anndra

Loxley Colour in Glasgow - ordering online via their remote order system is so easy that even a photographer can use it. Which helps of course, but the quality of print and service is first class.

I find the lens to be a quite superb addition to my kit-bag. There is indeed a little vignetting - easily fixable in either Capture or Photoshop - but otherwise this is a wonderful lens considering all the compromises that must have to be made to deliver a lens with such a extensive focal range.

 

The bokeh is very fine to my eyes and for a walk-around lens it is pretty much everything I'd hoped for.

 

I'm another who has upgraded from the 24-120 - fine lens as that was too.

Hi Andy.

 

Prior to owning my D200, I had a D70 and manual focusing was difficult to say the least, now it's an option I have been able to use when I want.

 

I've used it with the 12-24mm and - whilst it's clearly not as easy as with, say, the 80-400vr - it's still very useable.

 

I have found it to be best of all when using the Micro-Nikkor 105mm.

 

Hope that helps ;)

 

Anndra.

No, I wont demand it as I accept this as being an honest mistake rather than some intent to mislead.

 

The bottom line for me is that I would have subscribed to photo.net irrespective of the offer and just felt I was getting an exceptionally good deal rather than the every good one.

 

Thank you for clarifying matters on my behalf.

Why was it still being advertised on the subscription page then I wonder? It's really not on to offer one thing and deliver another after you have coughed up.

I'm relatively new here, but I have to confess that I'm dumbstruck by the idea that any photographer would dismiss or attack the work of another because of varying degrees of manipulation.

 

Someone above even mentioned 'true photos' - presumably intended to distinguish between ps manipulation or not - and I couldn't help but wonder if they would include a photo that was created with the aid of a shift & tilt lens - indeed, any lens - a warm up filter, a motor drive, a light meter, a nuetral grad etc. All of which are grand manipulations in themselves before you get anywhere near your choice of recording media, manipulative chemicals (or not) and choice of paper or other publishing media.

 

And some people leave photo.net over this issue? Perhaps someone could enlighten me as to how they don't manipulate light to create a photograph in the first instance.

 

I would no more give up CD's and return to cassette than I would give up photoshop for, well, any current alternative.

 

Ultimately, I wouldn't even dream of 'fighting' with another photographer over their choices. The final image - the result of their creativity - will always be of more interest to me than how they arrived at it. Even though I am deeply interested in both.

 

Peace.

I recently paid $68 for three years + 18 months bonus subscription.

Neither the paypal receipt or my workspace page indicate anything more

than the three years.

 

Any suggestions as to what has gone wrong or what to do?

 

tia for any assistance with this matter - Anndra.