mcgarity

I have a 300D and I use a Nikkor AIS 105mm micro lens with an adapter. Works like a champ and the optical quality of the Nikkor is first rate. I paid $28 for the adapter. It doesn't autofocus but like the man said, AF is of dubious value with macro work anyway.

I live 30 miles from Rocky Mountain NP. I personally believe you will have a better chance of success shooting sunsets at Sprague Lake or Bear Lake than you will with sunrise.

 

If you want to photograph wildflowers you might try around the entrance to Endovalley by West Horseshoe Park. Easiest way to get there is enter via the Fall River Entrance. A couple of miles into the park you will come to the turn off for the Old Fall River Road. Close to that turn off are several places you can park your vehicle and go exploring. By the way this is absolutely the BEST place in RMNP to see big bull elk in the winter. You might get lucky now but I wouldn't count on it. They are likely to be at higher elevations this time of year.

 

If you want to see moose, deer, and possibly elk try the Kawaneechee Valley just north of Grand Lake on the west side of the park.

If you have seen fungus growing in a lens I don't think there is any way you would ever mistake oil for it.

Hear hear for Jayme.

 

I can't remember the last time I looked at the TRP. For good or bad the rating system is what it is. And what it is, is mostly broken. Thats unlikely to change so I am not going to bitch about it. That said I would wholeheartly welcome the changes Jayme proposes.

Don't get too excited over ISO 3200. It will get you an image but the quality is likely to be pretty poor. Its been my experience that the noise at that setting is just about off the scale.

Tim

 

I noticed that since you joined photo.net a year ago you have only rated 27 photos but have received more than 10 times that many. That seems a bit lopsided. I am not suggesting you engage in mate rating. But I strongly feel that if you expect to receive critiques and ratings, then you should be willing to give a few back to the community at large. Its only common courtesy.

Its easy to dismiss bokeh as just so much internet hype and BS. I used to do that myself. And to be honest there is a fair amount of sheer utter nonsense written about it.

 

But its a mistake to dismiss the bokeh as having no validity at all. There can be a huge difference in the way two different lenses render out of focus areas in the same scene while using the same aperture and focal length.

 

 

Lenses that have a slight undercorrection for spherical aberrations are the ones that are typically categorized as having good bokeh. Over correction of spherical aberrations results in performance that is categorized as bad bokeh. Ken Rockwell has a very good article about the reasons why on his website. I believe the link is www.kenrockwell.com. Its worthwhile taking the time to read it.

The problem is up stream. Closing your browser out and reopening it is not going to make a bit of difference. I have tried using different computers and networks. No matter the location, rate recent is hung on the same deleted image.

Brian thats a poor way to run things. I sometimes think you want to run people away from this site.

If you trust admin to remain consistent with regards to anonymous ratings you may be making a big mistake. They have a lousy track record in this regard. You may rate something anonymously today and they may decide to tell the world it was you tomorrow. Its a pretty poor way to run things.

Anyone that can refer to the FD 85 f1.2L as boring has quite obviously never used one.

It is 4 per day for members. I don't know what the limit is for non members.

Sometimes it seems like its more trouble than its worth? And this is definately one of those times.

I am convinced you could solve 90% of the abuse problems by simply restricting ratings to only paying members. Giving the privilege to anybody that drives simply opens up too many avenues for mischief.

I had the same experience Walter had. I reported it as he did. I got the same response back from Mr. Stein. And I will second his question. What is acceptable proof?

Revenge rating has started. If you were foolish enough, as I was, under the old system to actually rate a few photos that you thought were bad as bad, it will come back to haunt you. That?s happening to me now and I certain others are experiencing the same thing.

 

That?s what happens when you change rules and make it retroactive. I feel like screaming. You couldn?t come up with a scenario to do more to discourage people from giving a truthful opinion if you tried. Anyone that actually did is now going to suffer. What a frigging mess.

I can't figure out the logic that went into the new changes to the rating system. I would be the first to agree that something needed to be done. It was a mess before, but its going to be worse now. Some ratings are totally transparent, some are totally opaque. As Spock says "that does not compute."

 

I am all for letting non paying members look at photos. I am all for letting them comment to their hearts content. But if you are serious about cleaning up the ratings system you need to restrict the ability to rate photos to those willing to pay for membership. That wouldn't make it a perfect system but it would go a long way to preventing major abuses. If you are not willing to take that step then I believe the situation is going to continue to deteriorate.

 

And last but not least, when someone says that anyone that leaves a poor rating should also leave an explaination, I always wonder if the person advocating that position follows their own advice. I doubt very many do.

Thank you for that link Michael. A quick look certainly puts paid to the idea that shooting wildlife in black and white is a waste of time. There is some lovely imagery there.

Grant

 

You caught me out. That was a typo on my part.

You can get a velvia like look using the channel mixer in Photoshop. Simply set

 

the red channel to red 120%, green -10%, blue -10%

 

the blue channel to red -10%, green +120%, blue -10%

 

the blue channel to red -10%, green -10%, blue +120%

Edward the hood for the EF 24-70 2.8.L is quite a bit more than 2 centimeters in depth. And zooming has absolutely nothing to do with its physical dimensions.

I bought a hood for the EF-S 10-22mm. When I opened the box I thought was "how the hell can this thing be of any use at all?" Several months later I think my initial impression was correct. Buying one was a total waste of money.

"Fungus is airborne and will migrate from one lens to another via the inside of a camera bag or similar."

 

NO IT WILL NOT. One lens does not contaminate another. Fungus comes from excessive humidity pure and simple.

From what I have read the number of blades and their design does have an impact on bokeh but the way a lens is corrected for spherical aberations has a larger one. The lenses that have the best out of focus rendition are the ones with that are under corrected.

I would not believe anything Hoya says about the need for a thin filter. They have a vested interest in getting you to buy one because they charge more for them. I can tell you from personal experience that if you do decide to go with a thin filter you will come to despise the useless front cap they supply.