Emmanuel Enyinwa

<p>I will <em>always </em>swear by my Leica 135 2.8 Elmarit, a relatively cheap Leica I picked up a few years ago for $400. The bokeh and focus are smooth as butter. The Voigtlander lenses, though, especially, the APO-Lanthar, are generally considered sharper. I find myself, however, falling in love lately with Nikkor lenses adapted for my Canon 5Ds, especially the 85mm 1.8, which I got for $80 and the Micro-Nikkor 55mm 3.5, by far the sharpest lens stopped down that I have used for flowers. We are living in a golden age where you can pretty much adapt any lens to any camera with a cheap adapter off Ebay.</p>

<p>I know I'm late to the party, but having skimmed through these posts, it struck me the reason why I stopped "talking shop" on this site: analysis paralysis. Photographing is like walking. You can sit and analyze and discuss it all day, or you can just get up and take a few steps! Why is this lady so dissatisfied with her pictures she's ready to call it quits? There is NOTHING wrong with the camera or her images. What she lacks, however, no equipment can give her: lack of imagination. She can scour this site for ideas, but this much obsession over "sharpness", especially in portraits, is misguided. Post processing and making the image "pop" is more useful in a portrait than getting every little wrinkle and furrow on the face. I took one of the images and tweaked it a bit to show what I mean. </p><div></div>

<p>I have the same lens and the same problem. I'm about to take it to Nigeria because it's sucvh a great lens, but I'm tempted to use my Canon 100 f2 for my street photography because it's a faster AF anyway, and much less expensive. </p>

<p>For my money, there is really no comparison. As a former owner of the 1d mk2 and current owner of the 5d mk2, even though I love the image quality of the 5d m2, unless I can set the 5d mk 2 on a tripod or only shoot in broad daylight standing still, the 1d mk 2--heck, the 20d--is a much more user friendly camera than the 5d mk2, for which even the most benign hand shake produces remarkably blurry images, So, if you plan to shoot ANYTHING that moves under conditions where you yourself MIGHT move, then you would be a fool to rely on the 5d mk 2. But, this is just my opinion. Others may disagree.</p>

<p>I think versatility is the key. Having taken a lot of children's pics, I say for the most flexibility and quality, nothing beats the Canon 17-40 4.0 when you are shooting a group of children in motion. Now, if you want the lovely bokeh and fast USM, you can go with the Tamron 70-200 2.8 or, if you have the money, the Canon 70-200. But, since you are mostly doing portraits in a fixed setting, then the Canon 100 mm 2.0 is the best bang for the buck.</p>

<p>"I would like your comments and suggestions about my pics..."</p>

<p>I get it. </p>

<p>Yes. I already have.</p>

<p>The writer of the article is an asshole. Screw him and his ilk "critiquing" people's facebook pages. Nobody pretends to be Henri Cartier-Breson on Facebook, and if they post kittens, that's their prerogative. I don't have a Facebook page, but my wife posts a lot of my images there. She merely picks what she likes, which tend to be too cutesy for my taste, but her friends lap up that sort of subject matter. So, who am I to judge her or them? For me to put my images on Facebook, then judge them based on MY concept of what doesn"t "suck" is the height of stupidity. As for this site, if you want to get mostly honest feedback on your work, post it for rating. A lot of the high mate raters have been scared off by the revamped rating system, and I think the new system strikes a balance between the social aspects of this site and the need for honest, serious feedback. I challenge Mr. Jarecke to post his work for rating here iof HE wants honest feedback on them. I can assure you, having reviewed his images, that his mediocre images would average in the mid-4 range.</p>

<p>The biggest impact is that most people can now produce great pictures, especially with high end cameras like the 5d mk ii, which gives you Ansel Adams type resolution on a camera the size of an old Nikon FM. Given that most people take snapshots of family and friends, the need to "compose" a shot like that is not as important as, say a sunset at Yosemite.</p>

<p>Bokeh, like perspective to a Renaissance artist, can become so fascinating to the unwary that he gets lost in it and begins to neglect the finer point of what makes for a great image. Bokeh, in crude terms, refers to the out of focus part of the picture. It is 100% controlled by the aperture you use, the wider open your lens can go, the more out of focus you can render the background. How pleasing that out of focus area is is what bokeh aficionados refer to as The cream" of the bokeh. There are several websites devoted almost slavishly to the pursuit of the "perfect bokeh", with otherwise sane people buying tens of cameras in search of the perfect bokeh. You can find them by doing a simply google search. That said, there are huge differences from lens to lens. Here is the Canon 100 f2.0:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/13976095</p>

<p>And, here is the Leica Leitz Elmarit 135 2.8:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/14024898&size=lg</p>

<p>Despite its age, bulk, and general fussiness, all things being equal--that is, if speed is not an overriding concern, give me the Leica anyday. For instance, the manual focus Leica was hopeless with Gabriel lying by on the swing, but was perfect with Matthew because he wasn't moving much. Hope I contributed something.</p>

<p>Craig, that is actually beside the point. I don't buy "coincidences" and "mistakes". I don't think the FBI "mistakenly" "forgot" to blank out Withers' name, but simply deliberately outed him because he is no longer useful, same way they shot MLK because he was no longer useful, but was straying to the Malcolm X camp by 1968.<br>

The FBI wouldn't use Withers unless they THOUGHT he was giving them useful information. Someone like him is extremely dangerous since he has access that others would not, and we are only seeing those pictures of his THEY and him allowed to be published. He must have documented the presence in those rallies and meetings of sooooo many important people who would have no idea that a spy was in their midst, pictures we have never even seen, but were important to the FBI. That Mr. Withers, one of my most revered people, and, along with Gene Smith and Gordon Banks, one of the reasons I picked up a camera was a dirty rat is highly disheartening, especially since BOTH Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were both assassinated by the proverbial "lone nut" that does ALL the dirty political work in this country.<br>

Oddly enough, to give the devil his due, I actually admired Withers' entertainment pictures--the young Elvis Pressly pulling his Jim Carey In Living Color routine at the Memphis Hippodrome, the young Sam Cooke and Aretha Franklin, the young Ike Turner and Isaac Hayes, B B King and the like. But, I always assumed that those pictures resonated with audiences because Withers had a conscience, but, if Pablo Picaso could paint "Guernica" while at the same time painting several disturbing images that would get him arrested today for child porn, and Woody Allen can direct Hannah and Her Sisters while masturbating to pictures of his children, can one still continue to believe there is any link to a great artist and our concept of conscience?</p>

<p>Call me an idiot, but the ONLY reason why there is a "mystery" here is that we take the guy's word even AFTER he tells us he is a "Special Agent", which is a euphemism for deceiving people for a living. Having done photography for over 25 years and having done HDR for about two, the ONLY, and OBVIOUS explanation to this picture is ghosting, a rather OBVIOUS product of combing two different images to form one. If the first image has a car in it, and the second image exposed for the sky is shot at night and doesn't have that car, then the old image of the car would show up in a lighter version. It's called "ghosting". Looking at this collage, the first image of the handshake was done first, then the more vivid image of the lines done later. It was then blended rather amateurishly over the handshake picture, explaining the lines over the pants. I think just about EVERYBODY jumped to that conclusion, but insisted--I don't know WHY--on disbelieving their eyes and listening to this guy.<br>

Anyway, JMHO.</p>

<p>A much nuanced question with a somewhat silly title. But, the questions are certainly worth contemplating. As someone who has dabbled extensively in all three formats, and who has finally settled on digital of late, here are my two cents:<br>

The biggest advantage LF has over the small format, IMO, is, oddly enough, cost. A lot of the images in my portfolio was shot with a Burke & James 5x7 I picked up on Ebay for $250, including lens. It is a wooden camera, and takes a certain effort to lug around, but there is no questioning the image quality when you load it up with Fujichrome velvia 4x5, using a reducing back. The tilt and swings on the camera allow perspective correction that even a tilt and shift lens running in the thousands of dollars can't rival. Then, there is, of course, the superior image quality. From my experience, the newer DSLRs, like my 1D Mk 2, even my 20D, all have better tonal range in black and white, with smoother tones than my Tech Pan, and better overall grain than my Tri-X or TMax. But, the Velvia still delivers better pure colors, for my taste.<br>

Now, I never used the Hasselblad, or the other expensive Medium Format systems, but feel their huge cost, without the tilt and swing of the large format, somewhat make them impractical for my purposes. I am quite pleased with the image quality of my 1D Mk. II, and hope to upgrade to either the 5D Mk II or the 1Ds, Mk II, or even the Sony Alpha A900, but while these cameras deliver huge megapixels, they lack the tilt and swing, and cost almost TEN TIMES! what I paid for the Burke and James. (I also have an 8x10 Burke and James I picked up for $200).Printing is not as much trouble as you think, as I picked up an Omega 4x5 enlarger for $150 and made my own prints. Now, I can go to a photo lab for $10 an hour and print to my heart's content.<br>

Ultimately, your need to "make a name for yourself" is less important than your need to find a passion for photography. Equipment matters, but ultimately mean little without drive. After all, Cartier-Bresson produced some of the greatest images of our time using a simple Leica Rangefinder, while Dorothea Lange used a Press Graflex. You just have to find your niche.</p>

<p>The question really has two prongs: does he want to take some pictures at his own wedding, and does he want to tell the REAL shooters what to do? I took pictures AT my wedding, but not OF my wedding, as we had a pro shoot it. I gave my Digital Rebel to a friend to take some casual shots I would late play around with, but she did not get in the way of the photographer. In casual moments, I also took some art shots myself, which I will post later, but all in good fun. I think you can do it, but the key is to not interfere with the person whose JOB it is to shoot the pictures. And, you posed the question to the wrong crows: photographers who are starving because of resourceful, or cheap, people like yourself who are literally taking food from their hungry lips. Anyway, good luck.</p>

<p>For those who did not know David, David was probably the most consistently supportive of all the photographers on this site. He never tired in giving of his time to encourage others to keep trying. David was a deeply spiritual person, anmd most of his photographs dealth with themes that reflected that. He deeply touched all of us who knew him, and news of his passing has hit me quite hard. I just wish the best to his family, and say that he will not soon be forgotten.</p>

<p>To Ernest B.,</p>

<p><em>""First, I AM a lawyer...</em> <br /><em>"...even if you prevail, you still end up with nominal damages, much less than your attorney fees. I know because my hourly fees are in the six figures." </em><br>

WOW! What kind of lawyer are you? Is there a decimal point anywhere in those six figures?"<br>

Ah, my mistake! My fees are in the THREE figures.</p>

<p>First, I AM a lawyer, but, as we always do, I will preface this by saying that this post should NOT be construed as legal advice, and that you SHOULD consult YOUR lawyer for advice taylored to ALL the facts not the limited facts you have provided here. First, you don't even tell us what COUNTRY this took place, which makes all the difference, as laws vary from, say England to the US, to Mozambique.</p>

<p>All that said, I would say that this strikes me as much ado about nothing. The bottom line here is that she's NOT selling the prints on EBay with the potential for thousands of dollars. At the very most, he makes, oh, up to $60 selling the prints to family. Tacky, yes. After all, we GAVE AWAY our wedding prints, including those I took, even while I was the groom. But, the real problem, besides proving ownership of the prints he OFFERED to sell (you have no receipts to prove he actually sold any), is the fact that even if you prevail, you still end up with nominal damages, much less than your attorney fees. I know because my hourly fees are in the six figures.</p>

<p>Still, you are not totally without recourse, as you can easily have your lawyer write a strongly worded cease and desist letter to smugmug (quite a name) and tell them they will get a Napster styled suit slapped on their smug mugs, if they do not desist from facilitating the sale of copyrighted material on their site. A decent lawyer will add teeth to this letter, and their legal department will no doubt harrass the culprit to remove the add, and issue you an apology.</p>

<p>Just my two cents. </p>

<p>RIP. She was quite a beauty.</p>

<p>More HDR without the cartoon look.<br>

Three shot HDR</p>

<p><a href="../photo/7735461">http://www.photo.net/photo/7735461</a></p>

<p>One shot tone mapped images.</p>

<p><a href="../photo/8125885">http://www.photo.net/photo/8125885</a><br>

<a href="../photo/7685214">http://www.photo.net/photo/7685214</a><br>

<a href="../photo/7218964">http://www.photo.net/photo/7218964</a></p>

<p>There was a time when I disdained the HDR process, believing it was the same as stitching images together, a dishonest representation of what was not as what was, but as I have worked with the HDR process, especially on old black and white scans like this <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8372198">http://www.photo.net/photo/8372198</a>, I have shed my inhibitions, and now see it as no more than burning and dodging an image to achieve greater tonal clarity. In fact, I see the HDR process as no more than using grad filters to block highlights, while getting shadow detail in the dark areas.</p>

Haha! Nice summation. The truth of the matter is that if you want others to notice you, you have to take the time to notice others. There is no secret to it. If you say hi top people, they generally say hi back. So, those that log a lot of ratings and comments on others' pictures, pandering as you might want to describe it, tend to get reciprocal attention on their work. However, in pnet's credit, they use the anonymous rating to pick the "Top Pictures", as it should be.

 

Let's face it, we all want high ratings, but it is more important to want to improve. Find what workls, and try to achieve it, if it's important to you to get high ratings. Crying gets you nowhere. What generally works on this site is birds, highly saturated color seascapes, deeply toned still lifes, and misty, exotic landscapes. It is not a site that rewards photojournalism, character study type portraits in black and white, or slice of life cute pictures. If those appeal to you personally, you have two choices, stick to your guns and live with the ratings, or post for critique only. Crying on forums like this is all really a waste of time.

I've invited Jack McRitchie to lunch, but t didn't work out. I'd still like to spend an afternoon with him. David Meyer would be fun, too. I've had a few lunches with Adan Wong, and they were certainly fun. I'd like to spend some time with Jeff Long, a gentleman, Joe Popper along the Missouri River, Jan Piller in the Great White North, my compadre Ade Olumide anywhere, and, of course any pneter who ever makes it to San Francisco.

 

As far as dead photographers, Alfred Stieglitz, Paul Strand, Brett Weston, and Pirkle Jones are those I wouldn't mind buying lunch for. Honorable mention goes to Gordon Parks, Linda Butler, and Sebastian Salgado. I admire Mapplethorpe's work, but would not be caught dead with that misanthrope, who tried to infect as many people as possible with the HIV virus, one of the most odious people who ever lived. And, oh yeah, I admire John Crossley's work, but I'm afraid he would talk my ear off. I don't know how he has time to shoot all those great images.

It is always tragic to see someone die so young. Even though I did not know Yuri as well as Sarah and Alberto, it is still sad to see all three go. May they all rest in peace.

Mr. Seebode, your prejudices have no place in civilized society. The Mission is home to thousands of people who are 98% law abiding. Yes, there are businesses there at night, and some very good photo opportunities as well. It always pisses me off to see a supposedly enlihtened person just openly espouse the kind of red lining and segregational advice you are giving as "common sense". I feel for the guy who lost his camera, but I've lost my camera at Portland State University in Oregon, I've had my wallet lifted at Nordstrom at Arden Mall in Sacramento, I've had a gun pulled at me at UC Berkeley.

 

I currently live in West Oakland with my wife and kid, but have never had any problems here. The point is that particular circumstances lead to crime not groups of people. Sorry for the rant, but this sort of ignorance galls me.

I second Joe's comments. Alberto was a gentleman before photographer, who contributed mightily to the growth and success of this side. Farewell.

This is really sad news. Besides being a fine photographer, Alberto was a great gentleman as well, generous with his time and comments. He is already being greatly missed here. Condolences all.