William Michael

Any image posted on the www can be 'stolen'. Yes, only you can: don't publish your images on the www if you have concerns that they will be stolen. This topic is closed. WW

Yes, well explained. Thank you. WW

For photographic application, we can group Polarizing Filters into two categories: Linear Polarizing Filters; and Circular Polarizing Filters. Linear polarizing filters were used first and are still available, especially second hand, and are typically the least expensive. Importantly, if a Linear Polarizing Filter is used cameras with through-the-lens metering (TTL) and autofocusing (AF) systems: basically all 'modern cameras' then there can be problems to the functionality of the TTL and/or the AF systems.Circular polarizing filters do not produce these adverse effects. Circular Polarizing Filters, usually are coded "CPL". Circular Polarizing Filters are typically thicker than most other filters - they can produce an Optical Vignette when used on wide lenses. CPL Filters have two bits. One bit rotates. If you are using a Lens Hood and a CPL, then you might come to grief trying to rotate the CPL, especially if you have chunky thumbs (like me). One work around is to carefully cut a window in the Lens Hood (at the underneath as it sits on the camera) so you can get one finger on the front bit of the CPL Filter, to rotate it. Circular Polarizing Filters have a limited FoV (Field of View) of effect. That is to say, as a CPL is used on a wider lens one might see the effect of the CPL in a patch of the scene and not across the whole scene. Two typical examples of this: i> when using a CPL on a Landscape Scene for the purpose of enriching the sky, when using a wide lens the sky might have a good patch of rich blue, but that rich blue will not extend across the whole area of the skyline ii> when using a CPL on a Water Scene for the purpose of removing the reflections on the water, when using a wide lens the water might have a good patch of clarity with no reflections, but that clarity will not extend across the whole area of the water. *** A colleague of mine, a Landscape Photographer, only uses Singh-Ray Variable ND. I am happy with my two ND Filters - Hoya Pro 5 stop and 10 Stop ND. My two filter are about half the cost his one filter. For my uses these two suit me perfectly: I've not been in a situation where I could not adjust the ISO and/or Aperture, to suit the use of 5 stops or 10 stops of attenuation to make The Shot that I wanted. There are reports of "X" artifact across the image with some Variable ND filters; you should research this. My colleague says he has no such issue with the Singh-Ray - and I expect that's one reason why it is more expensive than most (all?) others. One comment he does make however is the accuracy of the indication dial on the filter representing the exact attenuation of the filter, this can be problematic for attaining the exact "correct" exposure. The other difference is the comparative thickness of the filters - the Variable ND will typically be thicker than an ND, although I believe Singh-Ray make a slim model: the extra thickness may cause an optical vignette when used with WA and UWA Lenses. Typically, especially for landscapes, cityscapes and seascapes, ND filters are used often on WA and UWA lenses. Similar to using a CPL, if you are using a Lens Hood then you might come to grief trying to rotate the Variable ND with the Lens Hood on - and you can't see the indicator dial with the lens hood on: these might be minor factors, or major factors - depending on your own situation and the individual shooting scenarios. WW

I re-read my first response: I think it could be misinterpreted. I understood your phrase "i still fairly new" to mean that you were a 'beginner at photography'. For clarity I encourage you buying new gear if it will result in better experiences and better photos. My initial response was to identify exactly what was problem and then if possible remedy the problem with education rather than spending money unnecessarily. WW

Both images have Motion Blur. The first image appears to be of a static scene, it appears to have blur caused by only camera movement - perhaps you did not have the VR operative or you did have VR engaged but the shutter speed was too slow for VR to be effective AND you were hand holding he camera. The second image appears to have both Camera Movent Blur and Subject Movement blur. Perhaps the VR was not engaged AND the Shutter Speed was too slow. For a precise diagnosis I need to know from the EXIF details of the two images - the Shutter Speed; ISO; Aperture and if VR was engaged. WW

You need to provide more details and describe what exactly you want to achieve and can't. Posting one or two images which you consider fall short of your expectations would also help provide targeted answers. From experience, I expect that you need more education, guidance and practice and not a new camera or better lens. WW

I will investigate this matter. In the meantime please continue using this new member account that you have recently created and also respond to my PM, which I will send to you later today. I will now close this conversation. William

One answer for your consideration - When teaching High School Students, and also at Master Classes, especially those which have been discussing and centred upon Available Light Photography, I have avoided the ISO and its relationship to S/N ratio and taken a ' final image outcome approach'. I use phrases similar to: "When using High ISO it is very important to nail the 'correct' exposure. This is the exposure which is most suitable for the best quality Final Image. The reason is, when we are using High ISO and underexposing, contrasted to using Low ISO and underexposing: if all else is 'equal' an High ISO and underexposing will increase the appearance of noise in the final image. "One practical method we can use at the beginning of the Image making process is to Bracket the exposure." WW

It took a few months, however, I understand this loop-hole has recently been closed, so we should see no more Guests posting any images. *** There (still) exists the possibility that the "About Me" tab at a Member's home page can be abused for advertising, embedded links and spam. Many thanks to those members who have reported when that situation exists. WW

Probably not much more on this topic. *** There seems some confusion. It's not the first time you've incorrectly named a specific Member here as the 'owner' of Photo.net. It is probably best to check your facts, before publishing. Also, it has been mentioned many times that the "Contact Us" feature has rendered no response for a long time, if you have missed that before - it should be clear to you now. Additionally, it has been mentioned many times that the subscription function has been inoperative for some time; so that's now clear also. Over the past several months you have posted repetitious calls for fundamental changes to the PN Site and the response above is not the first time PapaTango (and others) have responded in detail to you. All the responses underscore the following simple one sentence fact and for clarity here it is again - Photo.net is what it is, at this time there is neither apparent nor implied changes ahead. *** Regarding the above most recent complaint concerning the title "Photo.Net Pro" The site is moderated by volunteers and it seems a tad presumptuous to assume that whimsical changes of mind will be addressed by volunteers who might otherwise be spending their valuable time deleting spam and keeping the site running as smoothly as possible - or performing their actual job and attending to their family duties. In a previous conversation you started, you specifically requested that "PhotoNet Pro" be removed from your name, and it was. Your quote - "The stupid addition pro to the names of those who have paid the "rent" I'm not professional and don't need that "promotion" " WW REF: LINK

^ Thank you Dustin. As per the link Dustin provided: there are six preview pages each containing 25 images and the last page has four previews, total 154 images. I also checked with Moderator login traits and it appears that zero of your images are hidden from view. WW

Moderator Note: Whilst one opinion might be that the Opening Post is obnoxious or silly, and also considering that Casual Photo Conversations allows a reasonable latitude of response, it would bode for the life of this conversation if respondents would address the topic and content of the topic and refrain from School-boy name calling and offering bait via mud slinging. Thanks William

I wonder who thought of badging is "D7100". WW

You have been providing your commentary: readers will decide what is information and what is not. This conversation is now closed. William

What Conrad wrote: The light illuminating the sky in the background, appears as a 'falsehood' to the light which is illuminating the rocks and the grass. That's what my eye first saw, and I was jarred. I expect I was jarred instantly because of this recent post. Have a look at this Light House photo LINK - each of us has very similar sky lighting types and sky formations, albeit yours is a more dramatic sky. Both are synonymous with the sun rising (or arguably setting) in the background. Your middle-ground and fore-ground appears that the sun is front on; about 30 degrees off camera axis and at about 60 degrees downward, from camera right whereas my image depicts flat reflected lighting from the front. Not suggesting that such an image could not be 'real' - but when the topic is "Composite, Modified Picture" one can't help but to initially look for 'flaws' - and my eye saw that, as a big one. WW

Correct. That's not a big deal, especially if the price was right for the Flash you've bought. I believe correct. The necessary criterion is that the Rebel T7 is a compatible "FOVCF Camera" - and I would expect that being such a recent release, well after the 430EX, it is. In any case, the main reason for this function is conservation of Flash Power, which in the scheme of things is not a big issue - the important thing to remember if the 430EX doesn't 'convert the FL' , then that will only have an affect on The Shot, only if you are at the limit of the Flash Power which is required for that specific Shot. Only for the example that my 580EX 'converts' the FL when used on APS-C Cameras. WW

Very proud Hydrant basking in sun outside its expensive realestate

Agree. I concur both statements bold and underlined are correct. *** Regarding my previous response - I think there was a misunderstanding. Either I misunderstood your second sentence, which I quoted, or you misunderstood my reply, or both. I was only addressing that sentence in my reply. Anyway, not wishing to confuse the issue: I hope Harry has his answer. WW

Not arguing. However, over simplifying may also present its potholes. In the spirit of keeping it simple, I reckon it's relevant to include your (Rick's) response assumes those various lenses are at the same distance from the Subject - i.e. the DoF changes, also the Framing changes ? Yes? WW

(please read the bullet points under the chapter "Equivalence on the Quick" in the link I provided to Joseph James' paper) Then - if all other factors are 'equivalent': Yes. Using an 80mm F/2.8 lens on Medium Format Camera (e.g. either 645 Format or Mamiya ZD) will allow a Shallower DoF than using a 50mm F/2.8 Lens on a 135 Format (or 'Full Frame') Camera. To achieve an 'equivalent' Shallow DoF using the 135 Format Camera, one would need to use a 50mm F/2.2 or 50mm F/2 lens. (respectively) WW

One of the best papers I have read on this topic is by Joseph James, Equivalence - LINK Bob Atkins also has written two (probably more) papers on this and associated topics - the two to which I refer now, touch on (the variances of) the (type of) Background Blur and Bokeh with variances in Camera Format. Obviously, Background Blur and to a larger Bokeh are somewhat subjective; moreover are functions of Lens and Iris however, from my memory, Bob's papers touch on a reasonable detailed factoring of Camera Format. The Background Blur paper has a user friendly on line spreadsheet to input data. I don't have the links readily available to Bob's efforts. My one sentence answer is - in this Digital Age - in 2023 - 135 Format(*1) offers the Photographer the options to attain the Shallowest DoF possible for any Shot. * This is because, to fit the 135 format size, there exists lenses which are exceptionally fast: creating a format size/lens speed combination which other formats and lenses to suit, cannot compete. The larger the Format the bigger the hunk of glass required to cover the image circle; the smaller the Format, the faster the lens required to compete - to attain the 'equivalence' in shallowness of DoF. * A "real world" comparison/example - Obviously not every Photographer hunts for Shallow DoF Lenses (nor necessarily wants light sucking lenses simply for the sake of light sucking). However as an example, I have a 35mm f/0.95 for my APS-C Format Camera. I would need an 35mm f/0.55 lens for my camera to achieve the 'equivalent' shallow DoF which Marc Williams can achieve using his 50mm f/0.95 lens on his 135 Format Camera. As a bonus - here is one of the shots Marc made with that lens - not necessarily highlighting the Shallow DoF capacity - however it is one of my favourites of Marc's work - LINK WW *1 - '135 Format' or in (more) archaic terms 'Miniature Format' is what is now commonly termed 'Full Frame' - how ironic are these the name changes.

Oh - There's lots to this, isn't there? What a terrific shot. Bravo. I plonked a big copy on my Studio Monitor - would it had been higher resolution, I reckon I would be applauding more so. It occurs to me you are meticulous with your Post Production (and B&W conversion if this is a digital capture): doing so certainly pays off. The tonal range and the small gradations are wonderful to see - more the pity that, that Art seems to be loosing traction as more and more (Digital) Photographers 'take up' Black and White Imaging. I'll make a guess that you worked in, or at least appreciate the work done in a Wet Dark Room? (Not to start any debate on the worth of teaching same, nowadays, - just noting there must be some history to your understanding of some of the Technical Elements of B&W). Has anyone ever commented on the two hounds/hogs lurking in the grass of Middleground Left? They are wonderful. Perhaps protectors of the small Keep? Is it an Artillery Installation? In summary I think it is wonderful, mysterious, moody and (unusually) soothing. The (one) critique point I offer is - Higher Camera Viewpoint. The Building cuts the Water/Sky Horizon - that's jarring. WW

It is very busy. What was your intended Main Subject / Main Message? WW

A Moderator's Comment: A "refund" has indeed come: "On 03/21/23 we authorized and posted a full refund for 100% of the amount of the original purchase." - Henry Posner B&H However, yes, Dr Watson, a precise observation: I've just logged on for the daily re-read of the whole conversation and though not exhausted, the conversation on the other topics, is now circular and there seems that there is very little ground left to cover. *** Though we still do not "discuss" moderation on the forums - at this point, I offer for clarity and transparency: the conversation and contributors have not strayed from Forum Guidelines or terms of Use - some may still wish to contribute. As for 'why continue whining' - if that were the criterion for locking threads - arguably 80% of 'Site Help' threads would be locked. Provided this conversation fits Forum Guidelines, it will remain open. Thus far, comments have remained well within those guidelines. Please resist the urge (if there is one) to quote this post and/or directly respond to it: that could be 'discussing moderation on the Forums', I simply offered these comments to all, for clarity. William