mandophoto

Started taking pictures in the mid '70s, so for me it was the switch to digital from film which unburdened me of exhaustive darkroom work, and gave me an inexpensive(relatively) entrance to color...

I'm not against film and in fact use 35mm, both in color and B&W. But film by itself does not infer meaningfulness, at least not aesthetically. Negatives require care and will be either a lot of ...

To me, using film gives a basic sense of control that digital has removed. It’s akin to using a slide rule vs a calculator. There is no aesthetic superiority to film, believing so is indeed ...

I made these pictures at a fiddle contest about 23 yrs. ago, but only yesterday got around to processing the film. The film is fogged and there's a lot of grain, both I'm guessing due to age. Tri-X ...

As others have said there are no aesthetic rules to photography. But, and you should be aware of this, there are indeed preferences by gatekeepers like curators and critics who have an inordinate ...

Crafty Dan left out a few points undoubtedly to allow some old timers feel useful with their own suggestions. Here are mine:

1. Use clean water, preferably distilled but filtered will work.
2....

Film SLR cameras with built in motor drives tend to make quite a bit of noise. If stealth or at least be not loud is a goal, a manual film wind camera is a better choice.

Maybe it's just plain luck that some folks recognize beauty, or that some beauty gets a worthy gatekeeper. We are inundated with the past, present, and future, but which matters most?

Good luck...

Wow, the vision of someone with joy and a poet's lyricism for life.

Thank you, Ms. Ruppert, for your generosity in sharing these amazing and beautiful pictures.

PS And thank you Barney Britton,...

The headline sent me back 50 years, back to when Stephen Still's song "Love The One You're With" was a hit single. The Nikon F3 was still ten years away and Mr. Bracaglia was 20 years away in the...

As near as I can tell in comparison with another lens, the digital corrections of the 16-55 seem to verify what others are saying, basically that I'm wrong. :-O :-) But you have a point. If digital ...

I am aware of the kind of distortion wide angle lenses impose on images. But the amount of correction at 16mm from the 16-55 seems exorbitant. Below is an image as both uncorrected and corrected ...

What you and others are missing is that the screen protector broke not because the impact was severe enough to damage the camera*, it was not, but because the protector was made from thin, brittle ...

Designed to do what? The impact was not on the face of monitor screen. When I say the protector is brittle, imagine how a dead dry leaf crumbles when handled. But hey, don’t take my word for it. ...

I did continue taking pictures. I thought there was a film of some sort keeping the plastic together. It was only after the removal in pieces was it obvious the product is a bad design.

Let's say the monitor screen had also cracked. A flexible film type protector with complete adhesive would at least keep shards from the screen migrating into eye balls. The Afunta protector is a ...

Recently my Sony a6600 slipped from my hand, sung on the end of the attached wrist strap and banged a wooden guard rail. The result was this: The camera and lens are okay, but the screen protector ...

Well, I guess new lenses are designed a bit like anamorphics. The distortion being on purpose to keep the lens smaller, then unpack the distortion digitally in Lightroom. Throughout the rest of the ...

I have no complaints with other aspects of the lens. It is indeed a good lens, sharp and with good contrast and color. The zoom range is the most useful for me and the focusing, especially with ...

Well, as the saying goes, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Considering how much correction is needed, I disagree. The stretching needed to cover the corners and straighten the extreme barrel ...