josephwalsh

<p>Checking uploads. Thank you.<br>

Art</p><div></div>

<p>Very nice work this week, far, far better than (most) from last week. Odd how that works, isn't it?</p>

<p>and again</p>

<p>Panasonic LX3<br>

Dynamic B&W jpegs, straight from camera<br>

haven't tried multiple picures in one posting before....fingers crossed.</p>

<p>"But they do throw the background more out of focus."<br />Nope.<br>

"more out of focus" is another way to say shallower depth of field.</p>

 

<p>Somewhat OT, but: DoF is a function of aperture and image size, not focal length.<br>

Telephoto lenses do not have "shallow" DoF.<br>

Shoot a subject with a 50mm lens and then a 100mm from the same distance and the DofF is greater with the 50mm...but that's because the subject image is smaller. Move in closer with the 50 until the subject is the same size as it was with the 100 and DoF will be the same.<br>

btw, though the subject image size will be the same when using a 100mm lens from 10 feet or a 50mm from 5 feet, the perspective will be different. This is the flaw in "get a prime and zoom with your feet" advice.</p>

 

<p>24-105 f4 VR for FX with optical quality equal to the 24-70 2.8.<br>

I would buy another D700 and weld the lens to it.</p>

<p>85-300 f5 FD purchased in 1971 while a student at Brooks. Huge, heavy, expensive. Thought it a poor performer, too, although will admit my technique was lacking in those days.<br>

Came with a hard leather case superior to any luggage I've ever owned.</p>

<p>A lens I use frequently and was very inexpensive in a kit...18-70 on a D300s. Mine is usually at f8, on a tripod. Performs very well indeed in that circumstance.<br /> The lens that "makes the most money": the 70-200 f2.8 on D700. I do a good bit of equine photography and I'm not sure I've ever sold a horse or horse and rider picture that <em>wasn't</em> taken with this lens.<br /> I'm beginning to fear my least cost effective lens is the 14-24 2.8. I use it primarily for landscape, usually early/late in the day and backlit. The flare is just awful.</p>

<p>D300 and D700<br>

24mm 2.8 and 55 f3.5 micro, both AI'd by John White<br>

105 f2.5 AI<br>

35mm f1.4 AIS</p>

<p>Set the D700 at ISO 2400 with the 35 1.4---"Light? We don't need no stinkin' light."<br>

OK, slight exaggeration. How about "If you can see it, you can shoot it"</p>

<p>I have both D700 and D300s.<br>

IMO, unless you feel a specific need for FX---you're a wide angle freak, you often need ISOs higher than 1000, you have a collection of older Nikon lenses that you feel you MUST use at their intended AOV---unless you are one or more of these, you will be very satisfied with the D300 or D300s.</p>

<p>Good Stuff! as usual...<br>

Rene, that duck looks like she's coming in on final gear up!<br>

Rick, lovin' that yellowleg click.<br>

Roberta, fabulous daisy/water pic...<br>

William, well beyond the usual "kute kid kapture."<br>

Mine is a stairwell at San Fransisco MOMA.</p>

<div></div>

<p>Alpo ...I like your delicate forest photo very much.<br>

Daniel, your spooky birds click looks straight out of Hitchcock. It's one of those where you are to be congratulated for recognizing its merit afterwards as well as shooting it. (How many really good photographs do we dismiss---or delete!---in PP?)</p>

<p>Here's my "pretty assassin in action" click.</p><div></div>

<p>As an FX owner I believe:<br /> DX is the better choice for almost all photographers unless:<br /> -you wish to print larger than 17x22<br /> or<br /> -you anticipate heavy cropping on a regular basis<br /> or<br /> -you anticipate the need for ISO 1600 and higher on a regular basis<br /> or<br /> -you are a wide angle lover and lust after the Nikon 14-24. ( that would be me :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"any post-work?"<br>

John, I use Lightroom and I did slide the Vibrance to 40 which is pretty routine for me. No saturation slider. (I never use it.)<br>

Pic was pink and blue out of the camera (RAW)<br>

Thanks for the thumbs up.</p>

<p>Rick, I greatly admire your pelican shot...that dark background really makes it "pop" as they say.<br>

This one is dawn at Huddle Bay, Lake George, New York<br>

Must confess it was shot last fall but I like it and haven't shown it anywhere yet.</p><div></div>

<p>"I purchase a sandisk extreme 64gb UDMA 6 card"<br>

Holy Cow!!! Why?!</p>

<p>"...high-quality f4 zooms ...clearly missing in Nikon's line up. I actually wrote to Nikon about that a month ago, but of course these lenses have been in the works for a while"<br>

Shun, you're being modest.<br>

You write to Nikon and a month later they deliver....coincidence? Perhaps. ;-)</p>

 

<p>Sorry to hear. In my days (early 70's) at Brooks many of us frequented Anderson Camera, also on State Street...I see it's out toward Goleta now.<br>

Before long B&H and Amazon may be the only "camera stores" in the country.<br>

J</p>

<p>There is also the possibility of the much discussed Nikon 16-35mm f4. Potentially, an excellent choice.<br>

Should know at PMA just two weeks from now when it will be available...and IF.</p>

<p>It's not unusual in the least for two meters to diagree by a stop.<br>

What's unusual is for them to be identical.<br>

You can test w/ slide film to eliminate negative printing variables. Shoot a normal front lit scene in bright sunlight. Do two or three different set ups.<br>

Bracket in 1/3 stop increments. After choosing your preference, see where it falls in the bracket (2/3 under, 1/3 over, whatever) compared to meter recommendation.<br>

Then use the exposure compensation button to set appropriately. And leave it there.<br>

If there is no exp. comp. on the Minolta, lie to it about film sensitivity. IOW, if the camera is overexposing 2/3 stop, tell it your 100 ISO film is 160, for example.</p>

<p>John, I have an N6006 body. It's a good little camera and you're welcome to it for the cost of shipping.<br>

Warning: Battery door is secured with black tape rather than per Lex's blue tape protocol. Hope that's not a deal breaker. ;-)</p>

<p>JW</p>

<p>Ian, I'm not sure if there's an Elements 7 for Mac. I just switched this past week so hadn't been paying attention. I did a Google search and the results _seem_ to indicate "no." btw...the fifth hit when searching "PSE 7 Windows Mac" was this thread! Do we file that under "Blind leading blind" or "Dog chasing tail"?<br>

Michael, it's not terribly old...PSE 7 was released in, I believe, fall of 2008. Version 8 is quite recent.<br>

Kelly, it's the latest: MacBook Pro OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard Dual Intel<br>

J (may I call you "J"?:-) that's a good point...go to the source...I'll contact Adobe in California Monday.</p>

<p>Got my new computer the other day. I have downloaded and installed LR 2.6. Said installation asked for my LR 2 SN and even the SN# of my original LR1.0<br>

However, I can't figure out how to put a copy of my PSE 7 on the new computer. Do I have to buy PSE 8?<br>

My other computers are Windows and this new one is a Mac.</p>

 

<p>"it was only natural to focus on the technical, since that was what the OP was asking about."<br>

Well, gotta disagree with you here, Nadine. (probably for the first time :-)<br>

The OP asked this question:"How to Produce this look? Post Processing?"<br>

The short and correct answer is: "No."<br>

Admittedly, this is a bit of a bugaboo for me. While teaching photography for 30 years I have tried to convince students that you can't become a good photographer with your Master Card. There is no lens, camera, computer program, filter, secret recipe or plug-in program that will work.<br>

It's up to you... mind, heart, passion and eyes.</p>

<h1></h1>

<p> </p>