sandcruiser
-
Posts
574 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by sandcruiser
-
-
I shoot jewelry for my wife w/ a Nikor 50mm 1.8 and a Nikor 20mm 2.8. Both on a D80.
We use a plastic egg-looking light tent that was pretty cheap ($50?) to control lighting, and use a nikon speedlight triggered off-camera with the camera's commander mode.
It isn't perfect, but it is quick and works reasonably well.
You can see some shots in my profile, I think, and certainly at www.jocelybroyles.com
-
I think more constructive criticism can only improve things at photo.net. As well as the occasional "good job". I don't really feel that someone has to say much to make the photographer realize that at least there are humans out there looking. I don't even *look* at my ratings, ever since I realized that some of my personal favorites don't rank nearly as high as some of the shots that I don't like that well...
The only reason I don't prevent ratings alltogether on my shots is that I hope that a reasonably high rating might attract more people to review the photo.
My new strategy on critique is easy: every time someone writes me something on one of my shots, I make a point of reviewing their portfolio and submitting a critique on at least one, hopefully two or three photos. If everyone did similar.... it would be fun.
-
if memory serves, the 105micro doesn't work well with TC's... having said that, I love my 105micro. Super sharp, great feel in the hand. On-lens M/A focus control. And works great for outdoor macro. If you *can* find a 1.4 or 2.0 TC to go with it, that would give you a tremendous range of focal lengths- from 24 through 210. But the micro would be slow at 210...
good luck!
-
An alternative might be to weight the ratings based on rater's average. For example: I find myself not particularly inclined to give ratings below three, but have no trouble finding "6/6" pictures... there are others out there who are ruthless with low ratings and give very very few high ratings. So perhaps the server could assign a weighted value to a given rating based on how frequently the rater uses it.
Put a different way-- if I've given 100 ratings but only one 7/7, that 7/7 might be more heavily weighted (maybe call it a 7.1 or something) than if I had given 100 7/7 to people. Or, using the example above, if someone typically gives out sour grapes, maybe their 2/2 rating would not weigh as heavily as someone elses 5/5... just a thought.
-
I would look at the 50/1.8, the 18-70G lens, and the 70-300 as an excellent 3 lens kit. The 24 gives you a great 'normal' lens, the 50 a great portrait lens, and the 70-300 a nice zoom that is longer than you'll need. All three are fairly affordable. There isn't much overlap.
Good luck
Steve
-
plenty of Eucalyptus in SD... as mentioned the UCSD campus has several groves that are very attractive and easy to get too. Also check out by Torey Pines- not the reserve per se, but out by the offices on N. Torey Pines there are many groves of Eucalyptus that are also near sunset/ocean views.
Balboa Park, in addition to Eucalyptus has a great cactus garden that is full of interesting plants.
Best of luck!
-
I would enjoy seeing any changes that result in more comments and fewer numerical ratings. I *like* the idea that people can rate photos based on originality and also on aesthetics, but it seems to me that people rarely do: How often do you see a 3/7 or a 6/2? But it seems to me that there are many original works that aren't very aesthetic or aesthetic works that lack originality.
How about being able to see photos that have the most comments, regardless of their rating?? After all, the photos that I find most interesting are often interesting enough to other people for them to submit a comment.
Last thought: from what I can tell, I can't submit only a comment in the gallery- if I exclude a numerical rating I can't comment. That seems counter-productive to me. I don't look around enough on the site to have a clear idea of "average" or "excellent" or "terrible" related to other work. I usually just rate at a 4 or 5... but I've since realized that for the competitive photogs out there these "low" ratings really hurt their ego/ranking/spot on the list. And while I don't care about ratings (don't even look unless there is a comment too) I understand that other people DO care and I don't want to detract from their photo.net experience.
Sorry to be so long winded, thanks for the space and for this wonderful madcap forum we call photo.net.
-
if you want a system that is easy to upgrade slowly, maybe you should look at Nikon. You can start with a pro-quality MF body (used) and lens or a cheap consumer AF body and lens for less than $250. As you progress you can buy lenses/bodies as you need them and the whole system will still work together (for the most part).
Or just buy a canon consumer camera and move forward that way. either way should get you started well. either system will work fine for you... there is a good reason both systems get argued over: they both work.
best of luck
-
Tim
I've got the n80 and the 80-200. Great combo. There is no shortcoming at all.
If you do get the lens you might consider also getting the battery-grip for the n80. With the grip the camera/lens combo is more evenly weighted and also the AF-S uses up batteries pretty quickly. Not a problem with the AA batteries in the grip, but it gets expensive if you are burning through the CR123's in the n80. Besides, the only good reason I know of to not get the battery grip is to keep the n80 lightweight.... with the 80-200 it isn't very light anyway!
Great lens... definately a good investment. enjoy!
ps:
here are some examples
Ideas for shooting Jewelry...NOT bugs.
in Nikon
Posted