mikep1

A good example of how we all have different opinions...

 

I don't care for the first shot; it just looks like a snapshot out of a hotel window at nothing of any interest (to me).

 

However, I like the second shot quite a bit. It would be stronger if, as someone else mentioned, you cropped everything north of the outer "circle." Nice!

Camera functions have nothing to do with the "Craft" of photography. We have had point-and-shoot cameras for a hundred years. We still do. 99 percent of all photos taken do not exhibit any "craft." They never have. I don't see any difference now from what has existed in the past. If you want to stop action, isolate a subject, or whatever, you have to do the same things now that you did 50 years ago since the laws of physics, light, and lenses have not changed.

 

Most people could care less about any of this, they just want to take some pictures - just as they always have. I'll bet the percentage of "crafty" photographers is no different now than it was in 1915. There are just more people with cameras and it is easy to post images so we all see them. Just as the constant barrage of news - tv and internet - leads us to believe that there is nothing but terrible stuff going on in the world, the reality is we just see more of it because it can be shown/posted/relayed much easier.

 

So, for the same reason, we see more pictures. And, just as has always been the case, most of them aren't very good. I really don't see any change at all in the craft.

Yeah, there is. But I've never been able to make it work either.

Peter A,

 

Camera fired accidentally eh? Happens to me sometimes too.

Jamie,

 

Nice shot!

Christopher, Craig,

 

Two very nice shots!

 

MikeP

There are none. However, I sold my D100 after using it for 2 years because I found that didn't enjoy using it. I went back to using a Leica M because I do enjoy using it.

 

In every technical example I can imagine, a SLR (film or digital)makes more sense due to the range of capabilities/lenses. So trying to find an objective reason to buy an M is pretty difficult.

I sold my D100 which I had for 2 years and went back to film for most photos. I have a digital Elph which is a great little point and shoot for snapshots. At the moment I have no plans to buy another DSLR or a "rangefinder" digital camera.

 

I found that all the advantages touted for Dig do not really work for me. There is no replacement in the digital world for slides and the alleged ability to retake the picture if you don't like it is a marketing tool, not a practical one. The little monitor on the camera can't really show you anything (except the histogram which IS useful). And how do you retake an image? Ask everyone on the street to please go back and do what they were doing 20 seconds ago?

 

I ended up with many more pictures which required MORE time to go through and evaluate on the computer than it does with slides on a light box w/loupe. And virtually all the dig images require some sort of manipulation - sharpening if nothing else. Slides are slides - you're done!

 

As far as B/W...it's more fun to me to process/print BW in the darkroom anyway.

 

I use digital a lot for specific purposes - boat survey pics, pics of clocks/watches as I refurbish/restore them, etc. But for "Photography," I don't enjoy digital and, therefore, a new digicam is not in my plans.

I was under the impression they used Bombastium, for sure in the Noctilux.

Ian,

 

Noctilux, I presume?

I wonder if the fact that I don't use photoshop is the reason they won't post? I use Picture Window Pro but I don't know why that would make any difference since Jpegs are Jpegs (aren't they?).

A lieca-user friend of mine shot this last week in New Orleans. I

think he has an excellent eye for images that I would walk right past.

 

Thoughts/comments?<div></div>

Once again - can't figure out why the above dosen't display - it's less that 511 pixels, has a caption...oh well.

The one on the right may be Harry Potter...<div></div>

Colorful pic! The focus is a bit soft but perhaps that was intentional. I would also vote for cropping the horizon out.

Alex,

 

Nice shot. It might have been interesting to take a few with a lower shutter speed to see if you could capture a bit of movement blur. It probably would have been difficult to have sufficient blur to show action without so much blur that all detail would be lost but maybe worth trying next time.

Al,

 

Checked out the site in your post - Impressive stuff! Thanks

I agree w/Todd - just leave it on the camera. That's what I used to do with my 24. I since quit using the aux finder which works OK w the 24 (no glasses) but would be totally impossible w the 21.

Galen Rowell - photos that don't depend on several hours of manipulation afterward to make them into something allegedly "artistic."

I learned a long time ago to quit reading magazines about any subject you are interested in - cameras, motorcycles, cars, stereos, whatever. Their ONLY purpose is to make you dissatisfied and to purchase new products. That is how they make money. If they don't make you rush out and buy something, they are unsuccessful.

 

The SMARTEST thing you can ever do is after you buy something - like a camera - is to STOP reading any more articles/magazines pertaining to those products. If you don't, you are doomed to enter the never-ending cycle of satisfying the marketing people.

 

The digital/film thing is an outstanding example of this - make everyone feel that if they aren't doing digital they are "out of touch," "behind the times," or, the worst possible epithet..."old fashioned!" Digital is great, film is great. Use whichever one (or both) that you ENJOY using. Don't listen to the marketing dorks.

I'd like this one without the bike...

Nope, unlike some of your others, this one holds no appeal to me. I can't get an point of interest or a general mood or anything. Looks like a "record" snapshot of some people you know or a location that may hold a personal interest.

Don't care for this - too much foreground brick in the picture, the rats are too far away and they are not interesting anyway.

I like this shot but I'm not sure why...guess it doesn't really matter.

This has a brooding, slightly ominous look that I find appealing. For me it creates a mood and needs no explanation.