glenwoodsherry

I'm looking to start using the Nikon CLS with a pair of SB800s; I shoot with a

Fuji S2 Pro, and want to know if the CLS will work with that camera. (I shoot

with a SB26, now).

Thanks, Glenwood

Elliot,

Thanks about the tip about checking the 18-200; I didn't realize that it might be an issue. Indeed, I bought the 18-200 having heard a lot of positive feedback on it. Will look into serving it.

Juanjo,

Thanks for the link to the 105 f2 DC, sounds like it might be want I want; be interesting to play with the DC option.

A friend has an 85 f1.4, will have to compare them.

Thanks for all the info; I've included one of my recent postings, to show the softness of my 18-200.

Glenwood

Juanjo,

Thanks for your reply.

I had a 105 2.8, but was never impressed by it, and got rid of it. Besides the increase in speed, is the 2.0 that much better than the 2.8?

Glenwood

I have been shooting with my 18-200mm VR, which I find is a good stay-on-the-

camera lens. But during some recent shoots I have noticed that the portrait

images are not as sharp as I want. I have 50mm and 180mm primes, and am

looking for something in between, maybe the 135mm f2.0 DC.

How is this lens for portrait work? Sharp? And is there one better, at this

focal lenght?

Thanks, Glenwood

As a follow-up, here is one of the images of one of our campers, that I shot with the 18-200VR; the softness is apparent, but I probably could not have gotten the shot if I had been fumbling around with changing lens.

Trade-off. Sure. But I think worth it.

Glenwood

I recently bought the 18-200mm for use as a general, all-purpose, stay-on-the-camera, lens. I often shoot at some camps for kids and women with cancer that we run, and I was constantly switching lens, as I would find myself needing a 50mm, then, something would happen behind me where I needed 180mm. Switching lens often, in a dirty environment, got be a royal pain.

And since ultimate sharpness is not a requirement, and I often use my Speedlight for fill flash, the 18-200 turned out to be the perfect lens for that kind of shooting. I loved the ease and the results.

But no way in Hell am I giving up my 50mm 1.8 and my 105; there are times when it pays to be sharp!

Glenwood

I am interested to see if anyone of the PN members have any experience with

both the Fuji S3 pro and Nikon D200.

I currently shoot with a S2 Pro, and have been very happy with it, but feel

the need to upgrade. The natural choice would seem to be the S3 Pro, but I am

not sure if I should move to the D200.

Most of what I do is landscape and studio, so the low speed of the Fuji AF has

never been a problem. And I have always been impressed with the dynamic range

and color of the Fuji sensor, so the question: S3 Pro or D200?

Thanks,

Glenwood

Sometimes I think that discussions on the ratings/critiques section are like that old saw about the weather: Every talks about it, but no one does anything about it!

Having said that bit of pomposity, let me jump in as a fairly new PN-er, and one who has learned to be a (marginally, I hope) better photographer because of PN.

The anonymous ratings are crap, and serve no purpose, for without seeing the work of the critiquer, how are we to judge the value of the judgement. (And to save time, let me say, all critiques are NOT valued equally). I like Dieter's comment: "An eagle, must have been a hard shot to take - 7/7! Oh, just a seagull, rats with wings - 3/3." It is a favorite subject that is being rated, not the quality of concept and execution.

When I get slammed by someone whose work I admire (say, David McCracken!), his comments mean more, and I learn more from it, than a hundred anonymous 6/6s or 7/7s.

If PN insists on keeping the anonymous ratings, then group them, and average them out; this should take some of the self-satisfaction of the 3/3ers who haven't the cajones to put their name (and work) up with their ratings.

Glenwood

Josh,

Thanks for dropping into the quicksand with both feet; as they say in the Old Country: "It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it".

I have been posting for only a short time,but several things soon became apparent to me: One, within minutes of posting, 3/3s would start popping up like weeds. Then, after a couple of hours, I would start seeing 4/4s and 5/5s; by the next day 6/6s and some 7/7s would appear. So, how is it possible for the same image to be considered 3/3 the same time it is considered a 7/7?

Also, with one (well deserved, I must say!) exception, all the higher ratings came from named members, and all of the quickly posted low ratings came from anonymous raters. I love it when a named member rates one of my images; I go to their page, and review their portfolio, to give weight to their judgement of my work. And when they add a comment, I am in Nirvana! Their opinions mean alot to mean, even the negative ones, since, though I have been an artist for 30 years, I have been serious about my photo work for only a few years. I need their imput if I am to get better. (It will be a very, very long journey).

But anonymous ratings do nothing for me; you can collect all the 7/7s in the world from them, but what are you going to learn from them?

So why the anonymous ratings, if they do not inform or enlighten, and they are open to abuse?

Just a question from a newbie.

Many thanks,

Glenwood

There will always be problems with the question of categorizing subjects, whether they be photography, literature, music, or any other creative outlet. And the problems have to do with the mind set of those who propose the categories, for they often bring their prejudices and subjective opinions to the table.

Categories are rigid pigeonholes that satisfy no one, except those who are only comfortable existing and working in tight parameters.

When you "fine tune" categories you will always create situations where an image does not fall neatly into one of the boxes. Why cannot a portrait, shot by a talented artist known for his elegant nudes, be included in the "Nudes" section, when there are other images of the model also posted? Isn't it artistic continunity to show the model in her different moods and attitudes as part of a larger body of work? Just because her breast is not shown, should her image be redirected to another box where she would be seen out of context?

And how do you shoehorn an erotic and sensual image where no skin is shown? Some extremely elegant and erotic images have been shot where little, if any, skin is exposed. (Think Newton). If the artist feels that the image fits into the overview of the whole of his or her work if it is in "Nudes" shouldn't they be the one to decide?

Or if the artist creates a fashion image of extreme beauty and editorial content, but one of the model's breasts are exposed, should they be forced to post it in "Nudes", when the artist is better known and repected as a fashion photographer? Shouldn't the artist make that decision?

I have shot nude images of breast cancer survivors, and have decided to have some posted in "Documentary", and some in "Nude", according to where I thought that they would be better seen in context. That is my decision, as it should be.

If the artist pushes the bonds of taste and appropriateness, well, then, the review panel at PN can decide if the image should be removed.

But there is no reson to tell an artist where their work should be placed, nor should the artist be forced into areas only black and white, and not grey, because someone else has issues, and has never come to grips with them.

And there is never, never, any reason to resort to labeling an artist, their work, or their model as "Porn", soft or otherwise; it is an insult to them, and an insult to all the members of PN who respect and admire these artists and those who place themselves in their creative hands.

Glenwood