toddr

<p>I'd suggest looking at running Google Adwords in your *Local* area...also set up a Google Places account with photos.</p>

<p>hi rishi, just what you said in your opening post, angle the screen so that you can see the most distinct steps in the image...set it as your background image centered. if it's not at the right angle you'll see black or white blobs instead of steps in the image. let us know if the acratech thing works better.</p>

<p>here's a strip I set as a background image centered</p><div></div>

<p>OP said "not a sponsored link" so he's talking about organic listings, not adwords ads.<br>

My guess is that they do actually have some incoming links and some text on the site. I have heard that you can rank well with only incoming links where the text link uses the keywords you want.<br>

Try using Yahoo's Site Explorer. Google does not report all incoming links.<br>

(yes, what Peter said, title tags, also get on Google Local/Pages so your site is associated with a geographic area, and of course, good links with your keywords in link text if possible)</p>

 

<p>you need a DOF calculator thingy, to see where the CoC is acceptably sharp at the closest distance, when focus is set to infinity</p>

<p>spankx? :)</p>

<p>bugs show up a lot, since there's no details to give hints to size, could be a moving bug somewhat close to you...esp with small aperatures</p>

<p>jules-photo.com</p>

<p>hi andrew, thanks, what you're not seeing is the shots I missed because I couldn't focus quick enough :)</p>

<p>I've been trying to shot folks on the street and it's so fast-paced I haven't had much success. But I'm rethinking the whole AF thing....and seeing if it's just practice and luck. I'm using the 55-300 in a sort of semi-manual mode, pre-focusing to expected point then AF...and practicing.</p>

<p>And I'm realizing that I do love close-focus quite a bit, something the 55-300 does not do, but my 16-50 seems ok...I'll check out the 17-70, thanks for the idea. I'm going through all the lenses mentioned here and seeing what combination might work best.</p>

 

<p>thanks again, great insights. funny, I was thinking I was doing street because I'm walking in the streets :) but you're right, I haven't been getting the people shots associated with street shooting.</p>

<p>Bryan, you're right on target. I shoot with the Panasonic Lumix FZ35 a lot because of the zoom range, small size and great image quality. Shooting RAW, there's not usually a heck of a lot of difference from the K20D. But lower dynamic range and of course low light is out. I'm actually happy with the quality - but not with the speed of the zoom (no manual twist control, just in/out toggle) and the speed of the focus (useless manual focus).</p>

<p>Michael, you nailed one of my issues with the close focus problem. That's also been a real problem with the 55-300 and I guess the 50-135 won't solve that. I'll check out the ones you mention and maybe carrying around a prime for those shots would be best...</p>

<p>I wonder too if my lack of getting the moving shots is simply practice...before all the fast zooms somehow Cartier Bresson was able to do it. :) Does anyone manually focus the 55-300 to get close then auto-focus? I'm going to play with that and manual focus too.</p>

<p>thanks for all the helpful info!</p>

<p>thanks for all the great info...lots to digest...</p>

<p>Javier, I'm mostly shooting things more than people at 40-300mm focal lengths...check my portfolio here or my<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/avibodha/"> Flickr acct</a>. My biggest complaints with the K20D & 55-300 is the slow focus. Also minimum focus distance is a problem sometimes. When I carry the 16-50, I'm always at 50...just don't like to be in too close to bother people.</p>

<p>I'm thinking the short zooms are going to be too short for me. I'm thinking at least 105mm. I never considered a second body....</p>

<p>Javier, love your shot there, how do you manage focusing speed when catching moments like this at the long end of your zoom?</p>

<p>My other walkaround camera is a Lumix FZ35, which isn't a speedy focuser either but is very unobtrusive.</p>

 

<p>thanks for the info. the more I think about the focal lengths I use, I think it might make sense to sell my 16-50 and get the 50-135. I do like the longer reach, rarely use much wider, and I find I miss quite a few shots because of the slow focus on the 55-300. I could carry a wide prime for the few times I need it.</p>

<p>I've been considering swapping out my k20d etc to trade to the Canon 24-105L but reviews seem mixed on how good the optical quality is.</p>

<p>are there any lenses in this range with ultrasonic or usm focusing besides the 50-135? thanks for any info.</p>

<p>I've got the 16-50mm DA* lens and love the quality. But I'm often near the 50mm end and switch to the 55-300 too often. Is there a good quality zoom lens somewhere in the 24/28 - 105/150/200 mm range? Need quick focus and good quality...walking-around street shooting mostly. Thanks!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I wonder if the Orphan Works Act would apply in a situation like this?...assuming someone did try to contact Kevin Delson. Let's say you've closed your photo.net account and are unreachable....seems like it would be fair game for the orphan works act for anyone to use it legally....<br>

in any case, probably a good idea like Daniel said to tag the EXIF info.</p>

 

<p>I think part of this is related to non-verbal processing, right-brain, that knows it's own way of working. "If you have to think about it" (left-brain, verbal-logical processing) then it's wrong - could mean that you've left the right-brain processing before it's complete or that it's not trusted, etc etc.</p>

<p>There's a brain researcher who had a stroke on her left hemisphere and talks about the experience on a Ted talk...I'll see if I can find it. Very enlightening about how very different the two hemispheres process and how we experience them.</p>

<p>

<p>It's a very old spiritual teaching, about not choosing or letting go of having opinions and let things be as they are...trusting that.</p>

<p>I suspect that we dip back and forth as we get more trusting and experienced with both ways of processing and that most great artists do that automatically.</p>

<p>I've noticed that if I start thinking it almost always means I've lost connection with the original inspiration.</p>

<p>usually not. you need to <strong>check the license agreement</strong> ...they usually talk about usage in identity (logo) and print uses.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Just for fun or to continue this investigation, <strong>please post a photo that you feel is an Equivalent </strong> in the lines of Steiglitz and Minor White in a No Words threads...</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/no-words-forum/00VGnP</p>

Post a photo that you feel is an Equivalent as Stieglitz and Minor

White described. See a similar title on Philosophy of Photography for

links that describe what an Equivalent photo is.<div></div>

<p>that's funny, maybe I just need an 8x10 to get all transcendentally :)</p>

<p>that's the neat thing about Zen as a practice, it's soooooo ordinary.....and no compulsion to do anything like what I'm talking about....</p>

<p>the thing that makes me think that it is possible to make photos that have this quality is that Loori used to give projects in Dokusan (private interview with the teacher) and would accept a photo as an "answer" to a koan. knowing a bit about zen teachers and koans, a photo w/o this quality would not have been adequate I think...</p>

<p>but mostly, I love the process of photographing and want to see how much I can pull out of myself.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Luis, I appreciate your input... this is how these threads tend to go, nothing unusual...those looking can pick out the good bits...and there are some here.</p>

<p>Do you know why White's estate hasn't published his teaching materials etc? Or at least let others use them for research? Seems very strange....I've always been surprised that there's not more on White here too. Very few photos on the web in general.</p>

<p>John, even if White didn't intend "Spirit" to have any transcendental meaning, Loori does seem to have found it through White's teaching, which is interesting to me. I just found this talk by Loori about White and his own methods.</p>

<p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>Fred</strong> , I understand what you're saying about the "purity" of experience (side pun) w/o judgment and at an absolute level I agree. Experience is experience, whatever it is.</p>

<p>But if you're interested in going a certain direction, then some experiences help and others may not. That's only my values, not trying to say others should care, and to me this dropping the self is a whole level of expression that I'm working toward...and it's better to me because it's what I'm interested in. I'm fishing for conversation on this too.</p>

<p>I think it also was a goal of White's (not exclusively), from what I've read in his bio's and his journal that was published.</p>

<p><strong>Rebecca</strong> , that quote sounds a lot like Rumi too. And it's very much like Dogen, holding the absolute and the relative in one hand. Maybe all artists trying to convey Spirit reach this point of holding uncertainty and paradox and learning to create from that? Now what would that photo look like?</p>

<p>Maybe we should start a series of "No Words" threads that start with "Equivalence - " and post photos that speak to that...maybe "Equivalence - Impermance" etc.? It would be interesting to post a topic and spend a week working to come up with a photo that expresses that. (Not that I'd be any good at it, but the digging inside myself is the stuff that makes my work better I think)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Luis: "What if one could take that one-ness and dissolve or at least diminish the duality of photographer and subject? Remember the business of reversing polarity? What if there was another slate <em>already inside us, </em> but our obsession with the racket of the conscious mind drowns it out most of the time? The other slate would also be a <em>part of you, just not one you are familiar with.</em> "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, yes, even further, the core of Buddhist teaching is that the inner slate is the only real one. That the overlay of opinions, ideas, hurts, avoidance all create the outer slate that we think we are, and that has no real substance.</p>

<p>That is the main purpose or goal, if there is one, for meditation and photography for me. Yes, I've experienced this in meditation, but to a much lesser degree photographing.</p>

<p>Loori describes a total dropping of self in his initial breakthrough working with White, a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satori">satori</a> or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samadhi">samadhi</a> experience. I've not experienced that while photographing. I find it usually takes hours to get into a space of greatly lessened self and into that flow w/o sharp edges to subject and object. It's a space of very nice joy.</p>

<p>This is what can make photography a transformational tool beyond changing or expressing one's personality (I hope anyway). A great expression and conveyance of the human condition, feelings, even insight, is great and valuable. But this quest to drop the self completely and let some brilliance that's unconditioned by our likes and dislikes and personal history come through is a "whole-nother-level."</p>

<p>What I got from White's books is that this was his ultimate goal. It's mine at least, so I use what I can from White and others. And that's where any practice where the mind is quiet and aware has that potential. If in that connection there is a dropping of personality, opinions, self-holding, then transcendence can happen. And I think it is a matter of degree, so more is better...(actually I mean less is better :)</p>

 

<p><strong>Luis, thanks for the info, very helpful.</strong> I'm going to try the tracing exercise. I've been practicing Zen meditation for awhile and that is immensely helpful as you mention. But this moving outward and engaging with the world visually from that same quiet space makes me feel the need for some visual exercises that help build the visual muscle. I can't say enough good things about Miksang practice too.<br>

I also liked one of Stephen Shore's books that talked about floating through the layers of the photograph.</p>

<p>FYI, Loori died recently. Very sad to see him go. I was hoping to do his photography workshop when he recovered. <a href="http://www.mro.org/daido/">http://www.mro.org/daido/ </a></p>

<p>John and Phylo I think you are really onto something here. And I think part of it gets back to whether this intention to form an equivalent is functioning consciously in the mind of the photographer.<br /> <br /> In miksang, you can set an intention at the beginning of a session to have such-and-such a perception, for example, to have perceptions that have the quality of a japanese haiku. You don't obsess on that, only lightly set the intention and drop it and come back to non-conceptual reality over and over.<br /> <br /> But even that is far from the kind of equivalence-intention that White is talking about.<br /> <br /> One thing that is interesting and different may be the quality and amount of time spent in connection. Once the connection is made, in miksang I feel the edges of the perception and there's usually a felt tangible boundary to the experience. Then I take the photo. <br /> <br /> Loori talks about staying in the connection, sometimes for many hours. His initial breakthrough experience he said lasted from lunch to dusk. During this ebb and flow of connection between yourself and the subject, perhaps more can happen in that exchange than in the quick miksang flash? Of course, nothing says you can't stay in that flash with miksang.<br /> <br /> But I wonder if there's a richness and depth that can convey more through that longer connection? Perhaps unconscious motives and feelings can shape the photo more deeply?<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Loori also talked about editing and said to remember and re-enter that space while you edit or work on your art. That seems a prime place for an equivalence-intention to take place. Not in a clumsy conscious way (oh, a dark vignette around the edges would look moody), but in the same way the photo is taken, non-conceptually almost non-thinking? (I don't know if Loori was ever aware of miksang) In miksang the focus is on reproducing the image that caused you to stop and photograph, no editing for effect. Perhaps that leaves the image open for more uses by the viewer?<br /> <br /> <br /> The process is an excellent mirror of myself I find. If I'm trying hard, I get nothing. If I'm not sufficiently present or thinking too much, I get nothing. What I do get eventually has some reflection of my degree of presence (or lack) and sometimes something else. (speaking of my personal experience only)<br /> <br /> <br /> I do have some sense that what presents to you, has a lot to do with your presence and intention. Like Luis said, "that which you seek is also seeking you". I believe that this can be more than simply stumbling on an image that catches you...that perhaps some vital intelligence is arranging both the viewer and the object to meet at this specific point in time...<br /> ...and who knows, also the viewer of the photograph at the point in time in their life that they feel a resonance? in practice of course it doesn't matter.</p>

<p>How much of equivalence is about "making" a photo versus "discovering" a photo? And there's nothing that says a functioning equivalent can't be formed by either is there? What do you think?</p>

<p> </p>