Automatic transmission? Manual transmission? Pfffft, what you really need, to get the full genuine experience, is a vehicle having a transmission without synchromesh. Anything else is just namby-pamby, feeble imitation.
(Yes, I have driven a hell of a lot of thousands of km's without a synchro box. You have nice things to remember like needing verrrrrry slightly more revs to change gear (with double-declutching too of course) when going downhill, because the vehicle doesn't slow down momentarily when taking the extra time to go out of, then in to, gear - not in the same way it behaves on the flat. I suppose these things equate to wet-plate, or Dageurrotypes or something?? )
No problem. I can double clutch at need and have driven them.
I don't think they're an essential part of my driving experience, but they aren't a problem.
So how do you feel about glass vs traditional cockpits Roger?
No big preference either way, really. I just like to fly. J3 low and slow with the door off (never done it, would like to) or cooking along cross country - planning to start working on my IR soonish. It's all good.
Disclaimer - I've never actually flown with a glass cockpit.
As a practical matter, anything I am able to afford, even to partner in, for the foreseeable future is like to have steam gauges though the prices for some planes with the aftermarket glass are coming down as those become more common.
A fair question.
Originally Posted by Roger Cole
The reason I still haunt the halls is after 30 years of analog/darkroom work, using medium and some large format and producing many many hundreds of silver prints and being an active member here for quite a long time, I hang around because a great deal of this site is about photography. And photography didn't really change at all when digital rolled in.
Obviously many things changed from the professional business model, to the use of computers to the change in how a photographer's vision to final print process changed, but cameras, lighting, posing, composition, etc has not changed really at all.
When I say I'm not into process, that doesn't mean I know nothing about process, because obviously doing the process day in and day out for 30 years I must have accidentally tripped over some of it. But for me the process is only a means to an end. And that end is the print on the wall.
And you'll notice this thread is in the Ethics and Philosophy Section, meaning the ethics and philosophy of photography, not the ethics and philosophy of analog processes.
If you cruise through with your manual transmission web browser, you'll probably notice that there are a lot of sections on APUG related to many aspects of photography, composition, lighting that have no bearing on analog per se but instead photography in general which sort of bolsters my point that photography didn't really change fundamentally when digital showed up, it just created more outlets for the photographer to explore.
But I appreciate your concern that I'd taken a wrong turn when I stumbled upon APUG.
Sorry for the delay. What a nightmare that was.
Memory leaks, thread deadlocks, bad UI abstractions, non-reproducible bugs, MTBFs of only a day or two, and a carnivorous installed user base, all mixed up into a real-time, interrupt-driven, multi-process, multi-threaded, multi-platform Frankenstein's monster of a software engineering stew.
Good gawd! The thing has neck bolts! It's a miracle that any of this high technology stuff even works at all. I'm always surprised when it does.
Now... where were we? Oh yeah. High technology photography...
And there we have it at long last. Complete agreement among the idiots. Now at last I can die idiotically happy.
Originally Posted by blansky
Different really isn't the same. By raw definition. Whether those differences matter to you... is up to you. Maybe they do. Maybe they don't. But whether they do OR don't, they do still exist. And they do still matter. In fact, it's in those differences that we find the whole reason for APUG itself to exist. And for DPUG too. Because even though they don't matter to you, those differences are crucial to many of the rest of us. In the final analysis, they are why we are even here at all.
Remember our offline discussion of provenance? That is a difference which probably means very little to you. I know you know what it is. It's just not important to you for the purposes to which you practice photography. Nor should it be. Your needs and motivations are unique, and that concept just does not factor in for you. Fair enough.
However, for me physical provenance is possibly the most important attribute a photograph can possess. It's presence confers an authenticity to the work that cannot be replicated digitally. For the purposes to which I practice photography, it's crucial. Without it, it's not a photograph. It's merely a pretty illustration.
The point is that both of these are merely subjective judgments based on each individual's needs, desires and outlooks. But the facts that underlie those judgments are inviolate. You really don't extract an image from a CCD by dunking it into D-76. That's a fact based on a real difference between the two methods of image making. You may prefer and choose one method of extraction over the other for subjective reasons, but that choice is only available to you because the two methods are radically different in the first place.
So rejoice in the heightened level of awareness that comes with the simple recognition that chemical film and electronic digital are two completely different ways to create an image. And with those differences comes a plethora of choices presented for your consideration regarding which method will work better in helping you to realize your unique vision. Do not run from those differences by insisting they do not exist. Instead celebrate them as Good Things.
Just keep a clear head and don't confuse the massively different factual realities that, by design, underpin the two technologies. Those technologies only seem the same to you if those underlying realities don't matter to you.
My God, who knew you moonlighted as a brain surgeon.
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
Well, Blansky has been here since 2002, dang near the beginning of APUG. Some habits are hard to break. :D
Originally Posted by Roger Cole
Besides, most sites would not know what to do with his sense of humor.
Originally Posted by Ken Nadvornick
No need to die over this, happy or otherwise.
And a perfect example that we can often get caught up in our own world and lack the understanding of someone else's.
You are completely right that I, and some others here have stated that the switch from analog to digital was to us no different than buying a new car and switching all our shit over from one to the other. Because as you pointed out the process is something we don't care about. Whatever it takes to get from the subject to the final print is what we will happily or begrudgingly learn but the print is the goal.
Granted the switch was a massive and often expensive and frustrating learning curve but the benefits were to us, massive. Retouching being the main one.
But for others, you being one, would happily take a sledgehammer to all things digital and piss all over your boss's desk in the process so you could go quietly home to you darkroom and make analog prints and only come out once a year to see if you can see your shadow.
But you are right, it's easy to forget other people's background, journey and aesthetics and think everyone thinks like you do.
But you have to admit that when we said, they are the same, it was an affect of language and meant that, obviously we know they're different but to us they are the same, namely a means to an end.
I for one found out how different they are when after not spending hours in the darkroom, I lost the ability to,write some of the stories I used to write here. Outrageous stuff. Not sure if they are in the archive or not. Due to the miracle of chemistry I could write an entire story in my head and walk out of the darkroom and write it down in maybe 5 minutes and post it. Now no darkroom, no stories.
So I sincerely apologize that I didn't take your feelings into account when I wrote and PM you the various posts and replies. Because obviously there are people that live for the darkroom experience, cherish the tactility of it and wonder at the magical results. I'm just not one of them. Although a print revealing itself in a tray is a pretty fucking cool thing, much cooler than falling out of a printer.
But spending 10 hours retouching a zitty kids face on a negative and a few prints can soon cure you of the romance and breath taking splendor of that moment.
But you keepers of the dark have to understand something as well. Those of us who are portrait types get a massive buzz and shot of adrenalin from the act of photographing people, mainly faces and all the magic and nuances that are human expression and then transforming that to a print on the wall that elicits a warm fuzzy feeling from the loved one who bought it, every single time they walk by it 10 times a day for many many years.
I can count at least 10 kids that died while that picture was on parents walls, hundreds that obviously moved away and started families of their own and all the other emotional baggage that comes with family photography. And you have to understands that our thrill, joy, rush, comes from the creation of the portrait at the sitting stage, and hanging of that creation onto their wall and not from the mundane act of development, printing...darkroom stuff, that is just a part of the process to get there.
And now my wine bottle is empty and I'll say goodnight and delete this syrupy bullshit of an apology.
SHIT, dammit I just posted it.
Aww, shucks... Does this mean that after all these years I finally get to come off your Ignore List?
[Edit: Actually, I do have an enormous respect for what you do and the buzz it brings. Capturing the essence of a sitter's character in the few fleeting minutes one has their full attention is a skill—and buzz—that eludes me, regardless of the chosen technology. Only last weekend I was visiting my 86-year-old mother. Suffice it to say that time now runs short. So I had my 8x10 set up on her deck at slightly above eye level, six sheets ready and waiting, and a pleasantly soft overcast light to work with. It's my own mother, damn it. You'd think I could get something acceptable, wouldn't you? I was standing at the light table last evening looking at all six negatives. Not a chance. Formal portraiture is not a skill set I possess. I will be trying again, though. I have to...]