ross nolly

<p>Luis; I've talked to many people who have used couch surfing and have not heard a bad report. A great idea!</p>

<p>"Couldn't you sell some of that "expensive" gear to buy less expensive gear and a few bus or train tickets, or maybe a beater car?"</p>

<p>Respectfully; I think you're missing the point. The point is that you are hitchiking to meet people etc. I think it's a great idea, and have thought about it myself.... I'd get a (for me a Nikon; or any other brand OM2, K1000 etc) simple old FM2 or similar, an old AI 35mm or 50mm lens; some Tri-X or the re-badged Freestyle Tri-X and go for it.</p>

<p>Or; if you go digi... Look for a cheap Oly E-PL1 or similar and lens. The E-PL1's seem to be everywhere on special at the moment.</p>

<p>The other thing I'd do would bring a reasonably good audio.recorder with you (the Zoom H1 is a cracker). An E-PL1, cards and a Zoom would be an incredibly small package; but VERY functional. Mixing stills, video and audio could be incredible.</p>

<p>Think simple! Simple is good! :-)</p>

 

<p>Thank you all for the comments. Sorry for the late reply, but I've been away shooting and no internet! :-)</p>

<p>I looked at a mint F3 on KEH for $199... My finger hovered over the Buy button, thankfully I had wrapped up my wallet with duct tape to stop easy access to my credit card! :-)</p>

<p>Has anyone had any experience using the Zorki 4K and the Jupiter 12 (35mm lens)? I was interested in whether I can use the normal viewfinder without needing an auxillary viewfinder. I've had a play with my FM2 and a 35mm lens to compare, and at about 4 metres focussing distance there seems to be about 30cm difference. Any input?</p>

<p>Cheers :-)</p>

<p>I just bought a Zorki 4k with Industar lens. I'm like a kid waiting for Xmas!!! :-)</p>

<p>D300, Nikkor 24mm f2.8 AF, SB-400 flash. Could travel the world with that list. I'd throw in my Nikkor 20mm f2.8 AF as a back up lens and my D200 if travelling the world!</p>

<p>Or a Fm2, 35mm f2 AIS, SB22s flash and a bunch of tri-x if using film...</p>

<p>I've just bought a SB-400 to use for slow-synch work in clubs and for fill flash outside. And yes I did have an SB-600, it just blew up on me! It sounded like a .22 rifle being fired when it died!</p>

<p>I've found that for close in work in clubs, gigs etc the big flash is just too powerful, I'd rather just "graze" the subjects with a flash, I've found the built in flash works well for this and the SB-400 works even better. And yes; I always used the SB-600 diffused and powered down.</p>

<p>Would I use an SB-400 for lighting up big spaces? No! So like everything it's horses for courses. I will get another SB-600, but had always planned on getting an SB-400 anyway, specifically for the work described above.</p>

<p>Cheers</p>

<p>A Nikkor 28-105 for NZ$250, amazing lens for the price. Last 3 magazine covers were all images shot with this lens.</p>

<p>A mint Nikkor 24 f2.8 AF (not D) for NZ$95! I use it for 90% of my personal documentary work on a D300.</p>

<p >I was shooting at the local stock car track the other night with my D300 and a SB-22s flash. I had three occurrences of false dead batteries using the flash. They turned the camera off and the display showed “dead batteries”.<br>

The batteries were newly charged, and when taken out and re-inserted everything worked ok, until the next time... When I got home I checked all the camera batteries and they were all fully charged, or only down a little (typical amount) from being used that night.<br>

I’ve used the SB-600 nearly every weekend for the last two weeks (also the in-camera flash) and have never had a problem. It seems more than coincidental for it to happen three times when I used the SB-22s…<br>

I was only using the SB-22s because my SB-600 blew up the other day (sounded like a .22 rifle going off!) The last thing I want to do is screw up the D300, any ideas?</p>

<p >Cheers and thanks.</p>

<p>Most modern 120N's don't seem to have any leaks. However I do tape the counter window "just in case"! :-)</p>

<p >Barry; “to me he's more akin to a really good wedding photographer”</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Like I said earlier; I don’t think they are bad images, just not strong enough when you consider his access. And if you grant that access why not give it to someone who can make the most of it? Maybe they want a “safe” photographer to keep the PR machine rolling along? I don’t know.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >What I meant was that if you gave any of the NOOR photographers that kind of access I would bet pennies to pounds that they would come up with much stronger images. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >NOOR’s photographers not only shoot hard news and issues but other work too e.g Patti Smith, Motorhead. . I still feel that their work is some of the most innovative out there.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Cheers! :-)</p>

<p><a href="http://www.noorimages.com"></a></p>

<p >Access should be good when you are the official White House photographer! But respectfully; I don't see the images as any better than what you would see any competent newspaper or magazine pj produce given that access.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >With the sort of access he has he should have produces much stronger images. There was nothing spectacular about the images. Take away the fact that he is the President and "pretend" that it is an ordinary family and I don't think the images hold up so well.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Don't get me wrong; there is nothing particularly bad about the images, they are just not strong enough to justify the access he receives.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I would love to see what the NOOR agency photographers would have done given the same access. They seem to have a distinctive photographic style. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >http://www.noorimages.com</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Mind you; I suppose as official White House photographer he is employed to make Obama look good and not try anything too edgy or veer to far away from the clichés?</p>

 

<p>Just good solid magazine type work; nothing more or less....</p>

<p>Jared; "Careful, you might start an argument about which plastic lens has the best bokeh, or whatever"</p>

<p>Which side of the lens though? That's the next part of the problem. My usual Holga has wonderful bokeh on the left side of the lens; the right''s pretty crappy though!!! Is bokeh the same thing as blurry? :-)</p>

<p>"Asking for a plastic camera recommendation seems to miss the point of using them entirely"<br>

It could be a lot worse; you could always ask what the MTF curve is like for the Holga lens.... :-)</p>

<p>Just look for a cheap new Holga 120n on the big auction site, about 30 bucks! :-)</p>

<p>John "MUST be worth at least $2000 " I'm willing to sell you an accessory roll of Lomography insulation tape for 50 bucks if you like. Cash only though, no credit cards accepted! :-)</p>

<p>Patrick "For less money far superior cameras can be had these days" <br>

<br>

I sort of see where you’re coming from. But to give a certain effect, why not use a Holga? You can pick up a new Holga 120N for $29US on the auction site. So anybody paying inflated prices is being pretty silly. Buying into the entire Lomography thing doesn’t make any sense either.<br>

<br>

I use a D300 for magazine work and for projects and have recently started using a Holga for fun and for projects. There may also be an opportunity soon to use the Holga for a mag job.<br>

<br>

The Holga is just another tool that you use to get a specified effect. I’ve loved using it and find it a real release from the mag work. I also don’t like the “point a Holga at something and it’s art” theory either.<br>

<br>

I don’t like the Lomography hype, but good on them selling film cameras! I couldn’t see the point in spending over $200 (here in New Zealand) for a new Diana so bought an Agfa Isoly for $12 instead!<br>

<br>

As an aside; I’ve found the reliability of exposures, framing etc to be pretty good and so far I’ve only stuck about 10 rolls through the Holga. But the results I’ve got have prompted me into buying another two so I can have B&W in one and a couple of speeds of colour etc in the others.<br>

<br>

The Holga definitely “frees me up” when shooting, but it’s a considered “free up” :-) But I still shoot the D300 too for what it offers. If a photo "screams" Holga i'll use it, if not then won't! :-)<br>

<br>

Cheers</p>

<p>Because after shooting at the skate park with the D300 you get really funny looks (and questions) from the kids when you drag out the Holga, take off the back and change a roll of 120 film!</p>

<p>Ilkka; "But then you lose the nice blur and vignette of the original version"</p>

<p>That's alright, he can borrow my Holga! :-)</p>

<p>"An interesting photograph is the sort Dorothea Lange took of the Dust Bowl migrants"</p>

<p>Yes; but the photo referred to is not interesting; just another cliche "Ooh, look at me I've taken a snapshot of a homeless person" type of photo.</p>

<p>I wonder if Salgado had changed to digital without anyone knowing, whether anybody would have ever guessed? :-) Or would they still be saying "You can't beat film, look at Salgado's work" :-) </p>

<p>Larry; It'll arrive next week. It only cost NZ$19 so way cheaper than a comparable Diana; both original and new :-) </p>

<p>Larry; I just won an Agfa Isoly on an auction, mint condition. So now have another toy to run the film through!</p>