WHO HAS SOME BEAUTIFUL PICTURES TO SHARE?????

[SenorNoob]

New desktop background...

 

[DeeRanger]

Alaska’s Iliamna Volcano.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

At the Sturgis Mustang Rally

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

 

[Snoranger]

Taken at the top of Cinnamon Pass in Colorado.

 

[SenorNoob]

Ya'll are changing my desktop backgrounds regularly now... THANKS!

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

 

[Snoranger]

Ya'll are changing my desktop backgrounds regularly now... THANKS!

How do you think I feel? My daughter took 1,374 pics on this Vagabond Adventure.

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

 

[ShhhhhDougsHere]

How do you think I feel? My daughter took 1,374 pics on this Vagabond Adventure.

At least you don't got to pay for film.
And have to pay for the pictures to be developed as well.

 

[Robertmangrum.rm]

Seemed like wveey turn you took in Colorado had a new horizon to admire.

 

[Snoranger]

At least you don't got to pay for film.
And have to pay for the pictures to be developed as well.

I thought about that already. Just the film alone would have cost over $1000. That doesn’t include developing the negatives.

 

[RobbieD]

I thought about that already. Just the film alone would have cost over $1000. That doesn’t include developing the negatives.

Digital imaging is better than film photography. That's a no-brainer, even to a cynical old dinosaur such as myself.

I took photography classes back in high school.

Back then taking pics involved figuring out shutter speed and f-stop settings; only the real good cameras had built-in light meters, then later on they became automatically self-setting. Developing film and making prints depended a lot on using secretive alchemy potions and magic spells and rituals, and you had to have a special dark room.

Otherwise you dropped film off at the drug store or Fotomat, waited forever before dropping a good chunk of your paycheck for the pics, only then to find out how many were usable and how many were bad.

Crude, yeah; but it sure was fun.

Just don't get me going, though, on LPs and 8-tracks . . .

 

[Snoranger]

Digital imaging is better than film photography. That's a no-brainer, even to a cynical old dinosaur such as myself.

I took photography classes back in high school.

Back then taking pics involved figuring out shutter speed and f-stop settings; only the real good cameras had built-in light meters, then later on they became automatically self-setting. Developing film and making prints depended a lot on using secretive alchemy potions and magic spells and rituals, and you had to have a special dark room.

Otherwise you dropped film off at the drug store or Fotomat, waited forever before dropping a good chunk of your paycheck for the pics, only then to find out how many were usable and how many were bad.

Crude, yeah; but it sure was fun.

Just don't get me going, though, on LPs and 8-tracks . . .

My father worked nights at a photo processing plant repairing the equipment, they had to work in low light levels so it didn’t ruin an entire batch of prints. Specific sections of the plant ran in total darkness, other parts had different color lighting. IIRC, non of the wiring was color-coded, it all had the be labeled. Color-coding doesn’t work very well when the lights are all red.