falcon7

<p>Hell yes! If I knew of such an opportunity nearby and I thought the cameras worthwhile, I'd jump at it. <strong>Even if they were digital.</strong><br>

Shucks! Yea, they're digital, but no deal is ever perfect ; )</p>

<p>P.S. It's not a 'live' auction, meaning there's an auctioner present. You just submit your bid and wait. I'm hoping the fact there are no bids means not many people know about it since I found the announcement by chance on local gov't website. Then again, there may be no bids because the cameras are worthless. Well, I'll go have a look see.</p>

<p>Two seized Nikon digital cameras are up for gov't auction in a little known location, although it's about 15 minutes from me. The auction begins at $10 per camera (I'm not stating the models--want to keep the competition to a minimum). So far, there are no bids, and the auction ends in three days. The history of these cameras isn't clear from the auction details, but it sounds like they may have been from a 'drug bust.' The gov't statement says that there is no guarantee the cameras work or have all their parts, but you can make an appt. to 'inspect' them. So I'm thinking of going down there, bringing a couple of batteries (in case the cameras don't have any) and seeing what's what. The winning bidder has to pick up the merchandise in person (but for me that would be no problem obviously). Would you spare 90 to 120 minutes for such an adventure?</p>

<p>Anyone still here? Here's my view: Since all the world's religions and all humans aspire to have a homeostatic relationship with the environment (in other words, to be at one with the universe), photograph subjects doing things or just plain being that seem to exude this quality.</p>

<p>I'm game and I guarantee I'll win if I am the sole judge. In other words, the contest is moot because what constitutes "a great photograph" as the OP purports he will be judging is subjective.</p>

<p>As the OP, I thought the following article (linked below) is interesting (well, to me anyway). It seems our visual acuity may be different at 9 am, 1 pm, or 5 pm, so in drawing conclusions about 'output' in photography, perhaps you should ask someone what time he/she viewed a sample image. Additionally, it seems the way one generally tilts one's eyes may have an impact in visual acuity as differing eyeball habits place varying pressure on the cornea. You might need to ask, "Do you tilt your eyeballs down a lot during the course of a day?" to judge whether someone has the same visual habits as you.</p>

<p>http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/54444.php</p>

<p>Something I get a kick out of is reading forum threads where a photographer will swear by a certain xyz lens, zyx software, lmnop technique, etc., only to be challenged by another photographer that he/she is all wrong. In fact, www lens, qxy software, ponml technique is actually better. So, as a former social science researcher, and with some knowledge of the reasons behind 'double blind' studies, I think it would be neat to have a 'blind testing' site (a dumb term for photography research I guess), where impartial, disinterested people would render their 'verdicts' on some of these arguments. Is there such a site or could there be such a site given that visual information/aesthetic judgment is subjective to a point anyway?</p>

<p>Thanks for the feedback. It looks like a max. 300mm is the way to go. I'm going to stick to the infield, so I hope I won't need to crop to the degree that players/action end up being "fuzzy." One thing about a 300 or even a 400mm lens is that I think it's best to handle it first, which may not be too easy if I get it on the internet and the seller is a couple of thousand miles away. That Spiratone lens set up looks like it's from the prop closet of a 1970's James Bond Movie set -- that's not a criticism.</p>

<p>Let me preface this by stating money is an object--not in terms of its physicality (paper & metal), but in my access to it. In other words, I am looking for an inexpensive solution ($350-$400 tops) the following: I have a Nikon D40 & D200 with 18-55 DX and 55-200 DX lenses. I might not have chosen this equipment on my own, but they were primarily gifts. I want to shoot some <em>semi-pro baseball</em>--action shots, but also images like a pitcher on the mound, a fielder in position, a batter at the plate (action shots are fine too, but I'm more focused on <em>studying non-verbal expression/communication</em>. It would also be nice to be able to use what I get for other photography as well (whatever that might be).<br>

Given that I can be pretty close to the action (this is semi-pro level), what lens or lens enhancement can I get that would help give me "decent" results. I can take care of the 'human element': I'm very good at focusing, etc. I know tele-converters are frowned upon by 'purists' or 'perfectionists' but I'd go for one even if it didn't provide 100% optimum quality. So, used, new, Nikon, Nikon-compatible, ebay, adorama, stealing one off a truck (only kidding). Or if you can link me to a site that isn't top heavy on technical stuff (I have the 750 page pdf Nikon200 manual--and while it's amazing, I don't need all that info).</p>

 

<p>I know I am a neoludditic numbskull, but I've yet to see an HDR image that doesn't make me feel ill. I'm posting this here since apparently you can't post images in this forum, so I won't have my taste or sanity challenged by examples of comely, aesthetically pleasing work that would make James Cameron offer a large salary to their creators. Nevertheless, all the HDR images I've seen whether they're of the Venetian Canals, the Rocky Mountains, the Nova Scotia shoreline at dusk, etc., remind me of the satiny, velour "wallmats" (or are they towels?) that are displayed on wire fences along many urban avenues and located behind tables of various other for-sale items like pirated DVD's, 99c music CD's, and rolex-manquee watches.</p>

<p>I'm developing a slide show with music with the zenfolio platform, and I want to 'convert' it so that it can be shown on Youtube. Can anyone give me some basic tips on how to accomplish this? Or is it a matter of just duplicating the "program" with a different platform or application? If the later, what would be the method? Thanks</p>

<p>Does it matter?</p>

<p>The only reason I bring it up is because sometimes the photo is so dull that although there may be a technique I'm interested in learning, the sheer banality of the image sometimes makes me 'tune out.' I suspect it's because I have ADHD, so it may just be a personal thing. If you know someone with it, or you have it, chances are you'd know the feeling. I'm not really criticizing the tutorial choices of imagery, just wondering why they are the way they are. I also don't mean this to be a mini- discussion about ADHD, but lots of people with it, while in school, will get all 'A's for the first month of a class, then tune out because the subject matter becomes torturously boring, which was my experience until I went for my Ph.D., because at least then, the work was a bit more challenging. </p>

<p>It seems to be photos used in book or online tutorials to demonstrate PS or PS element or many other image manipulation (or post-prod) software usually have truly banal or at times plain awful images that are used as examples. They aren't necessarily so terrible in a "technical" manner, but they subject matter and level of creativity is usually on the level of a so-called snapshot. I could theorize that it's done that way so the 'tutee' focuses more on the process than the image, but I don't think tutorial developers think that deeply about it. What do you think?</p>

<p>Yes, I meant <strong>'snake oil'</strong> NOT 'fish oil.' I've noticed some really bizarre 'offerings' on the internet that don't even seem logical. For example, I just saw an ad that stated <strong>'We help you self-publish.'</strong> Isn't that an oxymoron?</p>

<p>I recently read a book for laypersons about spine surgery, written by a spine surgeon, who noted there have been dozens if not hundreds of 'treatments' for back pain over the years. His conclusion was that evidently none of these treatments could be very effective to the degree that, say, aspirin is effective for headaches. Otherwise, why the proliferation of methods and 'cures.' (He wasn't 'pushing' spine surgery; in fact, he had quite a conservative attitude about it.) <br>

For headaches, on the other hand, there are four non-prescription medications I know of: Aspirin (modern form introduced in 1899), tylenol or aceteminphen [sic?] (1956) ibuprofen (1962), and what's called 'aleve' (not sure when it was introduced). I'd bet just about everyone reading this has at least one of these four mediations at home. I don't hear the public clamoring for a fifth, so they must work pretty well. <br>

Could this example be useful in trying to understand the huge proliferation of photo equipment since the digital revolution? It seems that -- besides the standard software of PS and LR and others -- there are hundreds if not thousands of plug-ins that cover every conceivable function. Books on digital photography abound as do cameras, apps for online photo galleries, for slide shows, for websites, social media sites, gimmicks, games., etc. <br>

So I was wondering just how much of this new stuff is there because a 'developer' believes he/she is creating something to 'fill a gap' or 'improve' something -- either for fun or profit -- versus how new 'stuff' that's developed in the hopes to get a market share, however small, of what is already available, but perhaps through marketing will get some 'bites'. From the 'consumer' side, could the willingness to try all this 'stuff' be based on a perception that what one has isn't 'enough' or 'doesn't work' well, which would be similar to the search among back pain sufferers for the many supposed treatments or cures. <br>

In other words, how much 'product' is more or less '<strike>fish</strike> snake oil'? '<strike>fish</strike> snake oil' might not be effective, but it wouldn't sell if people didn't like a bit of '<strike>fish</strike> snake oil' -- and not necessarily because they're confident it will work. <br>

Of course, it's hard to quantify this, but I find it an interesting question. If you do, maybe you have some thoughts on it.</p>

<p>P.S. On a side note, I remember that when ibuprofen went from a prescription medication to a non-prescription one, there was a lot of opposition from pharmacists & doctors who said it was too 'dangerous' a drug to be sold over the counter. I believe ADVIL was the first brand name. Has anyone ever considered that it is an anagram of VALID? Do you think maybe there was some attempt at subconscious marketing?</p>

<p>Thanks Tim, I am experimenting with the window light & reflectors. I can see one needs a discerning eye to note the differences using reflectors in relatively low light.</p>

<p>I have an assignment to do some 'lifestyle portraits' requested of me by a model. I have the precise environment I'd like to do the shooting; it's has natural northern light in a room with large windows and wooden fixtures. However, I may want to increase the available light so as to shoot at lower ISO and/or faster shutter speeds, so I am trying to figure a way to "cheat" with perhaps strobes, umbrellas, lightboxes. I have tried this before using a 500w blue bulb that 'matched' the sunlight fairly well. Does anyone have another suggestion. This will be done in a house, not a studio, although I have studio equpiment if need be. I was thinking of perhaps a blue gel filter placed over one or more strobes. Thanks.</p>

<p>It need not be what culture one is born into or what geographical region one is raised in that helps determine perception. An interesting anecdote about 'being trained' to see was brought home to me in a class I taught where I assigned students to have young children look at advertising photos in magazines and report what they saw. Several responses were that "I can see the shadow of the photo on the other side of the page through the paper." How's that for 'porous boundaries'?</p>

<p>Much to consider. Hmmmm....well...all these reflections sound legitimiate. I do know I have two Ansel Adams posters (of his photographs) in one of my rooms, and I although I vaguely know what the subject matters are -- trees and leaves -- I'm not even sure which one is on the left and which is on the right. However, they were gifts so they're displayed more so I don't insult the person who gave them to me than the fact that I find them rewarding in any other way. I guess it's just me, or as Kant so 'brilliantly' stated in his 'Critique of Judgment,' "That which is pleasing is that which is pleasing for me." I'm assuming he said more profound things.</p>

<p>I can easily conjure up thoughts and images and feelings about Van Gogh's 'Starry Night' or 'Self-Portrait' or Picasso's Les Demoiselles d'Avignon' or Duchamp 'Nude Descending a Staircase,' -- all paintings. But when it comes to photographs, even by my favorite photographer (which is probably Irving Penn), I have to make a real effort to imagine one. Is this generally true about painting vs. photography? Could it be because I've 'learned' that painting is a higher form of 'art' than photography and if I had been taught the opposite the opposite would be the case? Could it be that painters are more romanticized and written about and are considered as contributing more significantly to world culture and history-- Do you have any ideas I haven't listed?</p>

<p>For anyone who might be interested--there might not be too many, but I just checked Amazon to see how this particular book is doing in the 'vocational guidance' category. It's still number one. The title, btw, is VisionMongers. I guess the title alone is intriguing enough to sell some copies. It could also have to do with the fact the publication date is November 2009, but I'm sure--knowing the publishing business--that there have been lots of books on vocational guidance published in the past few months.</p>

<p>I've enhanced by PS Elements with one great plug in -- a curve plug-in that basically emulates full photoshop and Onone essentials--whose fractal technology seems excellent for upsizing. However, my head is spinning now since I've just been looking around the internet at other plug-ins and there seems to be thousands of them. The plug-in phenomenon seems even more wacky than the photo equipment-camera bodies, lenses, accessories, etc., etc. madness. I understand that it's a lot easier to create a plug-in than a new camera body line, but I'm hesitant to even researching the various plug ins because I'm afraid I'll spend more time reviewing them than the purported time I would save in using them. Does anyone have a plug-in 'philosophy' other than just ignoring them?</p>

<p>As a literary buff, I couldn't help but think of a line from the first page of "The Great Gatsby" where the narrator states, "Life is better lived when viewed through one window." (That's about right--don't have the book in front of me.)</p>

<p>The general perspective on becoming a professional photographer seems ('<em>tis</em> madam, not <em>seems</em>' - Hamlet) that it is increasingly more difficult to become a full-time professional photographer if one is starting out now. I find it interesting that today (Jan 1, 2010), the number one seller on Amazon in their "Vocational Guidance" category is a book on becoming a professional photographer. I won't plug the book here, and it might even change rankings by the time you read this (Amazon's rankings by category seem quite fungible), but what are some of the reasons you think this book is #1 right now. I guess it would help to see the reviews or the book itself, but I'm not so sure that matters.</p>

<p>"when a pop-up ad appeared on photo.net." I should have specified that the pop-up was an ad for the r1900 & R2880 printers (You might see it as you read this, in fact.)</p>

Here's a link below to a softbox that is supposed to be built on the principle of an umbrella, i.e., there's a rod that threads through the umbrella hole in the light stand and apparently, you simply open it like an umbrella. This and similar products don't really describe how they work. Does the thing have ribs that expand and harness the fabric in place by opening them up (like an umbrella)? Supposedly the set-up avoids the need for a ring adaptor to hold the gizmo around the strobe unit. How does it do that? All I can think of is that there is some sort of drawstring that might enclose the opposite end of the box that fits around the strobe unit. I can't 'try it out' since I don't live in NYC or near a photo supply place. I have 20-year old Novatron strobes that plug into a powerpack. I really don't want this to be a trial and error sort of purchase, having to return and order new items until I get the right fit. I know the easiest way would be to just go the conventional route, but this concept also has the added potential feature of being portable. Any suggestions? Does anyone use something similar to this product? Thanks. <br /><br /><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Stuido-Reflective-Umbrella-Softbox-Kaeser/dp/B001BSQK8Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=photo&qid=1258343780&sr=1-1">http://www.amazon.com/Stuido-Reflective … amp;sr=1-1</a>