pics

<p>-</p><div></div>

<p><strong>"If any thing, you can flip them in ward to protect the "delicate" screen itself. I would rather suspect that Nikon does not put them in higher end cameras b/c its live view sucks so few will "bother" to discover how useful they are. Or Nikon just wants to sell us the $200 wast level finder from the film days. :)"</strong><br> <strong> </strong><br> <strong><br /></strong>I don't think Canon or Nikon put flip-up screens on the higher end bodies because it introduces a significant point of failure (structurally and weatherproofing wise) in cameras that have some to be known as bullet-proof tools that a photojournalist can take anywhere. I guess it depends on your shooting style as to whether you find them useful or not. I do understand why some people like them. I'm certainly no war photographer, but I would just assume Nikon leave flip screens off of the pro bodies. Then again, routine $200 repair bills to repair screens that snapped off the body might be enticing for them too!</p>

<p>As long as they don't stick it in one of their prosumer bodies and slap a "flip-up" LCD panel on it, I'd be intrigued.</p>

<p>I take back some of what I said. I see you have the 603 original version and not the 603II. I believe those older versions do require full contact with all of the ttl pins in order to transmit. The newer 603II only needs contact with the single pin. I guess you do need the Canon version after all. I would just go with the version II of the 603 trigger. There are a few improvements in addition to the contact pin issue.</p> <p>Some info here:</p> <p>http://flashhavoc.com/yongnuo-rf-603-ii-released/</p>

<p>You don't need to cover any pins or buy the Canon version of this trigger. I own both the Nikon and Canon versions of the 603 and they are interchangeable for both models of cameras I own without any modifications. To double check, I just put the Canon version of the 603 trigger on my Nikon D300 and triggered a Canon 420EX (which had a Nikon version of the 603 on it). These are "dumb" triggers and the different TTL pin layouts are mostly irrelevant. The different Canon and Nikon versions only matter for the flash wake-up feature (which I disable anyway) and the only pin/contact that matters is the central pin, which is the same for Nikon and Canon.</p> <p>I would make sure that the 560III flash is set to 603 mode (not 602) and that the channels match. Also, double check the dips switches inside the battery compartment of the 603 trigger to make sure they correctly match the channel on the 560III and other trigger. I heard of one report where a Yongnuo trigger had the label for the dipswitches upside down causing the user to incorrectly set his channels. Other than this there could be a problem with the trigger circuitry or a setting in the Canon cameras that I don't know about.</p>

<p>I'm kind of shocked it lasted this long. I also never saw a need for it (even prior to digital). Today I would assume its usefulness has long since passed for most people. I always felt it defeated the purpose of gaining control over the image by developing your own B+W and now scanning can probably achieve the same result with color C-41. Sad to see any film go however.</p>

<p>Rodinal and APX 100 isn't exactly a fine grain combination, but it shouldn't look quite as grainy as your example. Areas of continuous tone (the sky for example) will make the grain more visible however. In the shot I posted, it is definitely more obvious in the sky. Aside from some sort of calamity with your exposure/developing process, I would look into the settings on your scanner.</p><div></div>

<p>Thanks for the kind words Laura and Douglas. I always liked how the light kind of glows on Cholla cacti and I tried to do it myself with some flashes and a long exposure about an hour after sunset.</p>

<p>Cholla Cacti (Joshua Tree National Park) with a distant storm in the background.</p><div></div>

<p>I don't have a problem with Adobe making these frequent releases. Most of them are simply support for new cameras/lenses and if yours are already supported then there isn't a compelling reason to update. The exception would be a noticeable bug or problem that is addressed. I do wish Adobe would specify what the bugs are and allow the option of downloading specific parts of the update.</p>

<p>Ok thanks for the information. A tempting offer for sure.</p>

<p>Just out of curiosity, when you purchase from Phase One's site, is it delivered as a digital download or do you get a box version? I couldn't really find out from the product description.</p>

<p>-</p><div></div>

<p><strong>"In what situations is film better?"</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>Long exposure night photography (particularly in warm weather.) By this I am referring to times in excess of 15 min. In my experience this is the one situation I have encountered where film is still significantly better (aesthetics aside). Digital sensors heat up and produce a lot of noise in a hurry. In the summertime where I live (consistently above 100deg F. during the day) I try to avoid exposure times longer than about 2 minutes or so, and even that is pushing it. In the winter months I can do about 10-12 minutes. Anything longer and the noise becomes intolerable or requires excessive noise reduction which kills sharpness and resolution. This usually means wider apertures and faster ISO's than I would prefer to use. Of course I am talking about a standard long exposure on a single frame and not frame stacking Photoshop wizardry. Not having to deal with film reciprocity is a benefit however.</p>

<p><strong>does the photographer put the paper and neg in the contact frame with the enlarger light ON?</strong></p> <p>Good point Lex lol. I can only assume that part of it was done to help visualize the process. It does seem that there is a substantial amount of ambient light during the darkroom part of the film. Since it was shot in black and white I wonder if the light was filtered red and edited in post-processing in ordered to make it possible to shoot the video in such dark conditions.</p>

<p>-</p><div></div>

<p>I thought this video was pretty well done and interesting. It's been a while since I printed in the darkroom and I never shot large format, but watching this guy in action helps remind me that slowing down from time to time can be beneficial. If nothing else it reminds the viewer of how easy and accessible photography has become in the digital age. </p> <p>http://vimeo.com/85624759</p>

<p><strong>"Real social influence is out there in the world"</strong><br /> <strong>"Instead of first world problems such as how to improve the lighting in your portraits, there are photographers who are concerned about social issues in the world,"</strong><br /> <br /> Ilkka, the article doesn't specify their definition of "social influence," but from my perspective I think they are referring to influencing the society of photography and not on a world wide humanity level.</p> <p><strong>"but pushing gear beyond what is actually needed to do good work"</strong><br /> <strong><br /></strong> I don't know the details on all of them, but the individuals I am somewhat familiar with don't really spend much time pushing/selling brands of gear. (One of them does seem to be more inclined to this however). They may have ties to a manufacturer, but the content they put out revolves more around the skills needed to take photos, run a business and demonstrate how advances in technology affect all of that.</p> <p><strong>"Instead of first world problems such as how to improve the lighting in your portraits, there are photographers who are concerned about social issues in the world, such as (social and economic) inequality, war, abuse (of people and power), etc. and are trying to change that or at least make people aware of the issues. There are also photographers who focus on the bright side of life and human achievements and have influence by motivating people to carry on"</strong></p> <p>I think most photographers feel strongly about all of the above and show concern for social issues, but I think there is a difference between being socially involved in a cause and being socially influential. That goes with every industry. As I mentioned before, I don't think they are referring to photographers who are using their work to save the world or to influence humanity. I'm not really sure there are any photographers period whose work is consistently influential on that level.</p>

<p><br /> "<strong>How about "current and active" landscape, wedding, fashion, portrait, sports, and commercial photographers"</strong></p> <p>Pretty much all of those fields are represented by at least one of the people on that list. Not sure about war correspondents. </p>

<p><strong>"I don't understand why it's shocking to some that many of the above photographers have made photography their business and are making a decent living."</strong></p> <p>Because if your photos or ideas ever leave your basement and sustain you, apparently you are selling out. There seems to be an idea that if one becomes successful they must have wronged society or destroyed the purity of the art (whatever that means) in order to do so. </p>

<p><strong>"So, if you are sort of a average photographer, but project yourself on social media, fame and fortune is yours."</strong></p> <p>Sometimes, but having good work and the experience of success lends some credibility and thus staying power. Projecting your image is hardly new. Ansel Adams wrote a series of books and connected with plenty of social elites to promote himself. Same with most well known photographers over the years. Connections and getting your name out in the world have always been necessary to keep artists from starving. It's only the method of doing so that that has changed.</p> <p>At the same time, there are plenty of low-talent (IMO) photographers/artists that are obscure and whom the "purist/elite" rave about. Failing to turn a profit on your craft doesn't automatically make you gifted/hidden talent either.</p>

<p>While the article doesn't specify, I think they are clearly talking about current and active photographers. Thus people like Ansel Adams etc. aren't on the list. Despite the hate, social media is the way of the world now. That doesn't mean that because a currently successful photographer has a Twitter account he is a hack or his success is strictly due to facebook likes. I don't know all of them on the list, but I certainly respect guys like Joe McNally and Chase Jarvis. They built themselves up to where they are and didn't have their current fame handed to them via social media. McNally has been in the industry for decades and shot the first ever all digital article for the National Geographic. That counts for something. He is one of the current "go-to" people when it comes to small flash. Joey Lawrence amassed quite a bit of published/highly visible work straight out of high school and the age at which he did it is pretty remarkable. David Hobby worked as a press photog for years before launching Strobist.com. His site is one of the main drivers in the current trend and popularity of off-camera flash photography. Some of the others might be strictly internet stars but a lot of them are quite active and noticed in the professional realm as well. Good, bad or indifferent, if your favorite guy isn't on the list, chances are not too many people are paying attention. That doesn't take away from their talent, but just means they aren't socially influential which is what the article addresses, not who is the most "artistic" photographer or who has the most "moving" photos. I'm sure there are plenty of people on Photo.net who are equally or more skilled than those on the list, but that clearly isn't the point of the article.</p>

<p>I think the list is pretty much spot on. Regardless of how they got there they have done something to get their name out in the industry and you would be hard pressed to do a google/youtube search on something photography related and not see half the names on that list. I take "socially influential" to mean influencing the photographic community and not necessarily society as a whole, but that's just my read on the title. I also don't think the article is referring to people whose photographs have changed society, but rather whose methods, philosophies and techniques (even if not original) were highly promoted and made visible to the masses and induced some kind of change in the industry/community. Most of them have a somewhat large/sustainable following who consider it worthwhile to listen to what they have to say. This probably disgruntles the artistic elite but I give them credit for it. There are definitely a few of them that I have learned something valuable from whether it be technical or philosophical.</p>

<p><strong>"I am yet to see or even hear about one Nikkor lens that does justice to their (actually Sony's) 36MP sensor."</strong><br /> <br /> This gets stated quite a bit but the concept is a little misguided IMO. The lenses aren't being out-resolved by a 36 MP sensor and it's not as if other brand lenses would make a dramatic difference with this sensor. A better lens will give better results with any sensor regardless of megapixels. Higher resolution sensors will simply amplify all attributes of a lens (resolution AND defects) so a better corrected lens will look better. Medium/large format cameras have traditionally had lower resolving lenses over the years but easily out resolve 35mm. I can't possibly imagine your images looking like mush with this lens but not knowing your standards and what you are comparing it to I can't say for sure. I believe the 85mm PC-E was released in 2008 so it's not really an ancient design and should compare reasonably well to similar alternatives in the market. If resolution is the utmost of importance then you will be limited to a handful of prime lenses no matter what you shoot. The primary attraction of these lenses is the movements. Being a niche product means you are limited in your options.</p> <p><strong>90mm Schneider: </strong>This lens ( and other 3rd party expensive tilt-shift alternatives) are medium format lenses adapted to fit 35mm bodies. The advantages included considerably larger image circles which allow for greater movements with less vignetting than the Canon/Nikon versions. Of course, as you mentioned, they don't interface electronically with DSLR bodies so you would have to decide if this (and the steep price) is worth it.</p> <p>As to the other questions I can't really say for sure but these are just some observations I noticed when I was considering a Nikkor PC-E lens. Also, Nikon seems to refuse to send these lenses with the ability to control tilt/shift independently (Canon is better in this regard). You can send it in to Nikon to have them modify this (for a price)</p>

<p><strong>My point of view, the pitch forks came out over the change to subscription model, not new prices.</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>Same here. Part of that involves what will happen to these "teaser" rates in the future once the die is cast. Its debatable on whether the subscription model is financially smart depending on what programs you use for what purposes and how important the latest and greatest updates are. But the underlying issue is it doesn't matter because you don't have a choice.<br /> <br /> <strong>"Google and G+ is something to watch for"</strong></p> <p>Google is definitely a big hope for those who want alternatives to the monopoly Adobe has on the market now. I definitely think Google sees an opening for them and they have the money and technology to pose a serious threat. I hear more and more people who don't need the full power of photoshop turning to things like Capture One as well. Perhaps in time that momentum will grow.</p> <p><strong>"Desktop computing is dying a quick death"</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>It has lost market share for sure but it isn't going to die. Not every application is suited to smart phones and tablets (or even laptops). I can't imagine ever doing serious photo editing on one of these. There will always be a market (albeit smaller) for desktops.</p> <p><strong>If you don't like Adobe's subscription model, you're going to have a tough time with the way everything else will also be in five years.</strong><br /> <br /> <strong><br /></strong>Not everything is going to be cloud/subscrition based in 5 years. High end Photoshop users are a small and captive audience. It's easier to coerce them, but not so much for the rest of the population who could care less (and would probably despise) the cloud/subscrition model. Trying to force a monthly payment for every piece of software on one's computer would create quite an outpouring of anger.</p> <p> </p>