ChrisLumix

Here's a site to cheer you up then http://twistedsifter.com/2013/10/animations-show-how-faces-age-over-time/

Tell you what - soon as you have the CD, post it to Phil here and get him to put them up

In that case, when you have the film processed, make sure that you don't get the prints also on a CD as jpegs, or what you will have is effectively a digicam ... no challenge at all!

I would have inverted it anyway, as it is clearly negative - but if you hadn't put the idea of desaturating into my head, I'm not so sure I would have done that

There was an EOS 1000 - could it be that? http://www.canon.com/camera-museum/camera/film/data/1991-1995/1992_eos1000s_qd.html?lang=eu&categ=crn&page=1991-1995 Dave, are you sure 'F' stands for 'film'? That would be rather odd since Canon were making film cameras long before their F series professional range. I would have thought it was more due to rivalry with Nikon and their F.

I'm not sure how old the Canon 100d is? Certainly, by the time of the Canon AE1, your only concern would be focusing manually, as everything else was automatic and it had a very good metering system. I just Googled - the Canon 100d is an EOS series SLR, so much later than the AE1! It may even have auto-focus, so no different from a digicam except you can't vary the ISO to suit the shot.

I took your picture into Photoshop, inverted and desaturated - so I wasn't so clever in the end!

It's clearly metal, probably iron? and appears to be a chain link or something similar. It's not part of an ancient dog lead is it?

Wasn't Chris Rea going to join Dire Straits at one point? But it fell through : "Chris Straits" just didn't have a ring to it, and they weren't going to use the other option...

Sad day.

If that's the far end of your kit lens (like the great old Tamron 28-80 zoom) then it will probably serve you well, and any slight softening over a prime lens will a) suit the occasion, and b) can be ironed out in Photoshop if necessary with an Unsharp Mask set to 50-100% at 0.5 pixels.

Hi Ronnie - Welcome to the forum

Fascinating article that Dave - thanks. By the same token, I've heard that the Zorki 4 is an exact replica of the Leica IIIb and probably owed its existence to the same reason - Russian takeover of East German camera factories, or their wholesale transportation to Russia.

Well done Bugs.

Was the Kiev roll film camera any relation to the Kiev imitation-Contax cameras prevalent in the 1970s? (I guess not, if it's an American company...?)

aka Photoshop, for anyone still in their 30s

Ha! A show from before you were even born

SECONDED!!

This is why I use orange-brown text! Am I the only one who finds grey on dark grey very difficult to read? (Grey on black - i.e. where our avatar name is - is better).

Yes, both I'd say. Because film was so much more expensive (including D&P) and fiddly, I think we were much more careful when taking pictures. Now we may tend to take a dozen pictures instead of two, hoping for a 'keeper'. And if you're a squirrel like me, you keep them anyway!

Dave, we overlapped. Would you have a look back at my post? Thanks!

Lightroom and Photoshop are essentially two different kinds of program. Photoshop evolved as a photo manipulator but grew into an overall graphics program - you can create images there, plus text, without any photographic image to start with. As a result, it is layer based and its ability to make selections is a logical inherent aspect of what it does. Photographs are only part of what Photoshop is about. Lightroom, on the other hand, is specifically for photographers, in terms of organising, making adjustments such as you would have been able to do in a traditional darkroom. Therefore layer-based processing simply isn't relevant to what it offers. If you want to manipulate one of your images beyond the 'normal photographic', you would use Photoshop or Elements. Lightroom is Adobe's version of Apple's Aperture, which is simply iPhoto but all grown up. You could also think of Lightroom as the serious photographer's Picasa. But all of these are a relatively new kind of "photographer's program" which fulfilled a basic need which Photoshop had long outgrown, having begun in the days before digital cameras were in widespread use, and before hard drives became large enough to store all the digital photographs we now take for granted. Photoshop was never the sort of program to meet the basic organising and image tweaking needs of most photographers.

Is it? I don't know much about it - I do know that Photoshop 9 (CS2) is not a million miles away from Photoshop 7, which I also used to have. I haven't followed what the later versions offer as I can't afford them.

Welcome Dennis

I'd disagree purely with that assessments of PSE. It is, after all, a cut-down version of Photoshop, and therefore cannot be defined as a "wannabe". I do use PSE6 and CS2 - there are some sophisticated tools in Photoshop that simply aren't in Elements, but PSE6 is laid out better than CS2 and there are one or two things in there that CS2 doesn't have.