cfreemanphotography

Robert: Dur, I feel stupid. Good point. Why didn't I think of that?

 

Alex: If I mail you a filter, will you make me a star filter?

Robert, I have been hoping to stay away from those filters as they would impair image quality, however I suppose for very specialized shots it may be worth using. And yes, I guess one should never complain that their lens does not suffer from excessive diffraction.

Bjørn,

I have been attempting this at f/22, and at the widest settings to make the physical size of the aperture even smaller. No luck yet, but I'll keep trying.

I recently obtained the 17-35mm f/2.8 Nikkor for landscape purposes. I cannot for the life of me get this lens to

create a nice diffractive starburst, regardless of how wide the lens or how small the aperture. Anyone have any

experience with this lens?

The 18-55 mm lenses have gold rings. Or is that just some other chrome accent? Either way, what gives? The 800 dollar 18-200 which out-resolves Canon's 16-35mm f/2.8L at certain equivalent settings does not have a gold ring, but some hundred dollar base kit lens does?

I have a kind of off topic question about CM....

 

Will the browser support color spaces other than sRGB? If so, would it make sense to put images up in say, ProPhoto RGB even though it doesn't display in IE?

I think it's funny that some people think the D3 High ISO images should be cleaner. Ummmmm....... Nothing on the market is cleaner, except perhaps a cryo rigged view camera with a scanning back.

Depending on what you'll be shooting, you may not even need primes/AF. Some lenses, such as the 17-35, perform better than primes within the same range. AS for AF... The problem with auto-focus is that manual focus becomes more difficult. On a manual focus lens, the focus ring is usually somewhere in between 180 and 270 degrees aroundthe barrel. On lenses such as the 18-200, the outer ring turns 90 degrees while the inner ring moves only 45 degrees. Basically, you lose a lot of the precision that comes in handy when using hyperfocal focusing for landscapes or for use with very fast lenses.

In the literature for either the D200 or the EN-EL3e Li-ion Batteries (I can't remember which), Nikon suggests taking an eraser to electrical contacts as the first step in troubleshooting such problems.

Hmmmm.... I suppose that i-TTL would only work with certain setups...?

For example, if I have the flash off to the side and want only to illuminate one side of a subject, would i-TTL tell the flash to increase output and overexpose the entire thing? In the past I had shied away from manual flash exposure, but the newer flashes make it much easier (My last camera, the S3 IS had awful manual flash control and my dad's old bounce flash had erratic output).

What if I already have one SB-800?

I'm new to flash photography and was wondering if there is any way to fire and

control output of remote flash units wirelessly (radio, not IR or optical)?

Would a bracket be a helpful item for use with even the hotshoe flash alone? How durable is the foot of the flash unit? The weight distribution with the camera in the vertical orientation seems like it would put a lot of unnecessary stress on the foot.

Can anyone recommend a soft box for hot-shoe flashes (SB-800)?

 

I found one or two, but I can't find much information on them. Does the soft

box necessarily need to be attached to the flash with velcro?

Try hand stitching. I personally think that global HDR merges are an unattractive gimmick, but if you take the time to manually paint the pictures together, you can get some very realistic results.

Jeff, not to sound oppositional, but I disagree with you whole-heartedly. First of all, if you're shooting still lifes, you should proably be on a tripod, thus rendering VR unnecessary or even detrimental.

 

The general rule for long lens use is that shutter speed should be at least 1/FL. While this will typically get pretty good results, they still might not be as sharp as you would like. Say you're shooting with a 600 mm lens on a DX formatted camera. Your equivalent focal length is 900 mm, therefore you should shoot at no less than 1/1000th of a second w/o VR. Chances are you'll have to up the ISO to shoot that fast unless your sports field has some seriously intense lighting. 1/1000th of a second is more than you really need to stop all but the fastest paced action. Why not go with a VR lens and shoot at 1/320-1/600th? You'll get sharper pictures because the decrease in shutter speed is well within the normal effects of VR (and 1/1000th might not be sharp enough to begin with), and you'll get cleaner images because you'll be shooting at lower ISO. In addition, if you want to pan the lens, VR will be a great asset, especially if it automatically detects panning.

How are you defining a master?

 

In my opinion, Marc Adamus is a master, if you allow digital artists to be classified as such.

 

If film must be used for one to be a master, look no further than Thomas Barbey. His darkroom composites are far beyond anything I have seen from any other composite photographic artist, digital and film alike. Show me someone who uses a camera to produce a more creative end product.

"There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs."Ansel Adams

 

Can we take this to mean that creativity is unbounded when we do not allow equipment concerns to inhibit our personal vision? I currently shoot with a Nikon D200, which is by no means a low end camera. My previous camera was a Canon Powershot S3IS. The only real differences in my work since purchasing the D200 are that a. The image quality is drastically improved, b. I am able to photograph in a much greater range of shooting conditions, and c. Compositions are uninhibited by poorly selected focal ranges. Before the S3 I shot with my mom's Kodak Easyshare. <a href=http://www.photo.net/photo/5913388">Here is a sample</a>. I know it's oversaturated, but this was from before I developed a sense of moderation and knew how to preserve original files :(

 

Would I ever go back to the S3? Never. I love the flexibility offered by the D200. On the same note, I would also love to try my hand at large format. Then again, look at what Marc Adamus produces with his 5D. If anyone on this forum can out-landscape him using MF/LF, then by all means consider the notion that only larger formats are suitable for public display to be completely justified.

I have seen some pictures with upper foregrounds which I think are quite successful. One, although not necessarily a landscape, was of some brightly colored leaves in the top of the frame with the sillouhette of a man walking his dog on a foggy day in the lower portion of the picture.

So, once you have the GPS data embedded in the file's metadata, is there any way that this could be uploaded to some sort of a photo-map to be used in a flash website?

There seems to be a confusion as to what maximum aperture and what minimum aperture are. Correct me if I'm wrong, but maximum aperture refers to the widest physical opening to which the diaphragm can be set. Minimum aperture is the smallest physical opening, or largest f/ratio.

 

AS for the f/64 philosophy... If Walt supplied a direct quote, then the philosophy seems to me quite clear. Basically, anything photograph and anything darkroom that produces a photograph as the final product is ok.

Correction: 58/1.2 Noct-Nikkor, not 5r

I'm looking forward to that. I really wish they hadn't discontinued the 5r/1.2 Noct-Nikkor. That's one helluva beautiful lens. Nikon really needs to work on their selection of fast lenses and TS lenses.

 

And don't worry about me swallowing my pride. I used to shoot Canon but switched because Nikon is just so muc h better ;)

 

[For me]

Oh yeah, the second question:

 

Have you ever met a tripod collar that you liked?

 

Despite the wording, that is a serious question. I'm looking for a telephoto zoom and, after reading your reviews of the various Nikkors in my price range, I have no idea what to even consider buying.

Bjorn....

 

You said that you use the Unleashed GPS equipment? Is there any way around the lack of an additional ten-pin socket? 90% of all my photography takes place on a tripod (99.96% of all my serious work). I use a cable release for effectively 100% of tripod mounted work. Basically, any method of geo-tagging that doesn't preserve a socket for a cable release is not workable for me.

 

 

Oh yeah, I have 2 Nikkor questions for you (I love your website, btw)

 

1. Is the new 14-24 f/2.8 intended to replace the 17-35 f/2.8? You said that the 20-35 was introduced in 1993 and was later replaced in 1999 by the 17-35 with the arrival of the D1. That means a 6 year reign for the 20-35 and, so far, an 8 year reign for the 17-35 f/2.8. If Nikon intends to update the design, might we expect it to be soon? Or can we consider the new 14-24 f/2.8 to be that updated model.

 

From all accounts, yours among them, the 17-35 is an absolutely amazing lens. I have had the opportunity to handle the lens (although I have not had the pleasure of actually using it), and it is an absolutely beatiful lens. It just feels so right in your hands. I imagine that if a tripod had feelings it would agree. My only point of hesitation is the presence of new lens coating technology in the newer lenses. Although the 17-35 is already an extraordinary lens, I will admit to wanting the best lens that I can fit in my wallet. If I were to dish out the 1400 dollars for the 17-35 and then have a new improved 17-35 II or 16-40 released.... let's just say I wouldn't be the happiest camper. On the other hand, if the 14-24 is the new 17-35, I have absolutely zero interest whatsoever. And I mean NONE. nyama. nil. As a matter of fact, I have a negative interest in that particular lens. If I were win a 12-24 I would sell it and buy a 17-35.