DickArnold

Some twenty years ago I retired from a full time professhional job that had nothing to to do with photography. and which required international travel. I hooked up with a local paper on retirement where I photographed news and sports and this led to my taking on a wedding involving a paper employee. It was all film then and that wedding led to others and I found myself in business. I also photographed for the paper. I sent my wedding work out. I did this growing the business until about the time digital came out. I used Bronica and Canon gear. It got to be hard work. In those days of film one had to know something. My photo business grew because film work took some knowledge and wedding work took good word of mouth. There was no real competition in the seacoast town where I retired because film took work and knowledge that not many possessed. Digital ultimately changed all that. I got so busy I went travelling in a motor home during the winter and took Spring and summer weddings only. It had gotten to be a lot of work and even for an old pilot weddings were a lot of pressure. Nothing like an unhappy mother in law. I actually made a little money but when digital came out I decided to shut the business down. Old and tired. I have been photographing sports to this day; mostly swim meets. I have participated in shows but never made much money out of picture sales.

I really don't care about the ethics of digital post processing. I do it when I need it because of time or effort constraints. Raw is more flexible for volume editing. I make changes in post processing when necessary. I like to get a large swim meet processed and on the web in a couple of hours and prints soon after. When I shoot a swimming meet in large venues the variable lighting, and sometimes nasty white balance make consistency difficulties. I would like all the photos to have the same general color, white balance and exposure character. The same was true with my weddings. I try to please the user within ethical bounds.. I do what that takes. When I worked for a paper I had to conform to journalistic rules about post processing changes. I have no artistic compulsions that I am a slave to. I did my very best to make my brides look good by giving them a little help when needed. Most did not really need much if properly lit. I have photographed professional models who are properly lit and made up. That makes a big difference. I use raw mostly for post processing purposes when needed because of a high volume of pictures. I did a lot of weddings with film where post processing wasn't possible on a global scale as it was impractical because of time and technical limitations. This, to me, is not an ethical issue, it is a production issue. It is all so much easier in digital with Lightroom particularly when making global changes. .I am not for or against raw enabled post processing. I do it if time and picture volume dictates I do it.

I shut down a photo business about twelve years ago. Still very active shooting swim meets and for pleasure and making 13x10 prints of what I like best. I never liked the time pressure of fast wedding delivery and am happy not doing that. Got into Canon M5. Ergonomics not as good as 7DII nor is the viewfinder but I take a lot of pictures with it.

I am not defending raw processing but I use it. As digital came out in 2002 I was leaving the wedding business which I shot all with film. I lost a lot of pictures with film because it was too hard to timely fix errors when mass processing for over five hundred pictures a wedding. Since I left the wedding business I have continued shoot a lot of sports including swimming. In the thousands of pictures I have taken in these endeavors I have saved a lot of decent pictures that would be valuable to individual swimmers because of the flexibility in using raw processing. Shooting indoor swim meets is difficult because of mixed color temperatures, bad lighting and the need at times for high ISOs. When I do a meet can load all raw pictures into Lightroom and make global or group changes to account for color temperature and exposure differences etc. I can then do cropping and any other changes I was to make. I can ready a meet inLightroom for publication and printing in a couple of hours. The main thing is that I can save some good pictures. For me raw processing is a valuable asset as I am trying to make individual swimmers happy. I am not doing this for art although I get personal satisfaction from it. I am doing this to make swimmers pleased with the product. Raw is very helpful n bringing pictures up to a satisfactory standard for use.

After over ten years coming and belonging to PN I just don't come here very often. The site just does not work well for me. DPreview works well because I can readily find stuff that seems to be diffused all across photo.net. Fred Miranda is more navigable and it is easily to get around. My picture portfolio looks better than the old but is also confusing to me to navigate. Luninous Landscape has good and mostly thoughtful discussion. I don't even know if I am still a member of PN after paying dues for most of those ten years. I am interested in the new Sony products. Where are the in-depth reviews that I find on other sites? I can find all of this stuff easily on other sites. I just read through a thread promoting jpeg processing. I shoot sports and find that raw in conjunction with the latest edition of Light Room makes for very fast processing and web publishing of large files of pictures. Frankly I just don't feel like I belong here any longer. .

I have been a member for over ten years. Forgive me because after years of learning and making friends here I have strayed and lost faith in photonet. This was sad because I have learned a lot even though I once owned my own photo business abd worked professonaly. After being a doubter I am coming to believe the new version may help to sustain the site that I earlier thought was failing. I think the site needs some work but it is on the right track. The most appealing facet of PN IMO is the facility to cross talk and become familiar with other members. I find I am just a number on the larger sites I belong to. I have been very comfortable on this site over the years. So I am regaining interest here and hope PN survives. Perhaps "I was once lost but now I am found"..

I have both. An OVF on a 7DII that I shoot swim meets with and an EVF on an M5 that I shoot most everything else. I have done direct comparons between the two.. IMO the OVF works better in bright light that the EVF. I have tested them side by side in bright light. The EVF allows me to carry a light quality camera and does work better in dim light I guess. I have tried two different EVFs for swimming action. Not so good. One EVF was Canon the other Sony. I get a little better overall picture quality with the M5 as it gives a bit more MPs than the 7DII. Big lenses work much better on the 7DII.

I am not interested in arguing over words. I ran a large aviation engineering organization doing aviation R&D. We did a lot of work, as the Navy did with human interface. Hundreds of hours of work and subject testing went into human interaction with aircraft controls and displays. In my humble opinion attention needs to be paid to ease of use issues in the new version. In aviation that meant calling in users to test potential human interface alternatives well before going to ninal design. If nothing else do some more beta testing with casual uninformed users like me to find anomalies in the human interface. In my limited use of this system I find it difficult to move between functions. I believe after being a member here for over ten years that the site has lost a lot of its former appeal. I am hopeful that this new renovation will restore some of the vigor that used to be here. This site has promoted useful dialog between members that has made it quite interesting and develped long term relationships between members. I bet the average user age has increased significantly over the years along with a decline in membership.. The redo is a step in the right direction but in order to continue it, IMO, needs to develop a new, younger user base. I have noticed that DP Review reports a lot on cell phones and their photographic use. I like to dream and read about the latest photo gear enen if I never buy something. PN is well worth saving and the redo was over duie. .

to degrade into a non-competitive state through entropy because the site is inherently non-competitive in today's market.

Entropy, by definition is a gradual system decay into disorder. I flew the Navy FA 18 simulator with success after just 15 minutes orienting myself to the cockpit. My point is not the software you use it is more about developing a decent and useful human interface. Your problem is with that human interface.

It is a big, wide competitive world out there. Go to DP Review or Fred Miranda to see two sites that are easier to use. I can get to forums easier in Luminous landscape. I have been a devotee of photonet for over ten years. As a former senior executive I know better than to get into defensive squabbles with the paying customers. Fix the site problems or die of non-competitive entropy. The old site was easier to use. Face fact not customers.

So, I am not thrilled with the new format. Why do I have to login every time. This is the only site that requires this. Too many categories. I really liked to see all new posts in one column. Too much moving around to find things. I will just vote with my lack of attendance here. There are easier sites out there.

A Bronica ETRSi and Canon EOS 1N both duplicated for backup. All film then.

I have an EOS 7DII and an M5. I photographed a swim meet last Sunday with the 7DII. I use it because I am more comfortable with it and large white lenses. I don't like to carry all this weight around most of the time so I also own the mirrorless. The M5 has a few more MPs than the 7DII and it makes nice pictures but the 7DII is considerably more effective with large lenses. The M has an EVF and it is not as effective as the OVF on the 7DII particularly in bright light where the optical finder handles the glare better. I will continue to shoot sports with the optical finder until EVF quality can meet that of an OVF specifically for action.

I photogrpahed an indoor swim meet last Sunday. It is on facebook now.

I have a Canon M3 mirrorless. It has an Electronic View Finder that can be enlarged by 5 and 10x. I am buying an M5 which I think is better and it has this capability. These use M lenses but there is an adapter that will take regular Canon lenses. I just took my camera out and verfified what I just said. They both have 24MP EFS sensors but the five has the same sensor as the 80D which is more advanced. My M3 takes great pictures but the UI is awkward.

I don't have much of a comment. How is this different from shooting remotely on the ground? I don't recommend it for close-ups for obvious reasons. As an old broken down aviator I think we are integrating drones effectively without all the sturm and drang previously predicted. It's just another way of taking pictures or videos with it's own limitations and advantages.

Philip. I grew up in Menlo Park(next door to Palo Alto). I now live in Portsmouth NH. I have been a member photonet for ten years. I am saddened about how PN has devolved since you left. I am evidence that the PN demographic is aging. I am 84 and when I grew up we lived in or near Silicone Valley when there were then hay fields in what is now prime and highly developed real estate. We used to hunt and fish where they now write code, manage Netflix and make facebook. My father was the developer of the Stanford Shopping Center. I would like to meet you for coffee in Palo Alto just to see the place again but alas that is not possible. At my age I am still an active photographer and am lusting after an EOS M5 which I will buy when it is released. As for your coming on this site I welcome it. Of course I am not the gate keeper but just a member who has always enjoyed this site but sadly it has been overtaken by sites like Fred Miranda and DPreview. Still it provokes some really good discussions that eclipse the impersonality of those larger sites.

I fought in that war. There is a dichotomy here. There is a conflict between a private entity showing what they damn well please in a free society and those who would like to regulate these activities in the so-called public interest based upon their size and influence. So would you regulate the actions of kaepernick (sic) because of his vast television audience that sees him when he kneels? Where does one draw the line? Kim's picture is powerful and helps me remember a war that when I returned from it I felt it was morally wrong and where 58,000 of my comrades died. I was alive when we thought that 400,000 just US service men and women died not to mention the allies in WWII to protect us from government interference with free speech. I believe the Norwegian argument is specious. Freedom is precious but it is subject to erosion. I would like everyone to see the picture but, really is it worth ceding to government control to make that happen?

Michael. I sent you a response on PN mail.

I dis-established my wedding business in 2003. About five years later I destroyed all my client files as Anne said I did not want to be a depository for them. I have never had a call for images after that. I have kept records for tax purposes. I have saved some enlargements of pictures I particularly liked and the sit in storage and I have never re- hung them after I took them down from my former studio.

Michael. I was stationed at Tainan 1960-1962 as a pilot. My youngest daughter was born there. I knew a lot of people at CAT as they used to drink at our Officer's club bar and Tainan Air Station was next door to the CAT facility. I flew missions there in a T-33 then later over Viet Nam in 1968 out of Korat Thailand. I might have run in to your father if he was there in that time frame. As for the picture, it had a profound emotional effect and was and still is a powerful image of the horror of war. Ni hao ma, pong yo.

The ship is taking on water. It is slowly sinking and the customers have been leaving for several years. IMO it is not format, or groups or conviviality. It is a flawed business model taken on after Phil left. The pumps in the engine room have failed because PN is so far behind others. IMO nothing will bail it out except a large infusion of sustaining cash. It is sad as this was always a more friendly boat than the others plying the photographic seas. But the water is relentless in its rise. It is only a matter of time.

I did weddings at the leading up to the end of the film era. I carried three Bronica Bodies, 6 or 8 backs, winders, viewfinders, rolls of 120 and 135 film etc. plus 2 canon bodies, lenses, as well as two canon flashes and two Vivitar 283s. They took up three bags. I did a substantial number of weddings with this gear. This was done solo as I was too tight to hire an assistant. Loading backs was an issue but I always found time to do it. I did formals with the Bronicas and Candids with the Canons. I took the film to a processor the Monday after the weekend weddings and delivered an album of proofs to the customer within two weeks. I had a film dark room where I printed an 11x14 right after each wedding. I thought it dangerous to use 120 ISO 800 film at weddings; it worked . At that time I worked also at a newspaper where we hand developed TMax film. I also had a studio where I did PR work for a hospital and wedding portraits. It wore me out and after 7 years I cashed out but I had a good run and enjoyed a lot of it except the agony of waiting for wedding proofs to be processed. I also did sports for the paper.