After 14 pages of this topic, I doubt if anyone is gonna read this but I will post in anyway.

Nothing bad has happened to photography. Like many other arts, crafts, professions, trades and hobbies photography has progressed into the technological age. This ongoing argument, over the decades, whether or not photography real art is kind old and silly. In the hands of a talented artist, it is an art. In the hands of a craftsman, it is a craft, in the hands of a savvy professional it is a viable, serious and lucrative profession or trade and it one hell of a fun hobby for all to enjoy at any level. Y'all photography snobs and so called purists- get over yourselves!

Stop worrying about what Ansil Adams, Mathew Brady, and William Fox Talbot all did. OK- they are my idols and heroes too but they are all dead and y'all are still here. Enjoy the history and take encouragement and inspiration for from work of all the masters of yore- read their books and study their imagery before you go to bed at night but during the day, pick up your cameras and do some photography.

Pining for the wet darkroom days is false nostalgia, at least for me. Look folks, I have been posting here for a few years and I have never made much of my credentials as a professional photographer- I don't like to boast, but I can tell you that I spent a good part of my life in a conventional chemical/silver darkroom. My colleagues, coworkers, peers, enemies and competitors considered me as a "MASTER PRINTER" and darkroom technician. I am a walking Photo-Lab-Index- if anyone remembers that tome of a reference book. My friends used to joke that "Ed can make a salon print on toilet paper, developed on chicken soup"!

Cropping, dodging and burning? Y'all call that manipulation? That's the tip of the darkroom iceberg. How about scratch mixing and altering both film and paper developers, flashing, bleaching, rubbing in concentrated developers, pre-soaking film and paper, using reducers and intensifiers, desensitizing and inspection development of film, self masking pyro film developers, making paper negatives, solarizations, posterizations, litho overlays, texture screening, 20 different kids of image toners, endless brands, types, contrast grades, surface textures and sizes of printing papers and much more!

The darkroom was "defect, accident, disaster and mistake HELL"! Every darkroom manual worth its price had endless detailed lists of horrible mess-ups that could happen to even the best of operators: Pin holes, air bells, stains of every type and color, reticulation, scratches, emulsion swelling, water-soak, agitation marks and streaks, fingerprints, deposits caused by impurities in the water, image tone changes from heat drying, drying down, clam-shell marks of ferrotyped glossy prints, edge curl, safelight fog, dichroic fog, over and under development, unexpected temperature fluctuations, chemical contamination and oxidation and more. Oh- and there were more chemicals and remedies for most of theses issues. Hey- and don't accidentally turn on the lights or open the refrigerator! Things like that have been known to happen! I screwed all of the light bulbs out of their sockets!

Let's not even talk about fumes, acid and alkali burns and irritations, contact dermatitis and toner that smells like rotten eggs and we haven't even left the black and white darkroom and walked into the color lab yet! Mess-up prevention and QC testing was a full-time job in itself. It boils down to the fact that your film and paper was in constant peril from the first dip of the film in the developing tank to the final trip of the print through the print dryer. If you are careful, fastidious, and well disciplined, everything should go well of you are fortunate enough not to suffocate or burn one of you fingers off with concentrated stop bath!

Believe me- after many moons in the darkroom you do become a more careful photographer. You don't want to have to manipulate the hell out of every shot because you have enough to do just to keep normal negatives flowing through the system. In professional work where you may have to produce a goodly quantity of prints each day, meet deadlines and keep production costs down, sloppy shooting and endless remedial work is not a good scenario. The very same philosophy, more or less, applies to digital photography.

Perhaps I miss some of the old materials and processes and their very special "look" but I can now replicate just about anything I did in the olden days in digital photography and without all the fuss and muss. Every method of image management is available to me at the camera and at the computer screen including just about everything that was involved in the zone system, perspective control, and even an array of special effects when required. Retouching and enhancement is now more of an intrinsic part and parcel of the post processing routine as opposed to an auxiliary procedure and that is very advantageous when theses components are required.

There is no doubt that good photography is a balanced combination of attention to detail in camera work and finely honed post processing procedures. Whether you work in a wet darkroom or on a computer, the earmark of a good print or screen or projected image lies in whatever manipulations that have been applied are "invisible" and do not call attention to themselves.

I am glad that I had the opportunity and experience to work with non-automated basic cameras, lighting equipment and analog darkroom gear. It's not a "I trudged to school barefoot in snowstorms" kinda thing- it's just that it gives one perspective and insight into and appreciation of our latest technologies and the basis of how they work. I don't think all of this technology makes for lazy photographers, it just makes it easier for enthusiastic and hard-working photographers to concentrate on their art while spending less time worrying about or fumbling with their gear.

PS- I just parted with my last enlarger. I did hold on to my old darkroom and operated it occasionally over the last number of years. This, however, became impractical as time went on. I can mix my own scratch chemistry but I can't manufacture paper and film. Most of my favorites are all gone. Most of my commercial clients require digital media and very rapid delivery. The production of fine portraits, in color and black and white, is still possible with multi-ink printers and premium finishing techniques.

Years ago, one of the recommendations I gave students was to get a 100 ft. roll of surplus film, a loader, and cassettes, and shoot it. The way to good photography included having to take a lot of mediocre images, and slowly begin to learn what a good image looks like.

Proof sheets and critiques eventually result in visual literacy. Watching a lot of tv and shooting pre-determined shots with wide angle lens cell phones does not lead to visual literacy. What has happened is that digital technology has simply allowed for a great deal more mediocre and poor images.

Good photography is certainly still there, good photographers must go through the same general process with digital tech, but the learning is exactly the same. The development of and strong photographic eye is at the core of good photography. There have always been "tricks," and post-production adjustments. Those do not account for good images. Bing able to critique one's work, and doing plenty of hard work does produce results. There is always room at the top of the pile. But it is true that digital technology has allowed for a much wider pile with a lot more "meh" images. An hour on Instagram or any other image-based social site will show that.

All that is to say I think the real issue is not about technology or post-production adjustments, it is about the lack of visual literacy.

I should have asked for advice or opinions before acquiring some of my current lens but after the fact am asking for your views, opinions or suggestions. I have had Nikon equipment since an early film 8008. Tried some other brands and still use Nikon as my go to equipment. I do some domestic and international travel so my subjects range from individual people to distance landscapes. I have a D5300 and a D7200 with the kit lens Nikon DX VR AF-S Nikkor 18-140mm 3.5-5.6 G ED. These seem to work well for most situations. In case I wanted to get out a little further I also have a Nikon DX VR II AF-S Nikkor 55-200mm 4-5.6 II ED, and a Nikon AF-S Nikkor 55-300mm VR 4.5-5.6 G ED and when I really want to touch someone a Nikon VR AF-S Nikkor 200-500mm 5.6 E ED. My question comes down to the quality, sharpness, and focus ability of my lenses. I have heard various comments on the board about some ‘glass’ being good or some not so good. Are there any suggestion about possibly swapping out some of my current lens for something that would be considered better glass (sharper image, faster focusing or bigger aperture etc)? Thanks for any suggestions.