marcogarrone

 

<p>No man is an island,<br />Entire of itself.<br />Each is a piece of the continent,<br />A part of the main.<br />If a clod be washed away by the sea,<br />Europe is the less.<br />As well as if a promontory were.<br />As well as if a manor of thine own<br />Or of thine friend's were.<br />Each man's death diminishes me,<br />For I am involved in mankind.<br />Therefore, send not to know<br />For whom the bell tolls,<br />It tolls for thee.</p>

 

John Donne

<p>@ Reynaldo: actually, since Nike brand name comes after the greek goddess of victory Νίκη (pron. nee-kay), I reckon it should not be pronounced "Naik", LOL</p>

<p>Nikon D70 with a Nikkor 70-200 lens.</p><div></div>

<p>Josh, I believe that sadly you are quite right. Whilst a few of us did truly devote some effort in distinguishing the idea behind the picture from the technical detail, not many did follow this approach. So, some of us will feel the loss, while the vast majority won't. I fear that Richard Vernon (see above) hit the spot in claiming "This is going to result in even more well executed but completely uncreative shots getting great ratings", even more so since loads of people see digital photography as a frantic rush in the mega-pixel competition and crave for the super-sharp unspotted no-grains image. I perfectly understand that the O/A scale was an markedly underused tool, but at least it claimed the principle that is you can have interesting pictures with a low quality image. That would have guaranteed a future for not-so-HD sensors and average quality cameras, not forgetting the good old "creative" touch. So ok, let's say goodbye to O/A but let's find other ways to encourage cerativity over technique. Cheers Marco</p>

<p>Josh,you surely brought up a hot topic. I reckon that whichever will be the categories some of them need a little explanation, especially for members who may not be comfortable with some english terms. If "nudes" or "birds" (no pun meant) may be pretty simple to undestand "documentary" may be a little trickier. Many amateurs, like myself, do shoot mainly while on vacation, more often during a trip. So, will my Mexico pictures filed as "documentary", along with those amazing North Pole photos taken by a pro? To many of us it will sound a bit boastful, unless it is clearly said that "documentary" means "travels" as well. By the way, I'm not sure whether I want a "travel" category, since what may be travel for others could be home to me. Same goes for the "street" category, definitely one of my favourite, but then we must first decide what "street photos"are. Billions of pictures are taken on the street, but then which are real "street"? All in all, I fear I haven't contributed many proposals, but just shared a few confused thoughts. So, summing it up, I would add "portrait" and "street", and maybe merge "concerts" and "events".<br>

Cheers, Marco</p>

<p>0%. roughly 95% Av, 5% Tv. That casts a dark shadow on my photographic prowess, ok, I should learn to use M. however, because I love Av, I'll purchase a point and shoot that has it to control DOF.</p>

<p>Much as I like the female body and enjoy nudity, I do feel that nude pictures on PN, although quite often uninteresting, are generally overrated I do not believe however, that this is due to adolescents getting a secret glimpse of nude breasts on PN. As Luca and others have pointed out, the female nude is a world-wide acknowledged means of catching attraction and men of every age, creed and ethnicity are well-known for lessening their critical wits when challenged by a naked girl (on screen or on paper, not to mention a living one...). This is quite evident on PN, shown by the overrating of good nude pictures and even more by the high marks that awful nudes get - "awful" clearly referred to the shooting technique, not to the subject. So I guess we all are to blame, and we should probably abstain from rating when we perceive our sexuality aroused. However, it's a petty crime, so we can be quite benign about it.<br>

Marco</p>

<p>as far as G10 in considered, read also this<br>

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canong10/page24.asp<br>

cheers, Marco</p>

Once in a small catholic church, which I had previously duly inspected, there was the chance to climb up on a small wooden balcony to get a bird's eye view of the gathering with a 20 mm. I got up during the first hymn as the crowd entered and sat down. I was now descending the super-steep ladder closed by a wooden door when the music ended, in the wake of the sermon to begin. It was right at that moment that my 20 mm that I had just removed fell of from the bag, bounced on the step and banged against the door, causing a booming sound in the absolute silence. I guess you can figure out my embarassment. I know it's very amateurish to say, but do always close the zippers in your bag.

Madhavi, if by street photography you mean the occasional portrait but also taking a snap at the fancy car passing by, I agree that the 70-200 is too narrow a lens. personally I have the f4IS and it works beautifully, I chose it because that extra stop was not worth the 500 � difference. Its a marvellous lens for shooting details, indoor, performancess and so on. for street photography I would take the 24-105, or if you are low on budget (like me) the 28-135 IS. Average quality, but the focal length you need on the street. Cheers

Marco

Mark, you already got a bunch of replies. Mine won't ad much, but go for RAW. I had moreless the same worries you have now, but when I switched to RAW I found it outsmarted JPG. have a nice trip. Marco

when a post of mine was deleted for its foul language - I recall it said "T&A

rules ok" and I apologize for repeting the words - I felt anyway happy that the

somehow law was being enforced. It happens to see, however, that in many

discussion sarcasm and vulgarity abund and that the rule that you can not post

nudes under nicknames is constantly escaped (you can easily check this out). How

does this happen?

<div></div>