DISQUS

Honestly, you people are more concerned with the photographer's choice of aesthetic than the subject themselves. This photograph is not about Delano showing how clever he is or whether or not he shot RAW or JPEG or whether they are sharp at 100%. THIS, is what is wrong with photojournalism, not whether or not the photographer CHOSE color or black & white. Almost none of you had anything intelligent or "deep" to say about the situation over there. It's all about cameras and gear and whether it's sharp or this and that. Shut the hell up!

I used to have the Tamron 17-50mm and ended up selling it. It did over-expose frequently with flash and also, I noticed the images always had a slight orange tinge to them...as if the white balance was overly warm. Yes, colour correction could be done, but I prefer minimizing post work. I ended up buying the 18-70mm Nikon which is obviously less fast, but the image quality is considerably better and for some reason I find this lens incredibly easy to hand hold. (1/5th at 18mm and 1/15th at 70mm is possible for some odd reason, perhaps I have very stable hands or something)

This may sound retarded, but I suggest you ALWAYS get prints made of your favourite photos. 4X6's 5X7's whatever. How many old negatives do people have sitting around from years ago? I personally have no idea where they are, but I can pull out prints. Same goes for digital...even with lost jpegs, tiffs, raws, etc....if you have the prints, not all is lost. Sometimes this sort of thing is good...it reminds one how nothing is permanent. We are really spoiled in our era of preserving absolutely everything. I can definitely sympathize with the loss of the audios of your mother's voice, but that's what memory is for. And by memory, I mean the memory in your head...just like people have been doing for 1000's of years.

Peace.

I would agree with lots LeoAI as written.

For my own two cents: I have been shooting for about 10 years. Started with film, switched to digital two years ago (first a Fujifilm point & shoot, then a Nikon D50, now a Nikon D200). At first I love the convenience....no processing fees, no waiting to pick up slides or contact sheets or prints. LCD screens to gauge your shot right away. However, the images have never ever moved me the way my old film images have. Sure, they immaculately clean at high ISOs, they are very sharp, but therein lies the whole problem. Nothing is left to chance, to magic. I may sound overly romantic, but I like the idea that no, you will not always be able to get every shot as you intended. Sometimes the film will decide, or the camera. Sometimes a shot you thought would look one way turns out looking another because you forgot that daylight film will cause the shadows to turn blue. Of course, with digital, you would have noticed that on your LCD and said "Oops, wrong white balance" and perhaps re-shot it, even deleting the offending image without viewing it on your monitor at home. Let's not even comment on the amount of time one has to spend on their computer these days if you are a serious photographer. I have wasted HOURS of my life trying to add punch to images or colour correct them, all the while admitting that I probably am the worst editor of my own work and should leave it to a professional (ie - the guy/gal in the lab who does it 10 hours a day and loves it.) Having said all this....I recently bought another film camera and shot film for the first time in two years just the other day. I LOVE IT. I picked up my prints today and there is no comparison. I ripped open the envelope after waiting an hour and a half and it reminded me why I got into photography in the first place. Digital sucks. It's not photography.