will_daniel1

Shack by the railroad track<div></div>

After seeing that ad, I'm sorry I sold my Electro 35.

"...at least half of the cost of RnD for your camera is the processing hardware/firmware." If this is true, that is a staggering figure. Can you please cite your source for this? Also, your use of "hardware/firmware" is confusing.

"There is no teaching in a classroom, only learning." -- Gordon Sumner (a.k.a. Sting, who was a teacher before he became a pop star.) I have fully adopted that as my teaching philosophy. I don't teach, I try to help them learn.

Canon A1000IS<div></div>

Digits, man -- we got digits.

I am for nipples.

Thanks, David. The odd thing for me is that when I present my book to various groups at book signings they tend to view me as some kind of expert on whatever river I'm presenting at the moment. That might be because I did so much research and writing to go along with the photos, but sometimes I have to come right out and tell them that they all know a hell of a lot more about that river than I do. This riverscape photography thing has indeed affected me in many positive ways, but I still don't think of myself in the same way that some of my readers seem to think of me. I'm just grateful they are buying the book.

<p>David,</p>

<p>I haven't read the article, but I will. I just finished my second "coffee-table" book of riverscape photography. During an interview last year of some officials with a major Chesapeake Bay advocacy organization, I let it be known that I am not an ecologist, environmentalist or conservationist of any kind. I am just a guy who likes to go down to the riverbank and take "pretty pictures" (what a coincidence that I used those words long before the article appeared, eh?). However, one of the officials, while looking at my <a href="http://www.willdaniel.com/james/">first book</a>, told me that I was a conservationist just by virtue of what I do, whether I know it or acknowledge it or not. OK, that felt pretty good, but I still just want to take pretty pictures.</p>

Dragonfly with blown highlights...<div></div>

I definitely suck at painting. Many say I suck at photography. Next.

I'm kind of with Nate on this. I'm trying to imagine what it would have been like when I was in the industry in the 1970s: "Our bokeh is a helluva lot better than that #**&%* Minolta bokeh. Sometimes, though, the Leica bokeh just gives us a run for the money. You know, they spend all that R&D money on making the finest bokeh money can buy, but ours comes along sometimes and just blows the Leica guys away. Don't buy off-brand cameras like Sears, Vivitar, etc., because they don't know how to manufacture bokeh." Or going to a gallery: "Oh, what lovely bokeh in that photo!" It all sounds so silly to me.

The Greenbriar -- West Virginia's world-class resort.<div></div>

Aw c'mon Walt. You know that I wasn't trying to compare an LCD screen on a digital camera to the ground glass on a view camera (apples to oranges, as you said). I was merely calling attention to the similarity in composing methods with the new method being so "retro" to the old. Surely you got that.

When we launched the 40mm lens, we also introduced an accessory belt clip for the Pentax ME. The idea behind the lens was to make the ME into a "pocket" camera, or one that could be worn on the belt for instant access -- a street shooter's delight. You had to have a big pocket, but consumers got the idea. There was some consumer resistance to it as a "normal" lens because of both the focal length and the speed. Everybody was accustomed to 50mm and everybody wanted F1.7 or faster, or so we thought. The thing that surprises me most about that lens is its value today as a collectible.

<p>I am starting to get the message that composing a photo by placing your eye at a viewfinder will someday be history. Composing by looking at the tiny monitor on the back of a camera seems very retro when you consider that the best photos were at one time composed on the ground glass of a view camera, albeit upside down. It's not that this old dog can't be taught new tricks, but I can't yet get wrapped around any camera that doesn't have some kind of viewfinder. I'm sure I'll come around on that point if I live long enough -- I probably won't have a choice. </p>

<p>I was a Pentax sales rep when we introduced that silly looking 40mm pancake lens. Most of us on the sales force had a laugh when we first saw it, but it sure did sell well over the years. I still don't like it.</p>

<p>I have already shot my last roll. My 2011 New Year's resolution was to shoot no more film. I made it all through the year without film, selling the last of my 35mm hardware along the way. It was the first time in my life that I was able to keep my New Year's resolution.</p>

<p>From my small Canon...</p><div></div>

<p>Step one: Get to the gallery and retrieve your property before the doors close. If not, they'll likely be gone forever. It happened to me.</p>

Kodak P880<div></div>

Thanks Steve. I'll take a look at it.

I was a sales rep for the U.S. company that sold those things (yes, in another life I was a sales rep for LOTS of companies). The price was right, and we could have sold a ton of them except for one small problem. The bayonet lens mount is very close to the PK lens mount, but off just enough to be not compatible. Introduction of a new, proprietary lens mount at that moment in camera history was a disaster for sales. PK mount would have been an entirely different story. All in all, though, a nice camera.

Thanks, Harry -- I'll look into that book. That name, Fred Parrish, is somehow familiar to me. Will investigate. Thanks again.

Leslie, you are certainly correct -- we teach that it is a dying field. Not just your opinion. However, we also teach journalism as converging media, and that requires today's writers to be equipped to take their own photos -- precisely because photojournalism is a dying field. We want to give them the basics.

We do not have a photojournalism course in the university where I teach writing and reporting, but we are looking at

starting one. Our art department has a fine-arts photography track, but we're looking to launch something more

appropriate to the school of mass communications, an introductory level course. Student demand is driving this. If any of you are so engaged, I would love to see a copy of your syllabus. Suggestions welcome. Thanks.