Roughly 65 percent of the 102,552 Indigenous people in Quebec speak English as a first, second or third language. This includes most Inuit; most Kanien’kehá:ka (Mohawk); most Eeyou (Cree); many Anishnaabe (Algonquin); many Mi’kmaq; and most Naskapi.

We are very cosmopolitan up here. With many cultures and many languages, it's COOL!

As for camera brands- I have used many formats and brands over a long period. I had and have my favorites but wouldn't bother arguing over any of my preferences. They say the inapt carpenter (photograher) blames his tools. Should a successful photograher credit his tools? That's up to each individual.

My previous post is silly. This argument is silly! Calling someone a "fanboy" is juvenile! Can their be fan-girls?

Have a nice day!

Call it Canadian Canon Balls

Coat of Arms of the Royal Canadian Artillery

ENGLISH is fine. Worldwide is good! But the OP referred to CANDADA. And Canada stretches way beyond Newfoundland.

Sorry folks! ALL INVALID!

In Canada, the title must be bilingual.

"Forum de photographie de hérisson laid"

By "everything" I meant redundant posts, "zombies", the odd disagreement, etc. I would not expect anyone to monitor every detail.

They are just a few omnipresent troublemakers and "clowns" that certainly stand out and obviate themselves. Keeping them around gives license to the "followers" It's like kindergarten!

Not everyone is interested in the same aspects of photography. Some lean toward technology, many are into gear, others are into artistic expression, perhaps photojournalism, portraiture, and people, travel and vacation, landscapes, and family records and snapshots. Some are professional photograhers or retired pros, some are long-time advanced amateurs, and some are rookies. That is GOOD. That is the concept of a forum- everyone brings something and perhaps we can all learn from each other. I have no objection to the mixture and never discriminated against anyone's status and bragged about my own experiences or achievements- I just use them as a source to answer questions. My answer may not be perfect or you might disagree but they are offered in good faith.

Waht I object to is the snarkiness, negativism, vitriol, and personal attacks that frequently arise. There is no reason or good derived from these behaviors. Sometimes it seems that words like thanks, please, excuse me, and common courtesies and respect have been prohibited around here.

Realistically speaking, it would take dozens of moderators to "police" everything. There are going to be redundant and recurring posts about filters, post processg, vs, SOOTC, Jpeg vs. Raw, lens shades, etc. Ths will happen as new members come on. If folks are not interested in those hackneyed subjects or "zombie" posts, why not pass on them, go to somethg that is of interest, or start a new and exceotg thread of your own? Why take the time to post stuff like "I don't give a rat's tails about whatever..." Posts like that should be deleted! Why post a snide or rude snipe that you KNOW is gonna start an unpleasant chain of events?

OK, so the admin wants clicks and advertising, more power to him! Does that mean that a friendly and courteous atmosphere with plenty of good information is NOT gonna attract new members and plenty of participation? Do folks come here to continuously squabble, engage in verbal combat, and complain? It takes the same amount of time and effort to contribute a logical answer or remark as it does to carry on a string of quips, wisecracks, cartoons, and discouraging and mean-spirited negativism.

If the trolls and clowns are banned, will the entire forum collapse? I don't think so!

Sadly, much of social media has turned into a dumpster. The anonymity and lack of personal contact have led to folks exhibiting their worst behavior- things they would never do or say in face-to-face conversations and meetings.

Unless I am reading him wrongly, I think Bill is referring to the demeanor of the old posts not necessarily the content. In some cases, the gear and technology have changed but topics about aesthetics, basic theory, lighting, composition, and much more are still valid.

Frankly, as a long-time member, I am cutting down on my participation because of the protracted arguments that are ongoing.

Courticy, kindness, agreeing to disagree, clean debates, and comradery never goes out of style.

Seems folks here and everywhere are normalizing bad behavior.

I alwas keep a keen eye for old but interestig photo junk but I haven't come across a Graflarger for years. Even if you find one, you need a stand and that rig is awkward. Large format enlargers, however, are all over the place. Omega, Bessler, Durst, and Solar, all
made 4x5 models.

I shot weddings, events, press assignments, and sports with 4x5 press cameras for many years before the industry transitioned to medium format and 35mm. If you want "that look"- sharpness, good gradations, nice prits, stick with 4x5- Don't bother will roll film adapters- Why lug aroud a 4/5 when to can shoot rollfilm in a medium format camera?

There are tons of old press cameras on the used market. I have seen them online, in camera shops, and even pawnshops and second-hand stores. Compared to the prices of current digital cameras they are going for a pittance.

If you can find a Graflex Crown Special with a 135mm Xenar lens that lens is sharper than the old Optars. The rangefinder is built into the body so it will still synch and not require external adjustment.
You may be able to score a few Graphmatic film holders- 6 sheets!

I am a veteran of the "toilet photo lab" so I can set up a darkroom in many less-than-ideal environments- closets, cellars, kitchens, any place you can darken. Hot and cold running water and a cheap thermometer well will do the washing!

A "daylight" developing tank cannot be loaded in a closet or change bag and the chemistry pours in in normal room light.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/63620-REG/Yankee_YACF45_Cut_Film_Daylight_Developing.html

Tri-X ISO 400 is still available. Process in HC110 Dilution B will yield great negative if exposed correctly. Stop bath, fixer, clear agen mix to direction will complete the process, and the wash, Photo-Flo, and up on the "clothe-line"!

You can probl find an Omega D-series enlarger at a low cost. Around here, fols were junking them. A friend of mine picked up a Chromega for 75 bucks- he uses the filter for variable contrast paper. A good negative wills can print as well.

Occasionally, I still use my 4x5! Keeps the arms in shape!

The Swiss-made heads and others made by my Nikon and a few other precision manufacturers are more elegant and smaller than my old Majestic- they have vernier scales for repeatability and to maintain a particular angle of tilt or degree of rotation, etc. That is why you pay the extra bucks.

My old Majesics models were built for strength and efficient movement. One of them became "crikey" so a shot of automotive grease, about 8 years ago fixed that. Another one sustained a damaged coupling- a trip to the welding shop remedied that. Most other external parts can be found in a hardware store. The newfangled fancy ones?- try not to drop any of them!

Majestic tripods, heads, and extensions are still available on the used market. If you are not concerned about weight and want a virtually instructable tripod- consider one!

Nothing new but oldies are goodies. I've had and used this one for over 50 years. They came wot the most Majestic tripods for decades. I originally used my wit arg format view cameras and medium form gear. I have added it to most of my heavier current tripods. It is great when ver preces tiling is required. It won't droop, yaw or move once it is set.

As the hyperbolic salesman said weh I purchased it. "Kid, you can mount a house on this thing"!

Well, it ain't the kid thig you want to carry in a backpack. The current versions are smaller.

To the OP:

You might want to talk to your ophthalmologist or optometrist. My limited understanding is that colorblindness cannot be remedied or cured with special glasses but in some cases, depending on your specific issues, some special lenses made with glass have certain minerals, that can act as filters and could somewhat mitigate the condition in certain color ranges. I do not know if any of this technology can be integrated into editing software or a monitor screen.

Just an idea with no actual knowledge. I wonder if an experecd technician can set up an automated color standard, much like auto-white balance or auto-color correct on simple software that will get you well into the ballpark.

The only experience I can call on is yer ag when I ha an in-house (analog) color lab in my studio. I hired expereince printers and color-correctors who had long-time previous experience in black and white custom printing. A few were great a composition and production by had difficulty with color correction. So we did the test and two ofhte the candidates were indeed colorblind. Sadly, the doctors, at the time, had no cure or workaround. Fortunately, we still were running a back-and-white darkroom then.

Don't be discouraged. Many great photoghaers outsource their lab work and just concentrate on shooting. If someone can do the color management part of the editing- or just become the NEW Ansil and work in monochrome!

As a commercial photographer, I have occasionally been engaged to photographically documents items and properties for insurance purposes. Seeing that I do occasional legal photography for a few local law firms, the requirements usually come in through these lawyers on behalf of their clients. A few clients have hired us directly because they had experienced issues in the past where the insurance companies attempted ot somehow mitigate their claims, under-evaluate their losses, or even question if they have certain items.

The law firms called us in because we also do occasional personal injury and property damage photography for them or where they are advising certin of the client's insurance issues.

I use the word "few and occasional" because I do think there is a large enough market to sustain a specialized business in his kind of work. We are in the cellphone era where folks are photograhing their own stuff and will shoot pictures if they are involved in a minor accident, or if the is damage to their home or property. Certain cases or jurisdictions value photographic demonstrative evidence more than otheres. In some serious injury and damage cases, very detailed and professional quality imaging is required. In large urban areas there ar still a few specialists in forensic and evidentiary photogahy. In criminal cases, the police and othere law-enforcement agencies have their specialists.

The jobs I have done included stamp and coin collections, expensive jewelry and timepieces, antiques, a large collection of costly clothes, room interiors, and furniture. Photographs of the small items had to be detailed and a ruler was included in the frame to show the scale. In some cases small engraved trademark and/or serial numbers. Valuable artwork had to be detailed and show any signature labels or data on the back of the canvas or frame. Photographs were often authenticated by experts or notarized. In a big case, you may be called into court to testify thathe evidence was not exaggerated, retouched, or falsified in a manner. That can be a time-consuming experience so you need to be paid well for the initial job and that does not happen every day.

In today's environment of privacy issues, criminal activity, burgery, and fraud, I would not prompt these services directly to most private clients. I prefer to work through a law firm or insurance company.

Same question differet title. Post-processing- more or less? Realistic or exaggerated? SOOTH or Not?

I usually do not chime in on this issue but here's my take:

Modern photograhy was not born on a computer. For many years we used film and chemistry. There are hundreds of film types, and formats, and each with its own charistics as to speed, gran structure, color pallette, contrasts, saturation, latitude, and prescribed and altered chemical processes. For those who made prints, there were hundreds of papers- sizes, surface finishes, contrasts, various color saturations, tones, and more.

Photograhers could select from endless combinations, permutations, and processg variations to create the image and interpretation of subjects. There were realistic images, exaggerated abstractions, documentary recordings, pure fantasy, and everything in between. Photograhy is a creative endeavor and not necessarily a uniform discipline.

With film, we could create images with every gradation in the grayscale, high contrast, solarizations and posterizations, rich color or pastels, virtually grainless or grainy, sharp of sift, warm or cold whatever. Now we can do much of ths by flipping a switch or moving a few sliders. Why not?

Should every photoghaer shoot everything the same way AND should every photographer always do everything the same way all the time for every shot and every subject and never try new approaches or different or interpretations? I hope not!

I am not a doctor, I am a photograher so if I don't feel well, I see a PHYSICIAN! I am not a lawyer, so I consult a LAWYER when I have an important legal issue or question, I don't count on "Dr. Google or Google, and Partnersl Attornies at Law" kinda thing. I mean a real LAWYER!

As a commercial photographer, I am somewhat familiar with copyright law because I have to deal with related issues in various contractual agreements with clients as to usage, licensing, ownership of images, etc. At one point in time, I had just about memorized Section 55 of the International Copyright Act and included references to it in my contracts. Over the years, however, times have changed and things have become more complex. Digital, imaging, social media, and the Internet in general, all have added to the complexities. Besides there are differet laws in various jurisdictions.

Dispite my experience, I would never assume to advise any photograher on these legalities, and the last person I would ask is another photographer. I am sure some photographers are significantly well-versed in copyright issues and more so than I am I also know that there are many who BELEIVE they know it all and operate on a lot of mythology, and old wives' tales and feel they have rights and privileges that they do not. They espouse false or erroneous information, not only about copyright and intellectual property issues, but privacy matters, shooting on private property concerns, and lots more. The star out sayig..we have the right to... and end up on the receiving end of a lawsuit or worse.

As for this forum, social media, etc. whatever you post there is at risk of unauthorized usage. Even if you have iron-clad legal protection, how are you gonna monitor the WORD-WIDE WEBB and enforc your rights? Do you have a law firm on retainer? The only advice I can offer in good faith is not to post anything that you fear will be copied, alterd, messed with, stolen, or in any way used against your will or better judgment. If you regularly sell your work commercially, as art, as a contractor, whatever, it is wise to consult will a LAWYER or law firm that is familiar with copyright, intellectual property, patent and trademark, and contra law.

You do not need to go to a lawyer for every contract or transaction. If your lawyer can familiarize you and set you up with some standardized contract forms, licensing agreements, etc. that is a good start.

Original question. I would NEVER download, display, or do anything with anyone else's work without permission- not only for LEGAL implications but for a moral reason and common courticy. If I leave an image enough to want to use it as a screen-saver, hang it in my office, use it for teaching or training, or whatever, I owe it to the maker to buy it or at the very least get their blessing. I will NEVER represent it as my own work and make certain the maker gets credit!