Keeping ahead of the game as always I see. (wordplay joke there senor)

Poland

str - keep the pics of random rural towns in Spain and whatever eastern euro countries you visit. Its just a really cool to see the more analog lifestyle you capture.

str, I'd buy the coffee table book if you'd ever have your best pics of Spain printed

Perhaps ...

• Ciclismo en España: Caminos de Tierra y Grava del Campo (Cycling in Spain: Dirt and Gravel Roads of the Countryside)
• Ciclismo en España: Mil Fotografías del Campo de España (Cycling in Spain: A thousand pictures of the Countryside of Spain)
• Ciclismo en España: Lejos de Las Cosas del Hombre (Cycling in Spain: Away from the Things of Man)

So long as it contains all those wonderful photos, it sounds like a winner.

thank you guys

Looks like MSR and Nemo tents. Which one do you like better?

Why not shoot film instead of emulating it?

Why do you ask?

They are quite similar in design but I give the edge to the Nemo Dagger 2 person. I was torn between which of the two to buy at the time but was leaning towards the Nemo because of a few subtle differences, and then caught a nice sale making the Nemo more affordable. I've been very happy with my decision.

Berlin-Brandenburg Gate


Berlin-Halacost Memorial

I thought it was obvious that the real thing is better than fakes.

Thanks. I need a 3P this season for backpacking and cycle touring with my two sons. Last year, I almost bought a Nemo Dagger OSMO, but was debating the new MSR Freelite. We ended up cycle touring "plein air." When we needed a tent backpacking and hunting, we used our older, heavy duty 4P+ tent. Since my wife and big dog are retiring from such outings, I want to downsize and save weight in the backpack and bulk on the cycle. The nylon MSR is a couple pounds lighter than the Nemo, but the part-polyester Nemo is probably tougher and should stretch less and sag less when wet.

A box with a lens with film in the back or a sensor in the back is just a tool in the end. Neither guarantees the ability to take strong images, so to me is not about real or fake, it's only about the image.
And I come from the era of working with film and going through the transition to digital in a working environment.
Do I miss working with film? Not really, but it had its own specific parameters, but again, it was what it was. Spent half my life in darkrooms, b+w , so can be nostalgic about the process. The skills I developed as a professional printer and photographer are still in my head, but do I miss the hours and hours of dodging, burning, changing contrast filters, manipulating the paper in trays of chemicals, washing, drying...,.? A little bit for "the process" and decades of getting really good at it, but not really.
And anyway, we just learned a whole new set of skills with digital and got good with that.

Just a tool though. A mediocre photo is still a mediocre photo.

thanks everybody for your touring pictures. They are quite enjoyable.

great!

) I spent approx 20 years in the darkroom. nothing beats a well made black and white barita (for example Agfa MCC111) print!
here some "real" stuff if you feel like https://www.stefan-rohner.net/portfo...trait/001.html
all Kodak Trix 400 printed on Agfa MCC 111

quoting myself because I want to make it abundantly clear that I have in the past, do presently, and will in the future always take so so photos, that's just part of taking photos.

I wanted to add this because I realize it didnt sound very polite what I wrote before.

My dining room table right now. Before I got sick I had been cutting mats for old photos that were to be Christmas presents.

great!

I don't agree that a camera is just a tool. I don't think that it's advisable for an artist to be preoccupied with tools or equipment, but the difference between film and sensors is like the difference between oil and watercolor. It's not that one is better than the other, but if you enjoy expressing yourself in watercolor, then why work in oil? Moreover, if the result you're looking for is what watercolor delivers, why try to make your oil painting look like a watercolor? It's true that film and digital call for different tools just like oil and water, but the medium is more than just tools or equipment, it's also a different process, workflow, and very different results.

So when I see a digital camera being used to produce a lot of good images with film emulation modes and post-processed to have film effects, I wonder if that is the result that is desired, why not use film to get it? Now someone might say that a 135 camera and its lenses are just too big to travel with or that they don't like to be limited to a single ISO for a whole roll or they don't like what the lab does and they're not willing to do C41 at home. There are plenty of other reasons to use digital, but if someone is going to enjoy film, I will encourage them to do it.