don_essedi

Femme Osage, Missouri Portra 400

FZ30

It became an issue for me this summer when at a moment I needed a camera, my Hexar AF died; this after four (4) other modern cameras had died during the previous six months. I divided my collection of cameras into two groups, classic and modern and vowed to never not have one classic in the bag as the backup to any electronic camera, digital or film. Of interest is that the cameras that had died were all late models, from the 1990s or the first decade of this century. The older ones from the 1980s, I've owned and used for decades, have not had any failures, which may be due to having less features, just auto exposure and focus.

Fuji XE-1 Summar

GIII Reala

Besides mentions of photographs (as in A Scandal in Bohemia), I recall one reference to photography: "Oh, he has his faults, too," said Mr. Wilson. "Never was such a fellow for photography. Snapping away with a camera when he ought to be improving his mind, and then diving down into the cellar like a rabbit into its hole to develop his pictures. That is his main fault, but on the whole he's a good worker. There's no vice in him." The Red-Headed League Published in 1891, about 10 years after roll film was invented.

If the camera functions without a battery, it is "classic" (classics may require a battery for an in-camera meter, but without one, they are otherwise fully functional). "Modern" cameras require a battery to work. Thus, my Spotmatic is a "classic", but my zx-5n is "modern" (even though it can be used manually, it still needs a battery). That's what I remember from when the forums were created.

The bourgeois concept is: 'You take good pictures, therefore you have a really good camera'...reduced to: my digital camera takes better pictures than your old 35mm camera. The objective technical measurements that are meant by "technically superior" IQ may not be the IQ a photographer desires for the taking of a particular photograph; maybe a Holga does have the IQ desired.

The dispute between film and digital is boring. The concept of "old" vs "new" technology is also boring. Film and digital are different mediums for photography, each with their strengths and weaknesses. They co-exist. It is worth mentioning that the technical qualities of photographs are also a consequence of the lenses -- and also the physical size of the sensor or film. I prefer film to digital, although I use both. I like mirrorless cameras because I can easily adapt my film lenses to them, and those lenses impart characteristics I like about film to the digital photo. These days I tend to use film for b&w, and digital for color. "Digital is great but it's also boring." Do you mean the process of making a digital photograph, or the photos themselves?

It may have had more to do with saving time and energy (as well as the all-important what the client or employer wants) than technical --let's be specific-- image quality, which is, to update HCB, "a bourgeois concept".

Everything required to make a photograph can be done with 1840s technology.

Trip 35 Solaris 100

I am not certain, but I don't think this thread was for posting photos (from any week) but to discuss having such a forum...don't know really. Just guessing 8-)

The story so far: It looks like another post-a-pic forum and there is confusion about which 'week', and film photographers wonder how they can play since it often takes longer than a week to get that hybrid process completed. Then we learn that once upon a time there was such a forum here called Photo Of The Week, but the photo referred to is one in which the elves (aka "staff" or "moderators") picked a photo of the week. Then there's something about a 'member' run forum to be called Photo Of The Week which does not appear to be the same as the one run by the Elven Folk. And I think this is all about recovering the legendary days of photo.net's Golden Age...which I recall was more of a "hold my beer" assay into fight club. I am enjoying this thread. Fascinating.

I think it is the desire to have a critique forum that isn't a critique forum, strictly speaking.

Despite the recommendation of KR, NCPS is a pretty good lab, and I've used them for years and have no complaints about their work. They are easy to talk to, and they have called me several times when my instructions on the order form were unclear to them. You might do so and ask about getting scans with a lower saturation setting. I also prefer less saturation and mostly shoot Portra 160 for color (I'd prefer to shoot the discontinued 160n) but consider myself a bw photographer. The alternative to working with the lab to get what you want (and probably at additional cost) is to do your own scanning. Since no one is making good quality 35mm and 120 scanners these days, you would have to buy used and you might check prices for a Nikon scanner. Otherwise use a digital camera setup for the purpose. Then there is the little matter of working out a method of getting what you want from post-process software. I would call NCPS first and see what they have to say. Good luck.

GIII TriX

Canadian street photographer, Michael Sweet. He continues: "Others, like Cartier-Bresson, more seamlessly integrated the human and the environment – his photographs were about both, equally. Others still, such as Cohen or Gilden, focus in on the human aspect almost to the complete disregard of the surrounding environment. All three styles have attracted scores of more contemporary emulators with most street photographers falling loosely into one of these three camps. Regardless of where your focus may be, it is important to be familiar with each of these three approaches to street photography. Eggleston’s Guide is a superb example of how the banality of everyday life can be engaging, poignant, and critical to our understanding of ourselves and our society. It is a must study for any serious street photographer, especially those who prefer to present in color."

Neither would I.