jimknowles

<p>Wow. If only there were a definitive book about which rights are included in the First Amendment - with lots of analogous stories. Be a best seller, wouldn't it?<br>

As a "street shooter" (i.e.. Photojournalist) for over 42 years - and with 4 years as a member of The White House Press Corps, it's my opinion there's much perspective missing here, even in this long thread. It has been my own observation that since September 1, 1997, incidents of American Citizenry proclaiming "photography is illegal!" have increased a thousand fold. Then another thousand fold since 9/11. And what is truly amazing to me - again this is just my own opinion and observation - is that we now live in a time where almost every single man, woman and child between the ages of 9 and 80 are carrying on their person some type of camera. Another observation; everywhere you go outside your own home there are City, State, Federal and Private cameras (mostly video), watching you, photographing and filming you and your vehicle, both indoors and outdoors. Look around. Cameras E V E R Y W H E R E. Yet, to this day, and everyday I'm out "in the streets" with my Nikon professional camera, at least one person comes up to me and says something about my camera. I'd say most remarks are equally divided between "wow, what a big camera" and "it's illegal to take pictures!" It takes a lot of my time, which I willingly give, to answer all the questions those Americans then tend to begin asking. Most walk away a bit more thoughtful and a bit more knowledgeable about The First Amendment of OUR Constitution.</p>

 

<p>Sold my 35-70 f2.8 as soon as I started shooting with the 24-70 f2.8. The 24-70 does seem like a monster, but it's hands down the sharpest zoom Nikon has ever made. Sharp and absolutely instant focusing. Love the 14-24 2.8 as well. Different animal, but equally incredible.</p>

<p>I have owned the legendary 105 f2.0 DC since it was introduced and must say - it is absolutely incredible. Sharp as the original 105 f2.5 - best bokeh of any lens - and adjustable DOF. Best portrait lens ever made. I'm sure if you're shooting landscapes with that focal length style - either the 135DC or 105DC will amaze you.</p>

<p>The 24 f2.8 D is a great great lens. It is not nearly as amazing as either the 14-24 f2.8 or the 24-70 f2.8 (which may be the sharpest lens Nikon has ever produced *at most working apertures). Nevertheless - the 24 2.8 D is a wonderful lens for the money.</p>

<p>105 f2.0 DC - best portrait lens ever made. Second best: 135 f2.0 DC Nikkor.</p>

<p>I used to know a photog in who worked out of Dallas - a fashion guy - and the ONLY lens he used was the 43-86. He developed a small following of A/D's who liked his ever-so-slightly-fuzzy-soft fashion stuff. Funny thing was - the reason he stayed with that lens was that was all he had in the beginning - and word got around this dude had his own "style". I say "funny" because in truth he didn't have a clue what he was doing. That lens is infamously the worst lens Nikon ever made.</p>

<p>I used to know a photog in who worked out of Dallas - a fashion guy - and the ONLY lens he used was the 43-86. He developed a small following of A/D's who liked his ever-so-slightly-fuzzy-soft fashion stuff. Funny thing was - the reason he stayed with that lens was that was all he had in the beginning - and word got around this dude had his own "style". I say "funny" because in truth he didn't have a clue what he was doing. That lens is infamously the worst lens Nikon ever made.</p>

<p>I know you said you are "not interested" in any zoom lenses - and I know exactly what you mean - with only two exceptions:<br>

#1. The Nikon 24-70 f2.8 is probably the sharpest lens you will ever use. Bar none - including Macros and Zeiss fixed focal length primes.<br>

#2. The OLD Series E 75-150 - was and probably still is if you can find one; perhaps the sharpest (with the exception of the <br>

new 24-70 f2.8). <br>

The 14-24 f2.8 is absolutely incredible as well - but the 24-70 is by far the sharpest Nikon lens I've ever seen. And believe me when I tell you - I've used every lens worth a darn ever made by Nikon - over the past 40 years.</p>

 

<p>Resolution- Nikon vs Canon. Eh, I think everyone using either system has their favorite lenses.<br>

And to get down to the nitty-gritty, most lenses are better than most photographers.<br>

Look at (and understand) MTF charts (Modulation and Transfer Function) before proclaiming any particular brand is <br>

"better". Go here to read an article which explains MTF: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/understanding-series/understanding-mtf.shtml<br>

Then go to the manufacturers websites and look for yourself at the MTF charts on any given lens. <br>

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=111<br>

http://www.nikon-image.com/jpn/products/lens/af/index.htm<br>

When you've finished examining all that - maybe take a bit of time to read this stuff here:<br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/sharpness.shtml<br>

After reading and digesting some of the science that relates to photography, you may be surprised and even enlightened . . . and I hope inspired to create whilst continuing to learn about that which most of us love - making good pictures. <br>

We are living in a very exciting time for photography. After 40 years of seeing and shooting, in my humble opinion, what really matters is making good pictures. For me - for the work I do and enjoy the most, Nikon (currently) does a fantastic job of giving me what I need . . . and it just keeps getting better. </p>

<p>Tell you one little secret. Go here to see for yourself the facts: http://www.dxomark.com/<br>

As you can see - currently the D700 and D3 (not D3x), even at "only" 12 mgpxls, are equal to or better than any other model <br>

DSLR. I've seen - but haven't yet purchased my own to test - images shot with the D3x and they are indeed impressive. As stated<br>

by most - it's a pro camera for pros who need what that camera does. I've been doing this for a living for over 40 years and can only<br>

say that if ACME came out with a better camera tomorrow, I'd switch in a minute. For now - for what I need my tools to do for me - <br>

it's Nikon. If I shot Video, I'd probably seriously consider the 5DII - though my educated guess is that Nikon, having come out with <br>

the first DSLR that shoots video (D90), they too will have a more professional model with more video capabilities soon. But since <br>

I don't shoot video and probably never will, my needs are completely satisfied and then some by the D3 / D700. I do, however, <br>

very much look forward to picking up a D3x as soon as I have time to bother. BTW - just in the interest of full disclosure for all <br>

those who sometimes scoff at anyone using a different "brand" than that which is the more popular, I used Canon from 1990 until<br>

the release of the F5. That after 22 years of using Nikon. It was a rough transition for me from film to digital, I must admit. But<br>

I must say, I've never been as excited about photography as I am now. Camera Raw and Lightroom, CS4, and the latest pro <br>

digital printers combined with a big shiny new Mac Pro give this photographer more control and more creative tools than we've <br>

ever had - ever. It's a wonderful time to be a photographer. </p>

oh, sorry, not the N version. i'm looking for the latest version - ser# beginning with

179XXX. ED-IF

I'm interested in buying it from you. do you still have it? how much do you want?

email me at paparazzo1@gmail.com and let me know. send a pic of you have one.

I have two of these - they work extremely well - and recycle the Nikon SB800 or Canon

equivalent faster than any other external battery pack system made. But it's not made for

shooting long events such as red carpet or weddings. It's more for that quick news burst /

paparazzi style shooting where you have to shoot your flash as fast as possible for just a few

to a dozen frames at a time. Any battery pack that delivers really fast recycle time will burn

out your flash tube if you fire it off too many times without giving the flash time to cool down

between bursts.

WHATEVVA<div></div>

it might be considered a bit gynecological but hardly pornographic by most. nevertheless - it

is ALLOWED to be displayed here where as many of my far far far less gynecological and far

far far less pornographic photos are not. if Im able to upload one here for an example I shall,

otherwise - just use your imagination - a tight shot of a clothed woman's rear. IS N O T

ALLOWED here.

I have a LUMIX LX1 - slightly bumped it and the screen cracked. Love the camera though.

So far no one else has one out that does what I want - so I'll pay to repair it as the slgiht

bump did cause a slight indent on the case just above the screen. Nevertheless - after closely

examining the camera - it is obvious it's made cheaply / poor construction / glass right up

against the metal case. Perhaps Panasonic never expected them to be so popular? Or perhaps

they simply farmed out the labor on putting them together to the cheapest bidder in Taiwan?

At any rate - I'll repair mine and be much more careful with it in the future - but I'll buy the

first OTHER BRAND camera that can out shoot it!

Did you ever find someone to help?

People upload pix here to either seriously or less seriously find out what other's think...

if both rater's - and photographer's who upload pictures were anonymous - no matter

what the feared problems might be - the results would be:

A. More honest than ever OVERALL. (even with the current system - the cheaters will cheat

- BUT - at least if both the raters names and the photographer's names are anonymous -

cheating will be more difficult AND it would simply be more likely that out of all those

around the world who look at and use this site - the most popular PICTURES would get the

most ratings. (Isn't that what everyone ultimately wants? That p.net be as fair and honest

as possible?)

B. And were the system more fair, logic dictates less complaining about the system itself.

C. The site admin/mgmt. would have more power instead of less as they could then easily

point out the fairness to all and be done with the whining about ratings.

D. It would be more fun! to find out HONESTLY what others around the planet think of

one's picture.

 

Seems simple enough to me.

PUT IT IN NUDES!

I just wanna know where I can get one of those statues?

THIS IS NOT A SITE FOR ART. IT IS A PERSONAL SITE PRIVATELY OWNED AND NO ONE BUT THE

OWNERS HAVE ANY SAY ABOUT ANYTHING PERIOD. YOU DON'T LIKE IT? TOO BAD! IF IT HAD

REAL COMPETITON OUT THERE - MOST OF THE POSTERS WOULD LEAVE IN TWO SECONDS.

BUT THERE IS NO COMPETITION. AND YOU KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS!

I say rate 'em according to how you feel and comment according to what you believe and let

the chips fall where they may in regards to what others thought before yee or might think

after yee.

... everyone would pay and everyone would have to have pictures uploaded before being

able to critique other's work. AND all uploaded pictures requesting critique would remain

anonymous as would all ratings given and the raters names who give them, for the first 3

or 7 days, at which point ALL NAMES would be revealed - of both the photographers and

the raters.

 

Seems to me there is but only a handful of people who actually believe down deep that

ratings - Quote: don't matter End Quote -

 

Also seems to me the real problem is finding a FAIR way to rate pictures.

 

Also seems to me many of the objections to ratings are based on some idealistic idea that

somehow the human ego is bad. My OPINION (and that of most mental health experts I've

read) is that the human ego is normal and the basis of most good manners is the keeping

in mind that one's fellow man wants to feel important and anything one might do/say to

allow him/her to feel important will only further one's own status from other's point of

view. Phew.

 

Artists have (usually) even more fragile egos that your typical non-artist.

 

Bottom line? Everyone likes to know if others like their pictures. But everyone will not like

everyone's pictures the same amount. And if the rating system is allowed to be completely

fair (anonymous on both sides as above) then nobody can really complain.

 

It has been said of this anonymous idea that some will find ways to cheat (perhaps -but

fewer will be able to do so than do now) and some complained they didn't like not having

their images ID'd due to copyright. On this copyright issue keep in mind these images are

stolen and used everyday all over the internet as it is - so the copyright thing is a moot

point.

 

Besides - it might very well be possible to to reveal the names of both the photogs and the

raters AFTER the first 3 or 7 days.

 

Bottom - bottom line? WIth so many thousands of visitors to P.net, from all over the world,

visting p.net everyday - allowing everyone to rate and all pictures to be rated straight up

without any restraints would give everyone a fair idea of just how their pictures stack up.

Re: those who are die-hard Quote: I'm just here to learn and get feedback. End Quote -

you wouldn't get any fewer comments or less feedback or advice than you do now. And

since you - I just want to learn types- don't care about ratings at all and have no need to

have your ego massaged, I'm sure you would be more than happy to allow everyone else

whatever joy and or lack thereof they might get from this concept.

someone put a (GOD FORBID) a, uh - NUDE! in the humour category? THEN WHAT!? EVEN

WORSE! A Funny NUDE!? AAAaaaaaaaaaaaahh!

 

BANNED FOR LIFE!

 

SO I vote NO on the humour category!

 

Besides - nobody here has any humour anyway - just a lot of smart alecks!

Can there EVER be a so called CORRECT CATEGORY for ALL different types of photos? -

Does it make sense to limit which images can or cannot be posted in ANY category? Or do

the categories presented here represent the only types of images allowed? Think about

this foolishness when limiting anything having to do - even remotely - with artistic

endeavors.