EyePuzzleheaded4699

Certainly true. We chose those materials that were best suited to the image. Be it film, chemistry or paper. Not to mention, a little dodge and burn along the way. Very few images were printed, delivered and used straight except the amateur roll stuff.

And there was no shortage of retouching the image to remove something, add something and my favorite part, airbrushing wrinkles and other things some art director wanted gone.

Had high quality digital been with us in 1960, film and paper would have been long gone.

Some readers have lots of experience and what some readers take as ego is actually a simple fact. Some also have opinions born of that long experience. Some are tired of answering silly questions and they often come off as a bit too harsh. I seldom critique the images I see because they are terrible for any number of reasons. I see a bad image and I keep my mouth shut because some posters have thin skin.

I am set in my ways and I know how wrong some people are. Still, I remain quiet about certain things.

I always try to be polite.

Try this: karsh.org

Yousf Karsh was the master in my opinion. His portrait and darkroom skills were wondrous.

No sarcasm. Selectol was real. It was one of Kodak many products offered to create a certain look.

This is why I seek out collectors whenever I have something scarce for sale. Collectors do not ask common questions, like will this fit my Retina or Cannon Sure Shot.

I still have a Hypergon with the star fan. I thought about selling it and those that would want it, know what a star fan is.

Stereo. I am working on a new project that requires stereo pairs, so it is becoming less of a niche.

Perhaps my View Master work could be considered a niche within a niche.