Hereare a few of mine. No fancy equipment; camera is a Canon SX40 Powershot.
Nicely done.
Dragonflies! So cool.
beowulff, thanks for the details. On the photo tour I took to Newfoundland, I was asked if I hung any of my photos around the house, and I said no because I vastly prefer the paintings, woodcuts, etc. we already have (I consider those real art and enjoy them quite a bit). We do have a desktop digital photo frame that’s nice, but don’t use it much.
If I could rig up something like what you have (with perhaps one or two different photos a day), that would pretty cool, though. I am like your wife - having something up longer is appealing, but the effects on a monitor are a concern.
:eek:
I’m not sure I’d have the presence of mind to take a shot if I was being attacked by a crocodile. I might hit it with the camera, though! 
Those are gorgeous.
I’ve never joined Flickr - I put the occasional shot on 500px (my page is here now and again. Is Flickr worth being on?
I’ve been semi-serious about photography since I bought my Canon AE1 in 1980 (I still have it). Currently I own a Nikon D80 and a Nikon D7200. My plan was to trade in the D80 when I bought the 7200, but I nearly had tears in my eyes when crunch time came; I realized how much learning I had done on it and got all sentimental.
Anyway, I would consider myself a serious amateur (though I have sold some of my work). I even came in first place in a (legit) contest that netted me $300.
But the more I learn, the more I realize I don’t know.
I’ve done family and portrait shoots, but I most love landscapes and rusty architecture. Gimme an old barn or a sketchy industrial building and I’ll do my best to turn it into a piece of art.
Sunsets bore me.
I would love to take a week long vacation that just focused (heh) on photography.
mmm
Do it. It’s hard work, but you will learn a lot.
I do it for two weeks at a time at least once a year.
Mostly in Yellowstone.
I think everyone on my side of the boat, including me, needed a change of underwear. Man, those things are fast!
On another note, anyone fancy a six-thousand dollar Leica digital camera with no screen? The idea is apparently to give the feel of shooting film. I think that they should have limited it to 24 exposures per memory card.
I had the opportunity back in the pre-digital days to use a 35mm Leica rangefinder for a brief time. Leica without a doubt makes wonderful cameras, though I learned from that experience that I definitely prefer a focusing screen if given a choice.
When it comes to digital, I don’t like to shoot from a screen at all, which is my one complaint with the little Sony I have. My eyesight is one issue and another is not being able to see the screen well under certain lighting conditions. I bought the Canon video camera I have because it has a viewfinder. So I can see a preference for that.
So I guess here the advantage is skipping the hassle and limitations of shooting and developing film while still offering a film-like experience. That might be nice without the $6,000 entry fee …
Yeah, I’m a viewfinder person myself as well. I was in a store recently with a Canon sales rep trying to convince me I didn’t need one, and that all the cool kids were shooting with the screen these days.
Oh, sure. I do not like shooting with the LCD screen (and, with my dSLRs, the only time I do is if I’m setting up a shot from a very low angle where I just can’t get my eye to the viewfinder), but there’s a lot of purpose for the LCD screen that does not have anything to do with framing and taking the picture.
The snarky side of me just wants to say save your $6000 and just put some black gaffer tape over the LCD screen if you want that “film-like” experience.
I’m strictly amateur. I use a Canon 50D. I have a few lenses, the best being a 300L F4. Mostly I take wildlife photo’s.
The most humorous thing I do is pretend to be a professional photographer at the Cincinnati Tennis tournament. I have the big lens so all the event staff assume I’m there to work. They let me sit in front row seats. I have a range of stories that I tell people (“Just shooting stock photos today.” or “Oh, I work for Tennis Weekly.”)
The best was when a Belgian journalist asked me to come to the Kim Clisters post match interview to take some pictures for him. (I declined, but didn’t let on that I was not accredited.)
Same here. I like my horizons level, for one thing, which I find more difficult to achieve with a screen. I’m also better at composition through the viewfinder.
Does anybody feel that they’ve gotten lazier with digital over film? I think I used to take more care with composition with film, as there were a limited number of frames on a roll. Digital is nice, because you can bracket and shoot a larger number, of course.
I never got into film - all my experience is digital, but I can see your point. One idea I’ve had is to either limit myself to 24 exposures in an outing… force myself to consider each shot carefully. I’ve not tried that yet, but I’m interested to see what the results would be.
On the viewfinder thing, it occurred to me after I posted that I do enjoy using my phone as a camera (as I mentioned upthread) which doesn’t have a viewfinder - but I think that’s more because I know I’m getting a shot I wouldn’t get otherwise, because my phone is usually the only camera I’m carrying. Something portable, with a viewfinder, much better ergonomics, a nice sensor… I feel some GAS coming on…
On the flip side, you’re afforded more opportunity to take chances, make mistakes, and learn from them.
It’s an interesting question and something I have pondered about a lot. I was never a conservative shooter with film, but my output using digital is probably, on average, five times more than what I would shoot with film.
Digital certainly does allow you to be more careless, since you no longer have to think so much in terms of film and development costs, nor how far you are from the end of the roll of film and timing that film change just right if you’re shooting a live, fast-moving event. You can just “run and gun” and work it out later. Not taking photos thoughtfully is a bad thing, of course.
That said, similarly, you can take more chances. You can experiment more. You can shoot through moments of peak action and follow-up moments of reaction without worrying about being in the middle of a film change. I think digital photography is one of the greatest learning tools to becoming a good photographer, if you take advantage of it. By that, I mean, take the photos, actually review the photos, see what experiments worked and which didn’t, and incorporate what you’ve learned into the next shoot.
The problem comes when people just point the camera, take a lot of pictures, and then don’t learn anything from them. Having a financial incentive like film & development costs does help in slowing you down and forcing you to learn. But it doesn’t have to be that way. You can do it with digital–you just have to be smart and disciplined about it.
If I’m honest, I’m prone to the “snap first, think later” mindset. I see something, think “ooh pretty” and shoot. When I do force myself to slow down, to consider the shot, I’m usually happier with the results.