matt_m__toronto_

lets all hug it out :)

huw finney. i posted a year ago or so the same question and don't think i got an informed answer....huw...you there??

clive - amazing!!!

thom...do i read right? you're basing possible future purchases on us yahoos in some public internet forum? :)

the poblem katherine, is that you hold too much value in your 'findings'. do you think it's edgy posting this here?

 

" unload on me now. I'm sure this opinionated post has angered someone, not to mention that I am basing my assertions on only one roll of film!!! The gall of me! Well I do declare."

 

you don't really have any opinions. you simply name a few cameras you shot with and their prices. nowhere have you written what it was about each system's results that you did not like. nowhere have you posted results with any examples of who knows what you're trying to say.

 

cheers

my antonio stradivarius violin doesn't sound good when i play it...what's wrong with it?

thanks for the reminder. ian is based in toronto, and i was fortunate to meet up with him for some beers. he brought some fibre prints of his and i was blown away. was almost a laugh when i brought out my little book of epson prints! :P

 

i need to get back in touch .

any david lynch film because it doesn't make a lick of sense (3 feet)...maybe inspiration for his next film 'the 3 footed woman that wasn't there'

.,.<div></div>

matt n: i think you were taking what i said out of context. of course there are other differences between f stops (bokeh, flare) but one should not think 'oh i can't shoot at 2.0 or 1.4 because the image wont be sharp'...i think there is motion blur or something else going on here in the posters situation, and stopping down should not be the first suggestion to fix this.

 

cheers

appologies for not being a wedding shooter (i come in here from time to time just for a read) but i'm confused about this idea of 'shoot at f8' for sharper pictures. fstops dictate your depth of field. not your sharpness. even shooting at f1.0 there will be an area that is 'in focus'. missing focus of the eyes or subject motion blur or camera shake will make the picture appear 'not sharp' but your point of focus will still be 'sharp'

 

if you could post examples that would also help us see what exactly you are talking about. maybe post an example of what you feel is 'crystal clear sharpness'

 

attached is a pic taken at 2.0. eyes are sharp, print is sharp, though most everything is out of focus. f8.0 would have killed the image in my opinion.<div></div>

argh, you're right. there is a building there. it's a curved building as well, so that's that.

 

guess the camera did what i told it to! :)

soeren,

no brick wall or fence or anything like that. just tombstones, trees and sky.

 

antonio, i've never seen streaks/barrel flares like this before. maybe the sensor simply did not know what to do with the information hitting it...

sorry, here's some arrows to point you in the right direction.

 

my guess is that it's a compression 'thing' going on. these images were sent over the web at 72 dpi/600 pixels...<div></div>

below is an image i took with a friend's canon 5d.

 

there looks to be horizontal layers in the image. any idea what they are or how

they are caused?

 

thanks<div></div>

had a konica hexar af. great cam, but i found too chunky to keep in my pockets. also, i've never been a fan of autofocus on any camera, so i lean towards control over that.

i aslo recently got an olympus xa. it is a camera i now have on me at all times. very compact and tough, with a rf patch that is just usable and manual fstop control, i love this little bad boy and sometimes forget it's even in my pocket.

492 thousand cheap for a house???

mitch, have you printed this image using this technique. if so, how does it look?

in my circle of friends and colleagues, not many decide to tie the knot. i have

been to maybe 2 weddings in the last 5 years.

 

2 days ago my sister was married and i took some black and white pictures from

the sidelines.

 

anyway, just thought i'd chime in and congratulate all you who do this full

time. tough gig! i don't think i could do it. all those people needing to be

directed and time constraints, while knowing you need to deliver the shots to

people who will remember this day forever. wow.

 

here's what i was able to come up with:

 

http://www.facebook.com/album.php?aid=3408&l=1356f&id=508588150

i believe they are just cut down to size from bigger paper? try going to a camera store that does passport photos. i believe these are the same size as photo booth pics

if you just cant get out of the office to take some pics, try this fun one :)

 

http://hk.promo.yahoo.com/movie/superman/Stop_Press_Game/

you need to make your file smaller. do you have photoshop? make sure the pixel width is no more than 510. 72 dpi

wow, thanks for the responses! have definitely been eating well and drinking maybe a little too much.

 

it's not that i forgot my camera, but i'm here on work and did not think i'd have so much time off...it didn't even occur to me that we'd be gone over labour day weekend.

 

as for L.A , i guess i was just bored of every other car being a bentley or porshe. the space of the city was also too much for my taste and the air quality putrid.

spent a week in l.a and was not really impressed, one night into week here in

san fran, and i'm wowed. very cool city. now i need to go find a bessa and a

cheap lens as i brough nothing! D'OH!

 

plan to check out SF MOMA and some clubs. any other high recommendations?