rightimage

That's a fair enough clarification, James.

I didn't intend to imply that foreign citizens in foreign countries would enjoy First Amendment protections under the U.S. Constitution, but rather intended to remind ourselves how the general war-time situation can put expected rights and liberties in tension with (supposed?) national interests, and sometimes with less-than-satisfactory remedies of due process, whether an American citizen or not.

Regardless of Mr. Hussein's citizenship status, most (photo)journalists could reasonably expect a certain level of deference on behalf of the American government toward any legitimate journalists. This particular case constitutes an important footnote to that expectation.

Regarding Ellis Vener's original post: This is a legitimate news story of particular interest to photographers and journalists who expect and enjoy First Amendment rights, even in a country (and world) in conflict (i.e. basically everyone reading this website). (Of course the fact that it was Ellis who posted it doesn't hurt, either.)

Regarding the debate following Ellis' original post: Constructive debate and information-sharing on civic matters is a good thing in whatever medium it uses, but there's a reason photo.net would be about the last place I would want to engage in such a debate. And, with all due respect to my fellow photo.netters, the above posts are great examples of why...

I'm running into a problem where, after adjusting and converting my

RAW files from my Fuji S2Pro in Raw File Converter EX/LE 2.0, the TIFF

file has a blank white strip on the bottom 1/5th of the image or so

(about 800 pixels tall and all the way across the image). I've tried

converting both with and without EXIF. Converting to JPEG gives me the

complete image but an inferior one. Previewing the image in siple

programs like Windows Picture and Fax Viewer shows a complete image,

but part of the image is missing everytime in Photoshop 7.0.

I'm at a complete loss of what to do and time is starting to get

short. Fuji hasn't been able to help me, so I'm wondering if anyone

has run into a problem of Photoshop not displaying an entire image for

whatever reason. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks.<div></div>

I have an SB-28 for my N90. It's a great flash, nobody's disputing that and I don't really have too much more to say about it (it's a FLASH!). But, I do know that my equipment has been knocked around a bit (not excessively so) and I just am not overly concerned about my flash's durability like I know I would be with a Vivitar or something similar. It's a Nikon flash and it's great.

<BR>

Something else to consider is the fact that if you buy an SB-28, you will never need to buy a better quality flash, one doesn't exist. Even if you did want to sell the flash for some reason, you would get most of your money back for it because it says "Nikon", something that won't happen with a Vivitar or Sunpack unit.

<BR>

Just my (drowsy) opinion...

I've searched the archives, but I couldn't find what I was looking

for.

<BR><BR>

I am starting to get into wildlife photography seriously now, but I

have very limited experience in the field of wildlife photography. I

will be photographing mainly deer and turkey in the forest from a

blind I made. I have a Nikon N90 and a newly-aquired Nikon 80-200/2.8

(non-AFS).

<BR><BR>

Now, I'll be doing quite a bit of shooting at the end of the day for

the best light, but consequentially, the light is awfully low inside

the forest at this time of day even shooting at 2.8. I know I need to

use my tripod and proper technique, but I'm a bit lost as to what film

I should use.

<BR>

I shoot both negs and slides and prefer Fuji in both (NPH, NPS,

Provia, Velvia). Just yesterday I came across two fawns (w/o my

tripod, of course) and I had my camera with me, but I decided I would

enjoy the moment instead of getting the shot (yes, I'm nuts). I did

however take some meter readings to get an idea of what I'll be

shooting at. I found that with NPH @ 400 I would be down to about 1/30

at f/2.8; I don't think that's too bad, but then again I probably

won't use NPH too much for this stuff, probably more of Provia and

NPS. That would take me down to about 1/8 @ 2.8, too slow in my

opinion.

<BR><BR>

So, here's my question (finally), at what point is the light just too

low to be shooting? IOW, 'how low can you go' in regards to film speed

and shutter speed? What film(s) would you suggest to me given my

situation? Or should I just shoot when it's brighter (sounds too

simple to me) and hence accept worse light?

<br><BR>

Thanks for your help and advice, even if you can't answer my questions

exactly.

Ross,

<BR><BR>

NPS and NPH are both professional print films made by Fuji. NPS's film speed is 160 and NPH's is 400, although many people shoot them at a slower ISO in order to overexpose.

Dan,

<BR><BR>

What film do you have to use in the USA? Agfa <i>Ultra</i> 50, perhaps?

I am beginning to get into nature photography more seriously now and I

find myself in need of a blind since I can't afford a 400/2.8 or

600/4 to bring the subjects in close to me. I am not really interested

in bird or waterfowl photography. I will be shooting deer, turkey,

squirrels, and other such forest mammals. I don't want to buy a blind

if I can build one (just for me). The problem is, I don't know how to

build one, or with what. It would be nice if it was somewhat portable

and/or collapsible because I will have to be travelling through a

rather thick forest to get into position. Also, I need the blind to be

large enough to stay in an entire day

with camera equipment and supplies.

<BR><BR>

I am also concerned about my scent (no, I don't stink) since deer have

a keen sense of smell. I know I should be downwind from them, but the

wind probably will change throughout the day. I'm not too keen on

rubbing fox pee all over myself though (like some hunters do). Should

I consider a more plastic or thicker camo; instead of using a

fabric/mesh type material?

<BR><BR>

-What materials should I use/did you use?

<BR>

-How did you construct it?

<BR>

-Are there any sites with plans for building a blind?

<BR>

Thanks for your help.

Jack,

<br>

How'd your trip go? Where did you end up going?

<br>

I live here in Michigan but I found your thread too late. I haven't been able to visit enough of our great State or Nation Parks yet in my lifetime and was wondering what your impression of our great state was (we apologize for the roads).

I think the comment "Photography isn't about equipment" means that photography isn't <i>just</b> about equipment and it shouldn't. Sure, new toys (most of which we can't afford but get anyways) are fun, but that's not really what photography is about. The pinhole camera wasn't invented because people wanted something else to play with when they got tired of tinkering with their cars, pinhole photography was invented as a purist form of photography. Pinhole photography involves the minimal amount of equipment so one can better concentrate on <i>photography</b> without being distracted by equipment.

<br>

<br>

Alexandre, I love it that you're being a diplomat for those without stacks of money. That's great. However, I think that the statement "To be a serious nature photographer, you have to have the best equipment" should be revised to read "A serious nature photographer should have the best equipment s/he can afford at the time one needs it". The level of one's photography should never be determined by the equipment one has, but by the resulting photographs. You should get the best equipment <i>you</b> can get, but not necessarily <i>the</b> best equipment.

<br>

Enjoy photography and don't become a gearhead, as I, and many others, are. Your photography will be so much better if you concentrate on the fundamentals like lighting, composition, emotion, etc. instead of the lens you want (but can't afford). What if Alfred Eisenstead sat around wishing he had better equipment? Definitely go out and shoot and get better regardless of the equipment you own presently. After awhile, your photos will get better and you'll be able to sell some of those images and then, if possible, upgrade your equipment as your needs warrant.

<br>

<br>

Okay, I'm stepping off my soap box now. Feel free to stand on it.

I am starting to pursue nature photography more seriously now, but not

so seriously (i.e. professionally) that I am shooting only slides. I

do shoot slides, but there are times when I want prints for myself or

others. I have been using Fuji NPS and NPH, but am wondering what the

"best" print film is for nature photography. It would be nice if Kodak

still made the Royal Gold 50, but they don't. I've heard good things

about Fuji Reala, but want your input to serve as a starting point for

my film testing.

<br>

Thanks.