tom_thumbnail

<p>I'm surprised at how many responses (almost all of them) suggest the photographer give up the releases and give the CD. It hardly seems likely the photographer contracted with a customer for photos where the customer didn't know the cost up front.</p>

<p>It would seem the customer now wants to renegotiate the deal, and since the photographer refuses, they want the releases back in a purely spiteful gesture. Then they threaten the photographer with legal action. It's practically extortion.</p>

<p>What court is going to side with a customer on that? I think none. And I wouldn't even bother to hire an attorney for such a clear, cut and dry case, if the customer actually did take the photographer to court, which seems highly unlikely. The customer is almost certainly making empty threats. What benefit would it be to them to actually go to court, even if they won, which is highly unlikely. </p>

<p>All that being said, I would suggest the photographer sell the CD, but price it appropriately, taking into account that she will not get any print sales from here on in. </p>

<p>Is the Nikon SC-18 or -19 functionally any different than any other Male to Male PC cord made by any manufacturer?</p>

<p>Generally speaking, how accurate are the depth of field scales engraved on lenses? </p>

<p>Mainly, I'm interested in the scales on manual focus lenses made for 35mm SLRs, but related discussion on any lens type is welcome. </p>

<p>Are they about equally accurate on all lenses? Are there any considerations or exceptions worthy of note?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Excuse me, coach, but could you please run that play over again? And this time, could you please ask the middle linebacker to look directly into the camera as he's pounding the quarterback's head into the ground?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm surprised that so far, through page 3 of this thread (I haven't read the rest yet,) most responders have taken the position there is no difference between taking a photo/image and making one.</p>

<p>In the satirical example Dan gives above, as in a landscape, the subject doesn't change whether a photo is taken or made. The difference lies in factors the photographer has control over; and if he considers those factors, either consciously, or with more experience, perhaps subconsciously; and then manipulates those factors to create a photo/image that is more likely to be interesting and aesthetically pleasing than had he randomly pointed the camera in the general desired direction and mindlessly pressed the shutter. </p>

<p>Those things could include thing such as the</p>

<p>- vantage point (angle and distance to subject)<br>

- framing/composition (many elements can apply)<br>

- choice of camera (film/sensor size)<br>

- choice of lens (focal length, other capabilities, possibly subtle qualities)<br>

- ancilliary equipment (monopod, tripod, head, filters, other)<br>

- aperture (DOF)<br>

- shutter speed (camera shake, motion blur)<br>

- ISO (graininess, noise)<br>

- ambient lighting (when immediacy is not required)<br>

- additional lighting added (type, strength, color/gels, quantity, direction)<br>

- light modifiers (type, size)<br>

- processing (darkroom, software, retouching, editing)<br>

- other</p>

<p>All these things are probably familiar to most of the readers here, and the whole thing is not rocket science. But putting all or most of them together in a single moment to show a subject in a dramatic and interesting way, is still not a trivial feat, and only rarely does it happen by accident or coincidence.</p>

<p>As camera technology advances, increasingly automating the process of getting correct focus and exposure under an ever expanding array of conditions; and the general technical quality of photos improves; making it possible for any untrained person to pick up a camera and get better results then they would have in the past; so also, is the bar raised on the expectation of what is considered an outstanding image. </p>

<p>So the photographer who applies developed talent and acquired skill and knowledge to the making of photos; is much more likely to produce better results than the average Joe that just takes them.</p>

<p>At what aperture does diffraction become a factor in a lens?</p>

<p>I would presume this is different for different lenses, so besides aperture, what factors affect when diffraction comes into play? </p>

<p>Are there any guidelines or rules of thumb that can be applied to guesstimate when diffraction starts affecting a lens?</p>

<p>What's a good way and/or good subject to shoot, to empirically test a particular lens's diffraction characteristics, if one doesn't have one of those microgrid resolution testing pattern things?</p>

<p>For a given camera and lens, are distant objects more sensitive to camera shake than closer ones?</p>

<p>Congratulations!<br>

Can you post the photos or do you have a link to them?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Jim S wrote: I can verify that the Katz Eye screen works to f/11, and even to f/16 with a little effort. The Haoda screen does not. To *not* work past f/5.6 is normal for most split image screens, but somehow Katz Eye makes it work anyway. Using a smaller aperture forces you to center your eye more carefully, but at least it works. ...when others don't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Jim, did you get the Optibrite treatment on the Katzeye? Or to what extent does does Optibright matter? I think it has to do with the brightness of the main field of the screen, not the split prism part.</p>

 

<p>Haoda doesn't seem to make a screen for the 40D. Their website indicates they have screens for the 20D and 30D. There is no mention of the 40D. </p>

<p>Up to how much time did Ansel Adams spend at one location, or how many times would he return to the same location, to get some of his best images? </p>

<p>Undoubtedly, some shots were captured on the spot in one take. I'm wondering more about the extreme on the other end. </p>

<p>Ditto about any other photographer--or you. When the light and shadows were not optimal on the first visit, up to how much time was spent or return visits made, to get the best photo?</p>

<p>I sometimes use ETTL, but I also use manual flash sometimes also, sometimes more than one at a time. I picked up a Wein pretty inexpensively on Fleabay. I'll see how it goes.</p>

<blockquote>Sarah F sed: I often shorten to 4:3 or 5:4, depending on the subject matter. I don't think I would go any skinnier than 3:2, though, even if there's a lot of wasted space.</blockquote>

<p>Hi. That's what I'm talking about. I think there's a certain (or approximate) aspect ratio, beyond which most photos just don't look "right," or as good as they could. Even in cases when there is simply nothing special about some of the space, most good photographers won't crop their photos beyond a certain point. That space is thus being left in pretty much specifically to avoid a high aspect ratio. </p>

<p>Panoramas are a notable exception, but they're a kind of novelty. They can certainly be interesting; but they usually work best with certain subjects that lend themselves to it, and panoramas are unlikely to ever achieve mainstream status or be considered suitable for the "average, typical" photo.</p>

<p>Sometimes I see a photo, usually by an amateur, which I think is too long (short) or narrow (tall). If asked to critique it, I could articulate about compositional elements like the rule of thirds, leading lines, curves, S curves, diagonals, symmetry, patterns, reflections, shadows, facing into the photo as opposed to the edge, contrasting areas, etc. But so far, I'm at a loss to specifically comprehend or be able to articulate why a particular photo just looks too long or narrow, in and of itself. </p>

<p>One would think the extra cost of a 36mm square sensor camera over a 36 by 24mm sensor camera that are the full frame DSLRs now, wouldn't be that much relative to associated benefits and that there would be a healthy demand for such a product.</p>

<p>Is there such a thing as the aspect ratio of a photo inherently being too high to be optimally aesthetic?</p>

<p>Or does a high aspect ratio photo only feel too narrow (or short) when the subject feels cramped or appears to be missing important or interesting parts; or too wide (tall) if it includes uninteresting parts or distracting elements?</p>

<p>This is not to debate the virtues of square versus 3:2 or 4:3 or even 16:9, etc. All those formats fall within a range that most people generally find pleasing, although some might prefer one or the other, often depending on the particular photo. I'm referring to unusually high aspect ratio photos that got that way from stitching or cropping.</p>

<p>Is there a guideline for aspect ratios that rationally explains what is usually aesthetic, or why exceeding that ratio can be unaesthetic? Perhaps the rule of thirds, golden ratios, or similar? Is it perhaps that people inherently like to see things in an aspect ratio that approximates that of normal human vision?</p>

<p>- The Slik 700DX is selling for $100 now and the Bogen 3021/Manfrotto 055 for $167.<br>

- The Slik weighs a half pound more but is rated to carry 22 lbs versus 15lbs for the B/M<br>

- The Manfrotto seems to continue to be more popular than the Slik based on the number of reviews they get. <br>

- The 055PROB does have that horizontal center column ability, but I'll bet most people don't even use that, and I have to wonder if the ability to do that doesn't make the center column somewhat less sturdy in some way, even when not extended. </p>

<p>Slik - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/557127-REG/Slik_615_317_700DX_Pro_Tripod_Legs.html#specifications</p>

<p>Manfrotto - http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/504845-REG/Manfrotto_055XPROB_055XPROB_Aluminum_Tripod_Legs.html#specifications</p>

<p>Are there any functional differences between the black and the silver legs?</p>

<p>https://secure.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=slik+700dx&N=0&InitialSearch=yes</p>

<p>I'm looking at the Slik 700 DX now, but am also looking at the Manfrotto 055. Which Manfrotto is now the Bogen 3001? Is that the new 190?</p>

<p>For a first tripod destined to be one's main tripod, is it better to get one with a center column or without? </p>

<p>Everyone always says to avoid extending the center column when using a tripod. But most tripods come with them, and most people buy tripods that have them. So if the answer is with a center column: Why?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>How is the Super Trekker for carrying a tripod? They come up for sale from time to time, but it's a little hard to get information about them, since they seem to have been replaced by the Super Trekker AW II. The Super Trekker doesn't seem to have one of those pouches for inserting a tripod leg into.</p>

<p>I just saw a Gossen Luna Pro F and vari-angle attachment go for what I thought was a surprisingly high $130. + shipping on eBay. It was in beautiful looking condition though, had manuals and cases, and it was all shown with a lot of well taken photos.</p>

<p>I also just picked up a Minolta Flash Meter III with a case in apparently fair to good condition for $47 + shpg. I think I got a pretty good deal on that, and some might go for a bit more. It does take five or six of those little round "button" batteries--I don't recall which model offhand. I located a source for them on the internet for about $1 each, so that ought to work out OK. The III has an on/off switch so I think they'll last a long time. I heard something about the Minolta II being always "on" and going through batteries like water unless they were disconnected and reconnected for every use.</p>

<p>OK, thanks. Kenko seems to be carrying on with the line or part of the line.</p>

<p>Is a Wein 500B Flash Meter useful for todays electronic flashes?</p>

<p>I was thinking of aquiring one for my first flash meter since they are so economical. However, from the manual I found for it online, I see they are rated to only sense flashes with a duration of at least 1/3000 second.</p>

<p>It seems that many modern electronic flashes, especially speedlight flashes like I now use, employ flash durations faster than 1/3000 of a second, at least at lower power settings. Now I wonder if a Wein 500B just won't cut the mustard. </p>

<p>What is the typical range of the duration a flash from a speedlight stays lit, from the lowest setting to the highest? </p>

<p>How does this compare to studio lights?</p>

<p>With flash in ETTL mode, it shouldn't matter what direction you point the flash head in, or whether your shooting in M, Av or Tv modes, as long as a reasonable amount of the light can bounce to the subject. As always, don't exceed your shutter synch speed if your camera allows it. Usually white or light colored ceilings, walls or other objects within a reasonable distance work good. If this yields too light or dark of an exposure, you can use flash compensation to adjust.<br>

TTL is Thru the Lens flash metering. The flash will fire as long as it takes until the camera senses enough light has passed thru the lens, and then it will order the flash to turn off. It's amazing that it can react that quickly, but that is how it does it.</p>

<blockquote>If you're pointing the light meter at the camera, you should be using the incident attachment, and if you're pointing the light meter at the subject, from where the camera would be, you should be using the reflective attachment</blockquote>

<p>I know the white dome is the incident attachment. What is the "reflective attachment?" I've been looking at some used Minolta Flash Meter IIIs with an eye toward making a purchase, and I haven't seen any mention of a reflective attachment.</p>