How many candles are knotched on your belt

[SCraig]

I'll be 61 in October and also started back in the film and darkroom days of the mid 60's. I worked in a camera shop (those were stores that actually sold cameras and lenses and film and such) when I was 14 and got to play with pretty much anything in the store. I shot B&W for years and then switched to color in the 70's when it became feasible to process it in a small darkroom. I still have all my darkroom gear but it's been in boxes in the basement for many years.

I think it would be so beneficial for many people to use a completely manual camera for a while. No built-in metering, no autofocus, no histogram on the LCD Display, no nothing except their minds. Every day I see people struggling with exposure and focus using completely automated cameras, and I honestly believe that if they would put them down and use something completely manual for a month or two they would come back to their automatic cameras with an entirely new vision. They would have LEARNED exposure, not just read about it or skimmed over the concepts, but they would have LEARNED it. Or they would have absolutely nothing to show for their efforts.

 

[zombiemann]

I'll be 35 the end of September. My only darkroom experience was in high school in Graphical Communications class using this HUGE beast of a bellows camera to make negatives to be used in making offset press plates. The back of the camera was one wall of the darkroom. I got to the point where I was fairly adept at taking the negatives and developing them without supervision from the teacher. We had all sorts of silk screen and other stuff like that, and I was the only one interested in using the offset press. The principle was so glad to hear that someone had actually taken an interest in the machine that I got put to work printing the school newspaper for extra credit. I didn't think much of it at the time, but looking back through "adult" eyes, I can't imagine how much extra that cost the school as opposed to xeroxing them.

 

[mishele]

Double Nickles on the next click.

Well, at least I still have all my hair.

You clean up real nice.

 

[Forkie]

On the wrong side of 29 here and have always used digital. I never bothered getting into film - I can't be bothered with the rigmarole. I'm just more interested in the end result than the developing process and want my results immediately!

 

[Stradawhovious]

36. I'm just mediocre at photography, always will be, and I'm OK with that.

 

[MTVision]

I'm 28 - my last day of being 28 ;(

Don't remember my first camera - bought my first one when I was 16 and worked at a photo lab. Just started getting really interested in photography in the last year or so.

 

[rexbobcat]

Back in the day there was a saying "a picture doesn't lie". I'm not so sure that saying is valid today. Today it seems the image can be proceesed as far to the right, or to the left, of reality as you wish. It seems the line between "photography" and art is growing thinner and thinner. I didn't make that last statement to be bashed. I realize photography, particularly fine printing has been an "art" for many years, but when I see the results of a HDR look more like a painting then a photo, I ask myself, is that really photography or is that art.

The line has been thin since forever. A famous Civil War photographer (Google him, can't remember his name) used to move bodies and place them in more "pleasing" positions.

The camera only interprets. It doesn't tell the truth.

And there have been photoshop-esque darkroom edit for a long time as well

 

[Vortex421]

I'm 28 and started in film photography when I was about 14 and my grandfather got me a 35mm camera (can't remember the brand - off-brand) for Christmas one year. I took pictures like mad but the cost to develop pictures was often more than my meager allowance could afford. Kinda fell out of photography when I got into high school and got back into it somewhat in college but started shifting towards digital using point and shoots. Finally saved the money for a Digital Rebel XTi earlier this year and away I've gone!

I think that the camera is a great tool for telling a story and capturing a moment. I also think that the prevalence of cameras everywhere (cell phones, MP3 players, cell phones that are MP3 players...) has really cheapened the art and role of photography - as Animaniac so aptly put it (13? Are you sure? ). Digital cameras are nice because you don't have to worry about paying for film developing and have a lot of the developing tools at your fingertips... but on the flip side, there is still a lot of knowledge about darkrooms that has to be passed along to make it work right.

 

[momo3boys]

I'm 34, and my first real camera was a Nikon 6006. I love that camera and if I could afford my own dark room I would totally have more fun with film! In highschool we developed B&W and I loved it!

 

[JAC526]

I'm 28 and started with a loaned Panasonic GH1. Decided to go film b/c I didn't want to chase the digital technology constantly.

Now my serious camera is an RB67. But I did go back to m4/3 with an oly EPL2 which I love.

I have a lot to learn but am eager to soak as much in as possible.

 

[snowbear]

I'm 53 in human years. I played with an old brownie when I was about 8. My first "real" camera was a Minolta Hi-Matic 7S that I got for a birthday present - probably around 1975. I learned a few darkroom basics in High School. I recently graduated from college where I took two film an one digital photo classes.

I currently shoot film with a Nikon N90S, and use a D40 for digital. I find computers (in general) almost second nature, as I was a COBOL programmer for a number of years.

 

[Rick58]

Back in the day there was a saying "a picture doesn't lie". I'm not so sure that saying is valid today. Today it seems the image can be proceesed as far to the right, or to the left, of reality as you wish. It seems the line between "photography" and art is growing thinner and thinner. I didn't make that last statement to be bashed. I realize photography, particularly fine printing has been an "art" for many years, but when I see the results of a HDR look more like a painting then a photo, I ask myself, is that really photography or is that art.

The line has been thin since forever. A famous Civil War photographer (Google him, can't remember his name) used to move bodies and place them in more "pleasing" positions.

The camera only interprets. It doesn't tell the truth.

And there have been photoshop-esque darkroom edit for a long time as well

You're absolutely right and I guess you would have to throw the original hand coloring of B&W photos in the same pot. Hmmm, come to think of it, I guess that hand coloring was the original photoshopping...lol