s._d.1

<p>May not be as good a deal as it sounds. Has Nikon fixed the sensor dust problem with the D600? Or are they just unloading their remaining D600 stock with sensor dust problem?</p>

<p>After looking the the original photo and the various PS 'fixes', I have to say the image is not only bad, it is COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE and unsalvageable.<br>

You need to give these customers full 100% refund, PLUS a sincere apology for ruining what should have been their most precious memorable moments.<br>

Regardless of your financial situation and your husband's opinion, what is at stake is your personal integrity. You need to take responsibility as a professional business person.<br>

Refund the couple in full, even if it mean selling your equipment to pay for it.</p>

<p>Interesting discussion! Perhaps ‘recall’ is not the right word. There are paintings as well as photographs that I remember equally well. However, my <em>respond </em>upon seeing Starry Night vs. Moonrise is quite different. Perhaps I am responding not only to the contents of the image, but more to the artist’s emotion conveyed by the image, which to my eyes is quite different between these two works.<br>

In Starry Night, I sense a great deal of the fore-thought and emotional involvement. In Moonrise, I find myself visualizing Adams quickly setting up his tripods to capture the scene, granted that he spent enormous amount of time in the darkroom afterward to print the image. By that token, a snap shooter who shoots first and picks the best shots later would have the least emotional investment with the subject, and the least impact on the viewer.</p>

<p>Sheesh...I thought you know all, why do you need anyone else input?<br>

Call that contributions? You guys turn Laura D's original post into an excuse for self aggrandizment and self congratulation. Sheesh... is right, give me a break!</p>

<p><strong>Sheesh ... Street Photography is ...</strong><br>

"Look at me, I know more than you!"<br>

"But I've traveled all over the world, have more experience than you!"<br>

"But, but I take better pictures than you!"</p>

 

<p>>Is there a way to check for mold?<br>

With the aperture wide open, shine a bright light into the front element while looking through the back of the lens. Look for filamentous growths on the glass surfaces inside. (I hope there isn't any, good luck!) </p>

<p>>f10 at 1/250; ISO 125; Hard contrast; Standard scene.<br>

No blue on my screen. But the photos should appear sharper in their relatively small sizes, and should be more contrasty at the stated settings. All the sample photos appear unsharp, hazy and low in contrast. Since the camera has not been used for a long time, could the lens have mold ?</p>

<p>"Is a photograph a copy of a real subject or is it a copy of a representation?"<br>

Unfortunately, photography is a very poor instrument for capturing 'a moment of eternity' compared to our actual experience. When you are experiencing an event, you not only see what is happening visibly, but also hear the sounds, smell the odors, feel the heat/cold/rain/wind/pain, etc., etc. You are aware what happened earlier and what might come next. You are an active participant in a changing 4-dimensional environment, with time as the 4th dimension. Time is not just a perception, it is as real an entity as distance and mass, and it has nothing to do with how it is measured, with clocks or shutter speed. A camera only records an infinitesimal fraction of the immense information on a two diensional film negative or digital sensor. While it is better than nothing as a visual record, it would be a far cry to call it a good representation of the moment, and calling it a copy of reality is absurd.</p>

<p>Let's not get carried away here. David's original post had a legitimate question about some of the 'street photos' on the web. Why do so many photographers take offense of his question? Are we to assume that an artists' works, no matter how famous, should be universally liked/undrstood? That is ludicrous. On the contrary, I would argue that the more you look at famous artists' works, the more critical you become.</p>

<p>The first photo of this wedding is a staged 'photojournalistic style' shot. The rest are pure photojournalism.<br>

<a href="http://lelandwong.xanga.com/657607591/photographing-a-wedding-and-then-an-earthquake/">http://lelandwong.xanga.com/657607591/photographing-a-wedding-and-then-an-earthquake/</a></p>

<p>Jonathan, thanks for the tips on the 1 second shutter delay. I'll do some tests to see if it's as sharp as w/ mirror up. :)</p>

<p>My number 1 gripe: Cannot lock up the mirror in LIVE VIEW mode.</p>

<p>I use Live-view for taking low-angle close-ups. The current set up requires you to switch back and forth between Live-view and Mirror-lock-up modes for every shot. Pain in the neck!</p>

<p>I totally agree with Mike Bisom's comment. What borders me the most is that Anne sees nothing wrong with her action, otherwise she wouldn't have sought a second opinion from William W.</p>

<p>Many artists seem oblivious to what is considered unprofessional in the business world. As an employee of any company, promoting your own private business while on the job is definitely a career-suicidal move, whether you are a lawyer working for a law firm, or a salesperson in a department store. This may be the most valuable experience for Anne. She may be a good photographer, but until she learns how to behave & navigate in the business world, her skills and her degree won't help her move very far.</p>

<p>ND, perhaps this actual scenerio is helpful for understanding the ethical problems of Ann's action:<br>

A photographer had an exhibition in a gallery. At the opening reception, one customer liked the work and asked the photographer for a business card. The next day, the customer visited the photographer's private studio and purchased several photographs directly from the photographer. The gallery found out about that and refused to show that photographer again.</p>

<p>In this example, as in Ann's case, the photographer takes advantage of others' substantial business investments (gallery/studio space rentals, customer contacts, advertisements, promotional costs & efforts) to pursue their private businesses, not only without benefitting the gallery/employer, but actually acting as their competitors. That is ethically unsupportable regardless of what the contracts say.</p>

<p>>"Say what you will about employee loyalty, but at the end of the day we are not slaves, we are free people in a free country and should be able to pursue any and all interests freely. "<<br>

You are free to pursue whatever you want for own benefits, as long as it is done in your own free time. In this case, the person is getting paid on a job working on company time. She was not a slave, she was getting paid as an employee and that comes with responsibities and work ethics.<br>

>"Now that I have read the outcome from William, I wish 'Anne' the best and I hope she severely cuts into her previous employers business."<<br>

Don't forget loyalty cuts both ways. Wait till she has her own studio and her employees pull the same trick on her. I am sure she'll write glowing references for those employees! </p>

<p> </p>

<p>What is there to debate? Is it ok to solicitate personal business that competes with one's employer while on company time using company resources? Of course not! What kind of business would tolerate that? The person would be fired on the spot!<br>

The fact that the clients like working with her is irrelevant. She can't have it both way - If she wants her own business, she'll have to stop getting paid by her employers and to put up her own money to open a studio.</p>

<p>RE: Raised price to 5 digets...<br>

Love your photos, but how much is a 'diget'?</p>

<p>Stay away from the 24/f2.8 AFD for DX. I returned mine after testing it against my cheapo 18-70/3.5-4.5. The 24/f2.8 was significantly less sharp in the corners at 24mm at all apertures up to f8 (both D200 & D300).</p>

<p>James P. Jones is correct. "Nippon Kogaku Kabushiki-gaisha" means Japan Optical Ltd.</p>

<p>Interesting how one needs to justify having purchased something that was already bought long ago. Who cares what others think as long as it suits your need?</p>

<p>Perhaps the answer is simpler than the question.<br>

I notice the strange shape happened in vertical shots, and it changed shape/darkness with longer exposures. Was it a windy night when the pictures were taken? Could the dangling camera strap get blown in front of the lens during the long exposure?</p>

Interesting discussion. The real question is "good enough" for what purpose. If the purpose is for personal enjoyment,

digital B&W is certainly 'good enough', it offers as much enjoyment and possibly gives less frustrations than darkroom

printing. Ditto if the work is for commercial assignments, magazine or newspaper advertisements, et.

 

However, if the work is for exhibition or selling as fine art, traditional darkroom prints have definite advantages that are

often overlooked. A good traditional B&W prints is a one-of-a-kind work of art representing the artist's true ability. Unlike

digital prints, which can be mass-produced by anybody using your file, a darkroom print cannot be exactly duplicated even

by yourself, let alone by another person. A more accomplished printer may make a better print from your negative, but

your darkroom prints are YOUR VERY OWN work.