Anyone still frequent photoradar?

[Cathus]

I still frequent there on a daily basis. Not sure if this sounds pretentious but I tend to find I give more than I get on that site.

[.]

Just had another look on that site, and saw a "History of photography" thread. As I have an interest in this fascinating subject, I had a look.

Cue gil ritchie resurrecting the old "What was your first camera" DCM thread.

Nice Zeiss Ikon, btw Reinardina.

[Reinardina]

Just had another look on that site, and saw a "History of photography" thread. As I have an interest in this fascinating subject, I had a look.

Cue gil ritchie resurrecting the old "What was your first camera" DCM thread.

Nice Zeiss Ikon, btw Reinardina.

Yes, thank you. I must agree! It must have been handled with so much care, as it still looks brand new. But then in those days, things like that were precious, and people looked after their stuff.

I cannot remember precisely when that particular thread was started, but I think it lay dormant and someone dug it up recently. Haven't seen Gil Ritchie's name for ages on PR.

Yes, I still frequent it regularly, mainly the weekend competition forum. I want to beat them at some stage! Last weekend I was in  shared second place; very credible, till you see that Mark (Cutter) had 17 votes and I four! Considering that Mark uses top of the range equipment and I a bridge camera, I think I didn't do too badly! We seem to have moved away from voting for (in my opinion) second rate pictures and the last few weeks quality has prevailed. Long may it last.

[.]

Yes, thank you. I must agree! It must have been handled with so much care, as it still looks brand new. But then in those days, things like that were precious, and people looked after their stuff.

Plus, things were made to last, in those days... although bellows/flatbed cameras tended to suffer lightleaks due to the very nature of their design.
*looks over his shoulder, to see a Kiev 4, 2 Leica LTMs, a Zorki 4, a FED-NKVD, an Olympus OM-1md, a couple of Kodak cameras (Box No2, Brownie 127 mk3), 2 Zeiss Ikon cameras*
(let's forget about the Holga 120N... )

I cannot remember precisely when that particular thread was started, but I think it lay dormant and someone dug it up recently. Haven't seen Gil Ritchie's name for ages on PR.

The thread itself was started back when DCM was alive, before the admin staff decided to make an appearance and kill any signs of personality. The regulars chipped in, but that was it.
It wasn't easy trying to get the lurkers to speak up, which is a shame as they tend to be more interesting (no offence to CC, btw).

Yes, I still frequent it regularly, mainly the weekend competition forum. I want to beat them at some stage! Last weekend I was in  shared second place; very credible, till you see that Mark (Cutter) had 17 votes and I four! Considering that Mark uses top of the range equipment and I a bridge camera, I think I didn't do too badly! We seem to have moved away from voting for (in my opinion) second rate pictures and the last few weeks quality has prevailed. Long may it last.

Equipment tends to be meaningless, to be honest. Right tools for the right job, and that's it. It's experience, and the grey matter in the users head, that counts.

A camera's only a box with a hole in it, no matter what techno-gubbins the designers slap on it.

[Markulous]

Equipment tends to be meaningless, to be honest. Right tools for the right job, and that's it. It's experience, and the grey matter in the users head, that counts.

A camera's only a box with a hole in it, no matter what techno-gubbins the designers slap on it.

This is so true! You can have the best equipment and still can't compose a good shot (and there are a good number who fit this category!  ). And by the same token, have what is considered a poor camera and produce fabulous shots - the example that comes to mind is someone who had a bridge camera and the pure quality of her shots (mainly portraits) resulted in her being offered a book contract. The art is in the composition and working to the strengths of the gear! 

What always makes me laugh is those that rush off and get all manner of filters and spend ages trying to then use them (and usually use all manner of filters in PP) instead of concentrating on actually getting a good composition! 

[Reinardina]

Deegee and Markulous.

Can't beat the cameras you have Deegee! I only have an old (late seventies I guess) Minolta semi automatic and a Kodak Instamatic, because no one else could use my Minolta, so if I wanted to be in a photograph (I still did in those days!) someone had to use the Kodak.

I did not get into photography in a more serious way, till the arrival of digital cameras. I had a few decades where photography was impossible as I lost almost all of my sight and simply couldn't focus the camera. Now I rely mainly on autofocus, though I occasionally venture into manual controls. It's still a problem though, especially with 'moving' (literally) subjects.

And about the quality of cameras and quality of shots and grey matter etc, my grey matter is still in good working order (I hope). I try to develop something like a photographer's eye, and definitely look at things in a different way than in the past. If I'm on the right track I don't know yet. Composition wise, I'm still not there.

Quality wise, I don't think my camera can never match the crispness the big boys get out of theirs, so I have to try and beat them on other points. But I like a challenge and it is more fun to try and beat them, than some of the others!

Like last week, I have reasonable hopes again, but probably won't get anywhere.

[Reinardina]

Just come from PR: the 'History' thread dates back to December 2009!