tomspielman

Yes, if I could actually paint, I could choose to depict a past event in my painting. If you're suggesting that I can't use a photograph to depict an event from the past, you aren't using your imagination. Not photography exactly but there are entire genres of movies depicting events of the past... and the future. Dress somebody up in an outfit from the 30's, have them stand in front of an old car, take the photo in black and white and the viewer may have a very difficult time telling that the picture wasn't taken in the 30's.

I'll bet that painters don't always end up with the image on canvas that they had in their head. Maybe they wanted Juliet but all they got was an irritated looking Miss Wilkins who had been attempting to hold the same pose for hours. Besides, Miss Wilkins can look 100% different from one photo to another. At least my teenaged daughter believes that to be true because she will have me take picture after picture of her until she sees one she likes. Believe me, there have been plenty of times I'd wished it was over with a single push of a button. And I'm not the artist in these photographic endeavors, - my daughter is. She is also getting quite skilled at post processing, - a good chunk of her photography class this semester is focused on just that. I believe that GB Shaw is incorrect. As good as cameras are, they don't so faithfully/truthfully reproduce what your eyes see. They can't. They produce a still, rectangular, two dimensional image with limited dynamic range and all kinds of other limitations and artifacts. The world is not still, it's not two dimensional. You're not getting Miss Wilkins when you click the shutter. Some limitations and artifacts you can use to artistic effect. The entire world does not go out of focus behind Miss Wilkins when she appears in front of you unless perhaps you're very smitten with her. But the world can be made to go out of focus in a portrait of Miss Wilkins whether you're smitten or not. A photo forces you to reckon with Miss Wilkins in a way that the real world doesn't. And a good (or even bad) photographer can render Miss Wilkins in a much different way than you'd normally see her. Of course a painter can do that as well. The advantage a photographer has is that creating their vision doesn't rely on them being able to paint, but it might require a lot of other skills, including ones involving light room or photoshop. Sometimes photography is a capturing of the way the world looked at one particular place at one moment in time. A lot times it's the creation of an illusion. And in many cases, it's a little of both.

A photo can be merely a faithful recording of what's already there. Or it can be created. Instead of a canvas, think of an empty studio. Whether it's a model or a plate of food, the image is created. Clothing, jewelry and make up are combined with the person being photographed to create a look that the photographer is after. The hair is styled. Lighting and props are added. The model poses. You can call it selection if you want, or synthesis. Both apply. What is a double exposure? Selection? Synthesis? I think both. Even with traditional photography, there are many ways to create a final image that is much different that what the eye would see on its own. Infrared film with a red filter. Long exposures, etc.

Canal Park, Duluth

I enjoyed those as well. Some matched better than others.

Supporter section at a Soccer/Football match

Just so I understand, Are you trying to say that post processing is not photography but something else? I won't agree or disagree. I don't think it matters how it's categorized but I also don't think that distinction matters when it comes to raw vs jpeg.

Well sure. Reuters is a news organization. They don't want images that have been manipulated in a way that ends up misrepresenting what was captured. But, if I deliberately get up before sunrise to get to a spot where I want to take a picture of fog and early morning light, am I taking a picture or making one? What if I set the aperture to maximize bokeh while shooting a portrait or leave the shutter open awhile when taking pictures of a waterfall? Or use supplemental lighting? Having the RAW data just gives you more opportunity to hone the image to what you want it to be. I don't think it's any less valid of an approach as what you may do with the camera itself or even all the work that may have been done prior to pressing the shutter button. A jpeg can still be manipulated in ways that make a photo appear radically different from what was in front of the camera.

VHS is analog format, not a digital one. With something like a jpeg, either the file is correct or it is corrupt in someway. There's no halfway. They can be corrupted in a way that they're still readable, but even losing one single bit could result in an image that's clearly messed up in a compressed format like a jpeg. It wouldn't just start looking a little bit worse over time. It would like fine, then suddenly really bad, - like chunks of it missing, lines running through the image, or parts of it substantially darker. Look up "bit rot" and jpeg if you want to see examples. This is one reason why archiving digital data can be more problematic than archiving something like film. What you might have been noticing, (as others have mentioned) is that the image in a jpeg can degrade if it's getting re-saved and re-compressed, not just read. Think about a movie on VHS that gets played over and over vs a scratched up DVD. The VHS movie will play unless until the tape breaks or gets tangle up in knots. A scratched DVD may not play at all or may skip entire scenes. The scenes that do play will look like they did on a brand new DVD. I had kids that grew up during the transition from VHS to DVD. We still have VHS tapes from the late 90's and early 2000's that will play. Kids and DVDs didn't mix so well.

Sailing is a 2nd hobby. From the Apostle Islands in Lake Superior: The catamaran is unimaginatively named "Le Bateau" which is French for the "The boat". :)

Finishing off a roll that's been sitting in the camera since late Summer. The floating wrist strap is a bit of a personal joke. I did try it out in about 10 feet of water. The Nikonos made a bee-line for the bottom with the strap dragging uselessly behind.

There are many RAW formats and they are being deprecated on an ongoing basis, - so it's a safe prediction. :) I think it will be a long time before camera and smart phone manufacturers agree on a single format. There doesn't seem to be a lot of incentive for them to do so and adding features to their own formats is one way they can differentiate themselves from the competition.

Busted Rope. ;)

A 100 ASA version of XP2 ? I know that they are traditionally a B&W film maker but XP2 is half way to color. We could use another color film manufacturer.

75mm f/1.34

Thanks. It looks good in that picture I think. Not sure how I feel about it general but it's light tight so it's staying. ;)

I was given an early 40's 6X6 folder a few years ago along with a bunch of other cameras. I didn't pay much attention to it until this Spring when I decided to fix it up and sell it. But what ended up happening is that I fell in love with the concept of a medium format camera that can slip into a pocket. That particular one was a pretty simple camera: Scale focusing, fairly slow lens, only about 4 shutter speeds to choose from, and a red window film advance. I did get it working again, but it was slow for me to use in practice so I went searching for something more modern with a coupled rangefinder, etc. Couldn't find one I liked within my budget so I expanded my search to include some non-folding 6X9 cameras like the Fujica "Texas Leica's". Came close to buying one but never pulled the trigger. Ended up with a smaller folder but I still have an interest in a 6X9 camera that I may have to indulge someday. Curious to see what you end up with.

Washington Ave, Minneapolis: Ilford HP5, Fujica GS645

Even as somebody who buys used equipment almost exclusively, I find the old reviews from sites like this extremely valuable in deciding whether to purchase something or not. I'm far more passionate about old film cameras than modern digital cameras and 95% of the digital images I take are shot on a smart phone. But I still use a DSLR on occasion and it's getting kind of long in the tooth. It works just fine but I think a mirrorless camera would be better suited for my needs. It won't be anytime soon but when I do decide to make the move, I'll be taking advantage of review sites like the one that apparently won't be there anymore. So, yeah, it is a loss.

The market for film has improved, but it seems that the film processing business is still contracting which limits the market for high end scanners. Hopefully that won't ultimately lead to a shortage of processors and a pricing uptick that drives current and potential film users away.

The Hassy lenses are much prettier. The Nikonos lenses are more Frankensteinish by comparison with their two prominent knobs, - but it's part of their appeal to me.

I have a problem with commitment. :) Film and film cameras are fun for me, - repairing as well as using. But so far, none have stayed around for more than a couple of years since I've taken up the hobby. Still trying to figure out what I'm going to use long term. If forced to choose one that I'd keep a long time, it would be the OM-1n. Simple, compact, and versatile. But there's a real possibility that I'd opt for the Nikonos instead. It's a unique camera and the lenses have the best scale focusing mechanism I've seen. The little moving pincers clearly show the effects of aperture on focus and depth of field.