boris_ochan

"You think people are going to mix me up with those other photgraphers"

No, it was more a reference to how many photographers there are out there.

"i feel a 20D would not be sufficient in performance in many key areas"

Unless you want to cover sport there's no reason why it shouldn't be sufficient. There are

photographers regularly making covers and double-page spreads in magazines like Time

and Newsweek with this camera; a number of Newsweek photographers are working with

Olympus E1s. Many photographers working at a very high level (and for who price just isn't

an issue) favor so-called amateur cameras over the 1D/1Ds because they are so much

more manageable in terms of size and weight. It's true that most press photographers use

variations on the 1D, but at the top of the reportage market (Magnum, Time,

Newsweek.....) you'll find a lot of people using cameras like the 20D. Another benefit for

you (as your funds are limited) is that you can buy two or three bodies for the price of one

1 series body; it isn't realistic to expect to rely on a single body.

"I can think of at least two photographers who share your name......"

30 seconds of googling delivered:

http://www.artnet.com/artist/12021/Andrew_Moore.html

http://www.time.com/time/europe/photoessays/nireland/

"Apart from full frame and an extra 8 megapixels ? Is it worth it?"

Probably not. It's worth bearing in mind that there are credible/successful photographers

working at a high level with cameras no more exotic than Canon 20Ds and Olypus E1s.

Daniel makes a fair point regarding the seeming naivety of your question, but there are

plenty of photographers who began with nothing more substantial than a naive whim. You

might want

to consider changing your name though, I can think of at least two photographers who

share your name......

I'm not sure why people are suggesting sRGB when the original poster clearly stated "i

want to get everything calibrated/set up to help me create the best possible images i can".

If you went the best quality/most control then it makes sense to work from RAW images

coupled with Adobe RGB. It's true that color management can be confusing, but it's worth

getting to grips with. You're not going to make any catastrophic mistakes, and if you work

from RAW then you can always return to the files when you're a bit more adept and

squeeze the last bit of quality from them.

"Anyone found a solution to this short of taping the sucker down?"

Sure, just carry the camera with the lens facing inwards. It's also more comfortable.

"suggest tin hat, flak jacket, googles and mask and a quick escape route or waiting car"

For a Mayday protest in Switzerland? Why stop there? Maybe top off the flak jacket with

some ballistic strike plates and have a waiting helicopter. People cover wars with less

protection. An alternative suggestion - jeans, tshirt, and a pair of running shoes. Being

comfortable and mobile will do you a lot more good than being dressed as if you're about

to mount an assault on Falluja......

"above all else a camera that will not break your heart if it gets smashed"

Your heart shouldn't really be breaking if any camera gets smashed. Again, use whatever

you're comfortable with.

Vuk Vuksanovic and his unfeasably complex and subtle brain. Closer on the evolutionary

scale to Noam Chomsky or Nim Chimpski? Let the monkeys decide.......

"you have got a 'lemon' then as my 16-35L at 28mm wide open beats both my 24 2.8 and

28 2.8 primes wide open (and stopped down for that matter)"

Strange conclusion as we're not comparing the same lenses - I'm talking about the 1.8.

Maybe, despite the obsession with MTF tests the slower 28 just isn't as good as the faster

one.

"what about if both are set at 2.8? Does the 1.8usm match it when set to f/2.8 in

sharpness and picture quality?"

I've no idea, but it's better than the 16-35 at 2.8, and the zoom's OK wide open. I'd guess

it's probably better than the slower 28 at 2.8 despite the urban myth that it's softer than

the average Smurf. Having said that I feel fairly sure that at least one person here will chip

in to tell you that the lens is utterly unusable, he has on every other thread relating to this

lens.......

"is there anything special I should do.......to protect my lovely new camera against sand"

Absolutely nothing.

"I'm a bit of a loss here, very worried!"

Why?

And from your other thread:"never shot on a beach before, have always been careful to

avoid them!"

Come on in, the water's lovely. Honestly, your camera is less scared of the beach than you

are.....

Kent:"Smith....He seems called to get the truth at any risk, and does."

I think it would be more accurate to say that he was called to get the "picture" at any risk,

rather than the "truth".

"he sometimes used dubious means to get there. It doesn't seem to be prevalent and most

(99.9 percent) of his stuff is real and truthful at all levels"

I'm not sure how you can conclude that "99.9 percent" of his work is "real and truthful".

Staging was commonplace in his work, from explosions to wakes......Once that line

is crossed it places a big question mark over all of your work, regardless of how talented

you are (extremely talented in the case of Smith).

"I wonder if maybe editors and photographers have different points of view."

I think the pertinent point is that photographers have a much greater insight into what

goes in on in the field than the majority of photo editors. Even today clearly (at least to

other photographers) staged/miscaptioned pictures are run on a daily basis by credulous

editors. There's an awful lot of posturing from papers like the NY Times and organizations

like the NPPA over ethics but very little action. Every now and again there'll be a ritualistic

lynching of someone like Walski (fired from the LA Timesfor clumsily montaging pictures

in Iraq), and that gives the impression that misrepresentation is very rare, but it isn't.

Some reportage photographers are really straight and wouldn't set up a picture under any

circumstances, but many aren't, and they know that there's very little chance they'll get

caught out like Walski. Those that are straight are motivated by their own code of ethics

not by the (really slim) fear of being exposed.

Kent:"Joe Rosenthal's photo of the raising of the flag on Iwo Jima was a reenactment."

Are you sure about this? Isn't Rosenthal on the record as saying that the moment is

genuine and that there was a misunderstanding that led to the impression it had been

staged?

"W Eugene Smith asked people to "do that again" until he got the picture he wanted and

Smith must is considered one of the finest photojournalists"

Despite his huge talents Smith engaged in a lot of dubious practises that it would be

difficult to defend in the context of reportage. He might be an inspirational figure in many

ways, but he's a really

flawed role model when it comes to journalistic ethics. Certainly his actions would get him

fired today from, say, the NY Times.

"I don't think there is a rule prohibiting reenactments."

There are an awful lot of people who'd firmly disagree with you on this when it comes to

journalistic work - and the initial poster clarified that he aspired to be a "photojournalist".

I've no problem with set-ups in photography, but I have a real problem with staging when

it's misrepresented as fact. The fact that the staging may be of a minor thing that the

subject engages in anyway is irrelevant - once you cross that line then there's a question

mark

over everything you do. I know of reportage photographers working today who've been

utterly shunned by their collegues for doing the kind of things that were routine for Smith.

This is a really interesting subject but I won't be able to respond further for a couple of

days, I'll chip back in if the thread's still active when I get back to an internet connection.

ps sorry to single you out Kent, I could have made the same points in response to what

others have said......

"Our new 14" iBook is accurately calibrated"

Sadly, it doesn't matter how much calibrating you do - the monitor on an iBook (or a

Powerbook for that matter) just can't give the tonal separation you need for serious image

editing. They're great tools for location work but that's about it.

"I'm interested in getting an iBook as a low price point entry into the Mac world. This

would not replace the PC but I intend to use it much of the time for image editing. I would

like to be sure that a) the screen is up to doing imaging (can it be calibrated? does it have

enough of a contrast ration?)and b) that the processor is fast enough to be efficient"

The processor is fast enough but, further to what Brad said, the display is a huge

limitation if you intend to use it for any serious editing. I use a 12inch iBook on location

(primarily because it's tougher than a Powerbook and the battery life is a bit better) but the

monitor sucks in a really major way.

Gao Bo is interesting:

http://www.agencevu.com/fr/photographes/default.asp?Photographes=41

Much better known, but still worth looking at, is Chien-Chi Chang (if, like Beijing, you

consider Taiwan as being China......):

http://www.magnumphotos.com/c/htm/TreePf_MAG.aspx?

Stat=Photographers_Portfolio&E=29YL53IQX54

There's also Mark Leong (though he grew up in California):

http://www.reduxpictures.com/leong/index.html

Go to Save As and you'll be given a range of format options. If you're not seeing the jpg

option then go to Image, then Mode, and convert to 8bit.

"Canon will not make a "Pro" lens that cannot be mounted on a "Pro" body."

Isn't any camera used by a professional photographer a "pro" camera? Plenty of good

photographers (for who price just isn't an issue) use 20d bodies in preference to 1 series

bodies because they are much

more manageable in terms of bulk. Canon acknowledge that working photographers might

have good reason to work with 20ds rather than 1ds by giving them professional status

under their CPS (Canon Professional Services) scheme, just as they did with 10ds, d60s

and d30s before them. The "pro" tag has a lot more to do with marketing (to credulous

amateurs) than it has to anything meaningful about the capabilities of an individual

camera.

I'm touched by the overwhelmingly positive response to my initial post.

In response to Edward (and I think it was valid of you to question my post), you should be

aware that it's possible to be a great and (artistically) successful photographer while at the

same time doing little more than subsisting financially. If you take a radical position as an

imagemaker you're just not going to make the sales levels of someone more mainstream.

As an illustration, Jeff Jacobson is never going to match the income of, say, Steve McCurry,

and Gilles Peress is never going to match the income of Jim Nachtwey. The fact that

Jacobson and Peress are more respected by (and have wielded more influence on) their

peers isn't reflected by commercial success or acceptance by photo editors (who, with a

few exceptions, will hire a dullard over a genius every time).

As A pointed out "My Fellow Americans" was a wonderful book, arguably the best portrayal

of the USA since Robert Frank, but it was a commercial flop - in the nineties there were big

stacks of unsold copies with a five dollar price tag. Anyway, I'm posting the text of an

email from Jeff, and if people want to help - or just want to tell him that they think his

work matters - then they can. It really isn't an easy thing for a photographer like Jeff to

ask for help, and the fact that he has means he really does need help - even if that help

amounts to no more than moral support. Again, I'll understand if the moderators remove

this thread.

> Dear Friends;

> As many of you know I have been fighting cancer. I was diagnosed

with lymphoma just before Christmas and am now doing chemotherapy.

>

> I've been very happy in my life on the road, on my own, working,

taking photographs. Photography has given me my voice to respond to the

world. This disease has made photographing temporarily impossible for me and

necessitates my reaching out with my work to you. The very thing that makes

photography such a good fit for me, solitude in action, is what makes asking for help

difficult.

> This is a fundraising letter.

> There are a number of ways to help me. In order to replenish lost

income, I am offering prints of my photographs for sale. This is a one time,

limited edition sale offered through the internet only. The pictures are mostly from

my upcoming new book, Melting Point, with a couple golden oldies from my first

book, My Fellow Americans. Melting Point represents the last fifteen years of my work and

is a

very personal meditation on the condition of the world today. The pictures offered

can be seen on my photo agency's website:

http://www.reduxpictures.com/fundraiser. Prices will be quoted for three sizes of archival

light jet prints. To order

prints, contact me directly at jijpix@aol.com. I will contact you back to arrange payment

and

delivery.

I also must raise a substantial amount of money to support the

publishing of Melting Point. Another way to help is to make a donation of any

amount to support the publishing of the book. If you need a tax write off, you

can send your donation through a tax exempt organization, Many Voices Press,

which supports the publication of photography books of socially relevant

issues. Eugene Richards and Janine Altongi, who administer Many Voices, have

graciously offered this option.. Checks can be made out to Many Voices Press and sent

to 472 13th St., Brooklyn, NY, 11215. Write Melting Point Support on the check.

If you do make a donation through Many Voices, please send me an email and let

me know.

I understand that some of you will not be able to afford to help me

right now. I don't want you to do this if you don't have the money. But if you do

have some disposable income, and are interested in my work, I'd appreciate the

help. Also, please forward this email to any friends or family of yours who might

be interested, especially if they know me or my work. So many of you have already given

me such important help with your

visits,emails, phone calls and good wishes. I want to thank you who have

contacted me in the last couple months. Your love and support has moved me deeply

and given me strength to confront this disease. I expect to have many more years

of this good life ahead of me.

Sincerely,

Jeff Jacobson

This is just to let people know that there's a fundraising effort to help photographer Jeff

Jacobson - he's currently unable to work while undergoing chemotherapy. His agent,

Marcel Saba, has put up a small gallery of work that Jeff is hoping to sell prints of to help

support him until he's well enough to accept assignments again:

www.reduxpictures.com/fundraiser/

I'll understand if the moderators feel that this is an inappropriate post and remove it.

However, it is worth bearing in mind what a positive force Jeff has been in challenging

many of the cliches of reportage photography.

If you have enough CF cards and you're travelling with a laptop anyway you'd be way

better off spending the money on a good backup drive (or drives). The LaCie mobile drives

come in

80 and 100gb sizes, move files really quickly (USB2 and firewire), and weigh just a fraction

more than an iPod. I travel with an iPod but I don't think in their current form they're

practical enough for image backup.

Almost by definition lens "testers" have absurd priorities - there's a classic of the genre a

few threads up on the Canon 35mm f2.........

Mike, do you really care about that lens "test" on any level? The key thing is that a guy

wants a good, reasonably priced, fast aperture lens to photograph his baby. The 28 in

question obviously fits the bill. It's good enough to produce images for a photographer

like Peress that sell in the region of US$3000 for a 20x16 print. I think we can safely

conclude that it's good enough for most of the rest of us - though maybe not for Yakim

(as he says: "I am a big fan of quality") and the lens testers.

"Here is one which had it, tested it and didn't like it"

The key thing is that he "tested it", and that puts him into my category of "strange guys"

with resolution charts and newspapers pinned to their walls. The only relevant test is

whether a lens makes pleasing images, and the lens in question manifestly does so......

Yakim: "Look at my original post: "Some like them, some not""

The pertinent point is that those who like the lens are those who use it, and those that

don't have no experience of it.

"Do you think I shoot resolution charts?

I've no idea, you're not who I was referring to. I was thinking of guys like Rockwell and

Puts who many people on these forums endlessly reference as if there findings are in any

way meaningful - I don't think that they are. If you did imagine that this was a comment

on you personally I'm not sure why you were more perturbed by the reference to

resolution charts than you were by the "strange guy" reference.....

"my original post....I find nothing wrong...please correct me if you think I'm wrong. Just

don't forget to add quotes"

OK, how about this: "20/2.8 and 28/1.8 - do not have the same unanimous concensus

about their optical quality"? If you read the (many) recent threads on the 28 you'll find that

there is unanimity (from those who actually use the lens) that it's a very good lens, usable

all the way to f1.8. People waste way too much time worrying about minor differences in

lens quality that have no real world bearing on results.