AWAITING THE WORKDAY

Revision of a photo I posted before.

The last of the Tractorsaurs species, known for not eating solid food - only drinking. This photo has an interesting mood, Dave. It has a feel of complete stillness. The empty buidling with the still-good-looking tractor in the middle. The harsh light in the windows and the door gives the photo a special zing; I think without them the photo would not be as good. It could also be viewed as an abandoned movie stage with some of the lights still on. What would maybe juice it up even more is having shafts of light coming through the windows, and one of them hitting the tractor (do the windows face the sun during some part of the day?). The rest of the inside of the building being quite dim (though some detail would still show) so the shafts of light would stand out. And then in the mysterious stillness the tractor would sing "New York, New York..." Sorry, Frank...errr...Dave, I got carried away. Anyway,

interesting photo. Cheers, Micheal

 

You're a nut case--first class. There is nothing remarkable about this scene except that I found the neatness of the shed and the lighting kind of neat. But I kind of like all that hoopla you assigned to it. I guess I just don't think big enough.

Nut case, eh? Now I understand why, when I go hiking, I get chased by squirrels and they nibble at my feet. One day one was even trying to burry my butt by an oak. You don't think big enough? That's 'cause you don't drink enough of that V8 juice. I drink one liter every day (or Tropicana vegie juice). Dave, how do you like your D200 and the lens? Do you have any other lens than the 18-200 VR? If so, how's that one? Cheers, Micheal

 

Well, I apologize for the indelicacy, but, my friend, with some of the stuff you come up with, the label may apply. Oh, you may not register as high on the nutometer as my friend de Santa Anna, but I fear you are almost up there on my scale.

 

The D200 is awesome. I think it is terribly complicated and has more functions and modes than I will ever be able to use, much less understand. It is a beatiful piece of equipment, and very well constructed. I used Nikon in my film shooting, but had given away a lot of it on loan to a budding student. I do still have a 105 macro lens, but have not really used it. I have become paranoid about gtting dust onto the CCD, so I tend to not change lenses. The good news is that it is one hell of a versatile lens. Bad news is I think there are sharper lenses in the Nikon lineup. Overall, I am very pleased. Do you own one or thinking about getting one?

thank you for your reply. I intend to buy dSLR and D80 is it - from what I've read, it's pretty much a little brother to D200 as to the electronics. I would like the weather sealing and more durable build of D200, as I go hiking a lot, though paying 800 bucks Canadian extra is not in my books. I'm trying to decide between two lenses: Nikon 18 - 70mm DX and Tamron 17 - 50mm SP. According to photozone.de bench tests, the Tamron has a better resolution. It also has a constant f/2.8 aperture, which I like for shallow DoF, and a better control of distortion. However, it has twice as bad purple fringing, it's focus is screw-driven by the camera's focus motor, and I don't know if it can report the focal length used so the camera can record it in EXIF data. The Nikon has a longer range, almost negligible purple fringing and fast focusing.

The 18-200mm VR is expensive. I'm very honoured that I'm high up on your nut-o-meter. Did you buy Nikon's Capture NX? If so, do you like it? Cheers, Micheal

 

No, I did not buy NX. This is part of my problem right now. I don't feel competent with my post processing, and don't know which way to turn. I am leaning to downloading raw files to the Nikon "Picture It" program, and using that program as my storage and organizing method. Then, of course the Photoshop "Bridge" program converts them for working in PS. I currently am wading through a book called "Camera Raw with Adobe PS CS2" by Bruce Fraser. I need to find a system for organizing and storing, but I also need a better understanding of the use of raw files. As I said, I am in deep doo. And add to that the fact that I need to learn a whole lot more about the D200. I have never been a highly technical kind of person, so all this stuff does not come easily to me. When I first learned details of Adams' zone system, I thought it was complicated. It was nothing compared to all the possibilities of today's equipment.

 

The D80 is a very good camera. You already know the sources for getting info on the lenses, so you are in good shape in my book. I love the versatility of the 18-200, but it makes you lazy and if one is not careful, more likely to not do the job as imaginatively and thoroughly as possible.

that's the advantage of us, Mac users. Every Mac comes with program called iPhoto, which is excellent for sorting and viewing photos. It can also import RAW images. It's very user friendly and has some basic adjustments. As is the rest of Mac stuff - user friendly. My current camera, the only one, is Lumix FZ7. It has a lens of an equivalent 35 - 420mm (optical image stabilized)! Though 95% of the time I shoot within 35 - 105mm. Actually, I'd like to go even wider, which the lens I will buy with the D80 will do. Sometimes I would like to go wider than 28mm, but those ultra-wide lenses are too expensive. I've seen some photos on PN with u-w lenses that were purposely distorted, and I liked the effect. I love photography, and man...one could have two jobs to buy all the toys one would like. Cheers, Micheal

 

 

I can't argue with you on the Mac being better for photos. I'm not switching now. Wides are far cooler than tellies. That's for sure. I'm in Monterey today for the weekend. Hell, maybe I'll take a pretty picture for you.

Nice pic :) and nice conversation you 2 :)) .......and now to make you shake in you boots i will be canon man soon:)))

 

Don't be selling your soul to Canon. Stick with the pure of heart and spiritually clean by going Nikon.

 

Thanks for the comments.