that connection. You're their "alpha tourist",
cuz you're always ready cuz you know what
will be next in view. Using your camera can
be like a symphonic conductor's baton :-)

Do NOT tell me your passengers are just a
bunch of old, grumpy, hungry, constipated
retired iron workers. Don't ruin my fantasy.

BTW I have been out on one of those huge
truck-like "Duck Boats" just like the one in
the tragic news lately. Not sea worthy. Not
hardly pond worthy ! Better to be a "duck
out of water" than a truck in the water. So
count your blessings riding a bus on land.

`

Consensus ? LOL ... ROTFLMFAO !

Nevertheless, I like a wrist strap on
a pocketable camera. A neck strap
is just less pocketable, but I like to
know when using a camera that is
NOT safely around my neck that if
I get bumped or whatever, a slip of
grip for a moment will not see the
camera pop loose and hit the floor,
or ground ... especially leaning out
over a railing at great height !

I don't need a wrist strap heavy
duty enuf to tote the camera by
the strap. It's only a safety loop
against momentarily letting go.

Other than M43 or Sony a6XXX,
or anything else that petite, I'm
always using neck straps. In real
terms, I keep one Sony and one
ultra-mini M43 around that seem
to ALWAYS have a wrist strap and
everything else, many-many else,
ALWAYS have their neck straps. If
I had just 1 or 2 cameras I would
use easy-to-unclip neck straps so
as to easily reassign strap types.

My personal ways are fixed. I am
not influenced by horror stories no
matter how gruesomely told or the
"exciting" physics involved. And, I
disabled my airbags. But, I always
wear my seat belt ;-)

SMDP. YMMV.

Been at this craft for decades, full career, etc but
that 28-300 was my first truly modern lens. Love
my endless accumulation of oldies, truly "golden"
oldies, and excellent as most were, the new stuff
is a very different breed, especially the best of it.

Amazingly "better" ? Better, or not, is somewhat
subjective. But amazing is amazing. Images are
strikingly modern. Some call it clinically sterile ?
Call it sharp and neutral cuz it's exactly what PP
programs seem to be built to work on best. And
PP output is the real photograph, not any SOOC
material. Film negs were SOOC. You hadda finish
the photographs to see them. IIRC, the industry
that did most of it was called "photofinishing".

Enthusiasts shooting chromes falsely believed in
SOOC output. They were messing with materials
not optimized for their direct use. Chromes were
fodder for CMYK halftone print publication as the
finished result. Negs, chromes, SOOC files, all of
those are unfinished photos. Files from "sterile"
lenses flow soooo nicely thru the finishing stage.

Anywho, did I mention how amazed I am with
the 28-300 ? I did ? Loooong ago ? Oh-kaaaay !

`

Just remembered another one.

Very compact [52mm filter size] Nikkor AI
28-50/3.5 [constant]. Stellar ? No, but it's
a fine old steady aperture zoom in a really
small form, well built, and tho not "stellar"
a modest zoom ratio does allow for a very
sharp lens at a small price and size.

I've done the same thing with less cutting, therefor less
messiness. IOW my work is no neater, just less of it. If
you trim a smaller portion of the "skirt", you can still fit
the lens to a strictly AI body but you hafta correctly pull
the AI follower "peg" around to where it drops into the
shorter cut away and you hafta start with the lens set to
a particular f-stop. Kinda "fiddley" but not so awful. And
once it's mounted it will operate normally across the full
f-stop range. My method was less work with my crude
tools, and for mounting one lens to head out for a simple
minimalist one-lens-one-body outing, it's just one "fiddle
session" at home before heading out. Clearly, your way
is best for quick lens swaps anyplace anytime every time
and minor scarring on any lens of near-zero market value
is truly nothing to fret over.

And as was asked before ......

Ever happen upon a crazy bargain that amazed you ?
Your policy is of course bullet proof, but is at retail.
Didn't you ever bag a happy surprise at a silly price ?
Not ever ?

FWIW, like many others I've bought quality gear at
retail and gotten quality gear for that money, but it
misses the fun of the thread. Surely somewhere in
the long past some bargain amazed you ?