steve_wagner1

<p>I've used tubes for many years in intensive field work. The IQ does not suffer. IQ from a 400 5.6 with stacked 25 and 11's is just as spectacular as it is with no tubes.</p>

<p>Unless PS is giving you inside access to incoming search terms that lead to your images I don't see how you're getting any metrics out of it, or how a site-wide tag cloud is of any value in that regard either. Plus you can clearly see what it led to anyway. I don't see any valuable metrics there. Plus, PN is a place for sharing, learning, and critiquing, not a marketing tool. That's my take anyway.<br>

Search driven tags could be 100% irrelevant to the content, and, as we saw already, are also heavily skewed by searching trends, far more than any attempt at self-promotion appears to have sullied the apparently new content-driven tags. I think it was a positive change. The cloud should be far bigger though.</p>

<p>If you want to shoot macro a 1:1 macro lens is always better than an extension tube. Get at least a 100mm or 105mm, or a 150 or 180 if you can afford it. A poor man's macro, the Sigma 105 is still superb quality.</p>

<p>Well it's now different so you must have taken my advice</p>

The OP is way too vague

<p>Ok, thanks all, since I have 4.5 more months of field work I need to resolve it. It's starting to result in missed shots now. I will do the cleaning and if no luck I'll trek down to the biggest Canon store here in Mumbai and see what they say.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>It does it with all five of my lenses now so it has to be the camera. I will have to see what kind of cleaner I can find in Mumbai. Are there any commonly available cleaners that can be used?</p>

<p>I got the 00 aperture and lens communication error with 5d2 and 24-105, thought it was the lens, but then my 70-300L did the same, so I assume it's the camera. If I give the mounted lenses a little extra twist to the right it goes away and they work, including the AF. If I then relax it it will sometimes stay ok but often revert back to the error.<br>

<br />The contact pins are clean, or at least they look clean, and none of them are loose or pushed up/pressed down more than the others. Any thoughts are appreciated. I'm in Mumbai doing field work. Thanks.</p>

<p>Knock yourselves out guys. Good advice can only be offered</p>

<p>Josh, the simple fact is that if people come here and search for things that don't even exist on the site, that's what your tag cloud will be. It doesn't serve any purpose. It makes far more sense to have a tag page (not a tag cloud, that is a silly implementation of it anyway, have a multi-column page with hundreds of tags if you're going to do it all) that actually directs people to the content that exists on the site. Search-driven tag clouds on a site like this are not useful and only harm the site's integrity. You are a content provider, just like a blog. Blogs do not have tags based on search, they're based on content. Lose the search, lose the cloud format. Base it on content, have a big multi-column format with hundreds of entries. That is expert advice.</p>

<p>Fascinating pic here<br>

http://photorumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Canon-EF500-IS-II-Cutout.jpg<br>

<br />From this page</p>

<p>http://photorumors.com/2012/02/11/canon-at-the-2012-cp-show-in-yokohama-japan/</p>

<p>Man I want that 200-400 so bad</p>

<p>I'm not really buying that, it works well on Flickr, etc., and you've already seen what happens with your approach, but I don't really care, PN is not my site.</p>

<p>Josh, there's a real problem with having something called "Photo of the Week" or anything "of the week" - terminology that all people equate to a thing being awarded honors due to its excellence, and then saying it's not due to its greatness, but rather just a photo that you think people should discuss, and then telling people not to talk about its worthiness as POTW. It doesn't fly. It never has in the ten years I've been here. It just doesn't make any sense and seems disingenuous.</p>

<p>Change the name to "this week's photo for discussion" or something. Otherwise POTW will always be regarded the way it currently is, a photo that the PN staff thinks is so great it rises above the millions of other images on the site and is therefore winning an award. That is reality.</p>

<p>This would be a more logical and useful implementation for PN. What's the point of a tag cloud that reflects search terms? It's not only not useful, but look what it got you.</p>

<p>In Wordpress a Tag Cloud usually reflects content, not searches, and I think most people's exposure to tag clouds actually happens most commonly through Wordpress-driven blogs and sites</p>

<p>I think a big heavy camera is absolutely critical, for ergonomics, stability, and general usability. I can't shoot with a digital rebel for the life of me.</p>

<p>I should have been more clear, sorry. I don't think PN is that, and I of course know that the vast majority of work here actually doesn't even fit those tags. I just found it strange that such a disproportionate share on that page - which seems to be put forth as a general gateway to browsing the site via keywords - fit that theme. I was saying how it could give that impression, and I couldn't resist my snark about photos of apocalyptic barns, silky coastlines, and wrinkled elderly people. Fault me for that.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/gallery/tag-search/</p>

<p>This is photo.net's own tag cloud, on this site, on its "Image Tag Cloud" page. This is not the result of any kind of search and there's nothing biased or purposeful here.</p>

<p>Girls, glamour, hot, lingerie, nude, model, woman, boudoir, erotic, explicit, artnude, etc. etc.</p>

<p>That and photos of old barns under black clouds, long exposures of coastlines, and old people with wrinkled faces of course. </p>

<p>Judging by the tag cloud it's a valid question</p>

<div></div>

<p>I don't know what Ken is talking about and I don't think he does either, but here's no way a 17mm lens is flat-field. Get a 60 or 100mm macro or an 85 1.8</p>

<p>Go to Photozone</p>

<p>http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/489-canon_100_28_5d?start=1</p>

<p>Sarah, I don't use DPP so I don't know about that, but that's not how Lightroom works. In any case it would be easy to find out. Just shoot a scene on AWB, then the same exact scene on fluorescent or whatever, bring both into DPP, change the non-AWB capture to auto in software, and if the resulting wb is identical to the other capture, then DPP works that way.</p>

<p>I solved it. You just start reviewing an image from internal memory, then hit menu>copy, and it copies to the card. This was my first time using a P&S. Thanks</p>

<p>I need a big dslr, it's absolutely critical in fact, for ergonomics, stability, handling, and usability. It makes a tremendous difference. I can't even begin to use a digital rebel for example.</p>