All this digital stuff is making me dizzy. I use whatever camera at my disposal! My primary camera is the Canon F-1 which is 18 yrs old. My second is a kodak advantix! You would be amazed at the results. Some are posted here!!
Nothing wrong with an F-1! I started 35mm with a Canon AE-1 program, moved to an A-1, then settled in with a T-90 for a while. (I really enjoyed that, with the electronics and built in motor drive). I reluctantly joined the auto-focus revolution (when I realized that I could not focus on my constantly moving children and trains too )by getting an EOS A2E. It does not see much use now that I have a digital, but it is still superior in many situations which my digital can't handle. ------------------ Harold Hodnett Fan of NS, CSX, and their predecessors! Now Open! The North Carolina Railfan Web Site http://www.trainweb.org/ncrail/
I like shooting steam in B&W, and lately have been using Ilford XP-2, which is processed by color labs in the same C-41 process as most color print films. Sometimes the prints come back in sepia tone, which is really cool. This one is harsh B&W.
I agree chessie. I intend on moving to the world of auto-focus once i get my $$$ worth out of the F1. It was an expensive toy, but it has taken many of memories. I have my son in "train"ing with a small minolta, once hes mastered that then maybe we can upgrade him too!!
Cant wait to show what I've done with a disposable camera No I really use a AE-1 of my grandfathers, Its a durable camera, It has survived the rides on bike down to trackside takes GREAT PICTURES. I have used digital before, quality depends on the camera and the storage media. And yes I have used a Disposible and a 110 when I really need too some good pics some bad pics but nowhere close to what a digital or the AE-1 can do Also in the past I have been using regular Kodak 100 speed (due to the fact I cant afford really expensive stuff) but my pictures have been coming out rather dull) what speed and brand do you recomed thats afforable.
I use Kodak 300 speed film in mine. Takes great pics too!! I'll scan some and post here and se what ya'll think.
There has been a lot of conversation lately about digital vs analog (traditional) cameras. I'd just like to go on record as saying it's the composition and mastery of technique that makes a great photo. Both methods capture an instant of time by allowing light to enter an iris and strike a substrate, be it film emulsion or a CCD. Both methods allow manipulation of the light. While the methods used to get there may be different, the final output is one that again allows the light to enter another iris, this time the iris of the human eye. Like the old saying, "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like," it's all about composition and mastery of the chosen technique. Paints are pigment and carrier, but Monet could paint a whole lot better than I can! It's the composition and mastery of technique. My two cents, err bytes...
You hit the nail right on the head Ed. It is so true. How many of us click before we think? It takes time and patience with practice to get pictures that please. It took me a long time to throw away pictures and only keep the best. My old stand by is a Minolta X-700. It does everything I want it to. I have a scanner and that combined with the 35mm camera staisfies me to the point I haven't thought about going digital
I agree with you Robin, It really boils down to the person behind the camera, digital or 35mm. My camera is a Minolta X300s, had it for years, plus all the filters I have to go with it. Anyway, here is a photo I took a few years ago when I was modelling in N-scale.
Yeah,the scanner-35 mil camera works for me. Aslong as you don't have thousands of pics to scan, you are A-OK !!
Russ, thanks. That was taken in Sacramento at Railfair 99. Santa Fe 3751 nose to nose with Southern Pacific 2467, and SP 4449 looking on. All of them steamed up. A foamer's heaven.
