Seeking recommendation for used SLR gears

The following statement:
"Shooting with film pushes the feedback far enough out that lots of
people won't learn anything other than a distaste for photography from it."
Is exactly what I've been saying, but condensed down into one damn close
to perfect sentence. Good work!


--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
Dallas writes:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:15:17 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Dallas writes:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:14:03 +0000, Tony Spadaro wrote:

Canon EOS has simple lens mount compatibility and IS lenses. Any
Canon
lens you buy for a film SLR now will be usable on their digital SLRs
too. IF you are serious about photography you might want to go
directly
to digital.

Are you kidding? The only thing he'll learn is how to press delete
repeatedly. Digital helps, but you still have to learn the principle
behind photography and nothing is better than doing it on film. It
forces you to think about what you're doing. It forces you to get it
right.

It also moves discovering your mistakes far enough from making them
that,
for many people, it's terribly difficult to learn. Digital is
*immensely*
good for teaching people basic photography.

I agree, but at the same time there is far more scope for error when you
are shooting digitally than you realise. Unless you have a really good
monitor with you, relying on the little screen on your DSLR to see if
you
got it right is courting disaster.

I'm not talking theory here. I started shooting seriously (my first
35mm SLR, and started doing my own darkroom work) in 1969. I got my
first digital camera in Feb. of 2000, and my first DSLR in Dec. of
2003.

Any camera of any quality has a histogram display. That's the key
tool for evaluating the image.

I cannot tell you how many times I took pictures with the D30 and D60
that
looked AWESOME on the LCD only to find that they truly sucked when I
downloaded them. Under exposed, out of focus, you name it...

Then either they have horrid LCD displays, or you're not using the
full potential. I can zoom in on my Fuji S2 LCD plenty close enough
to judge focus, and the histogram display gives me a very good idea
what the exposure really looks like.

Shooting with film pushes the balance of risk closer to the photographer
and as a result, if your mistake is going to cost you money, you tend to
make fewer of them.

Shooting with film pushes the feedback far enough out that lots of
people won't learn anything other than a distaste for photography from
it.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/
http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...
Tony Spadaro wrote:

Your opinion is assinine. Learning by waiting is not learning. A
digital
gives direct feedback IMMEDIATELY. You only want people to learn the way
YOU
did. In other words you would rather hold them back because you believe
no
one should have it easier.


Instant gratification... Yup!
Do things the easy way. Eat fast food. Don't waste any time or effort to
learn something new. Let your camera decide focus, exposure (and maybe
in the future - composition and subject). Go with the trends. Don't
question given (or marketing) truths...

You really are a philosopher!


One hardly ever hears anything said in favor of using a manual camera FOR
THE SHEER GRATIFICATION OF BEING ABLE TO SET EVERYTHING YOURSELF, WITHOUT
ANY INTERFERENCE (YES, INTERFERENCE!) FROM THE CAMERA.

Obviously, peoples' definitions of "learning photography" differ, partly
because some photographers never really spent much time with manual cameras
and lenses (what would they do if they had to shoot 4x5, 8x10 or even many
medium format equipment? They would be out of their element, for sure.)

I suppose one can practice with composition on an automated camera as easily
as on a manual one, but there is also the matter of the tactile feel of
well-machined lens barrels, the unique sound of a mechanical shutter being
released, the reliability that comes from knowing that one's batteries
aren't going to become exhausted after only a few rolls of film. And there
is that feeling that comes from handling a camera made of metal. It has
heft. It feels, for lack of a better word, "professional."

There is a somewhat intangible aspect to using mechanical gear that many
photographers miss out on when they learn the craft using automated
equipment. And there is a wide range of photographic subjects that have
been, and still are, able to be photographed without the benefits of
automation, with no ill effect. Not everyone shoots sporting events, or
birds in flight or NASA space shots. I shoot lots of static subjects, and I
lose nothing by using mechanical gear.

I do not believe that a photographer's education is complete without having
been exposed to legacy equipment.

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
Dallas writes:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:15:17 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Dallas writes:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:14:03 +0000, Tony Spadaro wrote:

Canon EOS has simple lens mount compatibility and IS lenses. Any
Canon
lens you buy for a film SLR now will be usable on their digital SLRs
too. IF you are serious about photography you might want to go
directly
to digital.

Are you kidding? The only thing he'll learn is how to press delete
repeatedly. Digital helps, but you still have to learn the principle
behind photography and nothing is better than doing it on film. It
forces you to think about what you're doing. It forces you to get it
right.

It also moves discovering your mistakes far enough from making them
that,
for many people, it's terribly difficult to learn. Digital is
*immensely*
good for teaching people basic photography.

I agree, but at the same time there is far more scope for error when you
are shooting digitally than you realise. Unless you have a really good
monitor with you, relying on the little screen on your DSLR to see if
you
got it right is courting disaster.

I'm not talking theory here. I started shooting seriously (my first
35mm SLR, and started doing my own darkroom work) in 1969. I got my
first digital camera in Feb. of 2000, and my first DSLR in Dec. of
2003.

Any camera of any quality has a histogram display. That's the key
tool for evaluating the image.

I cannot tell you how many times I took pictures with the D30 and D60
that
looked AWESOME on the LCD only to find that they truly sucked when I
downloaded them. Under exposed, out of focus, you name it...

Then either they have horrid LCD displays, or you're not using the
full potential. I can zoom in on my Fuji S2 LCD plenty close enough
to judge focus, and the histogram display gives me a very good idea
what the exposure really looks like.

Shooting with film pushes the balance of risk closer to the photographer
and as a result, if your mistake is going to cost you money, you tend to
make fewer of them.

Shooting with film pushes the feedback far enough out that lots of
people won't learn anything other than a distaste for photography from
it.
--


Kinda' makes one wonder how anyone was ever able to take good photographs
using only film, doesn't it?

Truly idiotic! Your food comparison has nothing to do with learning
photography and everything to do with your own failings as a human being.
The fact that you don't have to patience and concentration to use a great
learning tool to learn does not affect those of us who don't suffer from
your particular mental problems.
No camera of any type decides anything. The photographer makes those
decisions with the data given him. If you haven't figured this out by now
you never will.
If you remain stuck in the "Manual is more holy" mode - then you have
some real issues with the world - probably a massive inferiority complex you
deal with by adapting the "I'm pure, and you are a sellout" attitude so
popular among cults. Drink the Kool-Aid dude, you aren't going anywhere
anyhow.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Jeremy" wrote in message
hlink.net...

"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...
Tony Spadaro wrote:

Your opinion is assinine. Learning by waiting is not learning. A
digital
gives direct feedback IMMEDIATELY. You only want people to learn the
way
YOU
did. In other words you would rather hold them back because you
believe
no
one should have it easier.


Instant gratification... Yup!
Do things the easy way. Eat fast food. Don't waste any time or effort to
learn something new. Let your camera decide focus, exposure (and maybe
in the future - composition and subject). Go with the trends. Don't
question given (or marketing) truths...

You really are a philosopher!


One hardly ever hears anything said in favor of using a manual camera FOR
THE SHEER GRATIFICATION OF BEING ABLE TO SET EVERYTHING YOURSELF, WITHOUT
ANY INTERFERENCE (YES, INTERFERENCE!) FROM THE CAMERA.

Obviously, peoples' definitions of "learning photography" differ, partly
because some photographers never really spent much time with manual
cameras
and lenses (what would they do if they had to shoot 4x5, 8x10 or even many
medium format equipment? They would be out of their element, for sure.)

I suppose one can practice with composition on an automated camera as
easily
as on a manual one, but there is also the matter of the tactile feel of
well-machined lens barrels, the unique sound of a mechanical shutter being
released, the reliability that comes from knowing that one's batteries
aren't going to become exhausted after only a few rolls of film. And
there
is that feeling that comes from handling a camera made of metal. It has
heft. It feels, for lack of a better word, "professional."

There is a somewhat intangible aspect to using mechanical gear that many
photographers miss out on when they learn the craft using automated
equipment. And there is a wide range of photographic subjects that have
been, and still are, able to be photographed without the benefits of
automation, with no ill effect. Not everyone shoots sporting events, or
birds in flight or NASA space shots. I shoot lots of static subjects, and
I
lose nothing by using mechanical gear.

I do not believe that a photographer's education is complete without
having
been exposed to legacy equipment.

So where are your great pix Jeremy? You've got the 'tude dude.
Butwithout the showme you ain't doodley squat. I gotta wonder if you ain't
just yankin' chains cause that's all you do know how to do.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Jeremy" wrote in message
link.net...

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
Dallas writes:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:15:17 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Dallas writes:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:14:03 +0000, Tony Spadaro wrote:

Canon EOS has simple lens mount compatibility and IS lenses. Any
Canon
lens you buy for a film SLR now will be usable on their digital
SLRs
too. IF you are serious about photography you might want to go
directly
to digital.

Are you kidding? The only thing he'll learn is how to press delete
repeatedly. Digital helps, but you still have to learn the principle
behind photography and nothing is better than doing it on film. It
forces you to think about what you're doing. It forces you to get it
right.

It also moves discovering your mistakes far enough from making them
that,
for many people, it's terribly difficult to learn. Digital is
*immensely*
good for teaching people basic photography.

I agree, but at the same time there is far more scope for error when
you
are shooting digitally than you realise. Unless you have a really good
monitor with you, relying on the little screen on your DSLR to see if
you
got it right is courting disaster.

I'm not talking theory here. I started shooting seriously (my first
35mm SLR, and started doing my own darkroom work) in 1969. I got my
first digital camera in Feb. of 2000, and my first DSLR in Dec. of
2003.

Any camera of any quality has a histogram display. That's the key
tool for evaluating the image.

I cannot tell you how many times I took pictures with the D30 and D60
that
looked AWESOME on the LCD only to find that they truly sucked when I
downloaded them. Under exposed, out of focus, you name it...

Then either they have horrid LCD displays, or you're not using the
full potential. I can zoom in on my Fuji S2 LCD plenty close enough
to judge focus, and the histogram display gives me a very good idea
what the exposure really looks like.

Shooting with film pushes the balance of risk closer to the
photographer
and as a result, if your mistake is going to cost you money, you tend
to
make fewer of them.

Shooting with film pushes the feedback far enough out that lots of
people won't learn anything other than a distaste for photography from
it.
--


Kinda' makes one wonder how anyone was ever able to take good photographs
using only film, doesn't it?

So where are your great pix Jeremy? You've got the 'tude dude.
Butwithout the showme you ain't doodley squat. I gotta wonder if you ain't
just yankin' chains cause that's all you do know how to do.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Jeremy" wrote in message
link.net...

"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote in message
...
Dallas writes:

On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 23:15:17 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Dallas writes:

On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:14:03 +0000, Tony Spadaro wrote:

Canon EOS has simple lens mount compatibility and IS lenses. Any
Canon
lens you buy for a film SLR now will be usable on their digital
SLRs
too. IF you are serious about photography you might want to go
directly
to digital.

Are you kidding? The only thing he'll learn is how to press delete
repeatedly. Digital helps, but you still have to learn the principle
behind photography and nothing is better than doing it on film. It
forces you to think about what you're doing. It forces you to get it
right.

It also moves discovering your mistakes far enough from making them
that,
for many people, it's terribly difficult to learn. Digital is
*immensely*
good for teaching people basic photography.

I agree, but at the same time there is far more scope for error when
you
are shooting digitally than you realise. Unless you have a really good
monitor with you, relying on the little screen on your DSLR to see if
you
got it right is courting disaster.

I'm not talking theory here. I started shooting seriously (my first
35mm SLR, and started doing my own darkroom work) in 1969. I got my
first digital camera in Feb. of 2000, and my first DSLR in Dec. of
2003.

Any camera of any quality has a histogram display. That's the key
tool for evaluating the image.

I cannot tell you how many times I took pictures with the D30 and D60
that
looked AWESOME on the LCD only to find that they truly sucked when I
downloaded them. Under exposed, out of focus, you name it...

Then either they have horrid LCD displays, or you're not using the
full potential. I can zoom in on my Fuji S2 LCD plenty close enough
to judge focus, and the histogram display gives me a very good idea
what the exposure really looks like.

Shooting with film pushes the balance of risk closer to the
photographer
and as a result, if your mistake is going to cost you money, you tend
to
make fewer of them.

Shooting with film pushes the feedback far enough out that lots of
people won't learn anything other than a distaste for photography from
it.
--


Kinda' makes one wonder how anyone was ever able to take good photographs
using only film, doesn't it?

Tony Spadaro wrote:

Is a 1000 dollar digital camera more expensive that a 250 dollar film
camera? I shoot about 150 rolls of film a year.

I think some new to photography would not get even close to 150 rolls of film
in a year. Likely much less than two rolls of 36 exposure each month, even for
photography students. I do a much higher volume now than when I was in college,
mainly due to the timelines for college assignments being much longer between
each than for commercial work assignments.

Counting only film and
processing costs (no prints) that comes to about 900 dollars for 100 speed
colour negative film. 400 and faster would cost more with 400 running about
1100 a year and 1600 about 1300 a year. Slide film (which was my main film
for many years) would run about 1500 a year for ISO 100.
Black and white is cheaper you say? The cheapest I can get B/W developing
is about 5.00 a roll (no prints). Doing it myself would be cheaper -- but
darkrooms were dying long before photography went digital, and film scannera
are kinda pricy too.

Quite a few beginning community college and university level photography
courses are still B/W courses. Some suggest C-41 B/W films for convenience,
while others are traditional B/W films. The idea of doing B/W has to do with
improving composition skills while minimizing distractions. This idea is
similar to taking drawing classes prior to do painting. Sure, one could jump
right into painting classes, but establishing basic learning foundations
becomes much more difficult and time consuming. A similar situation exists in
the bias towards B/W photography; the emphasis is on the strength of the
composition, rather than any colour emphasis. While it might be tough to see
that one the film, or on the contact sheet, many photography courses involve
B/W printing.

To be fair, B/W imagery could be done with direct digital, and prints could be
done through a computer using an inkjet printer. It would not surprise me to
hear about classes being taught that way. Some colleges with dedicated
photography biased art majors are now mostly direct digital imaging, meaning
some students will never learn darkroom skills. I don't think that is
necessarily a bad thing, though the up front cost shuts out some potentially
talented individuals.

In one of my photography classes at SDSU, we had quite a selection of gear.
There were even two students who came in with ultra low cost P&S cameras. The
instructor encouraged them to see about borrowing a camera from someone else in
the class, so they could experiment with changing aperture and shutter
settings. There were probably more fully automated SLRs than any other camera
types, and the instructor urged them to try manual settings. While those
individuals were not checked on for their camera operation, I know that several
of my fellow students never took the cameras off automatic or program settings.

So how much film was used in my photography classes? On average, maybe one or
two rolls per week during the semester. We went through much more B/W printing
paper to get our final images for critique, though even with many mistakes or
throw-aways, the costs was under $1 per 8" by 10". In the colour classes, most
of the outputs were either colour laser, dye sub, or inkjet. Our lab fee was
$10 per semester for chemicals, though I have heard it is now $25 a semester.

I think it would take a while before someone got to your level of usage of
film. Using the $5 to $10 a roll idea for a couple dozen rolls, or less, would
be $120 to $240. Considering that a good used film camera can be found (through
KEH, et al) for around $300 with one lens, then this is still under $500 to get
involved in photography. Also, many of the film cameras at that price level can
be sold for nearly what they cost, if someone wanted to get into something
newer later.

So why not come up with a lower cost alternative? Can you find an under $500
direct digital set-up that will get one into photography, allow shutter and
aperture control, and allow for learning of Depth of Field? I think that would
be very helpful and constructive.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

Tony Spadaro wrote:

Is a 1000 dollar digital camera more expensive that a 250 dollar film
camera? I shoot about 150 rolls of film a year.

I think some new to photography would not get even close to 150 rolls of film
in a year. Likely much less than two rolls of 36 exposure each month, even for
photography students. I do a much higher volume now than when I was in college,
mainly due to the timelines for college assignments being much longer between
each than for commercial work assignments.

Counting only film and
processing costs (no prints) that comes to about 900 dollars for 100 speed
colour negative film. 400 and faster would cost more with 400 running about
1100 a year and 1600 about 1300 a year. Slide film (which was my main film
for many years) would run about 1500 a year for ISO 100.
Black and white is cheaper you say? The cheapest I can get B/W developing
is about 5.00 a roll (no prints). Doing it myself would be cheaper -- but
darkrooms were dying long before photography went digital, and film scannera
are kinda pricy too.

Quite a few beginning community college and university level photography
courses are still B/W courses. Some suggest C-41 B/W films for convenience,
while others are traditional B/W films. The idea of doing B/W has to do with
improving composition skills while minimizing distractions. This idea is
similar to taking drawing classes prior to do painting. Sure, one could jump
right into painting classes, but establishing basic learning foundations
becomes much more difficult and time consuming. A similar situation exists in
the bias towards B/W photography; the emphasis is on the strength of the
composition, rather than any colour emphasis. While it might be tough to see
that one the film, or on the contact sheet, many photography courses involve
B/W printing.

To be fair, B/W imagery could be done with direct digital, and prints could be
done through a computer using an inkjet printer. It would not surprise me to
hear about classes being taught that way. Some colleges with dedicated
photography biased art majors are now mostly direct digital imaging, meaning
some students will never learn darkroom skills. I don't think that is
necessarily a bad thing, though the up front cost shuts out some potentially
talented individuals.

In one of my photography classes at SDSU, we had quite a selection of gear.
There were even two students who came in with ultra low cost P&S cameras. The
instructor encouraged them to see about borrowing a camera from someone else in
the class, so they could experiment with changing aperture and shutter
settings. There were probably more fully automated SLRs than any other camera
types, and the instructor urged them to try manual settings. While those
individuals were not checked on for their camera operation, I know that several
of my fellow students never took the cameras off automatic or program settings.

So how much film was used in my photography classes? On average, maybe one or
two rolls per week during the semester. We went through much more B/W printing
paper to get our final images for critique, though even with many mistakes or
throw-aways, the costs was under $1 per 8" by 10". In the colour classes, most
of the outputs were either colour laser, dye sub, or inkjet. Our lab fee was
$10 per semester for chemicals, though I have heard it is now $25 a semester.

I think it would take a while before someone got to your level of usage of
film. Using the $5 to $10 a roll idea for a couple dozen rolls, or less, would
be $120 to $240. Considering that a good used film camera can be found (through
KEH, et al) for around $300 with one lens, then this is still under $500 to get
involved in photography. Also, many of the film cameras at that price level can
be sold for nearly what they cost, if someone wanted to get into something
newer later.

So why not come up with a lower cost alternative? Can you find an under $500
direct digital set-up that will get one into photography, allow shutter and
aperture control, and allow for learning of Depth of Field? I think that would
be very helpful and constructive.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

Jeremy wrote:

"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...
Tony Spadaro wrote:

Your opinion is assinine. Learning by waiting is not learning. A
digital
gives direct feedback IMMEDIATELY. You only want people to learn the way
YOU
did. In other words you would rather hold them back because you believe
no
one should have it easier.


Instant gratification... Yup!
Do things the easy way. Eat fast food. Don't waste any time or effort to
learn something new. Let your camera decide focus, exposure (and maybe
in the future - composition and subject). Go with the trends. Don't
question given (or marketing) truths...

You really are a philosopher!


One hardly ever hears anything said in favor of using a manual camera FOR
THE SHEER GRATIFICATION OF BEING ABLE TO SET EVERYTHING YOURSELF, WITHOUT
ANY INTERFERENCE (YES, INTERFERENCE!) FROM THE CAMERA.

Obviously, peoples' definitions of "learning photography" differ, partly
because some photographers never really spent much time with manual cameras
and lenses (what would they do if they had to shoot 4x5, 8x10 or even many
medium format equipment? They would be out of their element, for sure.)

Read my latest response above to Tony for more on this. While a manually set
camera can bring a different approach to photography, I never had a photography
class in which that was a requirement. Several instructors suggested that, but
we had plenty of people with automated cameras and autofocus zoom lenses. In
fact, quite a few of those people never even tried to use the manual settings
on their automated cameras. Despite that, a few of those people managed to
produce some compelling imagery.

I like using mostly metal older gear, but I don't think it is required for one
to become a photographer, nor to learn photography. I do think it is important
to practice setting the aperture and shutter, and focusing manually, though I
am not opposed to people not wanting to do that. It is not good to force people
to do something they don't want to do, and those who want a little more control
will try out there own settings choices, rather than letting the camera do it
for them.

I don't think it is necessarily bad that people stick to the automation. This
willingness to turn off the automation can result in different images, and
might make some images stand out from the more automated endeavours. Those who
try might find something they like more, but the important thing is that they
are enjoying what they are creating.

It is a shame that new and modern gear has become so expensive. I know these
are complicated devices, but the better gear is priced out of reach of younger
people new to photography. The future of photography is not in the gear, but in
the people who take up photography. We should do what we can to encourage
people to take up photography, and help them find alternatives that will fit in
a low budget. Students rarely have much money to put into trying new hobbies,
or even considering an alternative profession, or a way to creatively express
their vision.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!

Jeremy wrote:

"Chris Loffredo" wrote in message
...
Tony Spadaro wrote:

Your opinion is assinine. Learning by waiting is not learning. A
digital
gives direct feedback IMMEDIATELY. You only want people to learn the way
YOU
did. In other words you would rather hold them back because you believe
no
one should have it easier.


Instant gratification... Yup!
Do things the easy way. Eat fast food. Don't waste any time or effort to
learn something new. Let your camera decide focus, exposure (and maybe
in the future - composition and subject). Go with the trends. Don't
question given (or marketing) truths...

You really are a philosopher!


One hardly ever hears anything said in favor of using a manual camera FOR
THE SHEER GRATIFICATION OF BEING ABLE TO SET EVERYTHING YOURSELF, WITHOUT
ANY INTERFERENCE (YES, INTERFERENCE!) FROM THE CAMERA.

Obviously, peoples' definitions of "learning photography" differ, partly
because some photographers never really spent much time with manual cameras
and lenses (what would they do if they had to shoot 4x5, 8x10 or even many
medium format equipment? They would be out of their element, for sure.)

Read my latest response above to Tony for more on this. While a manually set
camera can bring a different approach to photography, I never had a photography
class in which that was a requirement. Several instructors suggested that, but
we had plenty of people with automated cameras and autofocus zoom lenses. In
fact, quite a few of those people never even tried to use the manual settings
on their automated cameras. Despite that, a few of those people managed to
produce some compelling imagery.

I like using mostly metal older gear, but I don't think it is required for one
to become a photographer, nor to learn photography. I do think it is important
to practice setting the aperture and shutter, and focusing manually, though I
am not opposed to people not wanting to do that. It is not good to force people
to do something they don't want to do, and those who want a little more control
will try out there own settings choices, rather than letting the camera do it
for them.

I don't think it is necessarily bad that people stick to the automation. This
willingness to turn off the automation can result in different images, and
might make some images stand out from the more automated endeavours. Those who
try might find something they like more, but the important thing is that they
are enjoying what they are creating.

It is a shame that new and modern gear has become so expensive. I know these
are complicated devices, but the better gear is priced out of reach of younger
people new to photography. The future of photography is not in the gear, but in
the people who take up photography. We should do what we can to encourage
people to take up photography, and help them find alternatives that will fit in
a low budget. Students rarely have much money to put into trying new hobbies,
or even considering an alternative profession, or a way to creatively express
their vision.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat
A G Studio
http://www.allgstudio.com/gallery.html Updated!