David_Cavan

<div></div>

<p>Red Cardinal fluffed up in the cold.</p><div></div>

<p>Fred - my comment on snapshots wasn't targeted - it was more a general comment that it is often used to dismiss a lot of photos that don't meet a commenter's standard. I think you and I have exchanged a discussion in the past about snapshots - I certainly see great value in just taking a photo that may, as Tim indicates above, have some intrinsic personal value that is more important than the aesthetics. </p> <p>Tim - I like your notion about the changing perspective when you get out of the original environment. An interesting idea to think about.</p>

Fred - that is fair comment in terms of a thematic presentation. What I think you are saying is that a group of photos put together to tell a narrative is a valuable exercise and that process conveyed a message to you. Alternatively the website in question here served up a barrage of photos and offered each of us the chance to make our own message - arguably a harder exercise. i suppose it requires more of our own curation to develop that narrative - I think the approach now is "heres my stuff - you figure out what matters to you" I do think there is a fundamental difference from the days of snapshots ( an overly pejorative phrase it ever there was one ). Digital means that everything is available to everyone - the nature of the network is dramatically different. In the olden days I could share my snapshot with one person at a time in an arduous process of carrying it around and pressing it on people. Today the process is more "pull" in that I put it out there and let people decide if they want to view it, repost, pin, outright steal and maybe include in some thematic design of their choosing. Having said that the shear volume of images means that most stuff paradoxically will be seen by few.

Fred - that is fair comment in terms of a thematic presentation. What I think you are saying is that a group of photos put together to tell a narrative is a valuable exercise and that process conveyed a message to you. Alternatively the website in question here served up a barrage of photos and offered each of us the chance to make our own message - arguably a harder exercise. i suppose it requires more of our own curation to develop that narrative - I think the approach now is "heres my stuff - you figure out what matters to you" I do think there is a fundamental difference from the days so snapshots ( an overly pejorative phrase it ever there was one ). Digital means that everything is available to everyone - the nature of the network is dramatically different. In the olden days I could share my snapshot with one person at a time in an arduous process of carrying it around and pressing it on people. Today the process is more " pull" in that I put it out there and let people decide if they want to view it, repost, pin, outright steal and maybe include in some thematic design of their choosing. Having said that the shear volume of images means that most stuff paradoxically will be seen by few.

Depending on which numbers you choose to believe there are 100's of billions of photos added to the web every year. As a result of that avalanche of images I have come to see photography as fundamentally changed, probably forever. The practice of photography does not follow the carefully laid out rules espoused by many of the P.Net denizens, and that stands out with sites such as the one Michael found. These photos may not be perfectly exposed and composed but many of them have an immediacy that describes moments that were important to the photographer ( and in many cases to the subject as well ) and that's what matters to the vast majority of people taking photos today. If we are going to embrace 21st century photography it's in these shots, in my opinion - this is what is important to vast majority of people out there. The whole IP discussion continues to be messy because of the quantity of photos. No good technology exists to manage it, and as the writer in the linked article says there are a lot of accidental public postings of photos ( and other data ). No court or justice system is up to the task of monitoring and managing rights ownership so the grabbed-photo behaviour is going to continue, and not everyone is wiling to remove photos on request. I see these sites as very relevant, even if short-lived.

<p>Morning mist at Ruby Beach, Olympic National Park in Washington state. It was a marvelously moody morning.</p><div></div>

<p>To echo Peter Rowe's comments, we've used the Op/Tech Mega Rainsleeves on multiple cameras and bodies at racetracks and on hikes over the past few years, without any issue either during or after the events. Tripods aren't really that useful at racetracks, but for hikes I've cut an additional hole for the head to fit through. The biggest issue has been the Canon 100-400 mm lens that acts with a push/pull action, that's a little awkward but it's worked well if you handle it from outside the rainsleeve. They have the additional value of being relatively inexpensive and they don't take up much room in the camera bag. We carry an additional plastic bag to store them after working in the rain to keep the inside of the camera bag dry, on the way back to somewhere dry where the sleeves can be dried out.</p> <p>I have used them in the US Southwest where it's occasionally quite dusty, and also on the ocean shore when it's misty and blowy. Perhaps over-kill on protection, but the rainsleeves re way cheaper than new equipment.</p>

Thanks for sharing that link Michael. Beautiful photos.

<p>It so does not matter. It does not matter how well configured I get my monitor, because 99% of the monitors out there are configured differently. And they are going to see my photo on their differently-configured monitor. Which will look different. Yet another "angels on the head of a pin" confrontation. And in the meantime while this rages across multiple threads literally millions of photos have been posted elsewhere by people that recognize that the gamma settings on their monitors (which are viewing the majority of the posted photos in the entire universe) don't matter. No wait - they don't know what that means. And don't care.</p> <p>There, I had to get that out of my system. Y'all have a great holiday season now, y'hear.</p>

<p>Harry - just checking - are you interested in a file catalog manager as well as an editor? </p>

<p>When we're in Vegas we usually drop by the Peter Lik gallery, and if you have been keeping tabs he is moving somewhat away from the highly-saturated natural landscapes into more detailed shots, often in B&W, and not always of natural objects. One of the people at the gallery told us that collectors had suggested this move and he is responding to that. I'm envious of his devotion and salesmanship, but not at all envious of his success. Good for him.</p>

<p>I agree with Don Cooper about a good way to use PSP. We've had the product since around 2003, through the multiple generations, the sale to Corel and the fumbling start that Corel had on the X versions. Now on 7, and it does everything we need (and much more). We use Canon tools for RAW; PSP for everything else. Pretty much abandoned PS a couple of years back, not because of the subscription model but because we just weren't using it enough to keep it up to date.</p> <p>Occasionally we will use PSP for RAW files, but I've never really built that into any workflow, and don't see the advantage.</p>

<p>From a recent trip to Saquaro National Park near Tucson. </p><div></div>

<p>A good compromise David, as long as you are happy with the tests. I didn't realize you already had a 24-105 in your kit. The way my wife and I work we tend to shoot different views at the same time, so we swap lenses back and forth when we're out together. The only lenses we have that cover similar views are the 24-105 and a 28-135 - we think of those as mid-range and it's nice to have one covering that range available. </p>

<p>I'm going to agree with JDM - we have both lenses, and the 28-135 is best classed as venerable, and respectable. The 24-105 is better at 24; the build is better, and the photos that come through it are crisper all the way to the edge. Don't get me wrong - there's lot of good photos in the 28-135; I just think there's more in the 24-105.</p>

<p>My opinion? This entire thread is about angels dancing on the head of a pin. Or to invoke another metaphor, PN burns, while a few of the remaining denizens fiddle. I've been finding all sorts of other places lately that provide encouragement, insight and value for the little bit of time I can spend on photography, and unfortunately that's pretty much all gone from this site as arguments about a handful of people rating photos, and whether we should be able to change our names rage. I just have to say "wow". This is my first time here in a while, and I see I'm missing absolutely nothing.</p>

<p>An unusually cold weekend here in the Pacific Northwest made for an interesting hike yesterday. This is at Shannon Falls north of Vancouver, partly frozen over.</p><div></div>

I do not see that in theone situation described above - just checked a longer thread now and the "more" box is there as usual.

A couple of times now I've not been able to see the "next" button to go to page two of a thread when I use the mobile pn interface. If I switch to the full site on the phone the button appears. Not sure but it might just be in the case when there is a single response on the second page. Not a huge issue but I thought I'd log it.

<p>Thanks Arnold. We need to replace a failing 50D, used mostly for action-shooting so that information is helpful. There are some new modes there that sound interesting, but the results at 10fps look great for our purposes.</p>

<p>One question Arnold - I'm not sure about the markII but on the 7D you can choose between low and high-speed continuous shutter action. Is that still true? If it is, which were you using for these shots?</p>

<blockquote> <p>I also like the Rising star Portfolio winner Michel d'Oultremont's set of images which show how interesting photos of wildlife can be made without the main subject being in a close up in the final image.</p> </blockquote> <p>I think that's a growing trend amongst the next generation of wildlife photographers from what I've been able to see. Perhaps it's a reflection on the environmental consciousness of the millenials and their offspring - whatever, I like the outcomes. According to one bird photographer (of my generation) I spoke with recently he felt as if he needed to choose between wildlife photography and landscape photography. The idea that instead, these can work together is intriguing and pleasant as far as I'm concerned.</p>

<p>So, completely unexpected happening this evening. We went to our local camera club here in Vancouver, and the guest program speaker was one of the photographers (Jess Findley) who was in the bird photography group. No idea that connection was going to happen - serendipity at it's finest.</p>

<p>I see in past years this competition has been somewhat controversial, but I didn't see any press indicating that for this year's version. Some great photos, and some obviously talented individuals. I thought the Nature forum was a good choice for posting this.</p> <p><a href="http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/wpy/gallery/2014/index.html">http://www.nhm.ac.uk/visit-us/wpy/gallery/2014/index.html</a></p> <p> </p>