The Lock Shop

Keys are very important in the former closed city of Dnipropetrovsk,

Ukraine - everybody double locks their doors with keys that put

American keys to shame, and Ukrainians believe that if a door is

unlocked, even for a moment, someone will enter and burglarize their

premises or, if it's a car, steal it, and it will never be

recovered. Ukraine is less crime-prone than neighboring Russia,

where I lived, which once was branded a kleptocracy, but which has

had major improvements; and it is safe to walk the streets of a major

Ukrainian city even with expensive cameras -- if one knows the lay of

the land -- which cannot be said for many major American cities -- at

least substantial parts of large American cities. Your ratings and

critiques are invited and most welcome. If you rate harshly or very

critically, please submit a helpful and constructive comment; please

share your superior photographic knowledge to help improve my

photography. Thanks! Enjoy! John

Is there something to improve?

With regards

This is an unusual use of my most favorite kind of lighting -- side lighting.

 

That washed out area at the right is two fluorescent tubes (compensated well by the color balance -- auto -- in my Nikon whatever camera -- I am not sure which one) -- and it bathes these two men with side lighting.

 

Often found in Metro entrances, under big awnings, in rooms lighted from one side by reflected sunlight (not by room light), side lighting is really best in my book because of the shadowing it gives -- it highlights details and seldom produces blowouts or harsh lighting, but does produce fine details with even enough lighting.

 

Notice the seated guy nearest us -- he's also got a lamp on him from top left our view), so he's side lighted from a different direction. (no flash in this available light photo).

 

They got pretty antsy after only a minute or so and begged off -- I only got a couple of frames before they sent me packing, but the colors in this photo knocked my socks off.

 

I reviewed it tonight and it begged to be posted.

 

Best regards, Joke, and thanks for commenting.

 

John (Crosley)

Love this red chair :))

Why?

 

John (Crosley)

 

wonderingly

i love shots of regular people earning a living. this one is very well done

I especially like the palette of colors in this shot. It's posted as a color photo because of that; it also shows well as a B&W, but when color helps a photo, I'll post it as a color photo.

 

The tones of this photo are as good as I hoped when I walked in the door of this lock shop -- I knew exactly what I wanted when I saw it; and got what I wanted. I was not disappointed.

 

Thanks for a very nice and helpful comment.

 

John (Crosley)

Glad you posted this great shot. The man stands proudly and this conjures up the relationship between master and apprentice. The colors are truly salient with details sharply captured. Wonderful shot John.

I know I haven't been around lately, sorry.

 

But I am reading a bit and I giggle at the response. I have a stool almost like that and it doesn't fit (the red chair). I have to admit "I" like the red chair too.

 

So, the picture, Improve?

 

Well, I guess you could lighten up their faces BUT then why? Their faces are dirty so it wouldn't do much good (I am smiling and kind of mocking you and if I could write this in a way that made sense I would but can't). So, truthfully I like it with the LIGHT shining bright on the right and all the keys like they used to be in the old days and the one guy looking you square in the eye and the other guy ignoring you.

 

YEP, IT made me stop and take notice. A day in the life of YOU taking pictures.

 

I absolutely LOVE the red chair! That is the picture in a nut shell. :)

 

Missed seeing your pics. Been REALLY BUSY doing photography work. Go figure! ~ micki ;)

I am especially grateful to see you back, even if it is in defense of that red chair (stool) which I didn't even see.

 

For, you see, I almost never see the elements of my photographs, even when I post them, when they're so full of detail as this; I leave it to my commentators, such as you who are full of appreciation for detail and uncovering the 'real' photo I took.

 

I take simple and complex photos and this tends more to the complex, with all its great tonalities, and for that I like it. Sometimes in the more complex photos, there is greater chance to ensnare a viewer -- just in its complexities -- to force (or ensnare) their eyes, and cause them to wander around the photo -- one thing that makes a photo a 'good' one in most critics' books.

 

That's partly why I posted this one, but the major reason was because 'I like it -- still do' and didn't give much of a fig whether it got high or low ratings, though I figured with such good tonalities it should get decent ratings, but it has not proved so popular as to attact many ratings, as 'pretty' pictures are not what I am known for -- people don't associate me with 'pretty' photos with good tonalities, and who will look for 'pretty' in a lock shop, but I find this very 'pretty'.

 

I am known for 'gritty' picture, according to one Internet commentator . . . . and I am finding more and more of those, and more and more pirated photos.

 

I am burning more disks for the US copyright office to seal my rights to sue, when the time comes, and that is taking place as I write this. (I have re-researched copyright law and it allows submnission of copyrighed material on disk and I suggest double-layer DVDs which can hold lots and lots of photos and then submitting web-resolution photos at 72 dpi, which are enough, so long as they have a caption, and the fee fee is paid. There is a five-year period at the absolute end, but also a smaller period, and after that they can 'fine' you, but I have never heard of them 'fining' anyone for tardy registration, but I wouldn't want to be the first, so I would somewhere in an obscure include an explanation (especially for disability) for why copyright registration is tardy)

 

Registration entitles one to extra damages PLUS Attorney Fees, which are special and can terrorize a corporate infringer.

 

I am known to take 'Tell it like it is' pictures.

 

Here, as you can tell, I interrupted these guys in their work, and one guy just went on working and the other guy watched over me benevolently, but with a short fuse, just to ensure I was out of his shop lickety split, and he then showed me the door, saying they had yerabotl (work) to do, and I understood.

 

Life is tough in Ukraine and profit margins can be small. A man also has worth what he can earn, and if he can earn nothing, then he has little worth. Or maybe in Ukraine (or especially in neighboring Russia, he's worth what he can steal . . . ), but Putin was seen to help put an end to that, and no discussion about that, please. . . . .

 

People who work hard and are self-employed in Ukraine can make a pretty handsome living, but there is no social safety net, so if one gets sick, there she blows (or better, there she sucks) and one only has to visit a Ukrainian hospital, as I did recently, to understand. They're a place where one goes to get mediocre treatment at best, and maybe to be scooted off this mortal coil with a minimum of dignity, but with much worry from relatives. The once-vaunted Soviet health-care sytem has succeeded in falling apart in Russia (Putin says so) as well as in Ukraine -- first the most ambitious doctors went to the US to drive cabs, study for their medical licenses, got their licenses and are treating at clinics near you -- I've had several such doctors in California. And who can blame them.

 

So, if you're young and healthy, it's 'nose to the grindstone' -- literally, here.

 

Really, somewhere in this photo or nearby, there is a grindstone and they grind keys on it.

 

And these guys use it every few minutes, guaranteed.

 

Industries guys.

 

You took your photo; thank you very much, and goodbye.

 

Pokka, pokka. (bye, bye)

 

(too bad they didn't get my e-mail so they can see this handsome photo . . . )

 

Thanks for commenting; yours are always highly valued . . . collectors items sometimes, especially recently).

 

John (Crosley)

I have been shooting Hockey games of all things with Hubby. Well, now I have lots to do (more than I probably should) and I love it. I am still sitting at home doing the things I love (restorations and manipulations and art)but the Hockey thing fell in our lap (I knew nothing about Hockey). But the Dancers are beautiful and wonderful as are the workers and fans. I am now a BIG fan and have found myself just totally thrilled with it. I just wanted to tell you thank you for being you and being here and letting me spend hours, yes endless hours enjoying your work as it does rub off when looking at the way I take pictures of people.

 

Of course NOW I have to figure out a better lens, oh that is always the hard part. Any suggestions? I have been mainly using my 50mm in the hockey rink because of the low light issue and the fact I don't have a better low light camera for up close.

 

And no, not a fisheye. :)

 

~ micki

For low light, there is an even better way to go.

 

Try a new D300 Nikon.

 

One can routinely set the ISO at 1000 and get stunning reproduction.

 

I even got a slight discount on mine new from its $1799 price.

 

It suddenly made all other cameras obsolete.

 

I will be buying more.

 

And when the price comes down from list ($4,999.99), I'll be in the market for a D3X, which does have a full-frame sensor, so there will be no focal length multiplier effect).

 

As to wide angle lenses, Nikon makes good ones and so does Canon. For Nikon, try a 12~24, f 4 for super wide angle, and it costs less than $1,000 and you can buy a used one these days, if you're very careful, and get good quality (not E-bay I think, because of lack of ability to test the lens unless the person has about 1,000 positive feedbacks all as a seller of items like lenses and cameras.)

 

The new Nikon cameras have amazing sensitivity in low light. (I have one -- this is not from that, and it is like owning a very sensitive lens, as you can keep it stopped down all the time and thus take in more depth of field, or use a lens with a larger aperture in tough lighting situations.)

 

There; that's my two cents worth.

 

Change for a nickle.

 

Maybe that's what it's worth.

 

But I'll swear by it.

 

Haven't found anything wrong with my Nikon D300 except it wasn't firing at 7 frames per second; a quick two-button reset (press both green dotted buttons for a computer reset, and reset your settings 'to taste' again) fixed the problem and it's factory new. Won't be for long, though, as you can expect. I use my cameras a lot.

 

Best to you, you elusive hockey watcher, you.

 

John (Crosley)

I will probably have one within the year BUT I told myself the business had to buy it AND I need to learn more about how to take pictures. I figure the D80 is the best thing for me right now and it is so easy to just take with me anywhere I go. It is so light and so easy to handle. So easy to shoot and wonderful!

 

We did get the 18X200 and Andrew LOVES it for the Sunsets and uses it for the Hockey pictures. I have yet to really use it for inside and stuff.

 

It just seems that things move fast. Really fast.

 

You seem to be going many places again.

 

 

The 18~200 f 3.5~5.6 WITH the D300 is the ideal camera with one lens. You cannot single out a focal plane so simply with a maximum smaller aperture so well as with a larger f 2.8 aperture, but it is good for many situations.

 

Now, read very carefully.

 

You can boost the ISO to 1250 or so on the D300 and get stunning clarity, effectively boosting the range of sensitivity of your lens, meaning you don't have to invest in 'fast' lenses, since your camera sensor is 1 to 2 times more sensitive.

 

Yes, it's true.

 

See the photo of the hooded woman (nun) and the hooded man, both in my 'Black and White, Then to Now' folder, both taken with a D300 camera with ISO at 1000. Look at the stunning quality of the blacks, grays, and whites, and look for any sign of noise from high iso, and I didn't even make any special anti-noise settings on it.

 

That's what you can expect from the D300/ it instantly made the D200 obsolete, making all those D200 cameras on the market very hard to sell if someone values low noise. If not, and they're shooting with good light, the difference is not so great, and the D3x is hitting the market now (it doesn't have a focal length multiplier effect, since it has a 35 mm size sensor, instead of a smaller sensor, which Nikon and others chose because they were MUCH cheaper -- but required higher quality lenses.

 

Now the new D3x benefits from higher quality lens techniques learned from mass producing high quality lenses that threw light on a smaller in-focus circle, and are making some new lenses for full-frame for the D3X, now called the FX format.

 

Beware or you'll be shooting a D300 at those hockey games; it shoots 7 frames per second out of the box (the D200 shot 6 frames per second) and with a battery booster, it shoots two more frames per second, I understand.

 

I haven't got the battery booster, yet. Sports shooters would want that.

 

It shoots better photos than the D2X and the D2Xs but the build quality is that of the D200, not of the higher quality D2X and D2Xs cameras.

 

I'd go for the D300 -- I even got a slight discount on mine -- even though I walked in when they were in short supply -- my dealer offers 30-day return policy and he matches the Internet dealers. He wanted to give me no reason to return it; because then he has to sell it as 'used' when it comes back, even if it then has a warranty, and he has to cut the price even more, assuming it works well, which it would.

 

I had one issue; the top panel on the D200 locates the active focal point and on the top panel of the D300, it does not. I went to Nikon Service in El Segundo and pointed it out and they were baffled, only having one to pass around themselves.

 

But after using one, I found the back panel (the photo display panel, illuminates showing much info including the location of all the active focal points (and other focal points) and much, much other info, when you push the second button from the top on the left panel of buttons, so they really thought of everything. It's just one great camera. Take it from me; I'm into my second month shooting with it.

 

My one issue is that mine continually overexposes in sunlight by one-third of a stop. I can reset its sensitivity and it won't even show to me, or send it in for 'repair' but they won't know enough to repair it yet, or just wait it out. Meanwhile it doesn't overexpose night scenes, so resetting sensitivity overall won't work. I look for an updated version of the firmware in four or five months, as the 'bugs' get discovered, is my guess.

 

But don't wait . . . run, don't walk, to a store that will cut the price . . . mine did . . . but not by much, as Nikon doesn't cut prices much on their 'hot' cameras. And don't buy a 'kit' camera -- just a body -- you've got a great lens.

 

It's also got a great 3" screen. You'll swear by it, and also its way of magnifying the screen.

 

Or reducing the screen size, either from magnified screen, or also to thumbnails (it shows 9, I recall).

 

(too lazy to pick up the one sitting next to me).

 

Best to you, Micki F.

 

Hope this helps.

 

You'll end up with one anyway, why waste time?

 

John (Crosley)

 

 

I will do just as you said look for the deals. We have a small camera shop that is a Nikon Rep and I might just put in a word there. I just am so not ready for the weight OR ready to have my Husband HOG my new camera (if I get the 300 you KNOW he would HOG it) HA. He needs to finish his Masters as he is half way there and needs no more distractions.

 

I on the otherhand am a bit sad that I didn't just buy it (probably was a bit scared) but then again the D80 is wonderful. I saved some money but that is ok because the D80 is a great sideline camera and on any photoshoot I go on I NEED to have two camera's anyway. So, the 300 will be a must soon regardless.

 

You sound like an ad for Nikon (a cute ad) HA!

 

I am still trying to figure out the white balance and such indoors when it is yucky fluoresent bulbs. I hate that I still have to adjust. I know I will get better at it but it sure gets annoying for me.

 

I played around with the 18-200mm and it was fine but not the most wonderful thing inside when close up inside unless you were trying to get a roomfull of people.

 

Andrew and I have decided probably, like you said the 12-24 but we are still figuring it out.

 

Well, back to the picture grinding. ~ micki

The D300 seems to handle 'mixed lighting' -- lighting with different color temperatures, and fluorescents, better than the other cameras, though I have not tested them side by side. It also has 'd-lighting' both for shooting and for after-the-fact editing, and I find I 'edit-in-camera' a lot as I look for the best use of my captures, especially desaturating for which it does an almost miraculous job -- and saves much work (all into JPEGs, no NEFs remaining).

 

And with white balance, you play around for those fluorescents with the K (Kelvin) for color balance on manual instead of 'A' (auto color balance) then just leave it there, when you're pointing it under those fluorescents and simultaneously shoot jpegs and NEFs (you can alter the color balance in NEFs if you have the proper software, which Nikon says is Capture NX, and which I say is the add-on for Adobe Camera Raw for Photoshop CS3 (it don't work with My Elements 6.0, for some reason, and elements shots won't go over to Photohop, also for some reason, for a final edit -- they're screwing around with me.

 

I just got (I won and am starting to use -- POW) a copy of Nikon's Lightroom, and it somewhat baffles me though member Dennis Aubey swears by it (he actualy determined the concept on which it is based -- adding changes to a file, while keeping the original file unchanged -- which is what all new software is doing, while an exec at Alta Mira Corp., the developers of Genuine Fractals Software (which I presume he is credited with developing -- it's used for blowing things up 'large' without losing any more detail than absolutely possible -- resulting now in giant billboards of photos with great detail -- Thank Dennis for that, I think -- I do (Dennis, are you reading this? Bet you are. . . nod if you are . . . . or give some other signal).

 

Maybe if you're too comotose, we'll strap you to a rolling chair, get your social security check and wheel you to the local Pay-O-Matic as happened in Manhattan the other day by two friends of a VERY comotose old man (who didn't make it and whose rigor mortis body was very badly dressed by his 'friends' who subsequently were arrested. . . . thinking the old corpse's presence would re-assure the check-cashing service (Pay-O-Matic) that the buy had given them the OK to cash his Social Security check.

 

Well, Dennis, I know you are not that old, and certainly very vigorous, and I daily do thank you (really) for enabling all those giant billboards, wall posters, etc., with such wonderful graphics.

 

(pardon me Micki for interrupting your comment reply, but you should also be thanking Dennis, for his development of Genuine Fractals software -- it has changed your everyday landscape, and I think for the better.)

 

Now, Micki F. -- get thee to a camera store and at least put a D300 through its paces. Bring your own lens.

 

Or put a 70~200 f 2.8 on it and try that one out.

 

I was shooting a D200, a D300 and a D2Xs today. (porn convention).

 

By far the best photos were the D300.

 

The best feel -- most snappy and capable feeling was the D2Xs.

 

I cannot wait to shoot the D3X.

 

'Till then, if your camera allows it, use Kelvin (color temperature settings, and experiment at each Kelvin temperature until you get it right, then delete your tries after you find the right color temp. the right one today will be the right one tomorrow if it's entirely indoors; no side lighting or skylighting.

 

John (Crosley)

 

... am sure that I didn't develop the concept on which Lightroom was based. Merely at one point in time (2000) I was asked by a Nikon exec what I thought would be the next major step in digital workflow and I replied "instruction sets". That all we do is store the instructions to the changes we make in these applications, and not the changes themselves. That makes for great savings in storage and is possible because processing is free. As far as Genuine Fractals is concerned, Altamira Group developed and released it. I'm no coder, so it is not my work; we had a wonderful staff (inclduing Mark J) who worked on it. Mark did the first interface, which was extraordinary, but that we never used with the first product. It stayed in beta, never got any further with the released version.

 

The application Lightroom is by Adobe, not by Nikon, right? That's the one that I recommended. Don't let it baffle you, a great piece of software.

Dennis,

 

Don't sell yourself short. It was 'the concept' -- ultimately patentable, I think. Did it ever get patented? Was it patentable?

 

I'd be interested in knowing about these 'instruction sets'. Kind of sounds like unflattened Photoshop files, though, so maybe not so 'original' . . . or just 'obvious' and thus not patentable.

 

Anyway, let me know, and be willing to accept genuine praise from us peons who know nothing about such things compared to you (former) hi-tech gurus. They shut down CES (Consumer Electronics Show) yesterday and the porn convention attendance next door sure suffered; it got racier this year, but it's still a teas-a-thon -- just a tad bit more explicit, maybe to 'draw in' those horny guys and the crazies who seem to come along with the button-down collar types, and the 'massage therapists' who seem to come to look this year, as last.

 

Lots of pretty girls, and as I learn my European lines, I can recognize many of their lineages, and now I realize in Texas there's a lot of Czech blood, and I've discovered the Czechs settled lots of Texas, which is how some Texan young misses got such blonde good looks (besides that peroxide bottle).

 

There were tramps and some very nice girls -- ones who could meet anybody -- all intermixed. I can talk to them all, so long as they are not rude or popping gum in my face, or whipping around after speaking a word, to face somebody new, but genuinely speaking to me (or someone else) as an individual, which many do.

 

After all, all this is is public relations extravaganza, albeit at a high price for those who pay.

 

The fans pay $80.00 daily.

 

Ouch for the fans.

 

There are no 'season discounts' either.

 

But the females only pretend they're 'in season' -- HA as Mickey F. would say.

 

John (Crosley)