Photography and cars. Out of my 30 or so cameras, only 4 are digital. and the rest are 35mm film cameras along with one 645 which is close to twice the width and height of a 35mm negative. To me, digital has taken some of the fun out of shooting pictures. Sure in the darkroom with film people would burn and shade with their projectors but you still had to compose the photo and worry about lighting, etc. With digital, it seems to have promoted the same thing that high capacity magazines did for a while, spray and pray. Where before you might have shot two or three 36 exposure rolls of film, people now shoot hundreds if not thousands of exposures using the "even a blind hog finds an acorn every now and then" method. Shoot a thousand pictures and hope there's a couple of good ones in the bunch. Then process it through an image manipulation program. Yes I do shoot digital also but almost always on manual making the aperture and shutter speed adjustments myself, rarely using post processing.
And as for cars, I'm not talking about some glue together little plastic toy with a hypercharged rice burning aluminum sewing machine motor. I'm talking about pre '72 muscle cars, specifically Chrysler products. I don't have one right now but my cousin has a project in mind to build. He picked up another 440 the other day (he already had three) and wants to drop it in a '68 Dart. I'm trying to convince him that a '70 Duster would have a little more room under the hood and better weight transfer to the rear wheels. Wish I could find someone with a '70 Hemi Cuda that didn't know what they had.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stumper
Older muscle, especially of the Mopar breed. Over took my S&W addiction a couple years ago in terms of funds ....
|
Man, that is one FINE automobile!!!!
CW