aran_watson

<p>Thanks Anders for sharing that. Padilla's Julie Project is one of the most powerful, haunting photo essays I've seen in awhile. Much thanks!</p>

<p>Optically the 35/2 is a great little lens, IMHO. Small, light, and beautifully sharp photos. But nobody mentioned how LOUD the little sucker is! I actually had people at parties stop talking and look at me more than once! Oh well, ear plugs are cheap...<br>

I think most of the incredible wonder of the 35/1.4 is in the wide-open end, plus craftsmanship. But for the same price you could buy 4 35/2s so I don't think that's as big of a factor.</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

Honestly, I wouldn't get the 35/2. I found it to shoot nice shots, but was so noisy- especially inside and for portraits- that I just had to sell it eventually. Why don't you sell your 17-40 and take the money for 35/2 and buy a 35 1.4? Then you'd have fabulous image quality for lowlight/ up close work, and your other lens for the rest. The 24 2.8 and 50 1.8 are excellent little primes, and your zooms cover the rest. Sounds like too many lenses will give you more of a headache, not less.<br>

My two cents.</p>

<p>Thanks John. I'll take a look. One site I like, for what it's worth to you, is www.200iso.com Simple, beautiful street shots, usually Paris.<br>

Take care!</p>

<p>Interesting perspective, Frank. I appreciate your passion and thoughtfulness. Yet you seem to postulate that anyone with a sense of history or comparable lived experience would immediately recognize the photo chosen as the best choice for this particular award. I disagree. The moment, from a human perspective, is a powerful own, and hopefully gives us all pause as human beings and social/political participants in our world. Likewise, we cannot as photographers take ourselves so righteously or to be beyond critique that any image of any said moment is beyond evaluation or conversation as to what and how it portrays something. It is an image, after all, not the equivalent of the moment itself. Critique is a bizarre and uncomfortable, yet I think necessary, element of our work and should never be overlooked. Including how best we might attempt to convey to someone who is/was not there the reality/impact/importance of something as it occurs. What are your thoughts?</p>

<p>Oh, this thread is horrible in every possible way.... still, I can't stop laughing. This is disgusting and hilarious.</p>

<p>John, any few names stand out in the photoblog sphere? Your position is pursuasive to me. As someone who has shot for many years, but never shared publically, flckr has been an engaging way to re-ignite my passion for the image and to connect with a handful of photographers whose work I find very inspiring and get some feedback. Very similar to Ray. With that said, I can't comment on flickr usefulness on entering the professional folds. I suspect it's as has been stated here, quite limited. But for engaging with photo lovers- from beginning enthusiasts to some real masters of the craft, I find flickr to be a beautiful thing.</p>

<p>Hi, wanted to add my 3 cents. With the particulars of the winner, I have to agree with Leslie that outside of knowing the whole story being signaled to which specific moment in time this was, the image is nice, but really nothing special at all. I appreciate the conversation of moving beyond shock value images to something more closely proximate to a real lived experience, subtle or not. The sad fact is that war is very much a part of the human experience, and one that photography and filmmakers have played a special role in highlighting, I think mostly to useful effect. But I agree that when images are marketed for the most blood or anguish, it feels almost like a mockery of the real human experience. I don't mean to judge any photographer's attempt to portray an event their experiencing, but as an industry or community, subtlety is fading. With that said, this particular image doesn't do it for me, either way, and there were certainly many powerful images to choose from! Thanks for starting the thread, I find this useful to reflect on.</p>

<p>I quick agreement with the 24 2.8 party being thrown on here- I love that little lens. Sharp, clean, and totally unnoticeable. That is not to say that I don't totally agree that more quality, small primes from Canon would be very welcome. I think Nikon has shown more love to their buyers in that market.</p>

<p>Thanks Charles. Downloaded and it worked great! Cheers!</p>

<p>It worked! My images uploaded fine. By 'it' I really have no idea what I mean, other than time. Thanks for tips everyone, and let it be known that gentle cycle cleanings may not be damaging... we'll see how this card holds up. I'm a bit nervous to use it now!</p>

<p>Great article, thanks! A picture certainly does speak a thousand words! I'm glad they did the test, with their lens.</p>

<p>Everyone is hilarious, and helpful. Thank you. I always use color guard in the wash particularly for this occasion, so I suspect some Velvia-like increased saturation! I will dry a bit and cross my fingers...</p>

<p>Thanks Curt! I'll give this a try.</p>

<p>Hi all, would card recovery work on a card that comes up as 'unreadable'? My RAW 8gb CF card got wet, at first the preview images came up in lightroom to upload, but only a dozen uploaded before it stopped, and now it states unreadable. No previews come up. Is this what card recovery is good for?<br>

Sorry, don't mean to highjack your post Megan, just want to understand the discussion and seek a little help myself. Thanks!</p>

<p>Steve, with all respect I don't think people are missing your point, but they have added an insight that affects what you want, which is to say: not only can the non-EXIF people not validate the sensor they used, you cannot validate ANYONE's sensor that they used as it is easily modified. The logic of this is that if you are trusting the participant in ALL entries- not verifying anything yourself. I understand you may not be interested in that, that's fine, but the point raised seems essential to what you are trying to determine.<br>

Good luck, sounds like a bummer situation.</p>

<p>The funny thing is, when I first put it in my card reader, the images showed up on my (lightroom) preview screen to import. When I started importing, however, only the first dozen images uploaded (of maybe 250) before it froze. I took it out and put it back in, and now it says the card is unreadable... yikes. I might be able to reformat it (fingers crossed) but I'm still stubbornly trying to get the images off. I wouldn't really care except that it seemed to read the information at first (and I saw all my lovely photos! sniff sniff).<br>

Any suggestions? Thanks in advance!</p>

<p>For the price, I highly recommend either the 24/2.8 or the 35/2. I have used both of the lens extensively on the 5d and really enjoy the product. The autofocus is noisy- more noticeable on the 35 than the 24 for sure- but other than that they are both quite sharp little lenses. For environmental portraits, I agree that the 35 is probably just right. But in your description with the family, it looks like you are trying to add a different kind of shot to the portraits you will take. For in-house, tight space work, I think you will be more than pleased with the 24 2.8. I wish the 28 1.8 had better reviews, I too would pick that over anything, but only a few people seem to be pleased with it. In any case, I bought the 35 and the 24 each used for 250 bucks, and they're easily re-sold if you don't like 'em. But I bet you will!</p>

<p>Congrats, the flyer looks clean. I will definitely try and stop by. Thanks!</p>

<p>Hi,<br>

I love using primes, but not because they're most convenient. I like them because of how small and compact they can be, which allows me to feel more a part of whatever scene I'm shooting in and so much easier to carry around (in terms of weight and inconspicuousness). I also like getting used to a particular frame of reference in using one lens and looking for shots with that in mind. Recently I started shooting strictly with a 24/2.8 on a full frame camera, just to see what it feels like. You can check my flickr page ( ) to see a protest and some world cup watching that I shot with that single set up. I also recommend taking a look at SF photojournalist Michael Mullady's work in Haiti, US (Burn magazine, other places)- he shoots strictly with a fullframe and a 24/ 1.4. (http://michaelmullady.com/) I'm not arguing it's the best for everyone. And depending on your assignment and it's flexibility, it may not be worth it. But if you can, I find a one or two prime kit really makes shooting interesting, and often produces more pleasing work to me.<br>

Lastly, I think of someone like Nachetway who (while by no means mainly a prime shooter) does shoot almost strictly wide lenses, and just gets closer and closer to his 'subject' to get what he wants. This in and of itself produces a different kind of shot as you are so connected and close to whatever life event you are documenting.<br>

Hope that's interesting enough!<br>

aran</p>

<p>Great short on Joe Wigfall's street work. Very enjoyable:<br>

<p>Take care,<br>

aran</p>

<p>Brett, touche.</p>

<p>I guess this is unfolding right before us. Jody S.- your point is especially well taken.</p>

<p>P.S. I also don't mean to imply that I don't think this conversation is interesting- thanks for putting thought in to it, Les. Let's just not freak out (in a nervous, disgustingly sharp and contrasty bokeh kind of way) over new trends or not new trends. It's our quircky human way of discovering new ways of doing things. Although I agree that food magazines are poison to the sharpness of my mind. Like f64 sharp.</p>

<p>I'll chime in, briefly. Matt, thank you for sensical commentary. I don't know whether I'm a newbie or not- I'm only 32 but I began shooting an old FE almost 20 years ago- I find the interest in bokeh one interesting way of discussing an image. I never quite got what riles folks up about it. New terms or passe terms aren't good or bad, nor are they necessarily a redundant term for something cavemen already discussed rendering it stupid. People play with language all the time, play with image concept- both in production and discussion- all the time, often coming right back around to things discussed in previous generations and occasionally branching into something new. It's part of human living, let's enjoy it a little!</p>