I do know that I'm going to have my old trusty 35 and 6x7 handy this coming September 6 or 7th after work around 2:30am. For all the years that I am, last year was the first "Harvest Moon" I have ever seen and there is one coming soon. I've also noticed that for the same day is a solar eclipse, so I'm not sure what that means. I got home last year around 2:30 am and the clouds and sky around the moon where about as bright as they are in the day.

I do know that I'm going to have my old trusty 35 and 6x7 handy this coming September 6 or 7th after work around 2:30am. For all the years that I am, last year was the first "Harvest Moon" I have ever seen and there is one coming soon. I've also noticed that for the same day is a solar eclipse, so I'm not sure what that means. I got home last year around 2:30 am and the clouds and sky around the moon where about as bright as they are in the day.

Most people would be sleeping then.

Most people would be sleeping then.

Yes, true enough. I should stop working these 4pm to 2am shifts, but every weekend is 3 days and even better on holidays. I can come home at night at my own pace with no one else on the roads except dozzing drivers or drunks, not to mention watching out for nocturnal animals on the road at that time. It does beat the mad rush though when people leave at the last moment in the morning and just have to be at work on time or the world will stop.

 

Most people would be sleeping then.

Yes, true enough. I should stop working these 4pm to 2am shifts, but every weekend is 3 days and even better on holidays. I can come home at night at my own pace with no one else on the roads except dozzing drivers or drunks, not to mention watching out for nocturnal animals on the road at that time. It does beat the mad rush though when people leave at the last moment in the morning and just have to be at work on time or the world will stop.

You have described the typical commuter - up at the last minute and the drive to their work timed to arrive at the last second.

Just to kinda get the thread moving again, has anyone done any darkroom work recently? I was an avid B&W printer in my early years as a photographer, and was even getting into color printing when the Kodak "Flexicolor" system became available in the late 70's - early 80's. However, I haven't been in a darkroom since 1981. I'd like to know how things for B&W and color printing are now. One thing I have noticed is that the chemicals and paper are a lot more expensive than I remember, like a 2x or 3x jump in some cases.

Chemistry and paper are outrageous! More here:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...;Q=&ci=4942

And these guys are cheap compared to my local shoppe.

I haven't had a darkroom since the 80's either. I used to take a lot of the OHL hockey teams individual pictures back in those days. It was kinda fun, especially when taking pictures of the goalies. I'd be focusing on the goal tender and someone would take a slapshot from behind my head and I'd catch his glove in action. Probably a dozen or more of those guys made the NHL, but are all retired by now.

If I remember, out of all those teams, only one player never bought a pic of himself, while all the rest wanted 16x20's.

Chemistry and paper are outrageous! More here:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller...;Q=&ci=4942

And these guys are cheap compared to my local shoppe.

I checked out the site. Yikes!!! I just checked out prices for B&W chemistry and papers, but couldn't believe the prices. However, I guess such is the cost of things these days!

Well, I don't know if prices are that bad after all. I take a lot of nature shots and recently had a 24" x 36" digital shot enlarged by a professional lab near me. No one else could do it any bigger than a 20x30, and then, that was on "poster paper". This was done on good Kodak paper and only cost me about $60 Canadian including taxes and now hangs in my livingroom. There's no way I could have done that size twenty years ago for that price even taking inflation into consideration.

I haven't done any B&W prints lately, but have done many in the past. In colour, I guess we have the choice of either Glossy or Matte. Not many people know the dozens of possibilties with black and white.

Those with darkroom experience may be able to relate to this one I will never forget.

Back in the caveman days of the 80's I had a friend who decided to do his own negatives (in C41) if I remember. He kept getting nothing, even though he was following the rules and with his tempter demanded an explanation from the local photo shop because of their products.

Well, I had him in my darkroom one day to do a roll of film and with the bottle opener (to open the film) in one hand and the film cannister in the other....I shut the light off. .......First thing he said was..."why do you shut the light off when you take the film out?".....Case closed!

I never talked to that idiot a few months after that. His wife nearly died for the third time after giving birth to their third girl. I remember his mother in the recovery room saying in her foreign accent..."Don't worry..Ricky says you're going to try again to have a boy"! He didn't even visit her in the hospital and I'm not sure, but I don't think they spoke after that.

Well, I had him in my darkroom one day to do a roll of film and with the bottle opener (to open the film) in one hand and the film cannister in the other....I shut the light off. .......First thing he said was..."why do you shut the light off when you take the film out?".....Case closed!

classic.

 

Since I have not kept up with all the advances in photography - What is thye best digital camera and why??

Since I have not kept up with all the advances in photography - What is thye best digital camera and why??

I don't know much about them either, but here's a good site that made me decide which one to buy. I have learned though that "optical zoom" is better than "digital zoom".

http://www.dpreview.com/

Since I have not kept up with all the advances in photography - What is thye best digital camera and why??

I don't know much about them either, but here's a good site that made me decide which one to buy. I have learned though that "optical zoom" is better than "digital zoom".

http://www.dpreview.com/

Thanks for the website - looks like a lot to choose from.

 

 

Bike: The "best" digital camera probably hasn't been invented yet. However, among the choices available now, it all depends on how much you are willing to spend. My 2-year old Sony DSC P-1000 is a 5.1 megapixel "compact" digital camera, and it works very well as long as you're not trying to photograph anything that's moving. Well, at least, anything that's moving indoors while you're using the flash. The shutter speed is simply too slow to "stop" the action and blurred images are the usual result. It's great for static shots, particularly when put on a light tripod, which I carry all the time. Then, it is capable of sharpness at least equal to a 35 mm. film camera with fine-grained film.

My Sony fills my fairly modest needs quite nicely for now, but I'm waiting for the digital SLR's to mature a bit and for their prices to go down. I'll probably stick with the Sony brand unless Canon makes a digital SLR camera body which will accept their older 35 mm. (non-autofocus) lenses.

I don't think even any of our older shutter speeds are very capable of capturing moving objects at less than 1/60 of a second with flash. I know my older 6x7 rangefinder can do it at least 1/500 of a second but it takes several seconds just to focus the darn thing.

One thing I've learned over my many years in photography is that you have to give and take. For instance, the more speed...less light. More focus....less depth of field. Everything is a compromise no matter what camera...at least so far.

I'll probably stick with the Sony brand unless Canon makes a digital SLR camera body which will accept their older 35 mm. (non-autofocus) lenses.

Hey, I'm with you there. I'd love to use my old lenses and not have to worry about whether the auto focus works or not. I've used them before, but never, ever when I was doing weddings or something important like that.

 

 

I saw someone with a little Sony digital last night and it seemed very small and had lots of options. It could also take short video segments for action sequences. Looked good to me.

I saw someone with a little Sony digital last night and it seemed very small and had lots of options. It could also take short video segments for action sequences. Looked good to me.

Bike: Yes, my Sony DSC P-1000 will take video clips. They are available in two resolution levels, the lowest produces a tiny image and somewhat choppy action, but the files are small enough to be readily transferred over the Internet. At low-res, you can also make a video clip of almost feature-film length, if you have a large memory card like mine (512 MB). At the high resolution setting, you get an image the full size of the camera's monitor screen, and good quality of action, but it produces enormous files which fill the card in mere minutes and, consequently, are transferrable over the internet only with a high-speed broadband connection.

I have used the low-res mode to make quick video "notes" of things I wanted to refer to later, and for some fun in catching people "in the act" of doing silly things. However, if full-motion video is what you're after, you are better off with a dedicated digital video camcorder, preferably one with the option of saving the images on tape, compact DVD, or memory card. These cameras are still a bit too expensive for my blood, considering the limited use I would have for it. I'm basically a still photographer, not a videographer.

The small Nikon Coolpix L1 I bought 3 weeks ago has a nifty feature;

You can record voice memos with your pictures using the built-in microphone and playing those memos while looking at your pictures, either in the camera or later in your computer.

That can be helpful on a long trip.

It also has a built-in Guide to provide handy explanations of the various functions and features.

The small Nikon Coolpix L1 I bought 3 weeks ago has a nifty feature;You can record voice memos with your pictures using the built-in microphone and playing those memos while looking at your pictures, either in the camera or later in your computer.

 

That can be helpful on a long trip.

It also has a built-in Guide to provide handy explanations of the various functions and features.

That features sounds like it could be very practical at times.

 

 

I'm avoiding digital like the plague. I still use my fully-manual Canon AT 1 (1978) for my best work, and use a Canon Sure Shot (circa 1980 ) for a few things, too. My only nod to "modern" photography is a Canon Sure Shot 105u that I bought a couple years ago. If I want hi-res, I let Clark Color Labs scan my negs and then I download them. After reading, photography is the hobby that takes up the most of my time.

Max: I've been going over this thread from the beginning, and what you said about avoiding digital sort of raised an eyebrow here. Just what is it about digital which you seek to avoid? I'm not challenging you, I'd just like to know your objections to digital, so we can possibly provide you with some information which may at least get you to try it.

I'll tell you right now that digital photography is responsible for re-kindling my interest in photography in general, and I embrace it fully. This is from a guy who has used every film format from 126 Instamatic to 4x5 view camera. It's ALL good, and every method, film or digital, has invaluable uses. Why not give digital a try?

I think the internet is the greatest invention of the century - along with cell phones and digital cameras. Where would we be without them?

Digital is the way to go when sending pictures over the internet or the cell phones. It sure saves lots of stamps!!