Well just wait and I'm sure you'll see the value rise. I'm sorely tempted but lack of room and lack of vinyl perhaps;?.
I know of some who now pay £££ 2000 odd for the EMT transcription turntables and once they were almost thrown away!
Indeed in order to compensate for the "qualities" of the disc medium, like pre-emphasis in an FM broadcast channel...
Which some do...
'Tho good turntables do get that very low. I remember once having a vinyl system demonstrated -v- an early CD system and the results from the Vinyl were quite stunning top quality replay equipment and German and Japanese's pressings and _that_ was the main difference we didn't seem to be able to press anything better than kids piss pots..
Excellent idea, if my offspring were to do anything like that I'd be well impressed:)....
Interesting and fun perhaps?.
I don't think in creative photography the medium matters that much its what is in front of the camera that matters;)
A work colleague of mine has a background shot of his children at the seaside on a twitter account its quite simple and a bit out of focus but a beautiful image in itself.
Lots of photos where ephemeral even in days of film: the roll comes back from processing, the occasional good photo is passed around to friends, the exceptional photo goes in a frame, the rest were lost in a drawer. How many ever held on to the negatives?
To take a good photo yu need to take a lot of bad ones. Whether that is because you need to bracket exposures or bracket the moment, no matter ? there will always be 'wastage'. That is a lot easier and cheaper with digital; and there is the opportunity to learn from mistakes instantly rather than only after processing.
I guess so, in my dads day taking a photo was quite an event, you had to ta ke an exsposure reading then set up the variables on the camera then taking the film out the camera and mixing up the chemiclas to develope the film t hen similar with the print could take days. :)
Yes I remmebr my dad gettign us all tom pose for a photo it took him 5-10mi ns to take a photo, yet it was posed so didn;t really represent that instan t in time like he thought it did. Similar things with weddings did those 1/
125ths of a second captures of cutting the cake or the first dance or whate ver really represent the whole day of doi muliple shots of peolke having fu n and not posing represent the day more accurate I don't know, but I hate h aving to take posed pictures.
Yeah great 100s more photos of kids with snot dripping from their nose... ;
-{
yes true but is that changing, do you really go into a house and see pictur es on the wall, I don't. In teh past yes but now it's more photos of celebs or someone not related to the family.
there can be good reason for manual focus, I was using manual focus on satu rday.
I think I have a half used cibrachrome kit somewhere if that's any use, I have teh drums and the motorised roller too, a LPL7700 enlarger and a crocus color enlarger all somewhere :-)
I have a durst with a dichroic head somewhere. I gave the tanks and dishes away to someone that was "interested" in photography. If I want to use film I have a scanner and would scan the negatives and print them on my dyesub printer. You can do far more processing on the scanned image than you can holding bits of card stuck to wires under the enlarger lens.
but that isn;t realyl using film is it. Somewhere I have a frame from a star trek film I could scan that in but tha t's not the same as using film. A couple of months ago I met a photographer who teaches in a college, who said he was looking for old style film camer as and enlargers as it's better for teaching. In fact they are setting up a darkroom too.
And I can move faster than usain bolt and can fly higher & faster than any bird.
If they want to teach traditional photography then that's what they need or should they be using daguerreotype?. If they want to teach creative photography then they are missing a few tricks like digital cameras. BTW it isn't any easier to take good pictures with a digital camera than with film, however you can take better pictures with a digital camera.
Using a wrights brothers plane as that is the traditional way of flying, not these modern planes!?
It's not using film either. You're not using film to take the photo and that is the point.
I didn;t film it any more thanh I painte4d the mona lisa but I can scan a picture of that in too.
or kirlian I'd like to try.
No they aren't, well not much if anything do do with phtography when you start manupulating images using computers well that's differnt. Photography is about using he light, not redistributing pixels.
I think it is and I've done both for a few years now. however you can take better pictures with a digital camera. If it weren't easier then people would have gone back to film.
it's also easier for me to book a flight today than it was with the wright brothers.
Ah, the sad lament of many a "Happily" married man. :-(
Women just don't understand what they're asking their man to give up when they commit themselves to marriage when under the influence of a rush of oxytocin.
There's no doubting the fact that men and women's interests are so divergent due to evolutionary pressure. Women tend to be more nurturing of their offspring and more demanding of their husbands "To Bring Home The Bacon" to feed *their* offspring* regardless of whatever other offspring their husbands may or may not have sired with other 'partners' (in secret or by previous marriages) whilst men have evolved an interest in how to be more effective in bringing home said bacon by coming up with novel ways to hunt down and kill whatever fauna is available regardless of how dangerous such fauna might prove to be when cornered.
In short, men tend to enjoy pursuits which involve 'inventiveness' and the associated need to figure out how things in nature actually work in order to bend such natural laws to their advantage whether it be the practical application of the laws relating to levers in order to use a suitably shaped 'throwing stick' to launch a spear with greater ease, longer range, increased accuracy and greater killing power or cunning ways to get energy out of the atomic decay of uranium and plutonium.
Most men have some sort of affinity for technologically interesting pursuits (hobbies and "Boy's Toys") along with an interest in competitive sports. It's all part of our evolutionary heritage that makes us what we are. Of course, all this "Inventing Activity" has spilled out way beyond the needs of hunting and gathering food, extending into ways of making life in general a lot easier for both sexes in today's modern societies which descended from the early Hunter/Gatherer precursor societies which proved so effective in our spread across the planet as a species.
The need of the Hunter/Gatherer to resort to such a gender specific split in their organisation has all but disappeared in modern society, which now permits us the luxury of equal opportunities for women who can be just as ruthless as any man in their chosen 'career path'.
However, getting back to my point, the fact is most married women are more concerned for the welfare of their family than with finding amusement in playing with "Boy's Toys" or other such pastimes, seemingly resenting their husbands' 'freedom' to follow such 'non-productive' pursuits when they could more usefully help out in the family home.
All of which explains the lament of the "Happily Married" man when he recalls those heady days of bachelorhood and the freedom to pursue whatever "non-productive" 'hobby' interest as took his fancy by which to 'scratch' an evolutionary urge to examine the workings of *something* (*anything*) in greater and greater detail, sometimes to the point of obsession.
Just listened to a programme about Giles Duley on Radio 4. He's gone back to film, and I liked his comment that a portrait must be given rather than taken. Very moving, but makes me realise I just don't "get" photography. I don't think I "get" art either. Maybe there's more
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.