Da Mook has Landed!

[zardoz]

Modelcar-
I would say you have as long as the camera lasts, or when film becomes almost impossible to purchase or get developed (think Kodachrome). I believe there will be film for quite a few years yet, but digital will become so affordable that when one factors in the cost of film and development, it will soon be cheaper (in the long run) to buy a digital camera body.

I, too, purchased a new camera just two years ago, so I am in the same boat as you are. Although my purchase was one of necessity (my old camera died), it pained me to spend $$$ on a film camera when I knew digital was coming on strong.

But do not worry about being at the mercy of cheap-o equipment. Digital will make quality photography affordable, and there will always be a market for quality equipment.

[Modelcar]

....How long do I have to use my pretty good Cannon from my purchase just 2 years ago....I'm refering to a film camera...

And on the little throw aways....If one gets the digital results transfered onto a CD..[in the near furture], won't we be at the mercy of a cheap lens and have less than what we want...?

[Modelcar]

....How long do I have to use my pretty good Cannon from my purchase just 2 years ago....I'm refering to a film camera...

And on the little throw aways....If one gets the digital results transfered onto a CD..[in the near furture], won't we be at the mercy of a cheap lens and have less than what we want...?

[Anonymous]

hey Ed, I think they're all ready out. Kodak has a throw away that you can get prints and CD. You dont have to special order the disc

[Anonymous]

hey Ed, I think they're all ready out. Kodak has a throw away that you can get prints and CD. You dont have to special order the disc

[edblysard]

Not only is your apology accepted, but one is issued from this end too.
I do have a arrogant attitude at times.

Bet within two years to three years, you will see digital throwaways, like the little cameras Kodak markets now, with the film installed, all you do is shoot the photos and drop off the whole thing, get back a package of prints.
Next step would be a digital version, you shoot a few hundred snapshots, drop off the camera while shopping, and on your way out pick up the C/D with all your photos on it.

What a world we live in!

Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

Not only is your apology accepted, but one is issued from this end too.
I do have a arrogant attitude at times.

Bet within two years to three years, you will see digital throwaways, like the little cameras Kodak markets now, with the film installed, all you do is shoot the photos and drop off the whole thing, get back a package of prints.
Next step would be a digital version, you shoot a few hundred snapshots, drop off the camera while shopping, and on your way out pick up the C/D with all your photos on it.

What a world we live in!

Stay Frosty,
Ed

[zardoz]

Ed-
I agree. And I apologize if my post came across as patronizing, it was not my intention.
And I definitely agree that film is on the way out. I am extremely eager for the day when affordable digital equals the quality of film. And I do believe it will be soon (within two years).

[zardoz]

Ed-
I agree. And I apologize if my post came across as patronizing, it was not my intention.
And I definitely agree that film is on the way out. I am extremely eager for the day when affordable digital equals the quality of film. And I do believe it will be soon (within two years).

[edblysard]

Intentionaly so.
Re-read your post, I reconize it when someone is being patronizing too.
I agree with you, though, how the image is captured is irrelevent, as long as the person taking the photo is happy.
Like I said, a kid with a cheapy put a whole bunch of us with all our pro stuff to shame.

Trust me on this, film cameras are going away, slowly, but going none the less.

Dont know if I bored anyone or not, but at least one person wanted to here what I wanted to say.

So heres the deal, I will no longer use a consending or patronizing attitude towards you, if you will follow suit.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz1

Ed-
Usually your replies are informative and occasionally humorus. But your reply to my observations was, to say the least, rather patronizing, and quite beneath you.

I did not want to further the discussion of image recording so as to avoid the type of discussion we are having. I got tired of the salespeople's attitude, as I tire of other's attitude when it comes to photography. Everybody has all the answers.

My only point was that if the person taking the image is happy with the results, the method is irrelevant. Certainly, if one records images for submission towards publication, then that is a whole different issue.

So please restrain your arrogance and bravado.

[edblysard]

Intentionaly so.
Re-read your post, I reconize it when someone is being patronizing too.
I agree with you, though, how the image is captured is irrelevent, as long as the person taking the photo is happy.
Like I said, a kid with a cheapy put a whole bunch of us with all our pro stuff to shame.

Trust me on this, film cameras are going away, slowly, but going none the less.

Dont know if I bored anyone or not, but at least one person wanted to here what I wanted to say.

So heres the deal, I will no longer use a consending or patronizing attitude towards you, if you will follow suit.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz1

Ed-
Usually your replies are informative and occasionally humorus. But your reply to my observations was, to say the least, rather patronizing, and quite beneath you.

I did not want to further the discussion of image recording so as to avoid the type of discussion we are having. I got tired of the salespeople's attitude, as I tire of other's attitude when it comes to photography. Everybody has all the answers.

My only point was that if the person taking the image is happy with the results, the method is irrelevant. Certainly, if one records images for submission towards publication, then that is a whole different issue.

So please restrain your arrogance and bravado.

[zardoz]

Ed-
Usually your replies are informative and occasionally humorus. But your reply to my observations was, to say the least, rather patronizing, and quite beneath you.

I did not want to further the discussion of image recording so as to avoid the type of discussion we are having. I got tired of the salespeople's attitude, as I tire of other's attitude when it comes to photography. Everybody has all the answers.

My only point was that if the person taking the image is happy with the results, the method is irrelevant. Certainly, if one records images for submission towards publication, then that is a whole different issue.

So please restrain your arrogance and bravado.

[zardoz]

Ed-
Usually your replies are informative and occasionally humorus. But your reply to my observations was, to say the least, rather patronizing, and quite beneath you.

I did not want to further the discussion of image recording so as to avoid the type of discussion we are having. I got tired of the salespeople's attitude, as I tire of other's attitude when it comes to photography. Everybody has all the answers.

My only point was that if the person taking the image is happy with the results, the method is irrelevant. Certainly, if one records images for submission towards publication, then that is a whole different issue.

So please restrain your arrogance and bravado.

[Mookie]

/quote]

LOL!! Is that what you call your IT people? [:)]

QUOTE: [i]
My mother has been doing race track photography off and on since the '80s. For the longest time it was all 35mm with a variety of lenses and filters. The past couple of years she's been getting back into it full bore and she's gone digital. The shops she has dealt with in the past have or are doing away with carrying 35mm cameras. They've told her the future is in digital photography.

Dave - I call them a lot worse, but it isn't printable! Duh will suffice!

Does your Mom do trains!!!!!! You really need to discuss this with her!

Jen

[Mookie]

/quote]

LOL!! Is that what you call your IT people? [:)]

QUOTE: [i]
My mother has been doing race track photography off and on since the '80s. For the longest time it was all 35mm with a variety of lenses and filters. The past couple of years she's been getting back into it full bore and she's gone digital. The shops she has dealt with in the past have or are doing away with carrying 35mm cameras. They've told her the future is in digital photography.

Dave - I call them a lot worse, but it isn't printable! Duh will suffice!

Does your Mom do trains!!!!!! You really need to discuss this with her!

Jen

[edblysard]

Hi David,
Your right, the best equipment in the world wont make the picture any better than the person behind the camera skills allows.
I have seen some awesome photos taken with the junkiest camera, a 110 taped to a stick, held out at the bottom of a jump at a motorcross meet got the kid taking the photo a one of a kind shot as a rider flew up, did a cross up right where the kid had the camera pointed, while giving the V sign with one hand.

The track bought the photo from the kid, and used it for years in adds and on the cover of their programs.
There had to be 20 "pros" myself included there, with several thousand dollars of professional equipment, and a 14 yeard old with a $29.99 kodak and a timer made us look like amatures taking snapshots.

The Minolta I just bought is fantastic, once you figure out all the programs and how to use them. I acctually took a few shots of the lunar eclipse a few months ago, and they turned out, in fact, this thing gathers light so well you could see my kids faces clearly by the light from a neighbors porch, and you could see the demarcation line on the moon too!
Gotta get a telescope adapter for it.

I am so convinced that digital is the way to go that I donated almost all of my darkroom equipment to the local high school, for them to learn on. I did keep one enlarger, and a set of all the junk needed, but the rest went. I still shoot film, somethings just have to be done on film, and getting rid of the F1 would be like getting rid of my right hand, I would feel handicapped without it, I have had it so long its become that much a part of me.
Bet your Mom didnt get rid of all her film cameras, either!

But the expense, or lack therein, of digital is great. The camera has paid for itself already, and its less than 2 months old.
I dont have to spend the entire night in the darkroom, I can sit here and edit, crop, alter and print all I want for a fraction of the cost and in much less time.

Softward upgrades make most accecsories obsolete, I dont have to drag a bag or case of lenses around, just a few flash units is it, no worry about film in the heat, well, its better than I ever though it would be.

And like a lot of people, I resisted changing, because I had grown up using film cameras, and had used the old F1 so much the brass showed through where the paint had rubbed off. I could set it up without even looking at the controls, I had used it that much.
And I knew exactly what it would do, and would not do.
Habit and comfort level kept me from trying digital, but after doing some portrait work with this one, I dont think I will ever get the 2 1/4 out again.

And with technology advancing so quickly, the next generation of digital cameras and other digital equipment should knock your socks off!

Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

Hi David,
Your right, the best equipment in the world wont make the picture any better than the person behind the camera skills allows.
I have seen some awesome photos taken with the junkiest camera, a 110 taped to a stick, held out at the bottom of a jump at a motorcross meet got the kid taking the photo a one of a kind shot as a rider flew up, did a cross up right where the kid had the camera pointed, while giving the V sign with one hand.

The track bought the photo from the kid, and used it for years in adds and on the cover of their programs.
There had to be 20 "pros" myself included there, with several thousand dollars of professional equipment, and a 14 yeard old with a $29.99 kodak and a timer made us look like amatures taking snapshots.

The Minolta I just bought is fantastic, once you figure out all the programs and how to use them. I acctually took a few shots of the lunar eclipse a few months ago, and they turned out, in fact, this thing gathers light so well you could see my kids faces clearly by the light from a neighbors porch, and you could see the demarcation line on the moon too!
Gotta get a telescope adapter for it.

I am so convinced that digital is the way to go that I donated almost all of my darkroom equipment to the local high school, for them to learn on. I did keep one enlarger, and a set of all the junk needed, but the rest went. I still shoot film, somethings just have to be done on film, and getting rid of the F1 would be like getting rid of my right hand, I would feel handicapped without it, I have had it so long its become that much a part of me.
Bet your Mom didnt get rid of all her film cameras, either!

But the expense, or lack therein, of digital is great. The camera has paid for itself already, and its less than 2 months old.
I dont have to spend the entire night in the darkroom, I can sit here and edit, crop, alter and print all I want for a fraction of the cost and in much less time.

Softward upgrades make most accecsories obsolete, I dont have to drag a bag or case of lenses around, just a few flash units is it, no worry about film in the heat, well, its better than I ever though it would be.

And like a lot of people, I resisted changing, because I had grown up using film cameras, and had used the old F1 so much the brass showed through where the paint had rubbed off. I could set it up without even looking at the controls, I had used it that much.
And I knew exactly what it would do, and would not do.
Habit and comfort level kept me from trying digital, but after doing some portrait work with this one, I dont think I will ever get the 2 1/4 out again.

And with technology advancing so quickly, the next generation of digital cameras and other digital equipment should knock your socks off!

Stay Frosty,
Ed

[JoeKoh]

its also being at the right side of the tracks as 2 intermodal trains pass each other.
stay safe
joe

[JoeKoh]

its also being at the right side of the tracks as 2 intermodal trains pass each other.
stay safe
joe

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie
But the skin tones and hair color were just about right on. Until the geeks got a hold of it!

LOL!! Is that what you call your IT people? [:)]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
All the pros I know are slowly putting away their 21/4 single lens, and their large format film cameras, because more and more publishers are switching to digital format, its cheaper, better and faster to produce books and magazines if the photos start out as digital, instead of having to convert transpariences and negatives to digital images.

Ed, you clearly know your stuff!

My mother has been doing race track photography off and on since the '80s. For the longest time it was all 35mm with a variety of lenses and filters. The past couple of years she's been getting back into it full bore and she's gone digital. The shops she has dealt with in the past have or are doing away with carrying 35mm cameras. They've told her the future is in digital photography.

The advantages are undeniable. She can take hundreds of shots a night, download them onto the computer and quickly print out proof sheets. Images can be burnt to CD and dropped off to the newspaper the next morning. Hundreds of pictures can be uploaded to the website without having to scan them in. Years ago hours would be spent running them down to the photo lab, waiting for them to be processed, organizing and dropping them off. The development costs and prints, much less the duplicates would quickly add up.

Digital cameras are very awesome. However, good photography is more than just having the right equipment. [:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Mookie
But the skin tones and hair color were just about right on. Until the geeks got a hold of it!

LOL!! Is that what you call your IT people? [:)]

QUOTE: Originally posted by edblysard
All the pros I know are slowly putting away their 21/4 single lens, and their large format film cameras, because more and more publishers are switching to digital format, its cheaper, better and faster to produce books and magazines if the photos start out as digital, instead of having to convert transpariences and negatives to digital images.

Ed, you clearly know your stuff!

My mother has been doing race track photography off and on since the '80s. For the longest time it was all 35mm with a variety of lenses and filters. The past couple of years she's been getting back into it full bore and she's gone digital. The shops she has dealt with in the past have or are doing away with carrying 35mm cameras. They've told her the future is in digital photography.

The advantages are undeniable. She can take hundreds of shots a night, download them onto the computer and quickly print out proof sheets. Images can be burnt to CD and dropped off to the newspaper the next morning. Hundreds of pictures can be uploaded to the website without having to scan them in. Years ago hours would be spent running them down to the photo lab, waiting for them to be processed, organizing and dropping them off. The development costs and prints, much less the duplicates would quickly add up.

Digital cameras are very awesome. However, good photography is more than just having the right equipment. [:)]

[Mookie]

Ouch - !

Well, Ed is right about the film. I can't tell you the name of the camera, but it is a 35mm and has a rather long lens on it. The picture did turn out rather well if I do say so myself. The color was nice - had a good background - all the volunteer weeds and foliage the landlord is growing and due to a little rain this spring, it was nice a green.

But the skin tones and hair color were just about right on. Until the geeks got a hold of it! Sigh. But - I work with both of them and keep thinking something about paybacks and what they are! :)

Jen

[Mookie]

Ouch - !

Well, Ed is right about the film. I can't tell you the name of the camera, but it is a 35mm and has a rather long lens on it. The picture did turn out rather well if I do say so myself. The color was nice - had a good background - all the volunteer weeds and foliage the landlord is growing and due to a little rain this spring, it was nice a green.

But the skin tones and hair color were just about right on. Until the geeks got a hold of it! Sigh. But - I work with both of them and keep thinking something about paybacks and what they are! :)

Jen

[edblysard]

Well, for a few years in the late 70s, thats what I did for a living.
Along with running a small studio, I sold cameras for Cannon, and taught photographic composition at a local college.
But, seeing as how you dont want to know that Jennys photo is a film shot, from a 35mm single lens reflex, and mine is digital, or why the skin tone in hers is slightly red, because the people who helped her post it enhanced it with a computer program, or that Kathi Kubes is also slightly red because,
A: she is wearing a bright red dress,
B: the photographer used hot tungsten bulbs as if he was shooting kodachrome.
Look at both Nancy Bartol's and Lori Schneider's photos, both shot with a digital, but using natural cool light. Perfect skin tones.
The cure, by the way, is simple. Buy a 49% UV haze filter with a slight pink tint.
Works wonders.

But you, being the knowlegable person that you are, already understand that even though UV and infrared are just outside both ends of the visable enegry wave lengths we humans can see, that both film and digital cameras "see" it quite well, probaly dont want to bore anyone.

And you know what, format does matter.

All the pros I know are slowly putting away their 21/4 single lens, and their large format film cameras, because more and more publishers are switching to digital format, its cheaper, better and faster to produce books and magazines if the photos start out as digital, instead of having to convert transpariences and negatives to digital images.
Know anyone who still uses their 16 mm, or super 8 movie camera anymore?
Own a DVD player?
You better get one if you dont, movie film and video cassetts are going the way of audio cassetts and LP records.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz1

Ed, you sound just like the salesman at the camera store! [:D]

As long as the photographer is satisfied with the results, the format does not matter, digital or film. I do not wi***o bore other readers of this post anymore with image philosophy. Perhaps we should start a new topic......

[edblysard]

Well, for a few years in the late 70s, thats what I did for a living.
Along with running a small studio, I sold cameras for Cannon, and taught photographic composition at a local college.
But, seeing as how you dont want to know that Jennys photo is a film shot, from a 35mm single lens reflex, and mine is digital, or why the skin tone in hers is slightly red, because the people who helped her post it enhanced it with a computer program, or that Kathi Kubes is also slightly red because,
A: she is wearing a bright red dress,
B: the photographer used hot tungsten bulbs as if he was shooting kodachrome.
Look at both Nancy Bartol's and Lori Schneider's photos, both shot with a digital, but using natural cool light. Perfect skin tones.
The cure, by the way, is simple. Buy a 49% UV haze filter with a slight pink tint.
Works wonders.

But you, being the knowlegable person that you are, already understand that even though UV and infrared are just outside both ends of the visable enegry wave lengths we humans can see, that both film and digital cameras "see" it quite well, probaly dont want to bore anyone.

And you know what, format does matter.

All the pros I know are slowly putting away their 21/4 single lens, and their large format film cameras, because more and more publishers are switching to digital format, its cheaper, better and faster to produce books and magazines if the photos start out as digital, instead of having to convert transpariences and negatives to digital images.
Know anyone who still uses their 16 mm, or super 8 movie camera anymore?
Own a DVD player?
You better get one if you dont, movie film and video cassetts are going the way of audio cassetts and LP records.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz1

Ed, you sound just like the salesman at the camera store! [:D]

As long as the photographer is satisfied with the results, the format does not matter, digital or film. I do not wi***o bore other readers of this post anymore with image philosophy. Perhaps we should start a new topic......

[Modelcar]

....Photography of any kind is not boring....

[Modelcar]

....Photography of any kind is not boring....

[zardoz]

Ed, you sound just like the salesman at the camera store! [:D]

As long as the photographer is satisfied with the results, the format does not matter, digital or film. I do not wi***o bore other readers of this post anymore with image philosophy. Perhaps we should start a new topic......

[zardoz]

Ed, you sound just like the salesman at the camera store! [:D]

As long as the photographer is satisfied with the results, the format does not matter, digital or film. I do not wi***o bore other readers of this post anymore with image philosophy. Perhaps we should start a new topic......

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

OK, well, due to all the abuse, I have had to change the photo I have posted...

LC

I missed the first one - since I am not here on weekends - sort of not here -
but I can tell you this one isn't you, since you don't have on regulation work clothes.

You have the wrong end of your anatomy showing - should be the crack not the handles! And if you were a really old head - you would have had on overalls and they would have been unbuttoned on the side clear down to .... and no underwear for coolness. Now I am going to go [:I] and look like my picture for awhile!

Mook!