jeff_b2

The users and administrators of photo.net certainly are at a crossroads. The responses to this thread show remarkable divisiveness. Some folks seem interested in a user content focused community. Others appear to simply want a commercially supported site that dishes up editorial content for consumption. Both are legitimate models. There are currently successful examples of each as well as some mixtures of both. The admins (owners?) need to decide which path to follow. All I can do is tell you what used to appeal to me when visiting photo.net is no longer found here. I view this site from a PC. The current site appears optimized for mobile viewing and swipe navigation which I find inconvenient. You'd better figure out who your audience is and how they're primarily interacting with the site. I'm not suggesting going back in time. The world today is not the same as it was just a decade ago. But perhaps there are valuable lessons to be learned from what worked in the past. If readership and participation was exponentially higher in 2010, maybe the 2010 format is worth looking at for inspiration. I wish you the best of luck and hope for the site's success.

Half of the home page screen real estate is consumed by a generic static banner. Move new activity and images to the top so that's what people see when they first hit the home page. When I first hit the home page I almost mistook it for one of those generic "domain available" pages. People visit forums to see what's new. Put new and changing content up first.

Kenko Flash Meter KFM-2200 Price: $350.00 Payment method: PayPal Item condition: 9+ Shows little or no signs of wear Shipping instructions: Free to lower 48 US states. AK, HI, Canada based on actual rate. Includes: printed manual, case, lanyard, original box. Ambient, flash, reflected and spot metering. Spot meter viewfinder displays measurements. Requires one AA battery.

Minolta Flash Meter VI Price: $350.00 Payment method: PayPal Item condition: 9+ Shows little or no signs of wear Shipping instructions: Free to lower 48 US states. AK, HI, Canada based on actual rate. Includes: printed manual, case, lanyard and original box. Ambient, flash, reflected and spot metering. Spot meter viewfinder displays measurements. Requires one AA battery.

<p>Sadly, <a href="http://www.metabones.com/article/of/faq">Metabones FAQ</a> says a Leica M speedbooster is impossible because "<em>there is not enough room for the optics</em>".</p>

<p>Mark,<br> To greatly paraphrase and summarize what I have learned about the optical effect of these adapters: It's complicated.<br> I think to some degree you are correct that the performance of some lenses may be improved relative to given exposure. If you have an f/2.8 lens and stop it down to f/4 it will likely have less aberration and more resolution. Attaching the speedbooster then concentrates that same "f/4" image onto a smaller sensor area. So you could expose for f/2.8 rather than f/4 thereby increase your shutter speed and reducing potential camera shake in the image.<br> However, your lens is now effectively 0.7 of these focal length it was without the adapter so the CoC (circle of confusion) is different. This means you should really be doing math for a 35mm lens rather than a 50mm lens for example.<br> The <a href="http://www.metabones.com/assets/a/stories/Speed%20Booster%20White%20Paper.pdf">speedbooster white paper</a> has significant technical detail.</p>

<p>The biggest problem with short focal length macro lenses is that the front element is so close to the subject at 1:1 that you are likely blocking your own light. Working distance is a critical factor when using macro lenses. I find anything shorter than 100mm is too difficult to use because I'm either interfering with the subject physically or casting a shadow with the lens.</p>

<p>My purely subjective opinion is:<br> Best: Metabones<br> Good: Zhongyi<br> Bad: Kipon<br> I have used all three of the "booster" adapters for Nikon lenses on Fuji X cameras. <br> Metabones: Feels like a better build quality than the others. Heavier in hand so likely better quality glass. I especially like the tripod mount on the Metabones. I use it mostly with large T/S lenses that are much heavier than the Fuji bodies so mounting on the adapter creates much better balance.<br> Zhongyi: Optically, I cannot see a difference between the Zhongyi and Metabones. I have not done any sophisticated testing but have no concerns about using them interchangeably. Due to the lack of the tripod mount on the Zhongyi I'll likely use that just for smaller lenses.<br> Kipon: I returned the brand new Kipon without even attaching it to a lens as the glass was completely fogged. Didn't bother with another attempt. Maybe a got a bad copy but that doesnot bode well for QC on a new item.</p>

<p>I like the contrast but agree with Jochen that it would be more dramatic by cropping down to just a few of the flowers. This is a great example of how our eyes deceive us. When we look at a small isolated object amidst a bland background our brains tend to amplify the small object. It is the predator in us. We pick out targets and focus on them in our 3D world. But when rendered to 2D in photography that small subject becomes much less important to our eyes and brain. Flowers in particular are notoriously difficult to represent in an image in a way that captures our attention. For subject like this you cannot be too close. </p>

<p>My light meter is still an essential tool to me. The only real difference in shooting digital versus film is that you can easily and instantly review lightly and exposure. That is nothing groundbreaking. A polaroid accomplished the same purpose in analog days. There is nothing more magical about the exposure metering in current digital cameras versus the last generation of film cameras. My "old" Nikon F100 meters exactly as any digital body does.</p> <p>A light meter is about consistency and saving time. If I shoot a subject in consistent lighting (indoors or out) the camera metering may drift slightly depending on exactly where I place the subject in the frame. For portraits, background and clothing can throw the camera further off even if the lighting is constant. Metering once and shooting the same exposure and white balance for many frames gives me a fixed baseline to adjust from in post. Then if I do want to make a change to the raw processed images, I can apply the same change to ALL the images in the set because they are all exposed exactly the same. Otherwise, I'd have to adjust each image individually.</p>

<p>PDF may contain ICC color profile(s). Those profiles have to be specifically associated with objects also in the PDF to be used. A profile can be set as the default for any object in the document depending on device dependency. The objects (images, graphics) may have their own embedded profiles too. </p>

<p>Seems like every other Windows OS is a flop. <br> 98 = Great<br> 2000 = wonky<br> XP = Amazing<br> Vista = Sad<br> 7 = Superb<br> 8 = Annoying<br> 10 = ???</p>

<p>I look for packs that have a large shovel pocket on the back which makes a great place to hold tripods. My Kelty redwing is great as it has openings behind the "wing" pockets on the sides through which I can slide 2 legs of a tripod.</p>

<p>Cameras are not professional. People are professional.<br> You need to have a tool that is adequate for the job you intend to do. Get the best equipment you can afford and learn to use it. I do not mean that sarcastically. Your ability to fully take advantage of whatever piece of equipment you have to work with is important.</p>

<p>You can use any neutral surface to get a custom white balance. A pure white sheet of paper with no color cast will work as well as a gray card. You're meter will expose a white surface to appear 18% gray. So don't use white to calculate average exposure unless you are purposely working from the highlights.<br> A gray card is a more generally useful tool and more likely to be truly neutral in color. But in a pinch a sheet of clean paper will work well especially if you are dealing with odd color light sources like tungsten. I have set white balance from a pure white cotton t-shirt a subject was wearing.</p>

<p>I just ordered an R3000. The rebate essentially offsets the cost of one full ink set. I have used Epson machines of every size for a long time. The ultrachrome ink is very consistent and works well on many paper types. I prefer the Epson papers. The OEM profiles are excellent but I typically create my own especially following any firmware or software updates.<br> Be careful when trying to calculate the cost of use. Any $/sq ft cost provided by manufacturers is unlikely to match your own usage. A lot depends on how frequently you actually print which effect how much ink is lost to head cleaning. I don't know if you ever experienced a wet darkroom but the cost of basic chemicals, negatives and papers easily exceeds the cost of running the most wasteful printer in a digital workflow.<br> I ran an Epson 4000 mostly using sheets (rather than roll paper) and my pure material cost (ink + paper) was ~ $1/sq ft. The capital costs were higher compared to smaller machines like the R3000. <br> <br /><br /></p>

<p>You don't say what type of subjects you intend to shoot. If you want to get extreme foreground closeups with more DOF for landscapes I'd suggest a wider macro. Even the 18-55 WR kit lens works well for me on the 18mm end to get close in while still showing some background details. If you want small and / or isolated subjects go with a longer lens. Extension tubes can create some great effects using longer lenses but do limit you in the field since you cannot switch to infinity focus without removing the tubes. A 25mm stack of tubes and an old $25 50mm f/2 lens can do amazing things for little investment. <br> I use both the 35 macro limited and the 100 WR. For a walking around lens the 35 is hard to beat. The colors are phenomenal and it is usable for anything from street scenes and landscapes to portraits. Going 1:1 with it is tough since to working distance is so short. Your subject is 2 inches from the glass at 1:1. The 100mm WR is my favorite lens. Built like a tank but small enough that it is not a pain to carry. 1:1 working distance is comfortable ~8 inches from the glass.</p>

<p>You do not need a light meter to answer those questions. You need a tape measure. Indoors with a 1/200 shutter speed the ambient lighting won't have much effect so you only worry about the strobe. Most strobes have either a printed chart on it or in the manual or even on electronic display that shows the relation of ISO to distance to aperture at a given power. Measure physical distance from flash to subject and choose flash power based on the ISO and f-stop you want.<br> If you want to use your meter you may have to do some math. If the meter only allows you to set static ISO and then displays measurements in f-stops you just convert one to the other. ISO 100 to 200 is one stop just like f/2.8 to f/4. So if you set the meter to ISO 200 and measure flash at f/4 at the subject you have 2 choices. Shoot ISO 100 and f/2.8 in camera at that flash power. Or reduce flash power by 1/2 and shoot at ISO 200 f/2.8.</p>

<p>Pentax puzzles me with their total lack of marketing and retail presence. I live in Denver where the US Ricoh Pentax sales office is located and you cannot buy a single piece of Pentax gear in this state (at least no where I looked). I have called many camera retailers in the area looking for Pentax equipment and none have ever had any. So all my money goes out of state to buy gear. Even big box stores like Best Buy list Pentax gear but it is not available in the stores in Colorado.</p>

<p>After years of both Nikon and Canon digital gear I went (back) to Pentax and have zero regrets.<br> I shot Pentax film SLR's since the 70's and was always satisfied with the images. I did not give as much thought to gear back then. I used what family, friends, teachers or camera store salespeople recommended because that was the main source of knowledge I had access to. Now, the problem is totally reversed. We have too much information bombarding us and we spend a lot more time thinking about gear because of it. Also, the cycle of product release from the camera makers has dramatically shortened since film days so we are constantly wondering what new model is going to show up the day after we buy something.<br> I first went to Nikon digital because at the time (~2002) Pentax had no digital SLR and I felt the Nikon low-end gear I was looking at (D100 and kit lenses) had better construction and ergonomics than Canon equivalents. I happily shot Nikon digital for several years. As I began to look at more advanced high end lenses I began to gravitate toward Canon. I bought a 1Ds with assorted "L" glass. For studio work I also invested in all of Canon's tilt/shift lenses and was completely hooked. All my Nikon gear eventually went out the door and I happily used Canon for several years.<br> <br />While I absolutely loved both the physical and image quality of the Canon top-end gear it was like lugging bricks around. Everything was just huge and heavy and not fun to carry. I had smaller Canon bodies (10D, 20D) and tried some of Canon's small primes like the EF 35mm but found both the construction and the images from the Canon low-end gear was disappointing; especially after using the Canon pro level gear.<br> <br />My Pentax film gear was still sitting around collecting dust and I picked up the slim ME Super film body and spun the silky smooth focus rings on my PENTAX-A lenses and wondered why even the smallest Nikon and Canon digital bodies had to be so much larger than those old Pentax film bodies. I still have no good answer for that.<br> I bought a Pentax K-7 and stuck my 20+ year old manual lenses on it and was thrilled. The Pentax body was smaller AND better build than the small "N" and "C" bodies at the time (although I think both may have at least stepped up to weather sealed bodies since then).<br> Now days I shoot purely for personal enjoyment with the Pentax K-5IIs and mostly a 21mm Limited lens. Yes, the lens is not weather sealed but it has gotten moist many times and it is no worse for wear. When I know the weather is going to be "exciting" I have some Pentax lenses that are sealed. </p>