vasilis

Depends the kind of photography you do. I have the 20mm 2.8 and the 50mm 1.8 with the d70. They work fine, they have the typical advantages of primes, compared to the zoom lens. The kit lens is sharp and quick to focus, in photos that I take I do not feel that I lose sharpness over the others. Finally it is a practical lens to have. I am not talking about a scientific test now, I am talking about looking at the photos that I take. The difference is that the zoom has more distortion, with the 20mm prime I could get a portrait, with the zoom set at 20mm I cannnot. Also the 50mm is good for low light and it is needed because you do not want to go to high iso (trust you do not), which is obvious and has better colours. On the d70 is very good for portraits. Also i have heard that the 60mm that you have is very good for portraits on the d70 (although I know this is not his main task). I tested the 180mm on the d70 as well and it is a very good lens and i think you will enjoy it. So, primes stay good in the d70 as well, what I like most about them is that you practise your eye to the focal length you have mounted on the camera.

Tim,this is an amazing wedding shot!

I think that the talent is to be able to see the picture you see in front of you and be able to translate it in your mind to the photograph that you will make out of it. Meaning that the moment you take the photo, you know that afterwards you are going to burn the right side and apply a radial blur effect (just an example) and also and this is very important you know what you want to express with this photo. To be able to do that, to see the world in images and express yourself in images, I think is a talent. I can get better with experience but I will not get far away. Also I can get better seing examples in the work of others and reading books, but I do not think that I will ever reach that. <p>

The reason I think that most of us take images is because it is nice to go out and put the camera between you and the world. I do not know why, maybe, example, because I see the world differently and this relaxes me. But the basic thing that characterises me is that I like to go out to "take" photos. Good photos (not masterpieces, but good) come almost inevitably because ok I bumped into some interesting situations or whatever. As I gain experience these good photos will become somehow better. However, I think the difference with a person that is really good (or an artist) is that he takes photos because he needs to get a "specific" photo out, because he wants to tell something with this specific photo. I think that this is a great difference, and this is maybe the impression that I get, for example, from edmo's pictures, and this is the reason why I cannot "copy" his style. Just my 0.02 swiss francs

I liked the series a lot, it is one of the few very successful attempts I ve seen in photographing a gay pride. As the first commentator said, the series had a silent quality. Also I enjoyed a lot other photos seen in your website. Thanks for sharing, Vasilis

To be honest I would not even hire a proffessional with this attitude...

I do not see the reason to do it, there are people in weddings that are close friends, happy, having a good time and want to take the photo. And if I was the bride and groom I would respect more the wish of my father or my friend to take a photo than the wish of a photographer that I know for 1 week and he makes a claim that 1 out of a thousand photos may be not properly exposed. I find the idea a little bit snobbish and in my opinion, it ignores also the possibility that a guest in a wedding may take a far more memorable photo than a photographer even if it is a snap. Because a just-married couple may give a much more sincere smile to a friend they know for 20 years than to a proffessional.

sorry M.

Very good photo Maria. <p>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3531970-md.jpg"> <p>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3531973-lg.jpg"> <p>

I would say get the 18-70mm, it is good for an all-round zoom. For portraits maybe it is not fast enough although of course it can be used when needed. And then, eitherway, I would get the 50mm 1.8, because it is fast, relatively good for portraits and for low light situations, and most of all cheap at about 80$. Afterwards you can decide about the 85mm (if you need it or not).

Except photo.net do you know or even participate in any other

interesting photography websites? I am interested mostly in sites with

street and people photography and I am asking because photo.net is the

only site that I know. thanks, Vasilis

50mm 1.8 which is cheap or 85mm 1.8 that will also extend the reach of the zoom you have now. The 60mm above I would take it only if you like to combine portraits with macro work.

amazing pic, bravo!

It is a very nice picture and I like the pose. I would like maybe to see maye a bit more of his face and also him to be just a bit more to the right. Thanks for sharing, Vasilis

Thanks for the link, I liked your photos, especially the first and second one. I know it is not yours but also the image of the cover of the magazine was very interesting.

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3500613-md.jpg">

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3500613-md.jpg">

Keith, I think that not letting successive comments actually would negate discussion....

I think that it is better not to leave photographers being moderators. I think that in a site that the main goal is to discuss moderation should be kept to a minimum. The type of moderation from the photographers that we will get it will not be the moderation I would like to see in the site. The problems of the site according to my view is comments that are of the type "7/7 excellent" and not the other way round. By all this I do not express any opinion about the original post by Bret that he may be right.

The administration of photo.net should do that. No democracy, they will make a list of the photos they want to include and they will contact the photographers to see if they agree to sell their pictures. Since photo.net will buy the pictures I do not know afterwards if the book sales will make total profit. It can be considered as an advertisment effort as well....

Sonny, I forgot to write it before, I like your picture and I thing that it would help a lot if you could submit it in a bigger size.

I agree with most of you that I do not trust news and generally I watch tv once a month or something. Actually for a lot of years I did not have one. But, Peter, although you are correct to be cynical I think that Maria's opinion serves better society. This means that being cynical does not serve a change for the better. It is true what Maria says, that national networks have the obligation to serve the public. If all the people that we do not like the news had the opinion that this thing has to change maybe things would be better. Every country and population has the tv that they deserve. But on the other hand a national tv network has the obligation not to lower but increase the standards. According to me, people (me included) we are 80% animals and 20%humans. If the news target my animal side they will make me more animal, if they target my human side they will make me more human. Now it is correct for a business to target the 80 and not the 20%...... but it is not correct for me.

Check also your focusing and also it depends the size of the print. If you are using film then I do not know really, maybe the ring is not really accurate. Go find in the web a calculator for dof and hyperfocal (like in Bob Atkins' site) and check if it matches your DOF ring. If you are using a digital camera with a dx sensor the DOF are somehow different (because a thing called circle of confusion is different) so you cannot be based on the ring. But as I said, depends on focusing and print size

Art has a technical component and this is bound to progress with science. There are a lot of examples about this, with new instruments in music, cheaper dyes for painting, computers for photography etc... So the progress of science gives to art also new boundaries in expression. <p> Apart from that art does not have a mechanism of progress like science, a scientific principle or significant experiment may be proven wrong and then the scientific community will enter in a phase of "revolution" where new principles will be born. Science, physics for example, is trying to describe the world by constructing simplified models. There is no way that a model of physics will be proven correct, because this models are by default approximations. Generally models are true until they are proven "false" or more correctly nor accurate enough. <p> Let us take for example newtonian physics, at the end of 19th century people are realizing that this model does describe reality well for the cases of ultra small and ultra fast. There are experiments that their results contradict the theory. So, there is revolution and new theories are created and stabilized (quantum physics for the ultra small, relativity for the ultra fast). This does not mean that the new models are true, but until now they describe well experimental results, when a mistake will be found new models will arise. This does not mean either that newtonian physics was abandoned, to find the velocity or acceleration of a car one will use newtonian physics because it is simple and in this case very accurate. <p>

Mathematics are not like that, euclid's geometry is self sufficient and always valic. Mathematics start from definition of some principle and extend with theorems to create a complete structure. Mathematics in this case are like art, they do not have a process of progress but they DO progress. Why? because when physical theories like relativity or quantum mechanics are created they demand new mathematical principles and structure (eg. riemann's geometry). At this point mathematical sciences also progress almost for the sake of progress, new systems are created only for the sake of interest. But the main reason for progress in mathematics is to give new tools to their scientific environment (economy, physics, information technology etc.) <p>

It is amazing the similarity of art with science or mathematics. For me art is like mathematics because the progress is not a clear process but exist nonetheless. Also art is like science because art is mainly the effort of a man (woman) to respond to the world (society or nature). And the amazing similarity is that as I said a scientific model is not correct or not correct (we always know that it is an approximation) it is just adequate or not adequate. The world is changing so art is changing as well, and it is not accidental that art is following scientific, historical changes very closely. Therefore according to me art changes following society.....and it is like science because it is also the response of humans to their environment :-)

Because you are a subscriber. The dog is named George, and was the dog of Philip Greenspun the guy who started photo.net. Now why they've put him in all the pages ..... maybe he is the new logo of photo.net.

I know that they are annoying, but apparently they are necessary. But if you pay, I think that they are less.....