hjoseph7

<p>I would say the closest match to the Nikon 7100 would be the Canon 7D(18MG pixels). Canon has a 50mm f1.8($99), and f1.4, a 100mm Macro f2.8(L and non-L) , a 24-105mm(L) and a 70-200 f4(L) . 'L' in this case means expensive. </p>

<p>You got plenty to choose from depending on how deep your pockets are or are willing to commit to your hobby. There is Pentax, Mamiya, Roleii, Haseblad and more. They all will give you a decent picture according to their owners. </p>

<p>Then 11-22mm lens is a very sharp lens and has good color rendition. The Achilles heel of this lens for me was the f3.5/4.5 aperture not exactly slow, but I found it difficult to produce out of focused backgrounds and good Bokeh with my cropped camera. I like blurring the background when I'm up close ! <br> Another reason I sold it, was that anything below 15mm and the distortion was outrageous. If you like to shoot at super wide angle, meaning anything below 24mm on a full frame, I would suggest a prime or better yet the Canon 8-15mm (L) series fish-eye lens. At least you can use this lens on a full-frame. </p>

<p>Not much. To me it's a waste of time and it slows down the scan process. I do most of my editing post-scan.</p>

<p>"<em>People have a variety of experiences with eBay--mine as a buyer have been about 99% positive</em>"</p> <p>Andrew don't get me wrong my experiences with eBay have been mostly positive, maybe around 95%, but not when it comes to light-meters, or flash units. I purchased 3 flash meters from eBay which are now collecting dust. </p> <p>The problem is that there are a lot of sellers(not all) on eBay who don't even know what a light meter is, or how it works or supposed to work. They just put a battery in it, see if the little lights come on or if the needle moves and say 'It works". Then they cut-and-paste a Product Description they snatched from somewhere else on the web and put the item up for sale.</p> <p>When it comes to purchasing sensitive electronic items like light-meters and flash units it's buyer beware. It's like purchasing a used car without taking a test-drive. You are better off buying a cheap new unit rather than be lose sleep when the "scotch-tape" repairs wear off and your unit suddenly fails for no apparent reason. </p>

<p>Prints are not dead. There are different types of prints that still sell. Portraits, wedding photos, posters, calendars, post card, advertisements, magazines, news papers all use prints. People have always taken snap-shots, but professional photographers are still around. I got to admit that the digital revolution, you just have to work harder and be really good and committed at what you do. </p> <p><em>On the same topic, how about the people that stand behind you while your shooting, taking their own photos of your subjects posing? How do I navigate this without seeming mean?</em></p> <p>You are always going to get that even at weddings, so get use to it. Simply tell them that you are on the job and once you get the shot they can take as many pictures as they want. </p>

<p><em>Are you interested in art history or art appreciation? Have you studied it formally or on your own? If so, how has it influenced your photography</em>?<br> <br /> The History of Photography(1 semester) and the History of Art( 2 semesters) where mandatory courses I had to take as part of the curriculum for the AAS degree in Photography. <br /> Both courses not only influenced my photography, but were an eye opening experience. I even kept the <em>very expensive books</em> as part of my extensive library and refer to them on occasion especially after visiting a Museum, or other art-works including Architecture and Carpentry.</p> <p>I particularly enjoyed "The History of Art" which although focused mainly on Western art, also dealt with pre-western Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Asian and African influences both in Painting and in Architecture.</p> <p>I found it fascinating that during the middle-ages in Europe and sometimes prior to that, Art was heavily influenced by Religion and becoming an Artist was a viable occupation. If you were an artist with government contacts like Michelangelo, you could make a pretty good living yourself.</p> <p>Later on especially with the onset of Photography, art would become a little more contemporary, but it would not be until the 19th century that photography would be considered a true art form.</p> <p>Until then, Photography was considered by most as a form of documentation not true art. It would take the work of many talented photographers in the early 19th century and beyond to bring it to that level.</p> <p>Although the subjects could get pretty rigorous at times, being a history-buff, I did not mind at all... Going through history like this, without all the politics and gore was particularly enjoyable for me.<br> Basically I think these 2 courses gave me a better understanding of "lighting" and "composition" than I would have had, if I had never taken them. </p>

<p> Personally, I rather use filters when it comes to landscapes than trying to mess with HDR. A simple graduated filter will solve most lighting problems when it comes to capturing details in a bright sky line. Without a filter, if you meter off the sky the foreground is too dark and if you meter off the foreground the sky is blown out. Blown out skies present a huge problem because they render the picture unnatural and often nothing short of cutting and pasting another sky will save the picture. </p> <p>I have nothing against HDR, if your camera has it or you know how to use the software you can get results that are superior to graduated filters, if used discreetly. The only problem it can be time consuming and tedious, but at least you don't have to juggle with a bunch of filters in your camera bag. </p> <p>These days "extreme-HDR" is a form of art, or a new way of looking at pictures. Nothing wrong with that either. I see plenty of advertisements in magazines even portrait work that use the HDR-look. I don't think it's a good idea to use it on landscapes though, especially when it comes to Nature shots.</p> <p>Yesterday I went through about 200 pictures that were sitting inside my camera. To my surprise I had to increase the sharpening and contrast on about 90% of the pictures ! This is after carefully using the focusing points on my camera, using a lens hood to increase contrast and using a relatively expensive lens and camera. </p> <p>Of course I could have bumped up the sharpening inside the camera a few notches, which I think is what many photographers do, but I did not want to overdo things. Un-sharpening a picture is much harder than sharpening a picure. </p>

<p>Whatever you do don't buy anything 'used' off eBay...</p>

<p>Why don't you try the Pacific 7200u. I heard some pretty good reviews about that scanner. </p>

<p>I think freestyle magazine still sells C41 kits. I purchased a couple of 2 Gallon kits and they work fine but not as good as Tetenal or Kodak. </p>