andrewpgrant

<div></div>

<div></div>

Take a drive - that part of Southern Ontario in fall is beautiful Sunday driving country and photographic opportunities abound:

 

Head West from Niagara and get off the QEW at first possible opportunity.

 

North of the QEW is Niagara on the Lake and some good wineries.

 

South of the QEW (and anywhere west of Welland) takes you into rural Southern Ontario - smaller roads, picturesque farmland, old barns, old farmhouses, small towns with a lot of character, and conservation areas along the Niagara Escarpment (it is in the conservation areas that Fall colours really knock you off your feet). Heading West far enough to get to Victoria Ave and Vineland Estates winery (exit 57 along the QEW) should put you in the general vicinity of what I've described - for some nice parts of the Escarpment and further south into some nice countryside at any rate.

 

Drive, take your time, sample some wineries, take some photos and enjoy yourself (and get a map of winery locations/the wine route so you don't miss anything)!

 

PS. If the weather is nice, then the sooner you get away from the urban mess that is Niagara, the happier you'll feel - I promise!!!

Believe it or not, I actually read it too - but only because I'm taking a course in Business Law at the moment and it was a good way for me to procrastinate but still justify it as "homework" (note the BIG inverted commas)!

I'm glad they sued his butt - dodgy business is dodgy business.

<p>Interesting... actually, the moon being bigger near the horizon is merely an optical illusion and there doesn't seem to be any satisfacotry reason why (although there are some intersting theories).</p>

 

<p>I have a background in meteorology, and since you get different colours in the sky appearing in different places (and at different times) because of light refracting through the atmosphere differently depending on angle to the earth, I was about to start waxing lyrical about how that'd probably affect the 'size' of the moon as well.</p>

 

<p>But then I got curious and did a quick web search:</p>

 

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_illusion" target="_blank">Wikipedia explantion</a><br/>

<a href="http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/watchtheskies/20jun_moonillusion.html" target="_blank">NASA explanation</a></p>

 

<p>Interesting reading if you're procrastinating, as I currently am... </p>

<div></div>

BTW. Having different colours on either side can also makes the card stand out more... likewise with the p e and f thing for phone, email and fax - that's different... anything different is good!

 

IMHO, the rounded edges option looks cheap - but that's merely a matter of preference.

Nice... clean, dynamic, professional. I think your card design works very well - and the logo + use of blank space stands out.

On one hand the nice guy in me wants to say "sure, man - if you want to do it, then go and do it!" But something else to consider is that it's often hard to make money from photography.

 

So, why not ease in? Keep your day job but take on occasional jobs or assignments. As you become more comfortable, take on more - and switch over to full-time once YOU become comfortable and certain enough that you can earn a crust off it. That way you'll have the benefit of learning more and tightening up your game (both photographically and business wise), while having the safety net of a regular income.

Stephen, Ben and Charles: agreed... knowing the camera used can definately be valuable to learning, especially when you start talking about things like MF, LF or any type of camera designed to achieve a specific result (like panoramic, for instance). The same goes for lens and types of film (I would argue doubly so for the latter two). All this is great to have in the tech details.

 

But with the same prominence as the title/photographer? I guess what I am talking about is preconceptions and bias.

 

(Brian: Good point about the rate recent thing. I guess I am just crazy afterall).

If you're concerned about bright light in a baby's eyes, then perhaps you could try bouncing your flash off something?

I feel like people are factoring the camera that has been used into

their allocation of ratings - as if it were a measure of photographic

accomplishment/knowledge.

 

I keep telling myself that I am going crazy and just imagining this,

but it seems to keep happening - if I submit a photo with my little

point-and-shoot Canon A85 listed, then I get 3's. If I resubmit the

image with either nothing or one of my more "professional" (note the

big, sarcastic quotation marks) cameras listed, then I get 5's.

 

I appreciate that there are a lot of unaccounted variables here, but

has anyone else noticed the same thing?

 

So, I guess I was wondering, is it really that worthwhile to list the

camera with the title/photographer underneath the photo? In my mind,

it encourages a counter-productive focus on what equipment you have to

use, rather than what you 'see' and can do with that equipment.

 

If you'd like to find out what kind of camera is used, then why can't

the equipment listed under 'details' suffice?

There are easy-to-use Java-based albums available for free at Jalbum:

 

http://jalbum.net/

I shot twins once, but only in the context of a family portrait. But what I wished I could have done was:

 

* Find out if they ever played "switcheroo" type tricks when they were younger. Get them to re-create those tricks.

* Play some mirror-type games...

* Get them to 'meet' each other for the first time.

 

Basically my point is just have some fun with it (if you're allowed)!

There are plenty of subscribers who "don't know the least thing about art or photography" either... and you know what? That doesn't make their opinions any less valid in the slightest.

 

Everyone has something constructive to offer, even if it is only how a photo makes them 'feel'.

 

Besides, there are those of us who don't have the financial resources or time to contribute regularly enough to justify joining properly for the moment, but we'd still like to take part now and then...

 

Thank you, by the way, for the patience of other members and site admin on that note.

The length of the exposure will depend on how bright your surrounds are. For example, is Mt. Whitney in snow this time of year?

 

Meter reading is probably a good bet... and then bracket substantially :-)

 

If you're shooting film, consider taking a Tungsten balanced film along in the mix... it gives you that 'cool, blue moonlight' look.

Don't leave behind the 200mm - shooting things from the deck of the ship is sometimes the only chance you get on a cruise. The 17-85 would be pretty flexible for on-board...

<div></div>

I used to use a Nikkor 70-200mm f2.8 for indoor ice sports like Hockey and Ringette and it was perfect. I think you'd need the flexibility of the zoom lens - there are plenty of times when you need to zoom in/out with the action and the 70mm end allows you to take good action shots on your side of the rink. On the other hand, 200mm is great for shots across the ice or of face/eye shots (you can get extremely effective results if you can get the player's eyes) in nearer ice areas. I guess flexibility is king!!!

I'm with Lex... this is Steve McCurry - he could probably take a Fuji disposable and make images that'd tear out your heart (in a good, inspirational way).

 

There's nothing wrong with sponsorship - just like professional athletes might use sponsor-provided equipment... makes perfect sense if you ask me. If you're impressed with a camera and it suits your needs and budget, then that should be your criteria for buying. If you're impressed with the R1 (and it sounds like you are), then don't feel bad about going with it.

My personal preference would be the D70s for the slightly better set of features/performance and the fact that it uses CF cards as opposed to SDs like the D50... if you ever decided to upgrade to a 'higher-end' DSLR (most of which usually use CF cards) then it'd be nice to not have to buy another set of memory storage devices. 6.1MP would be fine for 8x10s of a pretty decent quality.

I can't see any difference either - but Robert had a good suggestion when he recommended you check what colour space you are working and saving files in using Photoshop.

<div></div>

I am using Firefox 1.5 now as well (cool, I hadn't realised it had been released) and I can access all the enlarged images, including the ones accessed by the arrow menus.

 

I have no clue why it's working for me and not you guys??? There is, however, a wierd flickering thing happening when I scroll over the image/arrow links. Perhaps my machine is just slow/old enough that I can click on them before the 'flickering' link thing becomes an issue?