jaydann_walker

<p>Martin, you are a Tessina fanatic! I say this with great admiration for you. Keep up the good work. No problem will be unsurmountable for you, with your dedication.</p> <p>I used a Tessina in the early 1960s. One of my uncles collected cameras and had it. Thanks to him, I shot my first Kodachrome in a Contax I in 1958 (and I still have the slides), and my first roll of 120 in a prewar Rolleiflex.I remember finding the Tessina in one of his kit bags, and marveling at how precisely made such a small piece of equipment could be. He very kindly let me use it and even supplied me with a few films. My Tessina negatives were B&W and were processed in my home darkroom (aka bathroom) in Rodinal. The results had grain like salt. I still have the negatives somewhere. Well hidden... </p> <p>I shot a few rolls and finally figured out a processing sequence to produce reasonably fine grained images. My prints, I recall, were mostly 4x5s and an occasional 5x7 which showed grain but distinct tones.</p> <p>I believe AmPhoto (a US publisher) put out a book on ultraminiature photography in the '60s. It may still be available from Amazon or elsewhere OL. I had a copy many years ago, but gave it away during one of my moves. If you can find one, and not have to pay through the nose for it, you may find it useful.</p> <p>Obviously I cannot be of any assistance to you, other than to say "good work, carry on". I hope others who know and use Tessinas will contact you to share experiences and tips. It is always good to have a network, however small.</p> <p>Also please keep posting. This information will be of use to others in future.</p> <p>JD in Hobart, Tasmania</p>

<p>+1 for Tudor's and Jose's comments. As one who used Portra outdoors for many years (I've now switched to Fuji, more for price and supply reasons than quality), I reckon your shots show good Portra quality. They look to be taken on a sunny day with fairly high glare, factors which affect the color saturation. I see a tad more magenta bias in some shots than I would care for in my images, but this may be the scane, and can usually quite easily be corrected in post processing. Otherwise, they seem fine.</p> <p>Play around with them. Maybe darken them a bit in the PP, pull the red til the magenta goes, and pull the blue a tad to improve the blacks and greys. Not too much on either. Let your eyes be your guide. You may see a big improvement.</p> <p>I gave up on lab scans a long time ago and bought a refurbished Epson V600 for my 120 negatives. The difference I saw in my images was an eye opener. Obviously not all of us want to scan our own. Are there other labs in your area? A test roll or a strip or two of test negs sent to each lab for scans, would quickly show you which lab does the best job of scanning. A lot of what turns up in the final scan is entirely up to who does the scanning. I learned this at home, the hard way...</p> <p>This isn't meant to knock Kodak, but have you tried Fujicolor negative films? Rollei also make a beaut C41 neg film with deeper colors and a more 'old fashioned' tonal scale, more like I recall the somewhat artificial colors of 1960s negative films.</p> <p>Interesting shots, BTW. I like the gleam on the snazzy car in the first image. I had a Studebaker like that one in the 1960s, my second car. As a callow 18 year old I thought it was a klunker and traded it for a sexier Chev Impala 387 two-door hardtop which improved my social life but almost bankrupted me to run. Now 51 years later both cars are still still on the road. I also enjoyed the black humor (am I the only one to see it?) in your American Dreams shot. Good ones...</p> <p> JD in Hobart, Tasmania</p>

<p>Vanbar in Melbourne usually have the C41 and E6 Tetenal kits, but occasionally run out. Shipments can take some time to arrive. Likely if they are out of them now, they will have them again in a few weeks.</p> <p>Their prices are usually good. I last did a price check in 2015, and found theirs to be the best value. There is also a larger C41 kit (five liters) available for about $125. I currently have one but am using it so little (it's usually good for about 80-100 rolls), I fear the developer may exhaust before I can use it all up. If you shoot only a few rolls at a time, the smaller kit can be better value. </p> <p>I believe Vanbar also sell the Rollei kit, but I have never used it. It's more expensive, I think.</p> <p>I personally would avoid Ebay for buying photo chemicals and process kits. You never know if you are buying a five year old kit. Nowadays buying most things photographic on Ebay is akin to putting your money in a Weber and lighting it up. Film prices are generally absurd. This said, I am aware that several very reliable Ebay suppliers try to keep their prices low and provide a good service, 'tho in Singapore (a high cost place) I can buy 120 roll film cheaper in five packs than I get them at home, which shouldn't be the case, but it is. The low value of the A$ (aka the South Pacific Peso) on the global market has of course forced up prices for everything imported. We have been suckered into thinking a low value dollar does good things to business, but all it means is we pay 30% more for everything.</p> <p> </p>

<p>I feel the need to rephrase myself slightly. Unlike me, the 28 may not suit your eye or your viewpoint. Opt for whichever lens you prefer. </p> <p>Consider the following process...</p> <p>One, select those lenses you feel you have the most affinity for. Put these to one side for now.</p> <p>Two, decide if you want to sell the rrest of the lenses. If so, go for it. If not, put them away, out of sight.</p> <p>Three, return to the lenses you chose during Point One. Select your preferred three. Or if you really want to bite the bullet, select just one.</p> <p>Four, use that lens/those lenses for a definite time period. Up to one year.</p> <p>I will stick my long neck out even more, and say at the end of this period, your photography, in style and every other which way, will have expanded and grown by unbelievable leaps and bounds.</p> <p>Less is better. Less is not more, or it shouldn't be more. Definitely, less is better.</p> <p>However, you have all those nice lenses. Do you really want to part with them? I would regard that as akin to giving away the children, but I don't have any, so giving away the cats.</p> <p>Apologies for having thrown yet more kerosene on the fire. All in good fun, of course. You have the choice and the choice is yours. Enjoy it!</p> <p>JD again, in... the same place</p>

<p>Sell everything (if you do it right you will make a fortune!) and buy a new Nikon 28mm f/2.8 D lens. You will end up using this lens to death and then probably buying another one. No more time spent making decisions about lenses.</p> <p>I say this to you very seriously. Some years ago, I worked out that I was a '28' guy and had been using the 28mm for 90% of my photography anyway. I have two (my original one, and I bought a secondhand D90 for a friend last year and it came with a 28 which he didn't want, so I got it free). They reside permanently on my D90 and my D700. Also an elderly 28mm f/3.5 Nikkor on my Nikkormat FT2, superb for B&W negatives. I also have two of those. Ditto a 28mm Distagon on my Contax G1. Also a Fuji GA645wi (120 MF), which corresponds to '28' in '35'. As I said, I'm a 28 nutter. </p> <p>Last year I spent a month in Malaysia with only my D700 and the 28 and shot and shot and everything came out fine. I don't do much macro or long shots so the 28 suits my vision just fine.</p> <p>Moving on from all that, your posting motivated me to set myself a theoretical task of what three lenses would I keep if I had to make this choice? In my case, they would be 28-60 micro-180. I have a 24 and use it now and then, also a 20 which I bought and used like a fiend for a few months but no longer, too much distortion in the verticals for my liking. Ditto my 180, bought in 2013, never used. 85 fits my vision. So maybe I should say 28-60-85. But then I want to keep the 28, and the 180 is as new and I wouldn't want to part with it. Also my old 28-85 (another gift) is one of the sharpest zooms I have ever owned. So. So!</p> <p>My friend who owns the D90 (I also have one) is more a candid camera person and shoots general scenics (I do religious and cultural events, architecture, and 'ephemera' which really means anything I see in passing that catches my eye, whatever that is) and so favors 24-50-85. He would also add the 180 but says it's easier for him to just borrow mine as and when he wants to use it...!</p> <p>A third friend uses the 50 exclusively. Her candids and portraits with this lens (50mm f/1.4) are truly gorgeous. I die with envy whenever I see them. She has exhibited and sold widely, so she is on to something.</p> <p>Another friend has a 'wide' eye. So would go for 20-24-28 or 28-35-50. Yet another uses only zooms. He would opt for 17-55, 55-300, and 18-200. An odd mix. For him, it works.</p> <p>Well, you did ask...</p> <p>May I say before I post this, you have a truly nice collection of lenses, some are worth a good bit of dosh. Don't sell them (or yourself) short. Do your homework about prices. You may earn enough to buy one or two truly good lenses you want for your new 'set'. Go for it, and enjoy!</p> <p>JD in Hobart, Tasmania</p>

<p>As an old-timer in the film game, I bought (for a whopping 50 cents, a small fortune then) and shot my first ever roll of Kodak Verichrome Pan (120) in 1959, in the family's Kodak Vollenda which I still have. In the 1960s I had Yashicas and from 1972 a Rolleiflex. Pentaxes, Mamiya and Minolta SLRs in the 1970s. Nikons in the 1980s. Medium format in the 1990s. A mix of 35mm and 120 cameras from 2000, and from 2007, Nikon digitals and Nikon film cameras, the Rollei and the Contax G. For me, film outranks digital by three to one, the latter for color, the former for B&W only. Ignore what the OL consumer mags tell you, film is unbeatable for good monochrome. </p> <p>In the following decades (1960s-1990s) I used mostly Kodaks - Plus-X, Panatomic-X, Tri-X, now all extinct save one. My next favorites is Ilford FP4+. For faster emulsions, I go to Kodak T-Max 400 and Ilford HP5+. the new Agfa films show some promise, altho I have yet to test them fully. I tried (and hated) the early C41 B&Ws. Ilford's XP2 is better, at least in 120, and shows promise and is a fine film. </p> <p>In Australia where I now live, Tri-X costs a fortune andso I no longer use it. Ilford's excellent HP5+ and the new(ish) Rollei 400 are equally good. When Eastman discontinued Panatomic-X in 1988 I mostly avoided Kodak films unless I could buy them at heavily discounted prices, but then in 2004 or so the (new and improved) T-Max 100 caused me to rethink my prejudice and I changed my mind. I now shoot it at ISO 25 or 50 and at last I can get the wonderful 'glow' of older Kodak emulsions as I did in the 1960s.</p> <p>All my films are processed in D-76 1:1 or home-mixed Leica Two Bath developer as reformulated for higher contrast by Ansel Adams. I have written about this in a previous post, so I'll say no more. </p> <p>Films to my mind are as good now, with the exceptions of Verichrome and Panatomic-X, as they were fifty years ago. For a while we had fewer choices, but that seems to be changing with the influx of (some) good emulsions from Europe, and of course Fuji Acros, which doesn't quite suit my purposes but is a fine film nonetheless. Per Bill Bowe's comment (backed up by a remarkable image!), films all have their unique tones and contrast and this can be varied by testing with different developers and process times. As well shooting film for scanning is a different ball game, and calls for different rules. Again, tests are the way to go.</p> <p>A brief aside. Kodak's Ektar 120 film and the recent Fujicolors have made me return to C41 negative films after avoiding them since the '70s, when I found I couldn't get a sharp image out of Kodacolor for love or money, even with top dollar Nikkors or Leitz lenses.</p> <p>Like almost everyone else I know (this is probably universal), I now shoot almost entirely digital for color, and return to B&W 120 films for my serious B&W work. I sometimes wonder what films will be available in the next half century - with luck and continued support from today's young photographers, who seem to be rediscovering film and acquiring many of the wonderful cameras we all paid fortunes for in my time as a high school and university photographer (1960s-1970s), there will be new and improved emulsions on the market from Ilford and other European manufacturers, as well as, well, who knows? China and other Asian countries. Taiwan is a potential supplier to watch for, the Taiwanese are clever and cluey and seem to be quietly looking at current developments in film photography. Keep them in mind for the future.</p>

<p>Rocky, you sound as if you have heaps of common sense. Your most recent explanation of your situation makes sense. I agree with you and my comments are modified accordingly. One liveth and learneth...</p> <p>In fact your situation sounds much like that experienced by many real estate photographers in Hobart. Aussies are house mad (property insane may be a better term) here - there is a long-standing joke about you cut open an Australian at the breast, you find 'HOUSE' engraved on the heart - and prices are way above what anyone with average intelligence would think of as reasonable, but prices still go up and up and people hock their hearts and souls to buy. Until the crash... Yet many photographers find it impossible to get even basic wage for their work. Many estate agents are greedy and while some do look after their clients first and foremost, it seems they don't want to part with any money. So much of the imagery in their shop windows looks like it was taken with a mobile phone - because it was.</p> <p>Oh, well!</p> <p>My good wishes to you for the very best of luck in this situation, I hope it will be a win-win for everyone.</p> <p>JD in Hobart, Tasmania</p>

<p>My money goes with Patrick S. Do you want the work (and the $$)? Simple question, best simply answered. Or is this the old "I'm an artist, not an artisan" principle rehashed? In my newspaper days, an old photo editor gave me some wise advice. "You can't eat your by-line". Applies equally well to photo credits. </p> <p>I would go with the money and the ongoing contract work, and make a few concessions in my contract.</p> <p>I have shot (among many other things) a lot of real estate over the years, and I still photograph old colonial buildings for stock and a book project I am doing as a collaboration. When I shoot for a client, or sell an image to a client, my position is as follows: the client pays, the client decides. You can fit as many angels on the heads of as many pins as you like over this, but I long ago decided against the seemingly never-ending artist versus artist debate, and went firmly for what the client paid for, what the client wants, is what I will give them.</p> <p>My contact is very simple. I get my fee (not cheap and never discounted), the client gets the best work I can produce. I retain rights to post on my web site (for marketing) or in some cases re-use for future publication (archives, books), which is a separate clause I cut and paste into the contract as needed. Think about this. Who will want to buy your images of the neighbor's bungalow across the street in future? Okay, maybe the house will burn down or get crushed by a tsunami. What images will the media take, yours taken in 2009 or new ones showing the damage? </p> <p>Keep the basic rights for yourself, but don't fall into the trap of imagining every image you shoot will be made into a mural by the client or featured on a billboard for a global property development group. In the real world, one's photos are taken, sold, used and forgotten. This is, alas, all there is, and as it is. </p> <p>Not sure about your local real estate agents, but where I live, some (a minority) are intelligent, decent and honorable. They do exist. I do work on occasion for a handful. It is always a pleasure to deal with them, and I give them good value, as well as good conditions. I also bought my apartment in Tasmania from one. So it worked both ways. alas, many are ignorant, ego driven and sly. They can easily twist all you say or put in a contract into 'creative' contexts to suit their ends. From what you wrote, I'm not sure where yours fits, 'tho it seems to me, from what you said about the copyright, they took a stand on behalf of the client, not you. The point you made, that the house owner and not the agent is your client, is to me, a silly excuse, nothing else. Who pays you? In law, in Australia, that is your client. Copyrights, usage rights, ownership, are all fuel for lawyers, who love this stuff, would twist it all out of context if need be, and know how to charge like wounded bulls for anything to do with all that. Avoid lawyers like the plague. As I do.</p> <p>If your agent pays you, and pays you well and on time, count your blessings and cash the cheque pronto. </p> <p>The simplest contract, I have found, is one based on mutual trust and friendship between the parties. Work for real estate agents you know, trust and value. Would you use them to buy a property? If so, that's a good recommendation in itself. If not, then beware.</p> <p>As a long-standing principle I will never do any work for shysters. Occasionally one contacts me. In those (very rare) cases, my firm position is, "you are a new client, you pay upfront". They don't call back, which suits me fine.</p> <p>The points by John H are particularly relevant, also Ellis. Who minds typos? The message is everythingk!</p> <p>Good luck on this one, but let common sense prevail. As my old photo editor could have added, photo credits or bylines aren't particularly tasty even with unsalted French butter on designer bread... Give me chicken with mayo oand salad on whole grain, ideally paid for with a real estate photo shoot. Why not?</p>

<p>Marc, I am somewhat of a newcomer to all this (also to photo.net), and have just recently discovered your amazing posts. Well done!</p> <p>Your latest, circa 1961, took me back to my teen years, when I had just (that year) bought my first Yashica D and a brick of Kodak Verichrome Pan and was learning all about the quirks of 120 roll film. Old photo magazines were in every secondhand book shop then, and I bought big. My early education in all things photographic, indeed everything I learned and subsequently applied in my photo career, came from those publications. I had a subscription to U.S. Camera for ten years and in my early so-wise-in-all-things high school years, thought this was a great cut above its competitors, Popular Photography and Modern Photography. We didn't get the English magazines in New Mexico at that time, it was all Kodak, Kodak and Kodak (I was one of the first to break the rules with GAF and DuPont products). I will spare you my thoughts on Verichrome Pan and DK-60a... </p> <p>I have always been one to move forward and (try to) not look back too much in past time, but after a break of about ten years I am now returning to B&W film, and again indulging in the joys of home processing and printing. So it's good to revisit those old publications, and again see how things were (the low low low prices truly astound me, sigh). In so many ways, what the French say, "plus ca change", is truly wise.</p> <p>Carry on, please. I will be looking up all your older posts. As the locals in my local pub in the waterfront would surely say, "good one, mate!".</p> <p>JD in Hobart, Tasmania</p>

<p>I am no great chemist (some would say I am no great photographer either, but let's not go there), but for 50+ years I have applied the KISS (keep it simple, stupid) Principle and used three developers, (1) Kodak DK-60a in the '60s for 120 film, (2) D-76 (always 1+1 used as one shot) from 1972 for 35mm and 120, and since 2002 (3) D-76 and the old Leica two bath developer as reformulated by Ansel Adams. Not exciting, but they have served me well.</p> <p>I had a two year love affair with Agfa's Rodinal Special (never the original Rodinal, too much grain) in the '80s, but as all fickle lovers do, I returned to my old mistress, D-76. Overall, I've had fine results throughout for the past 54 years.</p> <p>I mix D-76 by the gallon and bottle it in recycled 500ml fruit juice bottles. Stored in a cupboard in my coolest room at home (Hobart, Tasmania is always cool), it lasts up to a year. When I have shot four, eight of twelve rolls of film, I set up my Jobo and process in diluted 1+1, which gives me four rolls per 500 ml bottle and one, two or three bottles fully used up. No waste. Stop bath (I use Kodak Indicator) and fixer (ammonium thiosulfate, whatever is cheapest) and fixer remover (Ilford) are bought as liquids and when diluted are never kept longer than a few days, as I dislike 'hoarding' old liquid chemicals. I've kept Kodak Rapid Selenium Toner mixed for years but I no longer use it. It did work well throughout its mixed life 'tho the toning times did stretch to small eternities for paper prints. Not so now.</p> <p>John, I've used your suggestion (steel wool) since about 1970. It works! I read this in a book by one of the now-gone greats of the darkroom, it may have been David Vestal. I fully agree about giving some thought to what you pour down the drains nowadays. Automating my darkroom with a Jobo processor in 2003-2004 was for me, the best decision dever, but this isn't the topic of the OP's topic and I'll move on.</p> <p>There is something almost Zen about time in the darkroom, with good music, regular breaks and an occasional dram of something good to rejig the brain cells. What is creative about film processing? The magic of seeing negatives pop out from a tank, the anticipation of wondering how what I shot with the Nikkormats or Rolleiflexes will turn out while the films are being processed are two (of many) great joys of traditional film photography, in ways that D just doesn't cut it. It's also a sort of addiction, going back in time to my young years when the world was mine to conquer and I knew I could do it all myself. Processing your own films means you will shoot more B&W film, which is good. Kodak and Ilford will thank you (well, Ilford will). Your intake of good wine may go up. Enjoy it all, it's wonderful.</p>

<p>At C$200 I would grab it pronto. Good ones go for up to $400-$450 in the better used camera shops. The GA645 is one tough cookie. Some will warn you can't get parts for them if repairs are needed, but of the three I have owned (and still own two, including a GA645wi), only one developed problems I considered serious, but continued to (and still does) function on the M (manual) setting, like a big meterless Leica M.</p> <p>I paid heaps more than two bills for my GA645wi, which takes 16 exposures (the early GAs take 15 tho I believe Fuji revamped the original model to shoot 16 and called it the series 2 or some such thing, will someone please correct me if I am wrong on this?). as I'm sure you already know, they take 15 or 16 6x4.5 cm exposures on a roll of 120 film, or double that on 220 film, if you can still find some of the latter. </p> <p>I do a lot of stock architectural photography in Southeast Asia, digitally for color and with my GA645wi for B&W. The Fujinon 45mm lens is rock sharp and will take Nikon 52mm diameter filters. An old Nikon F polariser lives on my wi and suffices for any effect I want (clouds, lighter tones on plaster, no glare on water ponds, eetcetera). Also a small China made spirit level in the flash/ accessory shoe, a must this if you want correct horizontals and verticals in your building shots. I have a few other Nikon 52mm B&W filters and an L31c. Nothing else needed. Only film. True blue minimalism, this</p> <p>To shoot horizontal images you will have to hold the camera vertically. Some find this a turn-off. It took me a few months to get used to and feel relaxed about this quirk, but I'm fine now. </p> <p>For a long time I thought if I was ever restricted to only one camera in life, it would be a Rolleiflex (I still have one, and it's a damn fine machine). The GA645wi is also worthy of such consideration. </p> <p>I hope you bought this Fuji. Gosh, if you don't like it, resell it on Ebay, or better yet, on this site!</p>

<p>Overall excellent. A pleasant almost old-fashioned (OK, OK, conservative!) design style, which to me ideally suits your style(s) of photography. Obviously you are a words man with an enjoyable, chatty style. A little more tight editing may suit some of your blog posts, but on the whole, if you read this and opt to leave everything as it is, I would go along with that. In summing up, if (when) I eventually get around to setting up my new web site, I would be closely following what you have done. Good one!</p>

<p>This is a wonderful documentary resource, thank you for posting. </p> <p>As a child, growing up in New Mexico in the late 1940s-early 1950s, I had the privilege to see and meet some of the great photographers of that era. John Collier spent a lot of time photographing in the southwestern part of my home state, and Arthur Rothstein was an occasional visitor. My father was active in the Santa Fe camera club, and not only met some of these greats, but actually brought them home for drinks and on occasion, dinner. Many who are now considered as legends of the Taos group of artists and painters also came thru our front door. </p> <p>I see a glowing 'timelessness' about many of the images on the posted site, that sadly appears to be so lacking in the 'cool' and stylish imagery being produced nowadays, where equipment and technique are everything but talent and also the ability to use one's eyes to actually look at what is around and about, seem sadly lacking. Several recent exhibitions I saw in Australia and New Mexico, where I now live, were heavily overloaded with badly done HD, oversharpened images, meaningless abstracts (mostly copied literally, without any further originality being added, from art and photo magazines) glaring (and amateurish) posterised colors, and super wide angle lens trickery, all of which made the otherwise fine subject matter, at best almost meaningless, at worst painfully bad. 'Technique' above subject matter was everything. Some, a few more 'traditional' shots were sold (I bought three). Otherwise none of it attracted much interest at all or sold, other than the inevitable 'duty' sales by partners, family and friends desperate to support the hopeful digi-snapshooters. </p> <p>There is a place, sort of, for all this photography, but the 'trendy' stuff, as the Aussies call it, dare I say it, will be quickly forgotten? </p> <p>In the long run the most important role of photography as I see it, is to record moments in life and time for posterity to enjoy. Whether digitally (a somewhat suspect medium) or on film (longer lasting but equally fragile if not properly looked after). The images in this documentary, support my views, I think. </p>

<p>Strange? Not really. Many things in life leave us wounded and we prefer to forget. This is human nature.</p> <p>I went a step further. After I retired early in 2012, I spent two months during a cold Australian winter drinking good red Tassie wine and working thru my entire lifetime's collection of negatives and slides, 100,000+++ images.</p> <p>The first cull took care of shots taken when I was with Old Flames (extinguished) and two previous partners in the 1970s and 1980s. Culled, cut, chucked out. Destroyed. Several thousand in all. Most were memories I no longer wanted to preserve or even remember, as I had moved on. A (very) few images were saved. Nothing has so far been missed, nor likely will be. Then cat and dog shots. Long-deceased pets. The very best negatives were retained and are being scanned and printed to be put into a series of good quality scrapbooks. When I am gone, who would want the bother of going thru my collection of long ago cats? Most of those negatives were cut up and went to recycling (where they were probably turfed out into the general rubbish, never mind). My estate executor will no doubt thank me for this in future. </p> <p>Next, the party shots. In the 70s in Sydney I was a party boy, went out all the time, carried a camera, and shot and shot and shot, as I think we all did at certain times in our youthful lives. Out went the images of people I haven't seen or thought of in decades, or I couldn't even remember their names, or (sadly there were a few) I can no longer stand and to this day if I see them, I tend to cross the street or escape to hide in shops to avoid having to engage them in meaningless social chitchat. Life is just too short. Ditto with the ex partner shots, out they went. Another few thousand.</p> <p>Third, general photography, the "Sunday photographer" stuff I hadn't looked at since taking it and wouldn't again. This accounted for 20,000.</p> <p>I did keep a few of each category. The ones that evoked some sort of emotional response in me, went into a special archival box which I then put in my desk. In four years, I haven't looked at this box again. Says something, this.</p> <p>I then tidied up my best images into folders, scanned some of the best, numbered and dated the negative files, marked the slide boxes, and filled two drawers of my home office filing cabinet.</p> <p>A positive spin-off was that I identified some 20 places I had intended to revisit, but in the course of building a career, buying a home, and generally establishing myself in life, hadn't done so. Also projects long put aside and forgotten, mostly in New Mexico, which is now my spiritual home when I am in North America (USA born, lived in Canada before migrating to Oz). I won't do them all, at leas tnot in this lifetime (maybe in the next, if, if), but I have been back to Asia several times since 2012 and plan to go again this year, also more time in New Mexico which I often visit, to finish projects I began in 1979 and 1982.</p> <p>Many people enjoy the past, and some I know even cling to it, so obviously what I did would not work for everyone. It did for me. I try to not be sentimental about my life and I prefer to move forward rather than go back, so this cleansing process satisfied my spirit and the need to tidy up things as I get older. It also has opened up new dimensions to my photography, and enabled me to make plans to visit new places and revisit some old ones.</p> <p>The French have a saying, "plus ca change..." Nothing much ever changes. But we do need to cleanse old aspects of life as we age, and make room for new experiences and people.</p>