djackson99

<p>You were right on the button.<br /> <br /> Somehow I had blocked thumbnails in Firefox with a single mouse click. I found the problem and undid it.<br /> <br /> I wish I could be that efficient working on my images.</p>

<p>Well, this worked really well. A week later and I am still waiting for some kind of reponse.</p>

<p>I clicked something and my thumbnail images disappeared from view in my many folders. I know they are still there because if I click "show details" it show the scores, but the images themselves do not show. Any help you can give me is appreciated.</p>

<p>Let's see . . . photographer becomes teacher or . . . teacher teaches photography. Many of the comments already made here are right on the money. The one that resonates for me; you have to have a passion for both.</p>

<p>I have taught elementary school for 13 years and have been teaching photography as an after school enrichment class for the past two years. I am passionate about kids. I never would have explored teaching photography if the stars hadn't come into perfect alignment and given me an opportunity I couldn't pass up. A couple of years ago I found myself sitting through a boring board meeting for my local photography club when the subject of donating money to a worthy photography cause came up. One thing led to another and the next thing I know, I had gotten a grant to purchase cameras and start a club. Even though I am experienced teacher and have been involved in photography for over thirty years, the idea of teaching an "art" class was very intimidating. I am glad I went for it. It is one of the most satisfying things I now do. One of those experiences where I honestly don't know who learns more . . . the kids or myself.</p>

<p>Whichever way you decide to go, do it because you can't imagine doing anything else. Everything else will fall into place.</p>

<p>P.S. You can see some of my kids work on my web page, drewjackson.net</p>

You usually find these in two or three stop increments and either a hard edge or a soft edge. I use the Cokin P system which uses 2 1/2" filters in a sliding frame. You can turn them and slide them up and down over the lens. They don't come cheap, (I think mine was about eighty bucks . . . for plastic!) but they are fun to work with.

 

This image would not have been possible without one:

http://www.photo.net/photo/4149170

You usually find these in two or three stop increments and either a hard edge or a soft edge. I use the Cokin P

system which uses 2 1/2" filters in a sliding frame. You can turn them and slide them up and down over the lens.

They don't come cheap, (I think mine was about eighty bucks . . . for plastic!) but they are fun to work with.

<br><br>

This image would not have been possible without one:<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/4149170

I have used a 1.7 with my 7 - 200 VR for awhile now and I am really impressed. To me it was NOT so much the expense of getting a longer focal length lens as it was the issue of how much equipment am I realistically going to haul around.

 

Take a look at these images and judge sharpness for yourself:

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/3715986

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4758524

 

http://www.photo.net/photo/4780388

 

Don't misunderstand what I am saying: If money were NO object AND I had a sherpa to haul my gear, I would go with with the suggestions you have already gotten and get a longer focal length lens with NO converter.

Thanks Josh. I figured that out by reading other forum posts. I can now see how the view number would have changed significantly under the old system, but am still concerned that new numbers are so incredibly low.

Mike and John,

 

Thanks for clarifying past conversations so I didn't need to wade through the archives to find out the "why's" and "why not's" of this dissatisfaction with PN.

I think the low ratings by people who are more interested in flaming than commenting is going to be a way of life here. What really bothers me is the hit count has gone down significantly. Without a significant number of views on our images the rewards of posting are slipping even more.

Edgar - I just had some prints done on this paper and was very impressed. The lab I work with printed one of my images for their lobby. I am pretty sure you are NOT going to see any difference on a scanned image. You can contact "The Lab" to get more info. They have FTP capabilities for digital image submission that is very convenient.

 

http://www.thelabsantarosa.com/

<i>robert milloywrote:

Neat picture Drew...what does 10.5mm work out to on film SLR 35mm?</i><br><br>The typical mulitiplier is 1.5. Nikon says this is a 15mm in 35mm format. After looking at the image posted by Jacob I would agree, this lens does NOT appear useful on a film camera. I'm going to keep it.<div></div>

I have 10.5 mm and it is a lot of fun. If you are planning to correct the image you do end up with what a 24mm would give you, but some images do NOT call for as much correction as others. This lens does a great job with elements that are already circular or eliptical.<div></div>