i'm just want to get this off my chest

It's always fun to look back at doom&gloom predictions and chuckle.

Television hasn't killed radio, internet news hasn't killed newspapers, and people still go to movie theatres in droves, despite VHS & DVD.

But it's pretty hard to find a sliderule nowadays. Or a typewriter. Comparing different media and different forms of entertainment is one thing. Comparing new technology vs. an older way to produce the same product is something else.

Whether we think digital photography produces the same output as film, or better, or worse, won't matter much. Market forces, customer preference and economic realities will steer the course of history, as always.

It's easy to see what direction film is going, but it's harder to predict how long it will take to get there.

So how is that any different than using the forgiveness of films larger latitude and having the lab correct files?

different? I dunno. why dont you tell me. educate me. thats why I am here... to learn, to be educated. I'm just saying that I dont like when someone tells me RAW is the way to go. and there reason for using RAW is because they dont have to be thinkin about if they use the correct settings. Too be honest, I only shoot using JPEG... and I havent had any problems with the result of my images yet.

as far as film goes.. I use Slide film..... i've find it to be more fun then negative film. The result of my images do come out better... or maybe my skills have been improving... or maybe that $10,000 lense actually help to make the pic look better. HAHAH!!

johnlo wrote:
different? I dunno. why dont you tell me. educate me. thats why I am here... to learn, to be educated. I'm just saying that I dont like when someone tells me RAW is the way to go. and there reason for using RAW is because they dont have to be thinkin about if they use the correct settings. Too be honest, I only shoot using JPEG... and I havent had any problems with the result of my images yet.

as far as film goes.. I use Slide film..... i've find it to be more fun then negative film. The result of my images do come out better... or maybe my skills have been improving... or maybe that $10,000 lense actually help to make the pic look better. HAHAH!!

It seems you had your mind already made up about RAW so I guess he didn't think you wanted to be educated. So I guess if you want to be educated don't start off by saying you hate when people tell you something.
As for me, I shoot RAW always. Not because I don't get the settings right, although I admit I worry less about white balance this way, but because I happen to think I can do a better job of processing the shot then the in camera settings can do. I've tried both ways and I prefer what I can do in PS.

Well RAW is the digital equivalent of a negative, with jpegs you've already compressed the image and have loss many abilities to change numerous factors. Doesn't mean I don't try to get the best image in the camera at all though.

As for the quality of lenses. Well my 100-400 is much nicer than the 75-300 that it replaced, I really feel the 17-40 out performs my old kit lens and that 100 macro in my line up has been really nice.

Would I replace my digital Rebel, well yes. I think the 20D would be a far better body and if I could afford one of the 1D models, I'd do it in a heart beat. Do I deserve such quality? Who should decide? If it weren't for these three little rug rats demanding such outlandish things such as food from me, I might just be able to find the cash.

I have seen people buy extreme design North face equipment to walk their dog in the winter, not climb the world's highest peaks. The streets here are flooded with SUVs that will never seen anything but pavement. I happen to be writing this on an Apple PowerMac G5, dual 2G. It's a bit of overkill for surfing the web, but boy does it sing when I'm going through and post processing my pictures.

Any of this fair? Let me check my birth certificate, I'll try to find that addendum on life being fair. That might help explain the Paris Hilton thing for everyone.

Wep

Really?

I have an old Post Versalog around here.

And a Smith-Corona electric typewriter with a ribbon in it.

I keep that stuff in the room with the buggywhips.

---Bob Gross---

Just out of curiousity, did you see these two near Columbia, and by the Harlem Mear in the Park. If so that would have been Me and a friend of mine. So thank you demeaning my search for improving my skills as a photographer.

I barely play, but have a Gibson Lucille that I refuse to part with. Someday I'm going to learn how to play it and become the world's oldest new talent.

Is that the BB King sig. Forgive my ignorance of Gibson. My Gibson knowledge is limited. My specialties, Fender and Martin. I owned one Gibson a few years ago. An acoustic called the Gibson Gospel. It wasn't bad at all, but sold it to get my D28 Martin.

Thats why you can't judge someone just because they have new stuff. Now next week when you see me walking around with my new L glass and 580 EX flash along with all the other equipment I have bought, be secure in the fact that there goes someone with way more money than talent. And you know what? I don't care cause I'm having fun. Whats really starting to bother me is this Ken Rockwell philosophy that states you can only buy nice equipment when your skills make you deserving.

Yup. This link will hopefully take you to the page on the Gibson site that describes it.

http://www.gibsoncusto​m.com …ture/lucille/lu​cille.html

belmondo wrote:
Yup. This link will hopefully take you to the page on the Gibson site that describes it.

http://www.gibsoncusto​m.com …ture/lucille/lu​cille.html

Checked out the link, listened to the sound sample. No, don't sell it. NIce ax

Bought my first digital 2 years ago for an overseas trip, a G3. First camera I had owned in over 20 years.
About a year ago, I bought a 20D. Since then, I've added a bunch of lenses, a 580EX flash, and the other usual things (bag, tripod, monopod, cf cards, etc. etc.).
Do I know how to use all this stuff yet?
Nope.
Do I care?
Nope.
Am I having fun learning?
Yep.
Could I learn just as well without a lot of this stuff?
Yep.
Bought my gf a 20D, lenses, etc. etc.
Does she know how to use all her stuff yet?
Nope.
Etc., etc.
Point is, I figure you only go around once. And if I can afford to buy these things, and have some fun, and see my gf have fun, it's worth every penny.
Having said all that, when Canon releases a replacement for the 20D, it's not likely I'll dump my 20D, simply because I haven't come anywher near outgrowing it yet.
Unless, of course, the next model is a HUGE improvement over the 20D.
Jack

wow, was that really you?? sorry I was talking bad about you. btw, nice shoes. LOL!!!

Wow! This comment really arrested my attention. A few weeks ago, I posted on POTN complaining about my kit lens. Someone commented and said "That's just the way DSLRs are, you must shoot in RAW and PS the heck out of them!" Not being a adobe advocate, but he was really nonchalant to have said that. With over 8+ years of photoshop experience, not once did I rely on this program to make a great photo. Main use of PS was for work/web development and restore old photos.

Taken back by some users whom assume PS is the magic wand for everything.

As for myself, photography is candid, your world be seeing through your eyes. In a world where the "perfect exposure" doesn't rely on your photoshop skills.