Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Rob C on November 18, 2017, 09:28:23 am
-
From the volume of traffic of people seeking advice on this, that or the other system of cameras and lenses, would anyone agree that this is a curse not of indecision, but of far too much choice?
Strikes me that were the same effort expended on shooting and getting familiar with what one actually owns, then peace of mind and better pix may well be ours for the having...
For example, because of old eyes I now use af on the couple of lenses that I have with it - and they also get more use because of that. So far, old D200 and D700 that my cameras are, I'd be fibbing if I claimed to have missed focus because it, af, was too slow. No, where it hits me is in subjects through glass, where the system can sometimes be confused between the real subject behind the glass, and either a reflection or dirt on the glass pane. I'm sure nothing faster would fix this; one lens, a G Nikkor, let's me do a manual focussing override to compensate, but the other one, a 180mm, does not, and requires I select focussing method prior to use and so isn't as user-friendly.
These problems don't mean one has to change entire systems - one just has to make the best of what's to hand. Companies obviously hope you disagree!
Rob
-
Were it not for the volume of traffic of people seeking advice advice on this that or the other system of cameras and lenses this website simply wouldn't exist and you and I could be shooting and getting more familiar with what we actually own.
-
Hi Rob,
You know as well as I do that a lot of this has to do with a love of gadgetry. "I've gotta have the new NiCanon doohoppy so I can see how it actually works." As I've mentioned several times and you've mentioned several times, real photography hasn't much to do with gadgetry as long as you have gadgetry adequate to what you're trying to do. A real pro can shoot a wedding with the least capable semi-pro camera on the market today, and do a great job. The reason I know this is that my down-the-hall pro friend in Colorado Springs used to do stunningly beautiful weddings with what's nowadays way-out-of-date stuff that no current amateur would even consider.
But what the hell, I'm subject to the same urges, so I can't knock it. I just bought a good-looking Rogue flash grid because I want something that'll throw a more controllable red or blue splash on the background next time I do headshots. The next time I do headshots probably will be a couple months from now, if ever, but man, now I'm ready! Feels good.
-
But what the hell, I'm subject to the same urges, so I can't knock it. I just bought a good-looking Rogue flash grid because I want something that'll throw a more controllable red or blue splash on the background next time I do headshots. The next time I do headshots probably will be a couple months from now, if ever, but man, now I'm ready! Feels good.
Russ - I often don't agree with your politics but I do greatly admire your enthusiasm for photography. It does feel good to be ready. :)
Chuck
-
Were it not for the volume of traffic of people seeking advice advice on this that or the other system of cameras and lenses this website simply wouldn't exist and you and I could be shooting and getting more familiar with what we actually own.
I thought you and I were already very familiar with what we have?
The big problem with photography sans client requirements in the driving seat is that the seat is then usually too far removed from the motivator pedal. Changing the shape and brand of the pedal solves nothing: you gotta shift the seat.
But I'm not sure LuLa wouldn't exist without the gear blood. I may be the odd one out, but it's the now and then jewels of conversation that draw me in. I like to see photographs from people with a keen sense of design, imagination and the ability to surprise me and be different. That's not so common.
But anyway, the site has a very good set of minds, too, who can and will help people solve technical problems as they come along. Strikes me that's more interesting and useful than feeding GAS. But then, I feed a white horse carrots most days...
Anyway, the point I was considering was about the huge volume of competing stuff out there which simply exists to make people feel inadequate unless they have the newest toy. The removal of pleasure with the substitution of doubts and anxieties. Folks shouldn't confuse new with better for them.
Russ: extending one's toolkit is no sin; constantly changing it is.
IMO
Rob
-
I think it's strange that our own GAS isn't as smelly as that of others.
-
Rob,
EXACTLY - the worst of today’s tools so far exceed anything I had access to since my beginnings in the 60’s that I could probably go into a camera store, put on a blindfold, throw a dart at the camera counter and walk out with something that exceeds my ability’s abilities (and my spelling prowess) - no matter where it landed.
BUT - on the amateur (and by that I mean those who ‘love’ not ‘not very good’) side of things, there has always been a coterie of folk in love with the both the technology and the beauty of cameras and lenses as functional pieces of art. I just wish I had the money to indulge in a suite of Leica stuff, and Phase One stuff, and, and, and . . . .
We have a riches of choice today, way more than we need... and the desire of acquisition is less easily sated these days because unilike your example of the epitome of the 500 Hassy - which one might finally achieve and then happily own and use as “the best” for years on end - that “joy cycle” is now down to about 12 months between one “latest and greatest must have” and the next.
Rand
-
We have a riches of choice today, way more than we need... and the desire of acquisition is less easily sated these days because unilike your example of the epitome of the 500 Hassy - which one might finally achieve and then happily own and use as “the best” for years on end - that “joy cycle” is now down to about 12 months between one “latest and greatest must have” and the next.
Rand
I recall once near the end of my film days realizing that of the five cameras I owned at that point, not one had been manufactured in the preceding twenty-five years. I started doing digital in about 2004 and in the thirteen years since then I have owned at least eight cameras (currently just two).
Sigh!
-
"Volume of traffic (and people)?" I bemoan the decline of both, in quantity and quality. I remember the good old days, 10 years ago, when you had to time your postings carefully to get good exposure, because they would get pushed off the front page in only 2 or 3 hours. Back then it was bothersome to wade through a couple hundred topic lines each day to find ones of interest. And then, the ones of interest could keep you occupied for hours. Now I can scan all new traffic on the 6 forums I monitor in about 5 minutes a day. I'm baffled by those who complain about "off topic" threads in forums that now have such low traffic.
"Far too much choice?" I imagine many photogs have other "hobbies". How does the amount of choice in those compare to photography? What's your experience? There are only 2 other hobbies in my house. My wife's hobby is marine aquariums, and I'm a former smoker who became a vaping geek.
The number of people, the number of forums, the forum traffic, and the plethora of hardware surrounding the marine aquarium hobby is some X factor greater than that of photography. I'd guess 3x to 4x. Curious note - I browsed one of her primary forums recently looking for something specific but I could not find it. I could not find any threads about Trump or Climate Change.
The vaping industry is only about 10 years old, yet it has eclipsed photography by another X factor. Number of forums, traffic, people, all greater. And choice? It's the wild west. For hardware, at least a dozen major companies and 3 times that in smaller startups. About 99% of hardware makers are out of China, and they are introducing new products at a rate that is staggering. Because it's China, there is no respect for copyrights or trademarks. Hardware companies use common product names, and fakes/clones abound. So, if someone says, "Have you tried the new eGo-C Twist", you gotta ask, "Which one".
Other companies make the e-juice that goes into the vaping hardware. Most of these are country bound (USA, Euro). There are hundreds of them in the US, maybe thousands, and most are very small outfits (1 to 5) people. They produce thousands of flavors. And now, DIY is taking off big time. You can buy your own raw ingredients and make your own juice. There is one recipie trading site that has over 88 thousand recipies on file. Most of those have multiple "reviews" by others who have tried them.
Too much choice in photography? It's relative, I think. Not too much for me.
-
I think it's strange that our own GAS isn't as smelly as that of others.
We become immune!
;-)
Rob
-
I recall once near the end of my film days realizing that of the five cameras I owned at that point, not one had been manufactured in the preceding twenty-five years. I started doing digital in about 2004 and in the thirteen years since then I have owned at least eight cameras (currently just two).
Sigh!
Sigh, indeed!
The only reason I lost my 'blads was because I listened to others (for once!), such as my stock agency, who declared that going to 6x7 made pictures sell better. Sadly, I did this just before digital came along with its atom bomb.
I do wish I had done what I have since suggested others do: sell nothing! I may not have stayed with film, but a digi back would now have seemed like an interesting avenue... however, starting over is out of the question. I remain with the three cameras I have: the two digis and the almost unused F3. In a thousand years it will be in a museum. The other pair? I doubt it - more likely landfill.
Rob
-
"Volume of traffic (and people)?" I bemoan the decline of both, in quantity and quality. I remember the good old days, 10 years ago, when you had to time your postings carefully to get good exposure, because they would get pushed off the front page in only 2 or 3 hours. Back then it was bothersome to wade through a couple hundred topic lines each day to find ones of interest. And then, the ones of interest could keep you occupied for hours. Now I can scan all new traffic on the 6 forums I monitor in about 5 minutes a day. I'm baffled by those who complain about "off topic" threads in forums that now have such low traffic.
"Far too much choice?" I imagine many photogs have other "hobbies". How does the amount of choice in those compare to photography? What's your experience? There are only 2 other hobbies in my house. My wife's hobby is marine aquariums, and I'm a former smoker who became a vaping geek.
The number of people, the number of forums, the forum traffic, and the plethora of hardware surrounding the marine aquarium hobby is some X factor greater than that of photography. I'd guess 3x to 4x. Curious note - I browsed one of her primary forums recently looking for something specific but I could not find it. I could not find any threads about Trump or Climate Change.
The vaping industry is only about 10 years old, yet it has eclipsed photography by another X factor. Number of forums, traffic, people, all greater. And choice? It's the wild west. For hardware, at least a dozen major companies and 3 times that in smaller startups. About 99% of hardware makers are out of China, and they are introducing new products at a rate that is staggering. Because it's China, there is no respect for copyrights or trademarks. Hardware companies use common product names, and fakes/clones abound. So, if someone says, "Have you tried the new eGo-C Twist", you gotta ask, "Which one".
Other companies make the e-juice that goes into the vaping hardware. Most of these are country bound (USA, Euro). There are hundreds of them in the US, maybe thousands, and most are very small outfits (1 to 5) people. They produce thousands of flavors. And now, DIY is taking off big time. You can buy your own raw ingredients and make your own juice. There is one recipie trading site that has over 88 thousand recipies on file. Most of those have multiple "reviews" by others who have tried them.
Too much choice in photography? It's relative, I think. Not too much for me.
I'm glad you wrote that.
For some time I have been imagining that it's my own imagination saying much the same thing. The main loss, in my opinion, is the professional one. There was a bunch of good pros posting both copy and images, and that livened up the whole show. The input of the late founder, Michael, was also very important, as were his straight remarks and views and, best of all, his great photographs. He knew what he was doing, and did it very well, posting some of the most remarkable landscape photos I have seen - and I'm usually neutral to landscape pictures, which is not the same as being disinterested in the real thing.
Not quite sure why we lost many of the pros, and I don't think that either pro or am has anything to do with competing hobby choices. Options always abounded, so it has to have been something else caused the drift... perhaps people simply don't like to write. Nothing will survive on the efforts of perhaps a dozen regular contributors because those same people do not write for echo: they write for continuity of discussion. Where different reasons pertain - such as in the few political threads - then yes, echo and affirmation is the number. But it's not enough to keep the photographers hooked.
In some ways, I suppose that the photographic equipment plateau has removed the sense of urgency some felt regardng their gear. If equipment is the primary interest, then it's understandable that traffic falls. A very brief look at the photo-art section shows that few are interested in learning or talking about other photographers; the interest seems totally focussed elsewhere.
It isn't surprising that if one is already able to photograph perfectly well, then the interest will perhaps lie in other places, and thus in the lives and works of those better-known photographers one has come to admire and respect through life's exposure to them. But, if one no longer reads magazines and sees the work, then the appetite is lost and, slowly, the entire appreciation of what was out there will atrophy.
-
There's also a whole lot of pursuing the veritable Joneses. You're simply NOBODY if you're not using the latest and best gear. Get a bunch of photographers together and what do they talk about.... The subjects and locations and events we love most, the "real" reason we take photos? Maybe... a little. But no one sits forward in their chairs, raises their voice and gets energized till they start unzipping their camera bags to see who's better than the rest.
-
There's also a whole lot of pursuing the veritable Joneses. You're simply NOBODY if you're not using the latest and best gear. Get a bunch of photographers together and what do they talk about.... The subjects and locations and events we love most, the "real" reason we take photos? Maybe... a little. But no one sits forward in their chairs, raises their voice and gets energized till they start unzipping their camera bags to see who's better than the rest.
Now, there's my nightmare.
-
There's also a whole lot of pursuing the veritable Joneses. You're simply NOBODY if you're not using the latest and best gear. Get a bunch of photographers together and what do they talk about.... The subjects and locations and events we love most, the "real" reason we take photos? Maybe... a little. But no one sits forward in their chairs, raises their voice and gets energized till they start unzipping their camera bags to see who's better than the rest.
The problem with most stereotypes is that they are usually wrong ;) Undoubtedly there are groups like you describe, but the majority? I don't think so.
-
The problem with most stereotypes is that they are usually wrong ;) ...
The problem with the above statement is that it is actually wrong: stereotypes exist for a reason and they are usually right ;) The application of a stereotype to every single member of the group, without further analysis, is what is often wrong.
-
The problem with the above statement is that it is actually wrong: stereotypes exist for a reason and they are usually right ;) The application of a stereotype to every single member of the group, without further analysis, is what is often wrong.
You're right, sematically speaking then. Hopefully most people understand what I meant without having to explain themselves further ;)
And I would go even further than you: applying the stereotype to every group (in this case every group of photographers) is wrong.
-
Ah, Keith, a group of photographers. The one group of which I would really like to have understood the workings of, was the Bailey, Donovan and Duffy one.
Volumes have been written about them, but so much of it comes across to me as smoke and mirrors. Did they actually have a very friendly relationship devoid of rivalry, or did they, as did lesser groups, hold hands just to stop one another dipping pockets?
Perhaps in a big city overflowing with clients, and where work probably goes round and round within a small group, it could happen; in mine, the atmosphere was patently veiled hostility out of fear of being undercut on many fronts, including sabotage via model, where the better ones were beholden to photographer boyfriends and if you used them, you automatically gave them access to your own clients... not a very savoury situation.
The worst photographic experience outwith the preoccupations of the pro world is finding oneself in a group - even of two - trying to "be creative" together and converse at same time. It's an absurdity. It's as confusing as going on double-dates must be, not that we did that, I hasten to add. Not in my cultural genes.
Rob
-
I was at a local bar during a concert and was shooting occasionally. A member of the public asked me what I am shooting with, Canon or Nikon. There was another photographer there too, and we talked briefly.
She, looking at my gear: "85/1.8?"
Me: "Yep"
She: "35/1.4"
Me: "Sigma?"
She: "Yep"
She: "But I don't like it, I am going to exchange it for Canon"
Ah, those deep thoughts that bond the brotherhood and sisterhood of photographers together ;)
-
I was at a local bar during a concert and was shooting occasionally. A member of the public asked me what I am shooting with, Canon or Nikon. There was another photographer there too, and we talked briefly.
She, looking at my gear: "85/1.8?"
Me: "Yep"
She: "35/1.4"
Me: "Sigma?"
She: "Yep"
She: "But I don't like it, I am going to exchange it for Canon"
Ah, those deep thoughts that bond the brotherhood and sisterhood of photographers together ;)
Yes, and it represents a lot of what goes down in place of conversation... but that's hardly exclusive to photographers. Glad I'm not a member of a golf club. Maybe it's why people get stoned. What else to do on social gatherings of some types; how else to escape but remain politely present?
My own gamut of interpersonal, social conversation revolves around the tablets I have to take and when a particular restaurateur decides to reopen. It's a regular, popular topic and one needs to be really determined in order to get one's own list into the conversation. People are so selfish.
That's a reason that I now feed a white horse with carrots. The horse has more to say.
:-)
Rob
-
When my friend Bruce & I get together, usually with other folks too, to talk & show photography we bring along prints and/or SD cards (lately more of the latter) but rarely gear. I think we hit Peak Gear, in terms of it really mattering, c. 2009. Since then we’ve only had a couple people display symptoms of upgrade-itis or brand/format tribalism. They haven’t been invited back. ;)
-Dave-
-
I've been meeting several times a year for some fifty years with a small group of serious amateur photographers.
For the last several years we have had one rule: Our meetings start at 7:15 pm and for forty-five minutes we can gossip or talk about gear or technical stuff. Starting promptly at 8:00 the prints go up, with about a dozen from each of eight or so members. We talk about what we see in each image and why and there is no talk about gear at all.
It works, very well.
Eric
-
Starting promptly at 8:00 the prints go up, with about a dozen from each of eight or so members. We talk about what we see in each image and why and there is no talk about gear at all.
Eric
Hi Eric,
sounds like a good arrangement. is there an option to show digital images on a large tablet?
Les
-
Hasn't photography always been inextricably associated with gear? You can't take a photograph without the gear.
The issue of the type and quality of gear should always relate to the type of shots the photographer is interested in, and usually takes.
If one is interested in birds, of the feathered variety, then an iPhone is not going to pass muster, at least most of the time, although it might be adequate in a zoo where you can stick your hand through the cage wiring and take a shot of a large Emu that is very close. ;)
If one is interested in photographing birds of the Homo Sapiens variety, and plates of food on the dining table, and sharing such images with other iPhone users, then an iPhone might be perfectly adequate for the task. ;D
The problem of the fascination with camera gear, that some people exhibit, is a part of the general fascination with so many products, such as stylish clothing, and cars, and housing. We tend not to buy such products for their utility purposes, but to satisfy our vanity and ego.
-
Hasn't photography always been inextricably associated with gear? You can't take a photograph without the gear.
The issue of the type and quality of gear should always relate to the type of shots the photographer is interested in, and usually takes.
If one is interested in birds, of the feathered variety, then an iPhone is not going to pass muster, at least most of the time, although it might be adequate in a zoo where you can stick your hand through the cage wiring and take a shot of a large Emu that is very close. ;)
If one is interested in photographing birds of the Homo Sapiens variety, and plates of food on the dining table, and sharing such images with other iPhone users, then an iPhone might be perfectly adequate for the task. ;D
The problem of the fascination with camera gear, that some people exhibit, is a part of the general fascination with so many products, such as stylish clothing, and cars, and housing. We tend not to buy such products for their utility purposes, but to satisfy our vanity and ego.
I agree with much of your analysis, but would go just a little step sideways: my first remembered contact with photography was not images made, but photographs of cameras in American magazine adverts. I found something beautiful in the build of those Leicas advertised during the early 50s. Also, Canon and Nikon ran ads, and I can recall wondering what f1 or f0,9 or whatever meant, but that it was very beautiful. I really had no idea, yet it all sounded so clever and impressive. I also knew an Indian gentleman who owned a tiny Minox and that, too, was an exciting camera to see. My own? I had some sort of Brownie reflex working on 127. I remember being stunned, one day in Bombay, walking into a camera shop and discovering the price of tripods. I had never suspected. How wonderful the world of the child, where cost doesn't register. Perhaps that means that the desire to become rich is a degeneration, a desire to return to childhood's freedoms? I'd risk it today!
So I do differ a bit from your view of thinking that things such as pretty cameras and cars are necessarily about ego and vanity; a child has not developed those emotions very far, I suspect, but an appreciation of intrinsic beauty may well exist from the beginning of life. Why else would one love, be besotted by boobs?
Why else would I love the fins of the '59 Coupe de Ville, I sometimes ask myself, and the bumpers of the earlier '56 more than of the '59? Why do I still believe that my Nikon F was a better-looking camera than those that were to follow, even though in reality, the F2 was far more comfortable to hold for hours on end simply because of the softened edges? Why do I still respect my wet printing but hardly at all my digital, which can allow (well, could when my printer worked) far more accuracy? I think I believe that it's all an instinctive thing, a natural appreciation of what's just, well, right. (Don't confuse right with morality!) With regards to the prints: accuracy isn't the same as beauty; it can take time to realise that. I've known some pretty silly pretty girls and some dumb pretty boys, too, though far fewer of the latter: how can you tell when a boy is pretty?
So many problems, so few solutions; so many solutions to problems I don't have.
Rob
-
The difference from 1988, when I bought my first camera (Olympus AZ300 superzoom)? The amount of information available at one's fingertips. The in 1991 I bought my first SLR, a Canon EOS 1000 (aka Rebel). Why? Because my father had a Canon too, and I could afford it.
Ignorance is bliss. If you don't know other options exist, then you don't waste time getting information about them.
-
Hi Eric,
sounds like a good arrangement. is there an option to show digital images on a large tablet?
Les
At least one member has shown images on a laptop once or twice, and nobody objected.
The same member usually brings beautiful prints, and I suspect everyone in the group shares the feeling that an image isn't quite finished until it exists as a print.
Eric
-
At least one member has shown images on a laptop once or twice, and nobody objected.
The same member usually brings beautiful prints, and I suspect everyone in the group shares the feeling that an image isn't quite finished until it exists as a print.
Eric
I used to think a print was the product.
I now think it depends what suits the photographer. For a long time I saw the computer as the ultimate viewing medium, but today, I see the best results on my little iPad. I have no idea why everything looks so much better - it seems to me to have what I used to see on black/white prints that I had to make in '65 for my last boss from his M3 shots with one of the 21mm lenses. Just more "thick" with tonality.
I wonder if an Apple monitor for the computer would be better than my current LaCie.... nope, just thinkin' aloud!
Rob
-
The trouble with any electronic device such as ipad or computer screen is that what you see on it can instantly be changed by turning a knob or pushing a slider, and you have no way of knowing how closely it comes to the photographer's vision. A print is fixed (and preferably adequately washed ;) ) at least if it is processed well, and it doesn't change at all for a reasonable length of time.
Eric
-
I rarely seek fame, never fortune. But in the past year I had 2 prints on public display. Our local art center had the Vivian Maier exhibit and put out a call for local photogs to submit prints to accompany the exhibit. I sent two prints, they both got displayed.
The Maier exhibit was beautiful, in the main gallery with good lighting and space. The local photog prints were put in a narrow basement hallway where the staff offices and storage closets were. Standard dull, overhead florescent lighting. Ugly stuff.
Then I did a family portrait for a local bigwig politico who entertains a lot. I just gave him the digital file. He had a pro shop print large and frame larger. Months later I got to see it. It was hung over a sofa in a windowless parlor with dark wallpaper. Probably the room where he brings cronies to sip brandy, smoke cigars, and hatch nefarious plans. Two end table tungsten lamps provided the only light. Think caveman.
So a print is hardly "fixed", even if well washed. In both these cases, an iPad would have done a much better job of conveying the artist's vision.
-
I think most of the time the person asking the gear question already has a rough answer in their head, but asks anyway for perhaps two reasons. First, it just helps to solidify the choice they've pretty much already made. It's a type of "group approval." The second reason seems to be just simple conversation, and a way of saying, "Hey, I'm here!" Just as strangers standing in line together might start talking about weather, on internet groups we start a conversation about camera gear. Over the years I've had a little fun with that, especially on message boards where the "status points" seem to go to those asking about the latest gear. An example might be, "Should I buy Nikon's $10,000 lens with their new $3,000 camera, or the new $5,000 camera with the $8,000 lens?" I've been known to then post a thread, "Would I be better off buying a 1932 Kodak Brownie 2F, or a 1937 Agfa Trolix?" ;D I then go on to list the "advantage" of each camera over the other. Virtually everyone takes these posts seriously but has little clue as to what to make of it.
I do have GAS, but with me it seems to have taken an odd turn. My Nikon version is to have only a few "pieces," but make them the best possible. I generally only carry three lenses with me, sometimes only one. OTOH, I have an intense lust for lenses made before 1860 (especially those before 1850.) I have three DSLR cameras (x2 D800E, one D5300). I really don't have any urge to buy more or update the D800E until the used D850 prices fall below $1,800. However I check ebay daily looking for antebellum lenses, and fine cameras from the 20th C. I'm not sure how many cameras I've owned in the past five years. Last year I sold off most of a box camera collection of 22 pieces. The proceeds went into my Hassleblad fund! :) I have an upcoming trip to Seattle and you might think I'm having trouble selecting camera gear to bring. Au contraire, mon frère! I will bring the 1954 Rolleiflex to use in the daytime, and the Nikon D5300 to use at night. It really doesn't matter, does it? I'll have fun with whatever I take.
Kent in SD
-
I think most of the time the person asking the gear question already has a rough answer in their head, but asks anyway for perhaps two reasons. First, it just helps to solidify the choice they've pretty much already made. It's a type of "group approval." The second reason seems to be just simple conversation, and a way of saying, "Hey, I'm here!" Just as strangers standing in line together might start talking about weather, on internet groups we start a conversation about camera gear. Over the years I've had a little fun with that, especially on message boards where the "status points" seem to go to those asking about the latest gear. An example might be, "Should I buy Nikon's $10,000 lens with their new $3,000 camera, or the new $5,000 camera with the $8,000 lens?" I've been known to then post a thread, "Would I be better off buying a 1932 Kodak Brownie 2F, or a 1937 Agfa Trolix?" ;D I then go on to list the "advantage" of each camera over the other. Virtually everyone takes these posts seriously but has little clue as to what to make of it.
I do have GAS, but with me it seems to have taken an odd turn. My Nikon version is to have only a few "pieces," but make them the best possible. I generally only carry three lenses with me, sometimes only one. OTOH, I have an intense lust for lenses made before 1860 (especially those before 1850.) I have three DSLR cameras (x2 D800E, one D5300). I really don't have any urge to buy more or update the D800E until the used D850 prices fall below $1,800. However I check ebay daily looking for antebellum lenses, and fine cameras from the 20th C. I'm not sure how many cameras I've owned in the past five years. Last year I sold off most of a box camera collection of 22 pieces. The proceeds went into my Hassleblad fund! :) I have an upcoming trip to Seattle and you might think I'm having trouble selecting camera gear to bring. Au contraire, mon frère! I will bring the 1954 Rolleiflex to use in the daytime, and the Nikon D5300 to use at night. It really doesn't matter, does it? I'll have fun with whatever I take.
Kent in SD
Not intended as a trick question: why do/did you collect old cameras and lenses?
There is always the possbility I am reading an extension of this, of course:
"Over the years I've had a little fun with that, especially on message boards where the "status points" seem to go to those asking about the latest gear. An example might be, "Should I buy Nikon's $10,000 lens with their new $3,000 camera, or the new $5,000 camera with the $8,000 lens?" I've been known to then post a thread, "Would I be better off buying a 1932 Kodak Brownie 2F, or a 1937 Agfa Trolix?" ;D I then go on to list the "advantage" of each camera over the other. Virtually everyone takes these posts seriously but has little clue as to what to make of it."
Rob
-
The Brownie 2F obviously beats the Trolix hands down, because it's older. ;)
-
Not intended as a trick question: why do/did you collect old cameras and lenses?
I just got bored shooting only digital. I picked up my mother-n-law's 1958 Brownie Hawkeye when we were cleaning out her house and just started shooting it. It was fun! And, I got a lot of interesting images. I started reading up on the photographers of bygone eras and really liked the classic look to their images. So, I began buying cameras that in their day were either very common or were the "hot camera" at the time. Interesting cameras I've picked up are the Ansco Memo (1928), Kodak Panoram (1909), Kodak Bantam (1938), "baby" Rolleiflex (1940), and a Ferrania box camera. Nice cameras include (1942) Leica IIIc, (1954) Rolleiflex, Nikon F3T (1983), Kodak Special No.2 (1914), Voigtlander Vitessa (1950), Voigtlander Bergheil (1928), Voigtlander Bessa RF (1937), Zeiss Ikon Cocarette Luxus (1928), and a Watson & Son half plate (1880s). All of these are very nicely made and are art in themselves. I just love mechanical things! I'm also fascinated by the photographers of the past and the world they lived in. I also got into historical lenses which I can shoot on my 4x5 or 5x7. Mostly these are from 1845 to 1860, or 1905 to 1930. It fascinates me to see how photo equipment advanced through the decades. It seems like it generally advanced in spurts more than a steady straight line. The Petzval lens in 1840 was the first leap, then anastigmat lenses in 1890 (Zeiss Protar), then shutters became reliable around 1910 (Compound, Dekel,) then coated lenses generally after 1946, then exposure meters beginning in the mid 1950s. There is also a pronounced trend of cameras and gear becoming ever smaller. A century ago most of us would have been shooting either a 5x7 camera (U.S.) or half plate (British.) The "hot lens" was a Zeiss Tessar in Compound shutter.
Kent in SD
Below photo:
inspection of a 1928 Ansco Memo.
Camera shot half frame on 35mm movie film.
This was before the standard film cassettes
were made, so film was loaded in the dark
into cassettes included with the camera.
-
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=james+ravilious+a+life&client=safari&hl=en-gb&prmd=isvn&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&fir=-tt89-c6zPOs5M%253A%252Cj-tgJztYn2lK_M%252C_%253B1qSHc8ekXmbJFM%253A%252C1IHjCjP_aGptHM%252C_%253BX2IOGVdic_505M%253A%252CuVISoyIBnsYWNM%252C_%253BA9BFjw45XZUU8M%253A%252C9r7UeNt5p89fcM%252C_%253Bj0uYIcLsQVeV0M%253A%252Cg8cwFzpEV8vfXM%252C_%253BvgFFFCpBnRxNSM%253A%252CVzkMB7WYicBmZM%252C_%253BGmc6JtuwGoTgdM%253A%252CauWuY8A42fbcSM%252C_%253BJZgCDuPi0LEVxM%253A%252CZf7P3DLJFlePvM%252C_%253BtplrZme5WfvivM%253A%252C9r7UeNt5p89fcM%252C_%253Bq9wpP50E_c7jKM%253A%252C1IHjCjP_aGptHM%252C_&usg=__nsAEYqLanX6DyamEoiqcEXlnm6w%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjx7a_altDXAhUJxRQKHbRHCgEQsAQIfg&biw=1024&bih=729
I offer the above set of images, but there is also a video that was shot for BBCtv, if my memory is right. I had a link to it on my computer, and if I don't forget, I shall add it later when I'm off the iPad.
The point about the man who shot the pictures is that he worked with Leica and some very old lenses that appealed to him a lot. He would go as far as to mask the lenshoods down to make them more efficient.
My Rollei tlr was the basic model T (no joking - that was its designation!) with a 3.5/75 Tessar. It wasn't the sharpest, nowhere like the 2.8/80 Planar for my 'blad, but it seemed to have a kind of signature plasticity as it's "look". I didn't do that work at that time, but I think it would have been pretty interesting for nudes.
Your Vitessa, wasn't that fitted with a rapid winding device like a plunger? Another Vitesse was a Triumph car, but that's off-topic. ;-) An odd machine of the 50s was the Periflex, made, I think, by Ken Corfield, who was a pretty bright and adventurous UK engineer who also made one of the early pancake cameras. The Periflex had a sort of periscope device which might have been for focussing, but as I never saw one, I don't really know. A further small, Brit camera was the Reid, and looked like the Leica of pre-M variety. There was a monorail based on 135 format, the Kennedy (?) which could have been interesting if you wanted to do near work, but I think bellows became very difficult for distance shots.
You're right: there really is a huge variety of stuff out there, and I do see how it could become interesting to build up a little museum... I wish you good fortune.
Rob
-
The appreciation of fine gear and photographic artistic expression are two independent interests. You can be involved completely in one without any interest in the other, imo. But in real life, the 2 interests intersect in most practitioners. Probably because it's fun.
-
The appreciation of fine gear and photographic artistic expression are two independent interests. You can be involved completely in one without any interest in the other, imo. But in real life, the 2 interests intersect in most practitioners. Probably because it's fun.
Really? I never felt spending large sums of money on camera stuff fun; essential, at one stage, but fun?
There is a definite sense of high expectations with some buys, but it doesn't seem like fun - more like a hope for the best.
Actually, thinking of the term fun in any depth is something new to me. I have never been sure what it really signifies; it's a bit like that other word, nice, which fails to have a really clear sense of purpose about it. I really think it's one of those typical words that are used to gloss over things we are not terribly sure about. In fact, the more I think about it, the more surprising it seems that language actually works! Perhaps that's why some of us prefer making images because then, as with another famous character, our expressions can mean exactly what we want them to mean. I rather like that; I suppose it means I may find myself having to go out and make some more pictures, just to have something to talk to myself about over lunch a few days from now. I'm glad I'm not into watercolours... especially were I living in India; wandering about, looking lost, and carrying a jar of water around would not be good for the image.
;-)
Rob
-
Really? I never felt spending large sums of money on camera stuff fun; essential, at one stage, but fun?
There is a definite sense of high expectations with some buys, but it doesn't seem like fun - more like a hope for the best.
Actually, thinking of the term fun in any depth is something new to me. I have never been sure what it really signifies; it's a bit like that other word, nice, which fails to have a really clear sense of purpose about it. I really think it's one of those typical words that are used to gloss over things we are not terribly sure about. In fact, the more I think about it, the more surprising it seems that language actually works! Perhaps that's why some of us prefer making images because then, as with another famous character, our expressions can mean exactly what we want them to mean. I rather like that; I suppose it means I may find myself having to go out and make some more pictures, just to have something to talk to myself about over lunch a few days from now. I'm glad I'm not into watercolours... especially were I living in India; wandering about, looking lost, and carrying a jar of water around would not be good for the image.
;-)
Rob
You may be over-thinking it. To my mind, if it's not food or shelter and you choose to spend the money anyway, then you're probably spending it on "fun". We live in very affluent cultures, spending money on stuff is one of the things we do to amuse ourselves. We may not always like it, or like to admit it anyway, but it cannot be escaped. It's a defining aspect of our culture.
Other than in a philosophy class or court of law, worrying about nuances of meaning of everyday colloquial words might be a waste of time. That is, once the discussion is over, how are you farther ahead? Some things are "nice", in that they don't hurt or irritate you, and leave you with a slightly better feeling than a few minutes ago. It's best not to worry about it, I find, rarely more important than your next coffee or snack. Now, that's important.
Bon appetit.
-
My Rollei is a T, in blue/grey leather! The 75mm Tessar lens has a lovely rendering quality. Haven’t put a roll of film through the camera in awhile but I exercise the shutter every so often.
My uncle had a Reid, and I imagine one of my cousins has it now. He managed to get hold of a screwmount Zeiss 50/1.5 Sonnar while stationed in Germany post-WWII and used that camera/lens pair for decades.
-Dave-
-
There's also a whole lot of pursuing the veritable Joneses. You're simply NOBODY if you're not using the latest and best gear. Get a bunch of photographers together and what do they talk about.... The subjects and locations and events we love most, the "real" reason we take photos? Maybe... a little. But no one sits forward in their chairs, raises their voice and gets energized till they start unzipping their camera bags to see who's better than the rest.
I find the statement to be true amongst hobbyist and amateurs. I can't tell you the dread I have of being hunted down by an hobbyist on a shoot, in some public location, who wants to waste my time asking me about cameras. >:(
However, I have yet to have an in depth conversation with other professionals that revolves around cameras. More or less we talk about the business, client issues, marketing, good assistants to recommend, and, if gear comes up, it almost always revolves around lighting and good rental houses.
-
I find the statement to be true amongst hobbyist and amateurs. I can't tell you the dread I have of being hunted down by an hobbyist on a shoot, in some public location, who wants to waste my time asking me about cameras. >:(
You must be meeting different hobbyists and amateurs the I. I am a pure hobby photographer and a few times per year I have meetings with different photo groups. Some groups the users have different brands, some groups is "my brand" only. Gear usually takes less then 10% of the conversations time and ususally less in the mixed groups. The rest is spent on finding/sharing locations, light, composition and actually going out shooting and talk about the difference of shots people take of the same situation or location.
-
You must be meeting different hobbyists and amateurs the I. I am a pure hobby photographer and a few times per year I have meetings with different photo groups. Some groups the users have different brands, some groups is "my brand" only. Gear usually takes less then 10% of the conversations time and ususally less in the mixed groups. The rest is spent on finding/sharing locations, light, composition and actually going out shooting and talk about the difference of shots people take of the same situation or location.
Which, to me, is every bit as bad as camera obsession. Who really gives a hoot about the other guy's picture, and if so, why?
Photography, unless of models, is by far at its best done alone without human distraction. If you need human distraction, what's wrong with a pub? There, you can have all the distraction anyone could want, and not even have to have anything to show for it at closing time. (You can just tell I dig honky-tonk music, can't you!)
:-)
Rob
-
+1
-
You must be meeting different hobbyists and amateurs the I. I am a pure hobby photographer and a few times per year I have meetings with different photo groups. Some groups the users have different brands, some groups is "my brand" only. Gear usually takes less then 10% of the conversations time and ususally less in the mixed groups. The rest is spent on finding/sharing locations, light, composition and actually going out shooting and talk about the difference of shots people take of the same situation or location.
I am sure I am generalizing here; I just can't stand when someone starts pestering me on a job about camera bodies and lens and ... with the client standing right there.
Moral of the story, if you run into a professional photographer on a paid assignment, leave him alone. He already has enough stuff on his mind to deal with.
-
... Actually, thinking of the term fun in any depth is something new to me...
I sympathize: I had fun once... it was awful ;)
-
Do you guys realize this is the third page of this thread, we're in the Coffee Corner, and nobody's raised a political rant? It's all been about photography and equipment. This must be some kind of record for the Coffee Corner.
-
Do you guys realize this is the third page of this thread, we're in the Coffee Corner, and nobody's raised a political rant? It's all been about photography and equipment. This must be some kind of record for the Coffee Corner.
Isn't this a political rant about equipment then?
-
Do you guys realize this is the third page of this thread, we're in the Coffee Corner, and nobody's raised a political rant? It's all been about photography and equipment. This must be some kind of record for the Coffee Corner.
Bloody right-wing nonsense!
;)
-
I sympathize: I had fun once... it was awful ;)
I know; the alternative is to start having it alone, and that, I'm assured, is bad for one's eyes.
What's a person to do? It could drive some to photography and/or politics just for the change, but then one would be bound to meet even more people in a similar state of spiritual confusion.
I had a peculiar moment with Moira the horse the other day. I had imagined that as with a dog, she was lifting her right rear leg and turning her head because she was about to use her hoof to scratch her ribs. No, instead, she sort of stumbled a little bit, and then made a kind of swooping motion with her head and gave one mighty lick to the region where a cow would have an udder. This almost floored her, and me, too: whatever her nose had encountered did not look like any udder known to me. I am now wondering if she is not a she, but an unfortunate horse damaged by a vet when young. Whatever, it produced a fit of coughing for her (?) which seemed a good time to resume my walk back home.
Rob
-
Which, to me, is every bit as bad as camera obsession. Who really gives a hoot about the other guy's picture, and if so, why?
Photography, unless of models, is by far at its best done alone without human distraction. If you need human distraction, what's wrong with a pub? There, you can have all the distraction anyone could want, and not even have to have anything to show for it at closing time. (You can just tell I dig honky-tonk music, can't you!)
:-)
Rob
-1
Why wouldn't one be interested in someone else's pictures. If not most of this site is useless.
If it's your profession I maybe understand it, but for an amateur/hobbyist I wholeheartedly disagree with your point.
-
I am sure I am generalizing here; I just can't stand when someone starts pestering me on a job about camera bodies and lens and ... with the client standing right there.
Moral of the story, if you run into a professional photographer on a paid assignment, leave him alone. He already has enough stuff on his mind to deal with.
Agree, I have never done that and neither has any of the groups I have been with. So I see no reason not to return the favour and stop painting every hobbyist with the same brush.
And when someone does this to you don't get frustrated, just tell him/her you don't have time. Life is too short for spending energy on these minor irritations which are really unimportant.
-
I am sure I am generalizing here; I just can't stand when someone starts pestering me on a job about camera bodies and lens and ... with the client standing right there.
Moral of the story, if you run into a professional photographer on a paid assignment, leave him alone. He already has enough stuff on his mind to deal with.
I remember the other side… Sitting in a café in regional NSW, maybe Bathurst, in probably 2005. I was approached by a couple of local pro photographers who had spied my new EOS 20D. Lots of questions about the camera/computers/software and a bit of touching (of the camera). :)
Cheers,
-
I remember the other side… Sitting in a café in regional NSW, maybe Bathurst, in probably 2005. I was approached by a couple of local pro photographers who had spied my new EOS 20D. Lots of questions about the camera/computers/software and a bit of touching (of the camera). :)
Cheers,
That's regional Anywhere, I guess...
-
-1
Why wouldn't one be interested in someone else's pictures. If not most of this site is useless.
If it's your profession I maybe understand it, but for an amateur/hobbyist I wholeheartedly disagree with your point.
For exactly the same reason I'd dislike any photographic "group outing" as it were; other people can do as they please, it doesn't upset me unless I have to join in.
The very few photographers on LuLa whose work interests me know who they are.
Snaps or overworked nothings - it comes to the same - have nothing to do with the attraction of LuLa to me. The site has other values that are important to me.
Rob
-
it doesn't upset me unless I have to join in.
No need to worry ;)
-
No need to worry ;)
About that, no; but life is far more complex, unfortunately, and so worry worms it way inside the soul.
Rob
-
Yesterday I found a new frustration within photography. I'd altered an image that's on my site, and on trying to scrub the old version to load the new, I found myself unable to enter the thing.
Off has gone the e-mail, but so annoying having to wait and face whatever the problem is. The site's okay, but not getting to do any work on it isn't!
Makes me think again of the doubtful reliability of digital posterity.
Rob
-
The trouble with any electronic device such as ipad or computer screen is that what you see on it can instantly be changed by turning a knob or pushing a slider, and you have no way of knowing how closely it comes to the photographer's vision. A print is fixed (and preferably adequately washed ;) ) at least if it is processed well, and it doesn't change at all for a reasonable length of time.
Eric
I agree, only you have to be looking at the actual print...the screen is everywhere.
Peter
-
Yes, I've seen lots of computer screens where everything is messed up because the users have no idea about the existence of calibration; what I have noticed with the little iPad is different: it appears to give all the images that I find on the web, my own as everybody else's, a sort of sense of thickness, a kind of enhanced substance and tonality - not meaning bumped contrast.
It's why I wonder if Apple uses different standards for its domestic machines as well as for its top-grade monitors, different standards to anyone else, I mean. Unfortunately, I have not seen my own stuff on an Apple monitor and so can't judge for myself.
There is also the possibilty of scale making a difference; it cetainly affects the way I can judge a picture on my own monitor: too big and I lose the feeling, and too small and the same happens. However, as with some Leica-glass wet prints, a difference can be seen if you know what you are seeking or even just experiencing.
Perhaps that's why they have Apple showrooms.
;-)
Rob
-
I agree, only you have to be looking at the actual print...the screen is everywhere.
Peter
Yes, everywhere, and - calibrated screens excluded - the variation drives me mad.
If it weren't for prints I'd have moved on long ago.
-
Yes, I've seen lots of computer screens where everything is messed up because the users have no idea about the existence of calibration; what I have noticed with the little iPad is different: it appears to give all the images that I find on the web, my own as everybody else's, a sort of sense of thickness, a kind of enhanced substance and tonality - not meaning bumped contrast...
You are right, Rob. I judge whether my pictures that I prepared on a calibrated monitor look good on the web by my iPad, and even my lowly iPhone 5s. The monitor I have at work, for example, is horrific for photography: as if someone is shining a militarily-grade airplane search light from behind it, that's how bright it is. Lowering the brightness by a hardware button only makes it dimmer, grayer, and the image loses that "a sort of sense of thickness, a kind of enhanced substance and tonality," as you nicely described it.
-
You are right, Rob. I judge whether my pictures that I prepared on a calibrated monitor look good on the web by my iPad, and even my lowly iPhone 5s. The monitor I have at work, for example, is horrific for photography: as if someone is shining a militarily-grade airplane search light from behind it, that's how bright it is. Lowering the brightness by a hardware button only makes it dimmer, grayer, and the image loses that "a sort of sense of thickness, a kind of enhanced substance and tonality," as you nicely described it.
Thank God that a pair of eyes I respect sees the same thing as I!
Rob
-
Yes, everywhere, and - calibrated screens excluded - the variation drives me mad.
If it weren't for prints I'd have moved on long ago.
Keith, would you like to amplify on you possible alternative destination, hoping you didn't mean quitting photogaphy?
Rob
-
Keith, would you like to amplify on you possible alternative destination, hoping you didn't mean quitting photogaphy?
Rob
Rob, yes, if I could no longer print I simply wouldn't bother pressing that button.
:-(
-
Rob, yes, if I could no longer print I simply wouldn't bother pressing that button.
:-(
I'm with Keith on this.
Photography without prints would be like eating piles of raw cookie dough that is never baked into cookies.
(I like cookies, in case you wondered.)
Eric
-
I'm with Keith on this.
Photography without prints would be like eating piles of raw cookie dough that is never baked into cookies.
(I like cookies, in case you wondered.)
Eric
Agreed, and I also doubt that raw cookie dough is genuinely 16 bit.
;-)
-
Agreed, and I also doubt that raw cookie dough is genuinely 16 bit.
;-)
Well, I make sure my cookie dough is at least 22 Bits per...anything less is ungodly.
Peter
-
I am not able to agree with this cookie stuff because of 77 Sunset Strip. I keep wanting to break into song, and that's not good when one has few cranial hairs left.
However regarding less serious sins such as prints: no, I no longer can print, courtesy HP, but the inclination has also gone because of the several boxes of pretty pictures that I have stopped looking at.
They have come to represent the second, unwritten tenet in the Book of Donovan; the first, if you have been backsliding, posits the point that for the amateur, the most difficult problem is finding a reason to make a photograph. The second one, tenet, that is, is that once the first has been overcome, there remains, then, only the punishment for that particular sin: the print.
I can understand why Donovan left it unwritten.
-
However regarding less serious sins such as prints: no, I no longer can print, courtesy HP, but the inclination has also gone because of the several boxes of pretty pictures that I have stopped looking at.
Hi Rob,
That's reality...actual pictures in hand we no longer look at...the world loves the screen. My painting students idea of what paintings look like are from SCREENS. Flat, textureless, and color God only knows. Try to get them to see work in the flesh is met with much resistance. Why move? "We have the screen". And it's in their pocket!
Peter
-
... My painting students idea of what paintings look like are from SCREENS. Flat, textureless, and color God only knows. Try to get them to see work in the flesh is met with much resistance...
Your students, Peter?
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03551/Capture_3551152b.jpg)
-
Your students, Peter?
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03551/Capture_3551152b.jpg)
Slobodan,
This is all too familiar a sight in our world. Yes, it's sad but there is no going back to viewing the real deal....the SCREEN rules.
Peter
-
except where there is no cell reception !
-
except where there is no cell reception !
Cellular Data baby!!!
Peter
-
Slobodan,
This is all too familiar a sight in our world. Yes, it's sad but there is no going back to viewing the real deal....the SCREEN rules.
Peter
I would surmise that reflected light does not trigger the synapses nor stimulate chemical release in the same manner as direct light which is what all screens generate.
we may need to start "printing on HUGE monitors to compete with phones and tablets!!.. ;-}
-
I see scenes like this every day and can't help but think of a waste: the waste of life-time. People sit hypnotized, unaware of their surroundings, unwilling to engage the people around them. They are the zombie myth come true. Eventually most will live long enough to get a diagnoses of cancer or other terminal disease. Will the more enlightened then realize how precious time is, and how they have wasted it?
Kent in SD
-
Hi Rob,
You know as well as I do that a lot of this has to do with a love of gadgetry. "I've gotta have the new NiCanon doohoppy so I can see how it actually works." As I've mentioned several times and you've mentioned several times, real photography hasn't much to do with gadgetry as long as you have gadgetry adequate to what you're trying to do. A real pro can shoot a wedding with the least capable semi-pro camera on the market today, and do a great job. The reason I know this is that my down-the-hall pro friend in Colorado Springs used to do stunningly beautiful weddings with what's nowadays way-out-of-date stuff that no current amateur would even consider.
But what the hell, I'm subject to the same urges, so I can't knock it. I just bought a good-looking Rogue flash grid because I want something that'll throw a more controllable red or blue splash on the background next time I do headshots. The next time I do headshots probably will be a couple months from now, if ever, but man, now I'm ready! Feels good.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
How many times have I done that? Lots. I have sliders and jibs, light gear, lens, etc that i seldom use ... thank God for eBay.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I notice the effect of the iPad myself; it may prove a money-saver in the end becasue I spend far less time on the computer and sit elsewhere instead, more comfortably and off that dreaded typìst's chair that I have.
It also comes in very handy during lunches which are mainly out, and I enjoy listening to music instead of gazing around at the other tables and people. Nice to look at pictures between courses, too!
However, I think it's very poor form to use cellphones or iPad things in company: if you can't be bothered to give your companions your full attention, why bother with them at all? Imagine the feeling: your first date, and she pulls out her cellphone... hasta nunca, baby!
Rob
-
Your students, Peter?
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03551/Capture_3551152b.jpg)
Let's hope their teacher had them searching for information about Dutch Masters (or something else educational) after spending an appropriate time viewing the painting(s). Sadly, it isn't always the case. I remember watching a middle-aged man walk into a local gallery, raise his iPad, and start to rattle off a picture of each wall. He walked out before the flabbergasted staff had time to react.
-
Do you notice, too, how the machines have introduced segregation? That image doesn't bode well...
Virtual lovers get you nowhere. In art or anything else.
Rob
-
That is, once the discussion is over, how are you farther ahead?
Perhaps having commonly agreed to terms facilitates “actual” communication rather than just talking at each other - but mostly listening to our own narrative?
Rand
-
How many times have I done that? Lots. I have sliders and jibs, light gear, lens, etc that i seldom use ... thank God for eBay.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
What's the deal with Tapatalk as a means of transmission from iPad to LuLa? Why is it better than not using it?
I don't use/have it, which is why I ask. Again, not meant as a trick or a trap.
Rob C
-
Tapatalk is a mobile device thing, aimed mainly at smartphones. Since iPads run the same operating system as iPhones they get caught in the net when LuLa does its “what device is this?” queries.
-Dave-
-
Tapatalk is a mobile device thing, aimed mainly at smartphones. Since iPads run the same operating system as iPhones they get caught in the net when LuLa does its “what device is this?” queries.
-Dave-
So far, I don't think I've had a problem like that on the 'Pad, but yes on the cellphone.
While we're on these devices, is there a way to clean the iPhone of cookies etc. assuming that cookies are able to find anything in an iPhone on which to hang? In fact, is there a regular cleaning programme such as CCleaner for computers that's available for iPhones - on the premise that there's some kind of hard drive or similar in a tablet that does need such tender attention? For all I know, maybe there isn't such a thing inside this little machine at all. As Chuck said: too much monkey business for me to get involved in!
Rob
-
While we're on these devices, is there a way to clean the iPhone of cookies etc. assuming that cookies are able to find anything in an iPhone on which to hang? In fact, is there a regular cleaning programme such as CCleaner for computers that's available for iPhones - on the premise that there's some kind of hard drive or similar in a tablet that does need such tender attention?
In the Settings utility there’s a config section for the Safari (browser) app. With iOS 11 the security settings are as in the attached pic (with my particular preferences chosen). Tapping on Clear History and Website Data wipes cookies among other things. There are fewer options with earlier iOS versions.
-Dave-
-
In the Settings utility there’s a config section for the Safari (browser) app. With iOS 11 the security settings are as in the attached pic (with my particular preferences chosen). Tapping on Clear History and Website Data wipes cookies among other things. There are fewer options with earlier iOS versions.
-Dave-
Thanks Dave, I never got that far in Settings: all I do is check WiFi and Bluetooth! I'm alays nervous about destroying the set up as it is, which is as my kids left it. Another version of RFM, then...
;-)
Rob
-
Rob, yes, if I could no longer print I simply wouldn't bother pressing that button.
:-(
I've been thinking about this since you posted. Okay, I know you have the skill set to make good images by hand, too, but if you didn't, wouldn't the pleasure of seeing, framing and capturing an image that you could only - perhaps - see on a monitor count as worthwhile?
As you know, I haven't printed anything for ages, but I do still find a certain joy in making photographs that will end up on my website and not on a wall. Having written which, even with a print, unless somebody actually displays it somewhere, how are you, as photographer, any the better off than if you'd just put it into your site for your own convenient viewing?
We've all had chats on LuLa about the tactile quality of wet prints and of digital ones, too. However, unless one actually makes the thing oneself, by hand, then tactile qualities vanish behind protective glass and become evened out across the spectrum of papers we can access. Once mounted, framed and glassed, not much difference to looking at them on a good monitor except that one can, on the monitor, avoid seeing the room behind one, too.
Perhaps a touch of the devil's advocate here, but really, can not printing allow you to abandon and lose the other pleasures of your Leica system?
Rob
-
I've been thinking about this since you posted. Okay, I know you have the skill set to make good images by hand, too, but if you didn't, wouldn't the pleasure of seeing, framing and capturing an image that you could only - perhaps - see on a monitor count as worthwhile?
Rob, no, it would be no substitute. I see the print as the physical manifestation that I can handle, physically move to view in varying lights and make judgements accordingly. I'm not reliant on a particular screen and not confused by varying screens. I had this physical manifestation with my illustrative work and my painting and would sorely miss it with my photographic work. The finalised print is the product of my labours.
As you know, I haven't printed anything for ages, but I do still find a certain joy in making photographs that will end up on my website and not on a wall. Having written which, even with a print, unless somebody actually displays it somewhere, how are you, as photographer, any the better off than if you'd just put it into your site for your own convenient viewing?
600x400 pixels at 72ppi doesn't excite me. BTW, I don't display my prints.
We've all had chats on LuLa about the tactile quality of wet prints and of digital ones, too. However, unless one actually makes the thing oneself, by hand, then tactile qualities vanish behind protective glass and become evened out across the spectrum of papers we can access. Once mounted, framed and glassed, not much difference to looking at them on a good monitor except that one can, on the monitor, avoid seeing the room behind one, too.
Again see above.
Perhaps a touch of the devil's advocate here, but really, can not printing allow you to abandon and lose the other pleasures of your Leica system?
I can't conceive of a situation that would result in me being able to use my cameras but not being able to print. If ever it happens I'll let you know ;-)