I've charged the meal but left the tip in cash. Just draw a line through the tip section and total the bill to equal the food amount.
Think of that credit card fee as an incentive to use cash at a restaurant. The card company charges their fee not only on the base price but also on the tip (which reduces the amount of the tip). Furthermore, the tip gets recorded in the transactions and the staff needs to report it as income. (Frankly, who would blame any restaurant worker for not reporting their cash tips as income?)
Restaurants charging this fee may just indicate that it is getting more difficult to make a decent living owning or working in a restaurant.
It ranges between the ones that have had a phone in their hand their entire life and helped fuel the craze. On the other end, the curmudgeons who have been too stubborn to give it up.
@BrianShaw The prices in retail include VAT, you don't need to calculate the extra tax before paying. The receipt you get will show price (including VAT) and the VAT rate. VAT analysis is also provided and you know the amount of VAT and the net value paid.
It ranges between the ones that have had a phone in their hand their entire life and helped fuel the craze. On the other end, the curmudgeons who have been too stubborn to give it up.
Well I'm in the middle of hipster Brooklyn and a week doesn't go by that someone who sees me shooting asks where I get my film developed. After I tell them I do it myself, and the pleasantries of impressiveness pass, they ask how they can get their TriX or HP5 developed. I say there are 2 places that will do the developing and quality scan for $20 ($25 for 120), so lets say a roll per week costs $10 per roll and 20 per dev and scan, so $120 per month. That's a night out for one in a neighborhood where a crappy 2-bed is nearly $4000 month. So I don't think the price or access to services is the problem, around here at least. I think the biggest problem is that few people under the age of 40 knows how to use a manual camera.
People in the digital world think the shift from DSLR's to mirrorless is a major trend. But in the big picture, it is a minor development. The major trend is phones replacing all kinds of stand-alone digital cameras. This started with low-end digital cameras but is creeping up to fancier ones. There may always be a need for stand-alone cameras for specialized needs. But in society in general, the notion that stand-alone cameras are what one uses to make still images is going away. Young people are so accustomed to using their phones for everything it will not occur to them to use a stand-alone camera. In the future, young people that get interested in film will increasingly never have used a stand-alone camera at all, much less one with manual controls. This could be a mixed bag for analog. It will be more of a novelty to use a camera instead of a phone. But the transition may be more difficult because it seems less familiar to them.
Phone camera was a craze, I don't think that's the case any more. Analog shooting is not comparable to anything digital, more so today than ever before.
I heard some now decades ago, when Tiger Woods was still to win his second major, that he was gonna be the one and only and same guy predicted in 10-15 years there would be no computers as we knew it, just a wrist watch to do it all. The history has shown both where they belong, even if one just wasted his talent by engaging in awkward positions all too often, the other remains to be a wrist based toy, even if more capable than ever.
We've been hearing about the death of the PC for years. Yet they're still around. You can't match the power and speed of a desktop.
Well, that's only one part of the story...nowadays, Film is moving up, for enthusiasts, not quite as into 2000-1, but the younger generation pushed the film, which is a good thing, Kodak is hiring people...so is Acros. They simply can't keep up with the demand, you've to wait sometimes 3+ months for a color film here into germany, and when it's being avialable, it's sold out into like a couple min, no joke. I started into 1984 with Film, as kid.
Large screen and large keyboard are the pluses for me.
Phone camera was a craze, I don't think that's the case any more. Analog shooting is not comparable to anything digital, more so today than ever before.
I heard some now decades ago, when Tiger Woods was still to win his second major, that he was gonna be the one and only and same guy predicted in 10-15 years there would be no computers as we knew it, just a wrist watch to do it all. The history has shown both where they belong, even if one just wasted his talent by engaging in awkward positions all too often, the other remains to be a wrist based toy, even if more capable than ever.
Film is back,
Good light,
Marc
Just to be clear, I am not saying that the shift from digital cameras to digital phones equates to a shift from analog cameras to phones. I agree that analog is a different situation and that may be its salvation. The trend might prove beneficial for analog.
I am not sure what you mean when you say, "Phone camera was a craze." The shift to using phones as the predominant way of making images is a huge, long-term trend. When I grew up, my mother had film SLR's. So it was not a big shift to use a DSLR. Cameras were seen as THE way to take still pictures.
We are in a paradigm shift where phones have become normalized in society as the thing used to take photos. Young people are so accustomed to using phones for everything that they would need an overriding reason to use, or even think of anything else. This is going to have a long-term effect. Vogue magazine urges its readers to avoid pro's for wedding pic's and instead use their friend's phone pic's. A number of news organizations have fired their photojournalists and now rely on viewers' phone pics. I am not saying those trends are good, but it is a reality.
Camera manufacturers admit that phones have cut deeply into their sales of cameras, starting with low-end models, but it may not end there. Competition with phones may have contributed to the departure of Olympus from camera manufacture and it is unclear how the others will fare in long term. One could dismiss phones as only for low-quality amateur snaps, but that scenario is changing and it is hard to see where it will end. I don't think the use of phones for photography can be dismissed as a passing fad.
Minor White says that when he showed up for an advanced photo workshop, in the 30's I think, he was mocked by the other students because they had view cameras whereas he had a Rolleiflex, which they regarded as an amateur toy. Eventually, medium format became accepted for serious work.
Similarly, 35 mm film was initially dismissed as only for "miniature" cameras ill-suited for serious work. Over time with better films, 35 mm gained greater acceptance. Large format never went totally away but receded to a specialized niche. A similar thing may happen with high-end stand-alone digital cameras. A lot of the criticism of phone photography is similar to that leveled against 35 mm film at first. But improved technology boosted the status 35 mm, and the same may be happening with phones.
Yet there lies the rescue of film.
Shooting on a phone is great. I use it for everything. But when I want to make a photograph I grab a camera. Video I stick with the phone because I don't feel compelled to make artistic movies. For stills it's still recognized that a dedicated camera, be it film or digital, SLR or point and shoot, will net you a photograph rather than a snapshot.
Cell phones are much better for skipping across ponds than serious cameras.
Like i said always, phones are good (enough) today, but only for snapshots, even some folks do better work with this, and i've had some better compositions with it, because it was the only camera being avialable, at your fingertips. But the thing is, it's just a computer inside a barren, it doesn't have a viewfinder, neither exchangeable lenses, it does suck in terms of high ISO by design, does have limited DR in terms of real gear (36x24mm Sensor) and it doesn't have a physical shutter, furtherway shooting at one's armslength into blazing sunlight...good luck...it does have too much internal real time processing, which leads to oversharpened looks, -artifacts, un-natural bokeh, etc...and it doesn't have any real aperture, or DoF effect, because of the very small Sensors, a typical phone uses today, yet alone these 1" Sensor phones, which are albeit being uber expensive...and after 24 months being literally some sort of waste from brave yesterdays...usually, since there are no more updates being avialable....not every brand does support their phone for 4-5 years with OS and firmware updates, especially nowadays....mind you.
Phones are for snapshots, even "high end" ones, not serious things.
How long until the thread gets closed?
More interesting than tax code though.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?