Couple of thoughts for you. In our club, we had separate divisions. Added a bit of time to the meetings for change over...maybe ten minute. The divisions were "Prints" and "Digital" with actual hanging prints judged/critiqued, and then digital on projection screen, judged and critiqued.

This is a bit different from your situation. However, I could envision two divisions that you describe. "Straight Out Of Camera" shot with either digital or film (scanned to project). Second division, post processing allowed, with advanced editing qualifying. That second division might be called Image Creation-All Tools. Call that first division, Image Creation-Camera Only.

On the first division, to placate the camera only purists, I would suggest an allowable 15% crop and minimal overall brightness adjustment.

These are just suggestions, but in separating the purists from the post processors, it might smooth some feathers.

With regard to the overall issue you are contending with, there comes a point when you can no longer call your club a Camera Club, but rather a Photographic Media Club.

[quote=josoIII]

Thank you for the comments, and please feel free to use the post as you like.

I will say this.... one of the best things I ever did in my pursuit of photography happened during the Seventies, when I signed up, did the exercises and completed the NYIP (New York Institute of Photography) home study (mail) course. At that time it was 27 sections with a glossy chapter for each section, and submission of work, with a response on cassette tape from NYIP on each section. The tripod and weight and test section was thorough in detail.

I certainly encourage formal or semi-formal education, and still see NYIP as viable, considering the ease of fitting your schedule to the training, or vice versa.

I feel everyone, myself included, is just a "snapshooter" until you understand very many aspects of the endeavor.

Being a "Professional" is not defined by selling your work. It's defined by the quality of your work and how you pursue your chosen subject matter and how you create images.

There's nothing wrong with shooting snapshots for memories. Professionals just take it to a higher level. Education helps.

So does participation (active) in a camera club. The only thing I deride about camera clubs is the politics.

I like JaniceA's well thought out answer.

Mirror lockup is not new. It was an integral part of SLR systems from the very beginning of SLR camera's (Yes, I was there). As Janice mentioned, any part of a camera system that adds to stabilizing the camera during the actual shot is just part of the series of tools that good camera's include.

Ultimate image quality is a function of many aspects of the shot, and includes any component of the process that stabilizes the camera. In fact, MLU (Mirror Lock Up) was a much more significant feature of Medium Format camera's, where the mirror's were big and heavy, such as Mamiya, Hasselblad, Bronica and most others. It was a lesser known feature on many 35mm SLR cameras, used primarily on "Professional" level camera's, where the photographer benefitted from, and understood, the distinction between locking up the mirror to avoid the minute vibration from "mirror slap". It does exist, but as we move more to electronic shutters, will disappear as a function of the "shot".

However, other questions remain.

1) if using IS or VR, regardless of "in body" or "in lens" degrades the image quality when turned on while the camera is tripod mounted, it's because the final shutter action is delayed while the IS "hunts" for vibration as it is designed to do, then the understanding of the MLU is the least of your worries. You simply don't understand the mechanism of your camera.

2) if not understanding the "vibration damping" qualities of your tripod, due to the material from which it is made, ie. wood, metal alloy, or carbon fiber, then understanding and using MLU is another "least" of your worries. Efforts to reduce the weight of tripods degrade the benefit of using one. A tripod should be heavy, and that can only be attained by packing around a light tripod, and making it heavier at the photo site, with added weight.

3) If you don't understand the benefit of hanging a 15-20 pound bag of rocks, or a gallon jug of water from the center post of your tripod, then not understanding and using MLU is again, the least of your worries.

4) If you don't truly understand how using your forefinger to "Stab and Jab" at the shutter button degrades the image you just shot, which is avoided by NOT touching the camera (use a remote release), then I once more contend that you can skip the part of your manual about using MLU.

MLU is not some new trick of "digital". All the things I have mentioned above have been around since near the beginning of photography, and well documented (tested time and again) by both manufacturers, engineers, and professional users of photographic equipment.

All the functions that lead to the best possible image are choices of many features of your equipment. The finest pictures come from simple cameras, where there are minimal moving parts, like large format camera mounted on a heavy wooden tripod, with 20 pounds of stabilizing weight hung from the center post. The shutter is a simple leaf shutter, and release is done remotely by a long flexible cable, or an air bulb.

MLU is just one tool which can (without question or doubt) improve the quality of your images, if incorporated with all the other tools to stabilize your camera during any shot.

I have always been entertained by those who for many years have judged cameras as being professional, primarily if they were "Black" and also if the name ended in "ON", as in CaNikon.

Why would you ever draw the viewer from those faces to those ankles and feet???

And I'm not particularly talking about those two young ladies. In general ankle and feet are nasty subject to interpose into a photograph. The original pic shown was FAR better in terms of presenting images to enhance the subjects finer features. On that last image my eyes immediately dropped down to some fairly unattractive ankles and toe configurations.

Sorry, just telling it like I sees it. I truly did like the original post MUCH, MUCH better.

Tricky question, with a number of options:
Entry level bodies and "kit" lenses are usually pretty well matched to each other. With any upgrade, you stand the risk of using an entry level body with lenses that are more capable than the bodies, or in the event of an upgrade, a body that outshoots the "kit" lenses.

Common logic is that upgrading lenses (or "L" lenses in the case of Canon) achieves more Image Quality. However, L lenses are quite expensive new and high priced on the used market. Furthermore, you lock yourself into the System and somewhat committing to Canon when the time comes to upgrade more lenses and higher level cameras.

If you're fully convinced that you are a Canon shooter, then I'd probably opt for a lens in the L range first. Your best bet would be a 50, or 85 prime to spend a bit less money and to see if you can dig a bit more IQ out of your Rebel. Then, I'd seriously examine whether Canon will work for you before committing to the system.

Remember that is does not behoove Canon (or Nikon and others) to make the Rebel shoot like the Pro bodies, just because you have Pro glass. They must escalate the return on R&D by making higher level glass work better on higher level bodies.

Lot's of research involved, and your question is just the beginning.

Almost better to rent or borrow (?) upgrade glass before you can truly decide.

Then there is a the issue of third party glass. Sigma and Tamron are noted third party lens makers, who often match image quality to Canon lens sharpness and rendering, but who also occasionally experience issues with Quality Control.

Yes, you guessed it! The hobby is expensive, fraught with wrong choices and much research. Good luck.

Try one lens upgrade, and then be prepared for either making a commitment to the system by considering an upgrade body, before spending high dollars for a second lens.

Also remember that neither Canon nor Nikon meet all peoples needs. There's plenty of switching to Sony, Sigma, Pentax, and many others by people who all have different needs for capabilities and budget.

The good news is that a lot of Canon and Nikon equipment gets sent to the "used" camera marketplace.

To go back and answer your initial question. First important move is "AWAY" from kit glass. Second most important move is to assess two things. Your commitment to a MFR system and then a higher grade body, most likely in and APS body or perhaps Full Frame. When talking cameras, it appears a lot of people like to shoot in the dark (perhaps literally), so ISO (noise) is a significant talk factor. I find that humorous, since most of the time I am in low light, I am there to enjoy an event.... not memorialize it in photographs. People are odd, don't you think?