dkm

<p>It depends where you're going in the park, Bill, and how you like to shoot.</p>

<p>You can find a use for everything there - I've used everything from macro to a 500mm. While a lot of scenery lends itself to the shorter lenses, there are some things (like Meigs Falls) where you can't approach on foot and need some length unless you're happy with a small-speck waterfall. (I actually shoot both.) And of course, bears should be shot from a distance.</p>

<p>You need to ask yourself who the photos are for and why you're taking them.</p>

<p>If they're for your family, then shoot the way they'd like. If they're for you alone, then shoot to please yourself. Likewise, if they're standard portraits, don't cut the foreheads off. The last shot of grandma before she dies isn't really an art opportunity. If they're "art", shoot pieces and parts.</p>

<p>Nothing says you can't shoot the same subject more than once. Most photographers do work a scene and get more than one shot. For portraits, they'll start with one or two conventional portraits and move on from there. Since you're a new photographer, it's too early to lock yourself in to one style or mode - try them all, have fun, and your personal style will develop naturally.</p>

<p>I use the daylight setting in most cases. It's simple enough to adjust exposure if need be during raw processing, and as you've noted in most cases it leads to a better result. AWB is getting better - but no software solution is perfect.</p>

<p>If I were shooting jpegs with no intention of post processing my answer would be different, of course. I keep my husband's point and shoot set on AWB. ;)</p>

<p>I typically don't bother to rate photos, so I can understand your frustration. I guess my advice would be not to immediately worry about someone else's work when you see low ratings - after all, very few photo editors are also pro photographers, but they're the ones who choose what's good enough to publish. This isn't about the "who" (you or them) but the "what" (the photo itself).</p>

<p>That said - photo 1 is a lovely scene, but it appears to have flare (right hand side) and I find the shift of color in the sky distracting. The composition feels off, there's too much empty foreground. I'd either have got closer to focus on the road and barn, or if you really wanted that mountain on the right I'd have shifted the angle. I'm not saying it's bad, but it feels like a near miss.</p>

<p>As for photo 2, it's another lovely scene but again the composition feels off. I'm not sure what your primary subject is - surely not that post sticking up in the middle of the photo even though it appears that way being front and center. Again I feel you could have done much better shifting your position.</p>

<p>Bottom line is that I do sympathize with your 3/3 ratings - especially if no critique is left. I wouldn't have rated them very high for the reasons I gave, but you do deserve the courtesy of knowing why. Hope it helps.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The big problem with point and shoots is the slow AF and shutter lag that prevent you from getting the shot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually that's not entirely true. Several makers make decent point and shoots or "all in ones" if you prefer. The Canon G9/G10, for example. Even the mighty Michael Reichman's been known to use one.</p>

<p>I think the biggest problem is that when people get on the internet to make a selection, too many "armchair experts" tell them that a true DSLR is the only way to go, even if it's way over their heads starting out. It's kind of like telling people they "must" use Photoshop - sometimes you need to let folks grow into things at their own pace or you lose them altogether.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In the higher altitudes, the forest transitions to evergreen trees, so you won't be looking at a bare forest.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually it's both - evergreens and deciduous - and the trees up top are bare. Clingman's Dome, Newfound Gap, anything above Alum Cave or the Deep Creek Overlook on the Caroline side look like winter already. I just got back from there today.</p>

<p>Lower down (Chimney trailhead) the leaves are still mostly green, there are still fall asters, and some of the lower mountains are just starting to color - it's a very odd year. So there *ought* to be color when you're here, but it's hard to predict. In normal years I shoot color well into November.</p>

<p>Ok, I'll bite on one:</p>

<p><em>Why do wide-angle lenses that provide great DOF still provide such small apertures like f/22? For example, is there any scenario where I would want to use f/22 on an 8mm lens (that, on top of that, is designed for APS-C)?</em></p>

<p>The closer you get to the object you're shooting in the foreground, the more dof you need. Example: I have a 24mm that has great dof, but it also has "macro" capability. What that really means is I can put the lens close to a relatively small object - like a mushroom. But I still want the mushroom's habitat to be reasonably sharp because it's part of the story. (If I wanted the mushroom by itself, I'd probably use my true macro, but it would give a completely different view of the subject.) Now if I'm shooting mountains using the same lens and I'm not <em>that</em> close to a foreground object, I can use the same lens to get everything in focus without resorting to f/22. But there are honestly times when only f22 or above will do, because by being so close, it's the only way to gain enough hyperfocal distance to capture the entire scene.</p>

<p>So the lens makers include f22 for people like me. ;) As for diffraction - I honestly haven't had many problems with diffraction.</p>

<p>"what use are these for? Is there any relatively common scenario where these would be useful"</p>

<p>Landscape photography. Macros. Anywhere you need a large dof. There are times bokeh is an inappropriate distraction. (Yes, I realize you can use focus stacking but some of us try to get the photos right in camera.)</p>

<p>Robert, I did one of these "no money, no pressure" weddings this spring, so here are some thoughts.<br>

1. There will be a certain amount of pressure regardless, so roll with it.<br>

2. Ask the bride/groom if there are any particular shots they have their heart set on. Some wedding shots are fairly standard, there are books and websites dealing with them, but each wedding is unique. What you don't want to hear later is, "I thought we'd get ..."<br>

3. Beyond that, be creative. Some of the truly best shots are spontaneous. Be open to the moment, and when in doubt, shoot. Take LOTS of cards.<br>

4. If at all possible, check out the venue beforehand; it will help you decide on lenses. The wedding I shot was outdoors with a cast of hundreds in the rain. I wound up using a 28-300 a lot, which I never would have chosen going in but the normal suggested lenses wouldn't have done the job. You just haven't lived till you see the bride in full dress riding up to the service on the back of a Harley. ;)<br>

5. Wear comfortable shoes that let you move. Move you will.<br>

I wound up with great photos and some extremely happy people, you can too. But shooting weddings is kind of like running a marathon, so prepare and go with the flow.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>One of the videos, which was played for jurors last week, showed the two driving by the Pentagon as Sadequee said: "This is where our brothers attacked the Pentagon." </em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>No lawyer could have helped him. The real surprising thing is that he was surprised by the reactions.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><br /> </p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>When I tried to take pictures that I was hoping to sell to newspapers,</em></p>

<p>So there was an accident and your first thought was to take photos to sell? I understand there were EMTs there, but on the other hand you don't have a God-given right to profit from someone else's misery.</p>

<p>Have to side with those who've mentioned how truly awful PayPal is.</p>

<p>PayPal gave you the go ahead to ship the items, and then PayPal wanted their money back. They're not responsible for the bad deeds of the buyer, but surely they bear some responsibility here. I gave up using them a few years ago, and miraculously I stopped getting tons of spam and scam attempts. Spend any time at all on security sites and you'll soon learn how bad they really are.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not really material for the Beginner Forum since it's more of a lecture than a question from a beginner. So... bumped over to CC forum.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm going to disagree with your assessment. It's actually the answer to a question often asked by beginners and makes a valid point. </p>

<p>There are a number of good cameras and systems out there. There's plenty of time to turn into a gearhead later without throwing endless rules and assessments at beginners. In fact, an awful lot of beginners are turned against the art by people who scream "you must" at them, or equally bad, buy cameras they're not ready for yet.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>certainly in todays business environment, manufacturers need products with broad customer appeal and reasonable margins. this is how they make money and thats the only reason they are in business. "speciality items" with very limited demand would have to cost so much to ensure a profit that no consumer could afford them. so there we have it. personally i feel we all have far too many choices in just about every catagory of stuff we want/need.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Totally ridiculous. People buy items - cameras, toasters, cars, clothes, anything - based on features, price, and reliability, not pity for manufacturers. And people will change brands to get what they want. Business is generally a balance between efficiency and giving consumers a reason to buy. Forcing a one-size-fits-all mentality in the marketplace is a sure way to kill any business.</p>

<p>Pros don't want the same things the general public wants, or we'd have all used disposable cameras in the old film days. The same is true with digital. Telling a pro he has to have/can't have a feature because all the moms and pops want it and there are more of them out there is suicide.</p>

<p>Robert, congrats on feeling better.</p>

<p>To answer your question, I own this lens and love it. You certainly put yours to good use.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>[[not forcing the consumer to take what's given and they'd better darn well like it.]]<br>

Who is forcing you to use camera features you don't want to use?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have to deal with cluttered menus. (I'm not a huge fan of menus anyway once they get a certain number of levels deep - it's a well known design problem in software circles.) I have to deal with buttons and modes with more crammed onto them resulting in smaller print and increments. And I have to deal with potentially buggy software, since the more complicated it becomes, the greater the chance something will "fall through" given a particular combination.</p>

<p>When I recently upgraded my dSLR it went from 1 line of information in the viewfinder to 2. (It has live view, I happen to loathe it.) I've got tons of new, superfluous info I don't use, and I can barely read it. It might as well not be there. I also got a slew of new modes - but I've been a photographer for years going back to film days and will never use them. To say nothing of a slew of digital filters for use with jpeg only. Silly me, I shoot raw.</p>

<p>I think the real bottom line is that the customer is still the customer. It may be cheaper for the manufacturer, but that's false economy - make enough of anything and different models are efficient. Cram a bunch of stuff in for people who don't know how to shoot or post process and at some point the camera is no longer a joy to use - it's an obstacle course.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The question really has to be asked why you wouldn't want these features?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Because I'm never going to use them? Especially the video ...</p>

<p>Henry Ford sold cars in any color people wanted - as long as it was black. That gave way as other makers came online though. Companies competed on value, price, and features, and the consumer benefited.</p>

<p>The idea that it's cheaper for manufacturers to make one model instead of two is valid to a point but ignores the marketplace. One size never fits all. Business is founded on giving the consumer what they want - high end, low end, features, status, whatever - not forcing the consumer to take what's given and they'd better darn well like it. Competition is free market economy at its finest.</p>

<p>No, they won't. It's one of the reasons I gave up ACR.</p>

<p>However I believe you can build a custom profile that will let you ballpark the settings.</p>