As I've remarked in a previous post, no one cares how much effort it takes to produce a photograph. They judge it on it's merits, good or bad. I just wish it had been as easy to produce this shot as it looks.
I'm back from a three-day weekend at an outdoor camp in northwestern Pennsylvania. My wife, kids, and I canoed, zip-lined, swam, rop-swung, hiked, and had a generally excellent time. My one regret was leaving my good cameras at home in favor of bringing a Canon Powershot G9 someone had given me. I had been warned that it had come back from repair and, although it worked, produced exposures that were either overly contrasty or veiled with a grayish haze. Lo and behold, this was true. It took considerable effort on my part to produce a decent photo, two of which you see here. The moral of this story is that life is too short to be spent using bad cameras--and by "bad" I mean a camera that can't or won't do what you need it to do.
This took conversion to monochrome and some judicious curve-tweaking to rise to the level of acceptability. The image noise would bother me on anything above a 4x6 print. Also note the clipped highlights on the white chess pieces. Even so, it captures the memory of my 9 and 7 year-old sons playing chess.
I would have gotten much better results and still satisfied my desire for portability if I had brought one of my film cameras; for example, a Pentax ME, Olympus OM-1, or Nikon FM3-A. My film of choice would have been Kodak Portra 160, which the more astute (and sneaky) of you correctly guessed was the source of the photo in my immediately preceding post. There's a reason why so many perfectly rational and highly skilled photographers continue to shoot with film. I will elaborate in my next post, a review of--what else?--Kodak Portra 160.