I guess I find it hard to understand in a forum like this one why it would be important to hide yourself. It is for fun and sharing. No personal credit imformation goes out here and I believe most involved only want to share their passion for photography. Being a part of several other sites for a few years I feel even though I have never met many people I have established a relationship with them even made contact with one person and we talk a lot. I feel it is to my benifit and others if I allow them to know who I am. Monte Johnson.

Monte,

If everyone shared your attitude and motives for participating in this forum, that would be ideal.

However, there are some people who use this forum for other personal purposes. Maybe their photo experiences have been disappointing and hurtful and they are just venting their bad feelings, anger and resentment, like the proverbial guy who has a bad day at work and goes home and kicks the dog, scolds his kids and verbally abuses his wife as an outlet for the anger he cannot express at work.

Sadly like the comic strip Li'l Abner in every crowd there is one or more people who have a dark cloud over their heads, and all they want to do is rain on everyone elses parade.

At the present time I still use film based medium and large format cameras so that I am able to produce the type of quality I desire in the print sizes larger that 8 x 10. So as to ask would I trade in medium format film cameras for a DSLR? Not at this time. Price prevents me from being able to purchase any of the 12 thru 16 Meg cameras now on the market which would allow me to attain the quality I desire in my large prints.

Even when I finally can afford a "larger meg digital camera" I don't think I will get rid of my film based gear. I didn't do it with my 35mm film camera systems mainly because when I was eventually able to switch over to digital I did not want to take a financial bath selling them.
My reluctance to sell them actually worked out for me. Now when I go and photograph in harsh environments I take one of my film based 35's, which were at the time the top of the line pro models, this way I have no worries about trying to get the magic smoke back inside the camera. Could the DSLR be used in inclement weather? Probably but it is not a pro caliber body and I really have no clue how well it is sealed so I am not willing to take a chance when there is no need to.
Sure I am just relegating the DSLR to being a fair weather camera, so what? The photographer isn't. So in all likelyhood there is a 99.9 9/10% chance that when I do eventually acquire a "larger Meg DSLR" I will still hold onto the film based cameras just for that reason.
I give up some immediacy when using film over digital capture but with the excellent films now on the market coupled with todays superb scanners and software you can really produce some great looking prints.

One of the main reasons I stay with film is I also like the larger print. I will go with digital when the time comes I can afford the camera that will match the quality I get with film at the sizes I print. Monte Johnson.

"They can have my RB67 when they can pry it from my cold, dead hands."... or they stop making film entirely, whichever comes first.
Sorry, although digital is cheaper and more convenient, I does not have the quality of film (yet).
Or, at least, I can't afford a digital system that matches the quality of film. I read somewhere that the resolution of transparency film is somewhere on the magnitude of a hundered thousand times as sensitive as digital. I don't know if that's true, but I know if I want a large image with tons of detail, I'll be shooting film.

Rob,

As much as I want to believe digital will work for me Film still tells the truth in resolution and detail. Most of us would go digital if it was better because it is just easier. Many times I have looked at going digital again, but for the money I would have to spend I would probably have a new Rollei FX TLR. Scanning film does give me the benifits of digital imaging but mostly use that for entertainment not printing. I spent 800 for my Fuji 645Z and what I get for that is value for my money. Monte Johnson.

I'm with you, Monte. The only reason I shoot digital is because many of my clients want it done today and cheap.
Quality is never as important as price.
These are the same people who buy some kind of page maker program and decide they can become art directors, or buy a prosumer digital camera and decide that, although they can't take pictures as good as a professional... their pictures are "good enough" for what they want.
How do you argue with them?
If they can't see the difference, or don't want to see the difference, you have to make concessions.
And really, for smaller images, I have no problem shooting digital. But I love my film cameras and won't let them gather dust.

>>How do you argue with them?
If they can't see the difference, or don't want to see the difference, you have to make concessions.<<

Rob,

Thankfully your "concession" is not the only choice. No one has to sell out unless you have nothing to sell but a price. And if all you are selling is a price, you can be sure someone will be dumb enough to offer a cheaper price.

In the mid 90's a lot of companies thought they could beat the high prices they were paying to their advertising agencies, and set up in-house photo studios and graphics departments. I was hired by some to consult and help set them up as I was between gigs at the time. Not one of those in-house departments is currently operating. A couple of the companies folded, and the rest went back to hiring ad agencies, high rates and all.

David,

What you say is true, although it is a slow process. The agency I work for has had several clients in the past who have hired one or two people to become an in-house design department and if they also happened to have a cheap digital camera and enough room to put up a white sheet as a background to shoot products (utilizing the on-camera flash, fer cryin' out loud), they figured they were well ahead of the game.
That their catalogs, ads and sell sheets looked... I have not the words... blindingly hideous, they weren't that concerned, because they looked a their bottom line and saw how much money they had saved.
But slowly, ever so slowly, they've seen their profits take a downturn because the tools they used to advertise their products look amateurish and they begin to return.
But, with every prodigal return, there seems to be yet another client who comes up with the idea that all they need is a computer loaded with the right program and they can do the work of a design department.
So, we go through the dance, yet again.
It keeps you on your toes.

I've known quite a few art directors who have tired of agency life and thought photography would be more fun. Very few succeeded. One who did I knew fairly well in Los Angeles was Reid Miles. He had the wisdom and means to hire technical assistants who were well trained to do the real work and Reid functioned more like a "creative director". He was hugely successful and produced some great work.

About that time I was teaching part-time at Otis-Parson Art Institute in the graphics communications department. Training for future art directors. So a graphic design instructor and I had the 'brilliant' idea we should offer graphics design students a class in product photography so they could better understand what a photographer does. Although a worthwhile concept and I think from student feedback valuable to some, the team-teaching aspect was a disaster. It was like putting a bantam rooster and a large tomcat in a cage together. It was a bad way to loose a good friend.

David,

Goes to show you that everyone has their place and some cannot fit where others belong. It might just be a persons perspective on things. I have a engineer who lives next to me. Nice guy, but spends more time planning details then getting the job done. As I have said I have seen several photographers here that have a good thing going, but do not care about the quality of their work. I do not like to say bad things about people, but it seems more and more we have lost a sense of pride for what we do.I am glad I am not a professional because it is not easy today if you care. In our small town a photograhers bread and butter is Senior pictures for the schools. Now anyone with a digital camera and computer does it. It hurts the real professionals. Monte Johnson.

Monte,

In America at least I don't think the creative arts and commerce have ever been very happy bedfellows. A part of this is the fact photography in this country has never been officially sanctioned as a profession as accountants, or dentists and opticians are. You don't have to graduate from an accreditied school with a major in photography, nor pass a state test of proficiency to qualify to obtain a license to practive professional photography. Anyone can buy a camera and hang out a shingle and practice photography.

In many European countries photography is recognized and is a licensed profession that requires either training or the completion of an apprecticeship to enter the community of professionals. Whether this is a better practise than the free-for-all system we have here is debatable of course differently from the perspective of the photographer and the consumer. But to a large extent it comes down to whether cheap prices due to excessive competition are preferable to consumer protection to obtain good quality at a higher cost and photographers enjoying a less comepetitive, protected market.

When only the unfettered forces of the free marketplace reign the pressure downward to the lowest common denominator makes quality for its own sake an unsupportable value. It all boils down to the choices people make, and if all they want is WalMart that's all they will get and sadly everyone gets dragged down to that low level like it or not.

This is an interesting thread. And I have to say, I agree with Anonymous, and if this was a formal debate, I would give the victory to Anonymous.

Not to get overly autobiographic, but I was a 35mm film user. Same camera - 35mm SLR, for 15 year. I was lured away by the "advantages" of digital. Saved my $$$ a few years back for a Panasonic Lumix. After using it about a year I went back to film. In fact, I now use a medium format camera as my main camera, shoot mostly B&W, develop and print my own on an old enlarger. Never had more fun with my hobby, never got better looking prints than the ones I take with my Kiev 60 (laugh if you want), and an array of Zeiss Jena and Russian glass. The entire system cost less than an entry level DSLR with a kit lens.

I defy any DSLR user to take a portrait that comes close to one I take with a Zeiss Jena 180 Sonnar ($200) bolted on to my $125 Kiev 60.

Cost savings? If you like prints, advantage film.

Developing your own black and white costs pennies. So I won't go there. (Plus I find it a lot of fun and far more rewarding than pressing "print".)

I recently shot 24 frames with my 35mm. Dropped it off at a photolab around the corned. Got doubles - 48 prints, for less than $10. They would rival any DSLR "with" the grain...

-> No hours sitting in front of Photoshop
-> And, how many dollars worth of ink and paper would you
go through to make 48, 6X4 prints with a digital?

The photos were ready in an hour. I forgot how convenient film was. My rediscovery of the local lab after using digital for a couple years, made me question, "this is progress?" with regard to digital.

I was testing a used lens on my camera I got on eBay for $35. And my SLR wouldn't fetch $50 on eBay, yet it took photos that rival any DSLR.

Like I said. My digital sees very little use. Personally, I would only shoot digital if I was a commercial photographer who took LOTS of pictures to save on development.

But - to each his own.

You see that is it in a nutshell. I use medium format and am still willing to pay the price for film processing. I print all my prints lately at 16+20. I have even printed 24+36 with nice results. Now they say it is in the eye of the beholder. But when you walk up close and inspect a 16+20 print from medium format it holds up. I struggle with picking up a digital camera. I scan film but it is for web posting and fun. When I wanrt a print I usually have the negative scanned and printed. Sometimes I have darkroom prints made. I never worry about what to do with digital files because I always have the real thing to print from. I will say that digital has its advandges and there are some nice cameras out there. i have considered digital again but just for infrared. If I do that I will convert a D60 for that. I have wondered at times if I would give my medium format up for digital. No I would not. The only way I would give it up at this time would be for a Leica M7 with a 35 or 50 mm lens. At times I have considered that only because I already have many negative from medium format to print. Using the right film and careful thought I would not be afraid to print 16+20 in 35mm. Full well knowing the detail is not as good as with medium format. I know I would be able to print 11+14 easy. I donot see the quality in larger prints with digital that I see with film. Is it more trouble? Yes at times because I have to wait for my film and make sure I have film but It is still worth the effort if you do it for larger prints. I have much respect for those who use digital. They have found it works well for them. I may believe that for myself someday, just not yet. Monte Johnson.

From the gist of your remarks, shooting MF B&W film is a relatively new thing. And, as far as I am concerned to learn proficiency as a photographer it is a good experience and builds a firm foundation of understanding of the photographic process. In fact, my attitude would be the same for using entirely manual traditional cameras.

But for many of us, and I am referring to the countless e-mails I have received from Shutterbug readers, it is "been there, done that". I had a darkroom of one kind or another for about 40 years, and have had my fill of the smell of hypo.

But even 10 or 20 years ago surveys indicated a relatively small percentage of serious photo enthusiasts had their own darkrooms. For many of us as we get older, we live in condos or apartments that don't allow the freedom to have a darkroom. If you are married and want peace with your spouse temporarily converting a bathroom or laundry room to darkroom use is not always easily tolerated. And even friends and colleagues who are professionals, which involves having a business license identifying you as a photographer, invites regulation by the EPA which is both costly and onerous, and has caused many to close their darkroom operation.

So, for many who have already enjoyed the experience of film, of developing and making your own traditional prints, a computer, Photoshop and an inkjet printer opens up a new dimension, and often makes hands-on, do-it-yourself photography possible and viable, when traditional film based, darkroom photography would not be.

As you say to each his own, and the fact is for many digital has opened a door to being involved in photography, that would have been closed if limited to what was available 10-15 years ago. But it is not an either or proposition digital or film. You can and many do, still shoot on film and then scan and use Photoshop for all its advantages, and make prints digitally without needing a darkroom. A hybrid choice of the best of both worlds, even for the B&W enthusiast, there may be.

David,

There are many of us who forget who we are and why we are here. I sometimes get caught up in my own excitmemt that i forget to think of others, I use film because I can, but you are right many would not have discoverd the world of photography if digital had not happen. Being home a lot makes me understand how the computer and a digital camera opens up a world for some people they would never have. I forget how many older people have asked me about digital so they can email pictures of their grandchildren or when their families come have fond memories to hold while printing them from their small digital printers. I love what I do. It makes some days worth while that other wise would not be so good. Any and every form of expression from anyone should be recieved with open arms because we all have a day when we just need a little exceptance and encouragement. Thanks for pointing that out. Monte Johnson.

david, what you say about converting the second bath into a temporary dark room is quite true. It took longer to haul the stuff out of the closet and to set up than it did to make a print.
the computer has allowed me to have more control of the process with less waste of paper and at less cost than the traditional darkroom ever afforded.

Monte,

Thanks for reading and thinking about what I wrote. Although it is often engaging to debate from a defined and limited perspective, it is good to recognize we are all debating because we are involved in PHOTOGRAPHY, whether it involved traditional manual cameras or the latest electronically controlled automated whiz, whether we are capturing images digitally or on film, we are all making photographs in our own fashion.

Ronk,

Looking back when I had a darkroom and studio attached to my home, I know I did not really appreciate my wife's tolerance and good graces at the time, because I am sure my crawling into bed in the wee hours of the morning after a long night in the darkroom, and also smelling like it, was surely not her idea of an ideal married life.

When you can trade for a view camera?

Holy heck, with resolution at that size?!! (Salivate)

A tachihara is only 700 bucks. Sure, film might be pricy, but then again, like any art form, you really really REALLY have to THINK ABOUT YOUR IMAGE. Which makes for a much higher percentage of very impressive, gorgeous, hair raising pictures.

It's kinda zen like to work with a view camera. I just sit there, look. Think. Adjust. Look. Think. Dream a little. Kinda like painting. Very relaxing. No crazy complicated hardware. No nutty format, film or digital. No batteries! Just me and the image... and meditating on the image.

AUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.....................

Then... maybe then... I'll take the picture.

I get that with my Toyo 45CF. Hell, I even get it with my Hassy. Problem is, at my age, the lotus position is hard to get into and hell to get out of.......

Bill,

I agree with the considerations you describe as the birthdays have piled up. But there is one camera I regret selling when I finally closed my studio and darkroom. That was a 6x9cm Horseman field camera, which had a lightweight reflex mirror housing with a magnifying eyepiece. For a lot of the landscape and architectural subjects I like to photograph, that little Horseman would be nice now with a high resolution digital scanning back.

I have considered 4+5 format and pondered the thought offen, but the truth is I have limited time and energy for photography. Not only that I enjoy taking a lot of pictures to gain the perspective i want on the subjects I shoot. I think for me it would limit my purpose for what I do. If there is one place I see where digital is nice it is in the way I shoot, but I am happy at this time and feel 645 format is plenty exspensive let alone going to 4+5. Monte Johnson.

Monte, after you retire you'll look at time management a little differently. Trust me on this one!

Bill,
I am sure you are right on that one. It looks like that will be a while before I find out what its like. Monte Johnson.

When someone trades in MF for a digital Especially B&W users, Unless its a MF digital back and not a 35mm style digital SLR It makes me wonder why they were shooting MF in the first place!

"If one wants grain, it can be added digitaly!" Hmm touchy ground there, I am 20 and thats just not going to cut ice with me, thats all I am going to say.

Now I already own a digital camera, I unlike some other people I don't feel the need to go completely digital, its just handy to have it there when quantity is needed.

I don't think there's much argument to be made for medium format when the photographer shoots for publication. What's the average size of the photographs that appear in standard-format magazines? If you're shooting covers and full page ads, you should be shooting 4x5.

I believe that the argument here isn't about reliability of film cameras over DSLRs. It's about output size. Gallery-sized prints don't appear in magazines. Most catalogue (notice the qualifier here) image size isn't even full-page. I don't see the advantage of medium format over even a 6.1 mp camera in this case.

Re: reliability

If you're employed by your photography, you should have backup equipment, regardless of the capture medium.

If you're an amateur, you have a job of some sort, so you certainly CAN afford a backup camera. Who do you think supports the industry? Professionals? NO! It's the weekend shooters who have nice jobs in high rise buildings guys who can shell out $5,000.00 for a lens that may take him a little closer to divorce court. It's unthinkable that an amateur should complain about trivial things like unreliability and having to pay for new cameras and such. Without the amateurs, the fulltimers couldn't afford any of the great cameras on the market today.

While I'm on the subject, let me address the amateurs regarding broken equipment and replacement cameras, lenses, and flash units. YOU GUYS AREN'T GOING THROUGH EQUIPMENT AT NEARLY THE RATE YOU SHOULD BE! If more people broke their equipment and replaced it more often, the price of the 1DS MKII would have dropped considerably by now, and Canon's 5D wouldn't be selling for $3,300.00. So come on. The amateurs aren't working hard enough to bring the prices down! I wanna hear some impact noise!

But I digress...

I started out shooting film, and I started out as a generalist, and settled into a wedding-heavy business that also did commercial work.

I shot with a Mamiya 645 for the wedding formals and used 35mm for the rest of the weddings. For commercial work it was 4x5. Sometime around 1999, my commercial clients quit asking for 4x5 transparencies. They wanted digital files instead, so I bought a scanner.

Then I realized that the only reason why I brought a medium format camera to a wedding was for the sake of the competition. I rarely sold a reprint taken of the wedding group formals. When I closed the wedding end of my business in 2000, I was shooting mostly 4x5 in the studio and 35mm in the field. There wasn't enough difference in quality of output to justify lugging the Mamiya AND a tripod as long as I worked with the 35mm camera on the tripod. It has been five years since I used my Mamiya.

A year ago, I got a nice catalogue job shooting small products for a designers' consortium. The project required a fast turnaround on the work because of the price tag of the product. It came in one day and had to be out the next. It was expected that there would be 1-2 deliveries of goods per week, and about 18 pieces per delivery, and approximately three images per piece. It was expected that the job would run about four to six months.

I quoted the job with the notion of shooting it all on 4x5. Then I bought a 10D before the first group of jewelry came in. I realized that digital would save me both money and time with little (if any) sacrifice in quality. I merely had to rethink my technique.

And I had to learn the ins and outs of white balance. FAST.

In the end, for what I was using the 10D for, getting proper lighting, exposure, and white balance wasn't much more hassle than fooling with Polaroids, but it was a LOT cheaper.

For this scenario, I can't think of how ANY film format would have been advantageous.

Long story made interminable: I haven't used my medium format camera in five years, and it has been over a year since I shot 35mm. When I get around to buying a tilt/shift lens for the 10D I may even say buh-bye to the 4x5.

RE: anonymity. Nobody needs to know my name. And for that matter, how does anyone know that Bloo Dog ISN'T my real name?

I find the fact that Shutterbug publishes my ISP a bit disturbing. That's enough deterrent for me NOT to use my real name. Real name + ISP + Zaba Search= nutcase at the door in the middle of the night.

SB: ditch publication of the ISP. The webmaster needs to record ISPs for the purpose of blocking anonymizers and proxy addresses. Only the dink BBs publish an ISP!

Bloo Dog said:

Quote:
SB: ditch publication of the ISP. The webmaster needs to record ISPs for the purpose of blocking anonymizers and proxy addresses. Only the dink BBs publish an ISP!

I think that what he was ranting about was posting the IP address (that set of 4 numbers by the date/time stamp of the post. I agree with Bloo Dog. While this data should be available to the forums mods/system administrators (as an aid in tracking down abusive posters/spammers), it doesn't need to be seen by the average everyday Forum viewer.

Please make the IP addresses on the posts disappear.

-EdT.

Accepting, normalizing, inherent or intentionally built in obsolencents...is nothing short of stupidity. Buying junk at any price will not change the pitfalls and obsolencents of a socio-economic system that should have had the chapter closed on it 240 years ago. We have become not only a disposable society, we have disposed of or common sense and rational thinking as well. I have considered getting back into photography...after much research, reviews, etc...I really don't know what format I would go to...perhaps I will continue to live simplistically and read few reviews and blogs. Accepting a camera breaking in 1 year due to a malfunctioning widget...then applauding the company for free repairs might sound reasonable to many...while don't they make edible cameras, when it breaks...simply eat it rather than puting more toxic crap into an already toxic environment.

Ed,

Thanks for the support about ISP addresses. They've gotta go.

Actually, my rant was about amateurs not going through equipment fast enough. Camera bags are made better and more affordable these days, so I think consumers need to be a little more adventurous with their digital equipment in order to stimulate manufacturing, thus lowering prices. Planning a family trip to The Great Smoky Mountains? Sheesh. Change plans. Visit the Amazon. Upon your return, you'll open your battery and CF card doors and remove your lens caps and find LOTS of incentive to replace every one of your cameras and lenses!

Ed,

I am usually castigated for being excessively liberal, but on this issue I must argue for a conservative position. What too many argue for on the basis of "privacy" is really being anonymous, and being anonymous is socially irresponsible, destructive and cowardly.

I believe no one should be allowed in a public forum to hide behind anonymity. If people cannot put their identity behind what they say they should not have a voice. In the past if a person wanted to say something in public they had to show their face and be prepared to defend what they said face to face.

Now anyone can hide behind a pseudonym without any accountability and say anything no matter how untrue without any consequence. That is both cowardly and irresponsible and destroys people's confidence in public discourse. It make a place like this forum no more value than what goes on inside the Beltway of Washington DC.

People have the right to go into their homes, close the door, lock it, and expect their privacy to be honored. But when they go out of that door in public expectations of privacy are an absurd fantasy that's only supported because anonymity is such a pervasive part of a mass society. I think most people are pretty disgusted by what society has become, so maybe it is not a good idea to promote a factor that has contributed so much to its perversion.

I absolutely agree that nobody should be able to hide behind anonymity. Yet neither is it necessary to display a key to every aspect of one's personal life every time one chats in a public forum.

If someone is abusing the privleges of the forum, then the moderators have every tool they need to put a stop to it. But it's not necessary to display that information for everyone to see.

Sorry for keeping this forum off-topic for yet another post, but as a professional computer geek who would have little trouble in getting your personal information from Covad's San Diego office if I really wanted to, I felt it appropriate to comment on this one.

Quote:

I believe no one should be allowed in a public forum to hide behind anonymity. If people cannot put their identity behind what they say they should not have a voice. In the past if a person wanted to say something in public they had to show their face and be prepared to defend what they said face to face.

People have the right to go into their homes, close the door, lock it, and expect their privacy to be honored. But when they go out of that door in public expectations of privacy are an absurd fantasy that's only supported because anonymity is such a pervasive part of a mass society. I think most people are pretty disgusted by what society has become, so maybe it is not a good idea to promote a factor that has contributed so much to its perversion.

David,

Society is constituted of your "most people." If you are saying that society is being pulled about by the nose by a small minority, you may be onto something. This is precisely why I am against the publication of ISPs. This information is too easily abused.

Let me tell you MY experience with the internet. I began utilizing the internet just when the net and news groups were becoming widely popular-- about 1989. I used my legal name online on bulletin boards. I did NOT know that I share a name with a regionally famous glamor photographer. Some nut whose girlfriend posed for this photographer was surfing the net trying to find the photographer who took the nude pictures. The boyfriend was such a nutcase that his search took him out of his county, out of his state and across 2,000+ miles to another coast. All he had was my name and the fact that I am a photographer.

Long story cut short: the guy sent me an email, then left death threats on my answering machine.My phone company traced the call for me after the second call. I contacted his state's DA who picked him up after I filed a complaint. In this guy's mind, I must have been the photographer in question because I was the only one to file a complaint.

A month later: RING RING! YOU SO-AND SO! I'm in (neighboring city) and I know where you live! I'm watching you! It's just a matter of time!!!

I call his DA's office again. I never heard back from the DA. Three weeks later, I call the DA and I find out that this guy had gone on a terror streak, calling as many people who have my name as he could find. The guy is back in jail. Great.

I think it was almost a year later, and my HOME phone rings. It's an automated dialing service from a prison in a state that is adjacent to mine. Great. The guy ISN'T 2,000 miles away. He's less than 200 miles away.

Will you accept the call? Press one if you accept the call, press nine to end the call.

I called the out-of-state DA's office to find out what was going on. After a few weeks and several phone calls, I find out that the nut WAS in an adjacent state, but was being extradited back to Nut Country, USA and was facing charges on communicating threats and probably wouldn't be getting out any time soon because of that state's three-strikes-and-you-re out law.

It was a terrifying experience, David, and no amount of money can get me to put my name online again. Sure, there are hundreds of Joe P. Smithskoviches in the U.S.., but there only four of them in my state. It is very easy to obtain the geographic location of a person's service provider. Nail the geographic info, and you've eliminated a lot of Joe P. Smithkoviches.

"...But when they go out of that door in public expectations of privacy are an absurd fantasy that's only supported because anonymity is such a pervasive part of a mass society..."

I'm sitting in the privacy of my home right now. I am typing something onto a screen which will appear on someone else's screen. I have not left my premises. I have merely communicated with others who are (for all I know) communicating under assumed names (except you, of course). That I am communicating in a public forum does not mean that I give up my right to privacy. If I DO leave my home,however, I do not give up my right to privacy, nor do I give up my right to free speech.

That's not an absurd fantasy. That's constitutional law.

David, while I respect your opinion and your desire for openness, I think that you are a bit naive.

Bloo Dog

Bloo Dog,

My response may seem in a way insulting but it is not intended to be, it is just the truth as I know it.

We all have to protect ourselves from threats in some way, at least to consider and know what they are and come to a rational resolution as to how best to deal with the potential problem. However every action of a defensive nature has its consequences.

Personally I have been very exposed as a member of the photo magazine press for over 30 years and there have been quite a few somewhat deranged people who have tried to attack or harass me for whatever reason they imagined. I do not publish my residence address for that reason, nor did I have a listed phone when I was in Hollywood.

However becoming anonymous out of fear is to me like hiding in a cave , you give up your own freedom to be who you are to be safe, as well as sacrifice much of your credibility and the veracity of what you believe and say. That's too high a price for a modicum of security which to me is just an illusion anyway.

I am sure you probably are not my namesake, but the aggrieved boyfriend of a model is something I dealt with more than once. I photographed models, actresses, dancers, comediennes singer all kinds of entertainers and show people for most of my 30 years in Hollywood until I left 16 years ago. But the greatest danger from a model's boyfriend, one's who did drugs and were not above burglary to finance a habit was theft. My studio was hit at least three of five robberies by model's boyfrieds I am sure for that reason. Interestingly half of the studios I had I lived in or next to, and none of them was ever burglarized.

If there is a potential problem on the internet, which by the way is much safer than any street in a big city, can be precluded without having to use anonymity. the technology is available it just costs a bit and requires a little effort. You can use the internet without exposing your own computer's address.

Finally, there is far more to be cautious of that a stranger might undertake than someone who knows who you are. People deranged enough to stalk someone is pretty rare because it itself is illegal as you noted so you can obtain protection legally and justifiably. The unknown assailant is much more dangerous and likely and your being anonymous provides no protection form that.

The price you pay in what you lose of yourself by hiding behind anonymity is far too high for the illusion of safety that is gained. The assumption that you have gained privacy by assuming anonymity is pure self delusion.

The internet would be a much friendlier, more secure and sociable environment if it required absolute, water-tight identity that could not be concealed to be able to participate. And nearly all of the fraud and spamming would disappear.

Americans are so backwards some times. Most object to identity cards and biometrics used to verify identity. But most Americans fail to understand many innocent people are in jail because of being misidentified, and many more find themselves in difficulty sometimes because the average American cannot prove readily and positively who they are or that they are a citizen.

I understand this because I am inadvertently lucky. I was not born in the US but my parents were US citizens, so I have an official US State Department document with my picture and fingerprints with a registration number that declares I am a natural born citizen by derivation. It has gotten me through tight situations when even a passport was not sufficient. Most people should think about the possibility of having their identity and citizenship questioned and what they really have that proves it.

Your identity is your freedom, give up your identity and you give up your freedom and who your are.

Bloo Dog,

I can certainly understand your reaction to a very bad experience. But for me, it's a matter of credibility. I tend to take anything I see on the internet with a large lump of salt. If the source is anonymous, the lump becomes the entire salt mine. In other words, credibility zero. So, continue on if you must. You have freedom of speech. I have freedom of rejection.

On the issue of ISPs: We have had several posters here, all generically known as "Mr. Anonymous" (or, maybe "Ms. Anonymous", who knows?) Sometimes, you can sort them out by writing style, but mostly you can't keep them straight without the ISPs. Very frustrating at times.

The bottom line is that this is Shutterbug's forum, and it's their call. We are guests in their house, so to speak, and if we're not happy with the house rules....well, there are other forums.

Quote:
Bloo Dog,

... But for me, it's a matter of credibility. I tend to take anything I see on the internet with a large lump of salt. If the source is anonymous, the lump becomes the entire salt mine. In other words, credibility zero...

On the issue of ISPs: We have had several posters here, all generically known as "Mr. Anonymous" (or, maybe "Ms. Anonymous", who knows?) Sometimes, you can sort them out by writing style, but mostly you can't keep them straight without the ISPs.

Would I be more credible if I posted under the name Joe Smithkovich? I would hope not.

Posting the IP address won't necessarily help anyone keep the casual observer keep track of online cranks. Some internet services assign a new address every time a subscriber logs onto the service. That's called a dynamic IP.

One may say, oh, well, then, a different IP address assures anonymity. Not so.

Furthermore, publishing a dynamic IP creates further problems for the innocent bystander who MIGHT be assigned the IP of someone who offended someone else at one time. All anyone would have to do to try to track the offender by Googling an IP and BINGO! Mistaken identity! (If you have a dynamic IP, google it and see how many times the number comes up and what name it has been assigned to on BBs that publish names).

This is no hogwash. I am far from an expert in the field of internet technology, but I know what I can do to cross an internet service provider address with a published name accompanied by a published IP address.

I realize that my responses are way off-topic and probably should be moved to their own thread. This is a valid issue for a fledgling BB; I do believe that the forum would increase in active membership if the IP addresses weren't published. I've seen it happen on other boards. Once the IP's are removed, more people respond.

Quote:
Ed,

I am usually castigated for being excessively liberal, but on this issue I must argue for a conservative position. What too many argue for on the basis of "privacy" is really being anonymous, and being anonymous is socially irresponsible, destructive and cowardly.

I believe no one should be allowed in a public forum to hide behind anonymity. If people cannot put their identity behind what they say they should not have a voice. In the past if a person wanted to say something in public they had to show their face and be prepared to defend what they said face to face.

Now anyone can hide behind a pseudonym without any accountability and say anything no matter how untrue without any consequence. That is both cowardly and irresponsible and destroys people's confidence in public discourse. It make a place like this forum no more value than what goes on inside the Beltway of Washington DC.

People have the right to go into their homes, close the door, lock it, and expect their privacy to be honored. But when they go out of that door in public expectations of privacy are an absurd fantasy that's only supported because anonymity is such a pervasive part of a mass society. I think most people are pretty disgusted by what society has become, so maybe it is not a good idea to promote a factor that has contributed so much to its perversion.

David,

I am not asking for complete anonymity. If the Board moderators want to require people to register in order to post, then they certainly have that right (and, personally, I agree with you that people SHOULD be required to register in order to post.)

That being said... there are a number of reasons that having the posting IP address displayed on the message is NOT a good idea. One of those reasons is that, in a world where many IP addresses are assigned dynamically and changed periodically by ISP fiat, one can end up "inheriting" an IP address that was used to make a particularly outlandish posting. Another is that, while this information is of no use to 99.999% of end users, there are two classes of people who find it useful: system administrators (who may need it for troubleshooting purposes or to track down malicious users) and online stalkers (who have their own agenda, and one that isn't always very nice IMHO.)

If the Board moderators want to keep the data (it is available in the web server logs if needed) then OK, simply don't display it for every Tom, Dick and Harry to see.

-EdT.

Ed,

You have done an excellent job of defining what issues are what and the specifics relating to the IP address as a potential problem for users. As you have stated the issue I would have to agree. So now this issue is clearly defined and stated, let's see if the administrators and webmaster will and can respond. Being a corporately sponsored site there are other factors which I am sure must be taken into consideration, which sometimes do not favor quality of forum experience by users over numbers.

Shouldn't this get back on topic.

Is this thread about people going across MF digital or down to 35mm digital?

I like thinking I'm speaking with David Brooks. In time I will likely come to believe its really true. You cannot hide your core beliefs and they will in time reveal who you really are.

With that said, I love my medium format cameras even tho they don't get used a lot any more. My digital allows me to practice a lot cheaply. But I do enjoy setting up and using my medimun formats.

I've an N70 that I gave to a niece that want's to fool around and I've an F5 that I don't use but will likely keep. I've also an X-Pan that I love and use it for panoramics that count. Those digital ones are neat but, in some they leave things out. Did a digital off my sisters deck and lost a couple trees somehow.

I lost a Minolta SR1, a Nikon FG and a Yashica 635 in a house fire several years ago, I truely miss them as they were fun.

By the way, my name really is Don Fischer. I can't talk fast enough to get any girls to let me take their photo nude and wouldn't if they'd let me! I quit an art class when I was a kid because they wanted me to draw a naked girl. Hell I was having trouble with flowers!!!!!!!!!!!

Don,

You posted a message in reply to something AJUK posted, so I don't know why you thought you were addressing me. And from the content of the message I cannot recall posting anything relevant to your message.

However, if you have something to say in response to something I posted, I'd be glad to respond if I can.

David,

Had to look and see what I'd done! Actually it was a response to both of you. You had a fairly long post earlier about using your own name as aposed to made up screen names. I agree and was using your name as it was right there for me to look at. I think it's nice to have some idea who your talking to. I accesing little credibality to blind authors. Now I'm aware this David Brooks may not be the real one, but, in time it'll show, you just can't hide core values long nor can you disguise beliefs long. I could have used someone elses name but your's was immediately recognizeable. Sorry about the confussion. You ought to see some of my screw-ups!

The other stuff was in response to that other guy I think.

I am sue this is relevant in some way, I remember reading an artical on a website where a guy compared large format to a Canon EOS 1Ds MKII, The large format beat the Canon, no argument about it, he then went on for ages about why he was switching to the Canon anyway, alot, but not all, of his arguments would have been answers to an extent if he had used medium format 20 years ago, I never understood it.

I guess this thread isn't about trading medium format equipment for digital anymore.

I have a Hasselblad 500 CM with 80mm and 120mm macro lenses for sale and am using the money I get for it to upgrade my digital camera.

Larry, I can see why many are selling their medium format cameras for digital, but don't you think it is still a compromise between better quality from film to the easier format of digital with no film cost and processing cost. I admit digital is getting better, but still think medium format is worth the trouble and expense. Monte Johnson.

Depends on what you're shooting and what it's to be used for. I originally purchased the Hasselblad and 120 macro for shooting still lifes to sell at art shows. I've gone on since I created that body of work (about six years ago) and no longer use the camera. Whenever I take the time and shoot, it's to add to my current bodies of work that I'm using to get into shows and to sell.

I'm tired of digital SLR cameras that have built in quality limitations. My D70 is up for sale also and I'm seriously thinking of getting a high end Canon DSLR that doesn't need interpolation for a 4096 pixel file. That is the minimum requirement for converting digital images into 35mm slides. Most labs use a 4K film recorder that accepts or interpolates files to 4096x2730. I want a camera that will let me capture that resolution, after whatever cropping and rotating is necessary. The 1DS Mark II will give me that with a 25% safety zone. I might wait until Canon replaces their top of the line and then look at one.

Larry, you make agood point here. I am glad to finally hear someone say the way it really is. Digtial is a wonderful tool,but if you cannot afford to shoot the high end of digital then I do not see the purpose. I have struggled in what to do concerning film or digital. I looked at the 500CM and 501CM but finally decided for now on a Rolleiflex GX.I figures even if I switch to digital someday the Rollei will always be a classic with a great lens. I bought it used for about the price of a Canon 20D.but figured that unless I could purchase the 5D then I was not interested in digital. I can do this because it is a hobby. The main factor for me was knowing that for what I paid for the GX I should not lose money on it down the road. Besides the Zeiss 2.8 Planar was a factor also. The move to digital seems to be a panic for many like they will miss out on something if they don't join the parade. I see how exciting and inviting digital can be, but I will enjoy film now while I can because I figure with the advancments in obtaining shadow detail in digital it is only a matter of time they are equal to medium format. Down side now is I feel for the money I cannot justify the move. For now I will enjoy the simple operation of a TLR and yes live with its limitations, but in the end I will enjoy the results. My perspective on this is based solely on what I desire and my needs. For many digital is the answer to their needs for productivity and quick turnarounds. Digital is cost effective and just saves alot of time. So you see I cannot hold it against anyone who switches to digital because it makes sense. For myself I just want to wait longer until I have no doubts the money I invest will give me the results I want. Monte Johnson.

I think there'll be a resurgence of medium format users when more "pro" labs become digital and begin processing and scanning medium format film. I'd go back to medium format solely because it's easier to set up than the 4x5 is and it isn't a light hog like large format bellows cameras are. I hate the 36 miles driving that film use requires of me. My pro lab is eight miles away, but I have to travel eight miles x 4 for every film job.

For now, however, I use 4x5 when I need the shifts and tilts and the tonal gradation afforded by the view camera. It's still 8 miles x 4 no matter what film format I use.

For most of my work I use my 10D, shoot the job, go to my computer, make adjustments to the files, upload the files to my local camera store (who does GREAT work), and then pick up the prints from the neighborhood lab in an hour. Or, (depending upon the job) I can just upload the file to the client, and wait for balance of payment.

For me, digital capture represents economy of time.

I just wish someone made an economical digital back for my remaining Mamiya 645 and lenses.

I know what you mean. Film ihas it's drawbacks when dealing with labs,waiting for processing and travel time., but I think it is worth it in print. I feel better every time I get a 16+20 print made. Monte Johnson.

I have an old rolieflex I still enjoy Taking film pictures and I have elan 7 and digital rebel 350D, Digital is great for quick processing but I think Film pictures have cleaner and seems more depth to them than digital.