The Freighter Fighter photo posting thread (others welcome)

I think Mustang lives in Africa from those pictures. couldn´t see sw on them though.

Ben I reckon you must be trying to get in to close when you take these shots and your camera can´t focus in on the subject, hence why your close ups are always blurred. Try taking a step back or at the very least take a few shots at varying distances from the subject, you can always crop it in tighter in post production.

<font size=1 face="trebuchet ms"><BLOCKQUOTE><hr size=1 noshade>unless i start lugging dads film camera around <hr size=1 noshade></BLOCKQUOTE></font><font face=´trebuchet ms, Verdana, Arial, Helvetica´ size=2> maybe you should - you can only really know photography if you know the limits of film and light.

i use my dad´s film camera to shoot, 2 different lenses, forgot their diameters though. 35mm and maybe another 40 or 50mm. nikon F2. ooold. dont need batteries to shoot <img src=smilies/icon_smile_tongue.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>

&quot;i could always lug the camera bag around with 4 different lenses, and several rolls of film&quot; not only could, you should. you will not really learn photography with automatic digital cameras. you have to learn about film speeds, exposure times, depth of field, light fields etc etc etc. Once you´ve learnt all that, the hard way, then you can go digital and let it do it for you. I still lug my SLR with multiple lenses and several rolls of film around and the results are still <b>far superior </b> to anything I get out of my digital. i was looking at some holiday shots the other day, comparing the same subjects and scenes shot digitally and shot chemically - the digitals are snaps, the film is excellent, far clearer, truer colour, more depth. that´s because film is more malleable as a medium at point of exposure whereas digital is designed for post-edit. call me a luddite but much as i like my digital it will never replace my SLR for quality. and its not that good an SLR, it´s only a Yashica FX-3.

I beg to differ Taw, I find digital to be a far more effective medium for learning than film as you can see your result immediately. You can blast off as many shots as you like at different settings, that along with the exif data you can see exactly where you went wrong or right the minute you get your mem card back to your pc. The only real difference between SLR and DSLR is ISO sensitivity as opposed to film sensitivity, everything else can be played with exactly the same way. That is unless you were trying to point out the inadequacies of a point &amp; shoot camera as opposed to an SLR, then I whole heartedly agree. Personally if I were you ff, i´d be ditching your p&amp;s and saving your pennies for a low end DSLR, preferably a model compatible with your dad´s lense collection. If a DSLR is to far out of your reach a prosumer digital can be an effective alternative, especially for learning the ins and out of metering, exposure, sensitivity and colour temperature. Seriously the number of pro photographers using film is diminishing at a rapid rate. Edited by - Mustang on 10/14/2004 8:47:38 PM

Greetings from the <A href=´http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v305/Mustang6/Panorama.jpg´ Target=_Blank>Yorke Peninsula</a> This is from a few weeks ago, just got around to cropping it properly.

film forever! I´ll never abandon my slr. all this new gangled stuff will come and go but good ol´ film will still remain. just like vinyl records and valave amps. warmer truer reproduction.

That is beautiful shot ff, fantastically composed. Well done. <img src=smilies/icon_smile.gif width=15 height=15 border=0 align=middle>

Nope, im thinking stinger unstickied them all and then provided link to all the ex-stickies in a single sticky. IMO the forum looks much better for it too.