amirali

<p>I much prefer to layers of duct tape than spending $20 on that. <br>

<br />Rodeo Joe: good idea I am gonna try that too.</p>

<p>Thanks Jim, I am also thinking about something like that I was thinking of translucent clay. But I want to see if I could not get the original part then I will use this option. </p>

<p>No, unfortunately not. I am in Edmonton.</p>

 

<p>Hey guys,<br>

<br />So after the rear rubber grip of D90 peeled off for a while I realized that the D90 SD Access Lamp Window is missing. It is a little plastic piece that covers the blinking light on the bottom right of the back of D90. </p>

<p><img src="http://drh2.img.digitalriver.com/DRHM/Storefront/Company/nikoninc/images/product/hero/1K683-899_1.jpg" alt="" width="187" height="159" /></p>

<p>So now I am trying to find this piece. Nikon USA sells it for $0.50 but ships for 12 dollars to US and I am in Canada. Nikon Canada sells it for 5 dollars and ships it with 15 dollars (total of 20 dollars). There are few places who sell this on ebay as well that are not viable options for canada. It just feels like a rip off to pay $20 for a fifty cent piece! do you guys have a any good solution for me to find this piece ?<br>

<br />Thanks (the fire alarm is ringing I should probably leave the building now!!)</p>

 

<p>Recently Magnum/Slate published <a href="http://todayspictures.slate.com/20120606/">Robert Capa's photos about the D-Day</a> in the beach of Normandy. As I was viewing them several questions popped into my mind. I was thinking if the world war was lost, what was the value that media gave to these photos. Wasn't there a German photographer who also photographed German troops? Maybe yes, maybe not. Even if there were, would media show those photos and praise them as Robert Capa's photos? I am not questioning the quality of Capa's work. I am questioning the media and how selectively they pick.<br>

It was written under one of the photos "pivotal moment in history". Of course it was important but wasn't many other pivotal moments in history that needed as much coverage and attention or is it just about specially picked things? How many websites or newspapers publish even Politzer prize winning pictures about human massacre and genocide? I think photos of Marylin Monroe posing have been seen more than Apartheid photos and I guess that is not a good thing.<br>

I would like to know your opinion about this.</p>

<p>Huh! I just posted this in another thread and I was informed that someone else has the same problem with this advice as well!<br>

here is my post in the other thread:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Recently Magnum photos ask for simple advices from its photographers. <br /> <em>What advice would you give young photographers?</em><br /><em> Alex Majoli: I would advise to read a lot of literature and look as little as possible at other photographers.</em><br /> <br />I agree with the first part but I have some problem with this advice. According to my experience I learned a lot by looking at other people's work. I was inspired for example by "The Vanishing Breed" by William Albert Allard or by photos of Alex Webb etc. I heard lots of photographers take photography books with themselves on assignment for inspiration. What is your view on this? Maybe this is for extremely talented! Even in rock music all great bands started by covering other people's songs. Maybe this advice is for the people who are very advanced and working in a very high professional level as him.<em> <br /></em><br /> I personally think a personal style will develop as a result of personalizing and mixing the styles we enjoy.<em><br /></em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe I was not able to see the punch in that particular photo. However, I think it takes more than avoiding popping trees from behind the head of people to be such an acclaimed photographer. We saw a link to the cropped photo I guess in magnum.<br>

I was looking at my favorite book, "Vanishing Breed" by Albert Allard and I saw a photo there which was a little bit iffy for me at that time. It means that I did not understand that photo. I am guessing someone like Allard had a hard time choosing the best photos for his book among the good photos and why that photo is there ? Either they had something in my mind that did not came to my mind. They now something that I do not know (very likely, probability = 99.999 %). However later that I look at that photo I realized how good that photo is. But either way, that photo did not look like a snapshot at all even at that time. It was different, it has lots of style, and light and colors in it. It has a story behind it and a nice story. I still cannot understand that photo from Steve McCurry (which is apparently deleted and cropped and ...)</p>

<p>For myself it is first the composition. If it works then I look at if it shows what I wanted to show and I also look at light, color, gesture, sharpness, noise and etc.</p>

<p>I know that people have been talking about this subject for ages, however I do not think that it is possible to talk about this matter enough. Here I am <strong>not</strong> looking for a definite answer as I believe there is no single correct answer to this question. I just want to know what you guys are finding interesting in photos and what measures you use which would make a photo a keeper or make it another shot which you won't present as your work. You might think this question is too broad. Feel free to narrow it down and answer in specific areas.<br>

Cheers</p>

<p>That is true, the photo here is cropped version and Lex is describing the original photo very good. It is true in photo essays or stories a number of photos gradually reveal the story, but even considering that, I was expecting something distinguished or at least something not that snap shotty.</p>

<p>It is the 9th photo in the Japan gallery of the Steve McCurry's website. It shows a Japanese person sleeping on the train. There are other photos as well in that gallery that are a little bit hard for me to understand why this photo is good</p>

<p>Very interesting points, however I was always under the impression that a photo should be self-sufficient or at least be relevant in multiple photo series like a photo essay. I was thinking that the art of the photographer is to mix the story with visual art which evoke a feeling or a memory or even stimulate some neurons, or at least view a subject from a different point of view, or just go for the pure beauty, etc. I am thinking in this case why don't we give credit to the people who have copied van gogh paintings as we have seen this kind of photo thousands of times.<br>

I saw photographers whom work I cannot understand or I don't like, however I see that they have a certain style of capturing the holy trinity of photography as stated in the The Moment It Clicks book. Light, Color, or Gesture. If I am just a good writer and then write a very dramatic 4 short lines and mix it with my fame I can sell any photo! What I am trying to get at is, what bothers me about this photo and that is it does not fit anywhere in my evaluation system in a good place. And I am wondering why.</p>

<p>Thanks a lot Simon, and thanks a lot to other people, as my part, I apologize (for the third time) if I have violated the rules of photo.net, I would like to respect the rules since I have benefited from this community and I want other people to benefit the same way too.<br>

On the photo, however, there is not one but many different criteria to evaluate a piece of art, let's say a photo. However, to my basic understanding and limited knowledge, I can see that photo cannot fit in any criteria that I can think of or I have read about. For me it is the perfect definition of a low quality snap shot. I have taken photos in subways and I somehow now the environment. I cannot find any reason to defend that photo or some other similar photos in that gallery. I would love to know how guys see that photo and what is your opinion. If you are looking for that I have stated in my previous post the address to that photo.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for few responses on the original matter which is photography and tons of responses on copyright. I have to clarify again and again:<br>

-------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>

<strong>I CLEARLY STATED UNDER THE PHOTO, AS THE PHOTO TITLE WHEN YOU POST FOR CRITIQUE FORUM, THAT THIS PHOTO IS NOT MINE ! I DID NOT GAIN ANY PROFIT, I EVEN SAID THAT I WILL REVEAL THE NAME OF THE PHOTOGRAPHER AFTER A SHORT WHILE.</strong><br>

That is being said, I am surprised ! I was expecting more photography talk. And friends <strong>accusing people of stealing is a great insult when it is not stealing</strong>. It is honest and unbiased opinion seeking. So please be respectful of others.<br>

Thanks for the people who have defended the cause. One the friends said that these people are famous like Beatles, I have to both agree and disagree. I have started another forum thread somehow about this : http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00XtFb . it is not about the photographers, mostly about the types of photography.<br>

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>

This photo is the 9th photo in Japan's gallery of Steve McCurry. However, I found something interesting. He somehow was aware of this photo and some other photos lack of what we expect from him so I am quoting him here if that is not considered to be stealing ! I did not by any means claim to write this text my self ! This is written near his Japan gallery :<br>

"It is said that if you can understand Wabi Sabi, the aesthetic of finding beauty in imperfection, you will understand Japan and the Japanese"<br>

By this statement and his photos he states that I found Wabi Sabi and if you find these photos not interesting, the reason is that you did not find Wabi Sabi. What do you guys think about this statement and the photo.</p>

<p>@Kevin, thanks for the response. I am not relying really on the ratings but more on my own opinion of the photo and what I have seen to get good rating during the 4 years that I have been here</p>

<p>Fair enough, If it is a violation, I am deeply sorry. However no one even cared about answering !</p>

<p>I stated under the photo that this photo is not mine, I do not care if it is going to be removed I just wanted to see people's opinion. I did not gain any profit from this photo and I did not claim that this photo is mine.</p>

<p>My willingness to do what ? to explicitly state under the photo that this photo is not mine ?! I think you are making the conversion a little bit biased. What I wanted was unbiased opinion of people about a photo. I do not know if that is a violation of photo.net or not. If it is I am sorry. but I got my answer somehow. :)</p>

<p>Sorry, I did not read a good part of the discussion but I am going to state my opinion about the question.<br /> As Ansel Adams says, photography, in its first step is making something other than reality. Because we are at least mapping a 3 dimensional work to a 2 dimensional piece of paper which is a changed reality and not the same as the original at all.<br /> Secondly, I cannot understand the difference between a camera and photoshop ! aren't both tools made by human being to produce art ? I believe each person <strong>who has been trained about the fundamentals of art </strong>should not feel any limitation of using those tools in order to create a piece of art. your limit is your imagination. Why can should I rely on camera and not on photoshop ?! why not reverse !?<br /> Cheers,</p>

<p>Hi guys,<br>

I know, I know, You are probably thinking what ? is this guy crazy ? no more waste of your time.<br>

I think recent war photography, disaster photography, and this kind of photography is mostly like pop music in the sense that it does not remain as a piece of art.<br>

I have always defined good work of art for myself as something that does not lose its value by time like a symphony by Beethoven. Like paintings of Michael Angelo. Like photographs of Albert Allard.<br>

There is of course always good pop music and bad pop music. For example, the photo of the starving child and the vulture, or lots of other good photos are remaining for sure as the heritage of human being. Like Eugene Richards, Steve Mccurry and .... However, lots of the photographs and photographers even if they shoot for NY Times or other big news agencies are going to disappear in my opinion.<br>

I want to start a discussion about this, please give me your opinion about what you think about this matter. how do you connect this kind of photo journalism to the artistic side of the photography. Is reporting side heavier than artistic side ? Who do you think balanced this in his/her works more than others.<br>

Cheers</p>

<p>Hey guys,<br /> I made a test and I am going to explain why in a second. I took a photo from steve mccurry website and I posted the photo here :<br /> http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?topic_id=1481&msg_id=00Xt3B&photo_id=12120812&photo_sel_index=0<br /> I particularly chose this photo because it looks like a snap shot ! Until now after around a day or 24 hours (Im not sure when did I post it.) It got two ratings averaging 2.5/7 and 27 views. I have some questions from different audiences so please feel free to answer any of the following or to post you suggestion regardless of the questions.<br /> 1.What is wrong or right with this photo from the master photographer (works in both Magnum and National Geographic). He posted this photo in his website and I do not think he did not have enough amazing shots instead of this. so why this photo ?<br /> 2.Why this rating ? I confess that if would pass on this photo and if I was forced to rate it I would rate it 4 or 3. My measures are, this photo does not have any particular color, light, very interesting gesture (the gesture is an everyday seen gesture) or any particular story attached to it. It does not have the best composition as well.<br /> I am puzzled, maybe he wanted shake the foundation our established knowledge of photography in order to open ourselves to new views ! I should state that I am also a fan of his work, but I am still puzzled !</p>

<div></div>

A single shot can stimulate tones of feelings. Lets see some Horror shot<div></div>

<p>After few years of doing photography, and by learning it from whereever I could get my hands on something to read and discover, I am standing at a confusion point in my philosophy of photography. Lots of times you see photos that with no doubt you would like them very much and you can understand them. however, lots of times you see photos that you cannot see why the photo is good, but you see that it is from a famours photographer and you will realize ok this should be a good photo. <br>

I know that after doing lots and lots of work and seeing milions of photos you will develope a sense of understanding the good photography from bad photography, but it seems that this sense is never going to be complete because if there would be an end to the development of this sense, there would be an end to the creativity in photography and art. <br>

So I was wondering if the critiques would just use names as their references to good photography or they all came to the unified language of understanding the photo and they talk in that language.<br>

I would like to know the opinion of people about this matter. In Persian we say "Don't look who is saying, listen to what he is saying".</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks a lot for all of your great help. I got Nikon D90 as my first DSLR yesterday and with the 18-105mm VR lens. So far I am reading the manual, it is a lot of information ;) </p>

<p>I cannot decide yet, I think I need to handle them or someome tells me that ok this is definitely better because of this and that.</p>

<p>I have checked the prices. 40D with 28-105 USM would cost me 800+329+Taxes. D90 kit with 28-105 would cost me 1300+taxes. So another question . Which camera offers cheaper and better extra equipment ? like lenses or batteries or filters or flashesh. <br>

By the way, does both of them support infra-red flash ?</p>