Well, part of the problem is the part of the brain, in the hippocampus, that encodes recent memories doesn't work that well as we get older. One trick is to remember to take a look at something, or make an effort to think about a topic. Its called mindfulness. So, when you go to the grocery store and park your car in a big lot, make a habit of pausing for a second and looking at where it is, instead of just dashing off to buy something, or make an appointment on time. etc. Or, thinking about the thing that has popped into your head, for a second. Else, easily forgotten. Like it never entered your head.

when I was about 17 my dad (who specialized in child photography) asked me to photograph weddings of his (former) subjects who had grown up and were about to get married. He bought me a crown but it was both too heavy and also I was too slow in changing packs. So he bought a Rolleicord VA (which I still have). Much later my mom bought me a complete speed graphic outfit-- from a newspaper that was transitioning to 35mm. Has flash, everything, with a neat camera case. I also, when a teenager, bought a used argus C3 that I loaned, much later, to my brother when he went to Ecuador to visit relatives (and lost it). in the 1990s I joined the Argus Collectors Group (http://arguscg.org/), which still belong to. There is an Argus Museum in Ann Arbor that is actually hosting one of the groups yearly meetings on Oct 20th I believe. Also has an annual meeting in Eden North Carolina every year.

Re : I've been told I should consider the extra expense of a multi focal corrective lens, and in theory, I'm really excited about the idea of being able to read the bedroom clock from bed, but I'm wondering if any of you who've had cataract surgery have chosen these multi focal lenses, and if so, how they've affected your photography. Do they affect your ability to focus your shots? Do the halos/rings some people report interfere with your photography? Thanks in advance for sharing your experience.[/quote]

I had that surgery around 1995, but opted to one near-sight and one far-sight lens (they did not have the multi-focal option "back in the day"). Has worked quite well, no halos except when I see angels and such.

Again stretching the point a bit, this thread makes me think of what we value as the authentic work of an artist. A reproduction, no matter how good, is not as valued as the original (well, unless perhaps if a famous artist reproduced the work of a less illustrious artist). Photographs are generally not considered to have the same value as a painting, unless it was made by the likes of Ansel Adams. Old daguerreotypes seem to have value, perhaps because they are rare. As are prints made by Adams. Or unless the photographer has a well-established reputation.. To me the authentic work idea signifies creativity, but also something that is relatively rare. If an artist make 10,000 prints, each would probably not hold the same value as an equally impressive print that had only 200 pressings. To that end, the production number is usually on the print, and often the artist destroys the original blocks so more can be produced. But negatives can make a million prints, or one. And slides are sort of unique.

John, you pose an interesting, related question: when one photoshops a picture to perhaps focus in on a subject of interest, make the composition more pleasing, adjust resolution or color, is that still something that can be seen as honest or authentic. Some contests require unaltered shots, for example.

Well, I would think one could digitally duplicate the film, alter it, and then recreate a new film. Might be a bit tricky but I think even I could do that, or at least handle the basic mechanics. Basics like duplicating the negative, editing the negative, then maybe taking a high resolution picture of the result, printing it out and then rephotographing with a film camera. I guess one might have to know the type of film used, and probably a forensic analysis would identify the new image as on different film stock than the remaining images, etc.

Well, old guy, I took up photography on or about 1946 or 47, since my dad was a photographer and had a dark room (remember those, or are you too young?) in the house. Sooo, if you are old, what the heck am I??? [don't answer!!]

Topaz video does a pretty good job of smoothing out videos.

As far as I know, Picasa modifies your original file. In other words doesn't move them. The original folder should have a subfolder with info on the originals. Perhaps unless you save revisions to the cloud? At least, that is the way I have used it: just save Picasa-modified files to the original folder.
Great info on the comments about how to download the software. Whenever I get a new computer I have to search and research to find a site, since Roxio no longer supports Picasa. Even though I have Photoshop and Topaz I still use Picasa when sending pics to family, etc/

about ten years ago my brothers and sister started bringing boxes of old family photos each time we met (generally once or twice a year). We would sort through the photos, select ones that had some kind of importance. I would then use and old Nikon micro lens to take a picture of the selected pictures, and go to a computer, enter each picture and write about it. After two years we created a nice hardback book of our father, and then another of our mother. The idea was to make something of obvious quality that would also give family readers a sense about the lives of each parent. We felt it was a better idea than just storing lots of old photos in boxes and albums, where later generations would have no idea who the people were.

I agree. I think the key distinction is between a snapshot that is just taken to register a memory, and a shot that considers elements of composition. However, what was originally just a snap can re edited and revised to become a deliberate composition.

your response got me to thinking that the 120 film was kind of like using a large sensor as opposed to the smaller ones in older/lower end digital cameras. The large negatives allowed sharper images when enlarged. And could do a fair amount of cropping and still be using the equivalent of a 35mm negative

In the late 1950s I used a Rolliecord VA to shoot weddings (my dad was a portrait photographer specializing in children, and when they grew up they wanted him to shoot the wedding but he didn't like the fast pace). Had a Braun strob light that was pretty powerful. Most of the time I flipped the top of the hood and used the result (I think it was called the sports finder). Of course could not focus. What I did was estimate distance, and adjust focus and aperture (since intensity of light reduces as a function of distance). So, was not hindered by having to look down, or get confused by which direction to move the camera. I developed the rolls myself, and tried to keep track of which rolls might lead slightly more or less processing, depending on whether I thought I might have misjudged aperture. The strobe, of course, froze action so the trick was not to have the aperture sufficient to take an image based on the actual available light.

Am am only semi-literate in the terminology etc of photography, but wanted to mention that I have three Nikkor lenses that allow focusing to about 10", One that I have in my hand right now is a Nikkor AF 35-105mm f3.5 -4.5. The other two, as I recall, are E lenses. The 35-105 has a little knob on the focusing ring. When depressed it allows for closer shots. Not sure if the above is relevant to the topic but thought it might be worth mentioning

I have the old, heavy version. about six months ago it became undependable in autofocus. I can still set to manual and use it, but doing a lot of shots with three very young grandkids who move around pretty fast (ages 1, 2, and 4). Not sure if it is worth having it fixed, and if so, where.