My fascination and love for photography started when I was six years old. After watching my father develop negatives in our darkened bathroom in 1947, I ordered my first camera which cost 50 cents and a Wheaties box top. My Samoyed puppy; my baseball playing older brother; my first-grade neighbor with a cap pistol and anything else that moved got their picture taken. Seventy-five years later, I realize that I take far way too many pictures and should be FAR MORE selective before I press the shutter button. I now only take a picture of something if it is both pleasing to my eye and might be interesting or attractive to someone else viewing the image for the first time. When do you think someone should go ahead and take a picture of something? The attached image of a light fixture in my kitchen was taken with my Sony A7R4 with a 70-200 Sony telephoto lens set at F2.8; 1/2000 second shutter speed; and auto ISO. The unusual shaped globe being accentuated by the straight, shiny, brass bass and tightening screws was esthetically pleasing to my eye. Would you photograph it? Shooter41

Yeah, I could never understand the idea of a 360° camera. That isn't actually possible, unless they mean the "Little Planet" or "Small World" type of picture, but that can be done with any camera.

http://digital-photography-school.com/make-little-planet-using-photoshop/
http://content.photojojo.com/tutorials/create-your-own-panorama-planets/
http://www.instructables.com/id/How-to-make-Polar-Panorama-with-Photoshop/
http://www.subblue.com/blog/2010/6/17/little_planets
http://photography.tutsplus.com/articles/using-polar-coordinates-to-turn-landscapes-into-planets-and-more--photo-9998

Is lens diffraction still an important consideration with the newest/bestest lenses?

I did a little test with my M4/3 Panasonic and 14-140 mm lens last year and it was quite obvious that f/8 or f/11 produced better results than f/22.

As with the improvements in low light/noise, does the type (zoom, prime, focal length) of lens and/or price affect diffraction now as much as in the past? I try to always suggest that people do their own controlled tests, but I'm curious.

Thanks!

The only reason I can come up with is that in 1959 Olympus came out with what they called a Half Frame camera. This used the same 35mm film cassettes readily available but gave twice the shots i.e. 48 shots on a 24 shot cassette. It also resulted in a smaller camera body and lenses than the usual 35mm cameras. Strangely though 35mm film cameras were NEVER called Full Frame cameras as far as I can find out.

Also in the days of film photography - YES there were indeed frames in both movie and still cameras – the frame produced a good clear sharp border around the 36mm x 24mm images and the half frame 24mm x 18mm Olympus versions.

So why, I ask, are present day 35mm format digital cameras called Full Frame when there is NOT a frame anywhere within their innards full, half, or otherwise? Nor are there any frames in APS-C or M4/3 or any other digital cameras! Even smart phones don’t have frames.

There’s no logical reason for it as far as I can ascertain but my guess is that the advertising media are the culprits as using the word Full in an advert implies very strongly that one can get nothing better! The same issue has occurred with monitors and TV’s with the media still promoting Full HD as the best one can get.

So so wrong and in no way beneficial in any way shape or form to any aspiring photographer – how often do new users ask questions about full frame/crop sensor etc as they are confused by all the meaningless terms. (Crop sensor another misused and misconstrued term used mainly to denigrate and demean smaller sensor cameras! – but I won’t start on that bag of worms today!)

Anyway – Photographers of the World – please start calling a spade a spade as it will help promote photography as the precise technology it is.

Cheers JohnR

I haven't looked at the negatives for my wedding photos before. Hey, we had the album, right? But I have been scanning in old negatives and came to these. I'm using an Epson V600. It is extremely finicky, but I can usually make it work. But not on these negatives. When I took a second look, I realized that there are three odd things about the film. It has sprockets on only one edge, there are dark lines instead of transparent lines between frames, and although the film itself is 35mm, the pictures are smaller than usual 35mm pictures on negatives, almost square. They were taken by a professional photographer. Has anyone seen this kind of film before? This is from (ahem) 45 years ago.