The last roll of Kodachrome film to have been manufactured has been processed.

I have 17,000 35mm slides, mostly taken in the 70's, in boxes, trays and plastic sleeves. This milestone will easily double or triple their value.

• 2 x $0 - $0...
• 3 x $0 - $0...

**sigh**

I was at the pitchfork fest last weekend And a lot of the hipsters had the new poloroid camera. Looked pretty cool.

Darn. Sooner or later I know I have to break down and buy the Digital Rebel though I understand that my Canon lenses won't have quite the same values.

I was pretty happy with using my cheaper digital for everyday photos and 35mm for landscapes and such. It does seem true to me also, that the color palette of 35mm can be stunning and sometimes surprising, especially for amateurs who typically don't develop their own film and just monkey with filters and exposure.

I'm sure digital can do the same from experimenting with photo software but I don't have time to tweak everything over and over- drives me bonkers. Hmmmm, that looks nice, how about I try this this to, hmmm, yup looks pretty good, but better than before? pretty soon it's ARRG!

The problem that I have with digital is the same problem that I have with plastic surgery....it kills the real natural beauty of things. SOME digital photos are really nice, but with everything being enhanced (or at least having the capability to be), where's the reality of it?? Not to mention what digital has done for people who really aren't that great of photographers killing the skills and abilities of those who are.

Nothing is best enhanced. If you like something, then find something real that IS what you like instead of attempting to supplement it with something fake. Only the pretentious prefer the fake.

Hence the pretentious comment. Taste is subjective. I prefer reality to sticking my head in the sand and pretending. sorry.

With pretend body parts....hence the pretend. Honestly, if I were to be in a relationship I'd much prefer it to be someone with a little beer belly whose comfortable in his skin than someone who doesn't have enough confidence in themselves to BE themselves without "enhancements".

If they belong to you, they are real. God knows no one would criticize someone with an artificial leg or arm. Why should these be any different? God love her . . . she has my full support.

You can harldy compare an artificial leg or arm (which are necessities to every day living) to cosmetic parts. If someone wishes to do that to themselves, more power to them, who am I to judge? I simply choose to surround myself with real people who have confidence in themselves based on who they are....not based on what other people think of them.

I have zero . . . ZEEEERO . . . self-confidence. Given the chance, I'd have surgery to resemble GE Fan if I could afford it. He is that handsome. That's why I am very accepting of women who decide to have breast augmentation surgery. Film or digital, it's their decision. A photographer is a photographer regardless of what he shoots with. I hope that makes sense, though I realize it does not.

I've seen his pic, I know he is. But your level of self-confidence and your self-image is something that needs to come from you....not you compared to someone else. and it's about SO much more than looks.

It does make sense, and like I said, "who am I to judge?", I just choose to not have pretentiousness in my life as I see no point to it.

Let me bring this back to photography...

Photographers fiddled with film just as much as photographers do with digital now. Dodge and Burn, over expose, under expose, use a different type of film, etc... it is all the same now as it was then. Most Professional photographers do not "photoshop" their work. They do post processing, but it is pretty equal to what people did with film in the dark room. I use a software that will only do what can be done in a dark room. But then again, there are those that would rather shoot something and then completely remove it via software. I find that lazy.

I have been doing some film photography lately with some broken cameras and whacked out film and it is looking exactly like the stuff I do with my digital camera now-a-days.

I never liked Kodachrome, I was more a Velvia guy or Ilford.

Ilford . . . yes.

Ted, get that scanned in and lets see some of them!

For me digital is too many options. With 35 mm film and a good camera with presets and quality lenses, for an amateur you're good to go.

Now its like preview, delete and do better? hmm. Maybe that color/brightness/sharpness/etc./etc/etc can be touch up with my software. I will always wonder what looks best.

It's like remote controls- they have 50-60 buttons on them now. My DVD player does not play the movie when I press the "play" button. I have to press the "enter" button to initiate the "play" option on the TV screen. After that the "play" button will restart the DVD once it's begun playing and paused. And whats with the TV and its umpteen different options for sound and picture. Invariably the kids have monkeyed with the settings so that when I try to watch it the music is loud but I can't hear the voices followed by my useless button pushing followed by yelling for the kids to come down and fix the TV.

Technology today reminds me of the Onion article about the guy raving about his new TV tuner which allows him to watch TV on his computer "It's almost as good as watching TV!" he raves.

Cameras have always been used to enhance reality.

The camera photographs only what it is pointed at... and nothing to the left, right, or behind the photographer. A picture of the seashore from a hotel will be dramatically different than a picture of the hotel from the shore... even though they’re both taken from the same place... and humans standing there would be aware of the entire 360° panorama that surrounds them. It’s why photographers not only “crop” in the darkroom, but also in the camera before they even click the shutter.

(My favorite in this category is the traditional view of the Pyramids taken from Giza, as compared to a photo of the slums of Giza taken by rotating the camera 180°.)

What angle? Squat down and shoot up at a person and it makes them seem larger-than-life and more important than they really are. Shoot down from a higher angle and the same person seems small and unimportant.

What lens? A wide angle lens will make a small room seem huge. Positioning the camera in the center of the room may be more honest, but placing it against the back wall will make the space seem larger still. (Ask any Real Estate photographer.)

Expensive perspective-correcting lenses were designed to correct (straighten out) vertical lines in architectural photography, but flip the lens upside-down and shoot a box of Cheerios from a low angle, and it will appear twenty feet tall.

Shoot birds with a telephoto lens or bugs with a macro? You’ll see things on film an unaided human eye could never witness.

Filter; lighting; exposure; slow, fast, color, B&W or infrared film; time lapse... ditto.

Just saying “Smile!” at the right instant can enhance a shot. A photographer’s job it to use whatever tools of and tricks of the trade are available to turn a snapshot into a photograph. Been true since Mathew Brady and his camera documented the Civil War.

quote:

Ted, get that scanned in and lets see some of them!

Not likely... mostly corporate and industrial stuff for companies that are now out of business.

Some gems, though... an extraordinary panorama of the NYC skyline featuring the Twin Towers that my wife took from the Statue of Liberty... American Industry at work (back when there used to be American Industry)... 17 rolls I blew off driving Highway 1 from Big Sur to Seattle on a beautiful June weekend... underwater photography in Bermuda... babes in bikinis promoting a hack saw blade company.

Hmmm. Maybe I should dig through those archives...

Real. Unretouched slides. Untouched models.

I guess I like what the camera captures without a dark room or retouching or modern digital art. Sort of like the movement to photograph with old Brownies or some such old camera. It's the unexpected that gets me, not the contrived.