mubeen_mughal

<p>In dark-humour, Long-nose comes from Pinnocchio, and represents a compulsive and habitual liar in the spirit of Disney's condescending humour.<br>

As for the Nikkors, there is the AI 50mm f/1.8 as well as the Ai-S 50mm f/1.8 which have the same optics and focus down to 0.45m and is slightly longer, wheres there is the Nikkor Ai-S 50mm f/1.8s which is somewhat of a pancake lens focusing down to 0.6m and looks more like a Nikon series E 50mm f/1.8 and are never referred to as short-noses, but just pancakes.</p>

<p>I like the rendition of the M9 from images I've seen on the internet and Flickr, the colours are restrained and subtle like the Canon 1D series and more neutral-ish. I like them because they are stronger than Neutral which I don't really like, and Standard is sometimes too strong.. It appears they have arrived at a good balance.</p>

<p>The EF 50mm f/1.2 L is "probably" more of an ego-trip, and it's users will justify claims about its wondrousness and esoteric appeal. <br>

The advantage of the extra 1/3 stop of the 1.2 over the 1.4 is questionable, particularly at the edges. For practical purposes, I doubt whether one could differentiate photos taken with either lens, and certainly neither can introduce aesthetics or art in your images (only you can).<br>

http://www.flickr.com/photos/19725722@N06/sets/72157603812692225/</p>

<p>And we must remember to neither be contemptuous nor arrogant irrespective of the belief system that we believe.</p>

<p>That was then, he now uses digital Canon, see: http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/interviews/salgado_genesis.do</p>

<p>He uses a Canon 1DS Mark III, adapted to see a 645 frame.</p>

<p>Alternative: Switch to digital, and use DxO film pack or Alien Skin film pack. See my samples here:<br>

<p><a title="IMG_5095 Alien Skin Fuji Neopan 1600 small by The Third-Eye, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7014/6636892775_865d9df78a_o.jpg" alt="IMG_5095 Alien Skin Fuji Neopan 1600 small" width="1067" height="1600" /></a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>I used mostly an EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L, albeit on A Rebel XT (I'd have used a 5D if I had one then) In Toronto China Town (and little of the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5), samples here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/19725722@N06/sets/72157605127224669/<br>

If you can swing 2 bodies then consider the 24-70 or 105 along with the EF-S 10-22 or 17-40 or 16-35. Zoom lenses do have their advantages, and their optical quality is very good nowadays. One of my favourite lenses is the 10-22 because it's so good optically, is very compact, and has a phenomenal wide-coverage.<br>

There is no best lens, it depends on you style. I sometimes like to zoom in to isolate, and sometimes zoom out to cover a lot of ground. Cartier-Bresson used a 50mm because he probably didnm't have many alternatives then, and probably didn't want to change lenses. If he were shooting now, he'd probably be using the 24-70 or 24-105 (I'd say).</p>

<p>Here is a sample:

<p>See my samples inder Mobs' Shots in this thread:</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/groups/24-70l/discuss/72157600514028657/</p>

<p>Mr. Bernard Mills: I have enjoyed and savoured each and every one of your postings to this thread. <br>

One a different note, Kenelm Burridge's "Encountering Aboriginies" was a remarkable and interesting read, for me.</p>

<p>Cultural relativity: It is all cultural relativity. A century and a half ago, the father of Rabindranath Tagore, Prince Dwarkanath, when he was staying in one of the best suite apartments in one of the best hotels in Paris, was sought out by the most celebrated Orientalist of the Nineteenth century, Fredrich Max Muller. Dwarkanath and Muiller discussed their shared taste for European Music, and Max Muller asked Dwarkanath if he could hear a specimen of authentic Indian music. When finally Dwarkanath played a piece on the piano, and sang, Max Muller could find in the music neither melody, nor rhythm, nor harmony, and told Dwarkanath who replied: "You are all alike; if anything seems strange to you and does not please you at once, you turn away; When I first heard Italian music, it was no music to me at all; but I went on and on, till I began to like it, or what you call understand it; It is the same with everything else. You may say our religion is no religion, and our poetry is no poetry, our philosophy is no philosophy. We try to understand what Europe has produced, but do not imagine that therefore we despise what India has produced. If you studied our music as we do yours, you would find that there is melody, rhythm, and harmony in it, quite as much as in yours. And if you would study our poetry, our religion, and our philosophy, you would find that we are not what you call heathens or miscreants, but know as much of the Unknowable as you do, and have seen perhaps even deeper into it than you have" As for the eternal soul being stolen (courtesy of Allen Herbert), I read that piece or something like it in "Poems After the Attack: A collection of poems responding to 9/11", some of which can be found here: http://poetry.about.com/od/ourpoemcollections/a/poemsafterattac.htm</p>

Anyone know about, or has used the Sigma warranty in the World-Wide realm (excluding the Americas)?

Anyone know about, or has used the Sigma warranty in the World-Wide realm (excluding the Americas)?

Got a Rebel XT and tried the 24-70/2.8 L

Jason,

 

Ha ha, we learn something everyday. I should have said I imagine that they must have been f/5.6 or smaller.

 

So what would you say is the 35mm equivalent of a 16" on an 8X10?

 

Thanks.

Thank you all for your contributions.

 

I think he may have used large format lenses with the equivalent perspective of 35mm, 50mm and perhaps 135mm in 35mm.

 

The reason I am asking this question is that in a lot of the photos that I have seen, the depth of field is so shallow; yet I know that the aperture of his lenses must have been no larger than f/5.6, hence the question that how can such slow lenses have such little depth of field.

I am wondering if anyone would know what lenses Matthew B. Brady may

have used for his photographs of the American Civil War, and what

settings he may have had to use.

I want to think that this phenomenon we are discussing, came about as a consequence of the colonizers who came to colonize with the aid of fire-sticks (guns). Maybe, then, the camera is seen as a kind of gun, just perhaps?

Quote: "It happened to me recently in the Caribbean island of Bequia, when an old woman covered her face long before I had any idea of taking her picture, and waved me away".

 

We don't know whether she's worried about her soul being stolen, or not. Emre "thinks" that she is worried about her soul being stolen, but perhaps she just wants the photographer to get out of her hair. Unless we interview her about her personal beliefs, we cannot know. In the interim, we can only "project" our own thinking onto her.

 

"Against her will..." is the key phrase. She doesn't want to have her photograph taken (for whatever reason, or motivation) and that should be respected.

 

But then again, sensationalist papers do it all the time.

I suppose the Nihilist is 'as' entitled to his/her views as much as anyone else is.

 

We take refuge in the "isms" that we feel comforted by, yet we are all the same even after having enlisted the support of our respective "ism".

Ben, because 'you' do not "believe" in the existence of a soul, should that belief allow you to be insensitive towards those who do believe in a soul?

 

As for the proof, neither position can be proved or disproved, that's why both propositions rely on faith, and that is what a belief is.

 

So I suppose this thread has a 'soul' of it's own.

In the context of this thread, could we take "soul" to mean 'dignity' or 'respect'?

 

Or shall we just percieve the old woman to be a dumb-brute because of her "primitive" beliefs?

 

Especially because she is being reactive rather than pro-active?

Emre: You originally wrote - "...I have no idea what these people are thinking..."

 

I think it may be that they "feel" the act of photographing them is an intent of (derision) "ridiculing" them and their circumstances.

 

I remember a few years ago, I was on holiday in Mombasa, at the Coast of Kenya, and I was trying to take a shot of a man on the street with a hand-card. He said, no photos please. I asked him why, he said "if they are to laugh at then no, but if the photos are not for laughing at then you can".

 

If I were to walk over towards you (and we are total strangers), and then I said do you mind if I take your photo?, how would "you" react?

Bernd - Its all cultural.

 

You "believe" that "the virture of an artist: to recognise a glimpse of the soul, to sense the divine spark in the mechanical stream of life", yet artists in different cultures believe differently and thus were/are motivated differently.

Bryon wrote - "...you may end up converting to their beliefs...", I really like that line.