seismiccwave

<p>Thank you. Anymore?</p>

<p>Yes, I did a search and can't find anything definitive. So let's just ask the question.<br>

Can some one recommend a good quality easy to use online printer for a brochure? <br>

Yes, I have Googled and I get a zillion printers that popped up. Tried one and started to design a brochure. Two steps later the website locked up. I don't think I want that printer.<br>

I am doing quite a bit of real estates photography and business is slowly increasing. I want to go to the next step in marketing and start sending out some high quality brochures. I want the recipient to actually hold the brochure and starts thinking instead of just tossing it in the rubbish bin. <br>

I did receive my business card printer recommendation from here and couldn't be happier. I am using Moo from the UK to print my business card. They are more expensive than a lot of others but the quality of the card is great and everyone I handed my card to treasured it.</p>

<p>Thank you very much in advance.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>MP it doesn't have anything to do with photography. I want to take a flash unit outdoors and want to see what is the big difference between the Alien Bees in the studio and the Nikon flash units. The flash units for the camera outdoors seems a bit under power and the Alien Bee with a power pack like the Vagabond is a bit too heavy. I wish some one has something in between. What ever happen to the old style Honeywell Strobonar with a power pack?</p>

<p>LOL, thank you every one for your explanation. How wonderful those numbers are to us!</p>

<p>Ok this question doesn't fall into any specific category. So I just put it under studio lights. I use studio lights in my studio. Specifically I use four Alien Bees. Three each 800 and one each 1600. I noticed the size of the Alien Bees are expressed as watts-second. The 800 is 800 ws etc.<br>

I am sure I can find the answer if I do a better search but I am pretty lazy. I am so used to using those camera flashes that were expressed in guide numbers. <br>

So are there any smart people that can explain to me how to translate between guide number and watts-second?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thank you very much.</p>

<p>I just found some color slides from the 70's and 80's.<br>

Anyone know of a good place to send my color slides to get digitized? <br>

Thanks in advance<br>

Hansen</p>

<p>Nope, even when I suck I still feel I am very good. A little disillusion goes a long way.</p>

<p>There was this photographer Juha Kivekas. He is no longer on Photo.net but I saw a few images he captured of cars with light painting. I think you can get pretty close result to the large scrim with light painting and long exposure time.</p>

<p>The 5D Mk2 is suppose to be weather resistant also. The battery compartment is facing down on a camera. How can water get inside? I had my Nikon D300 stayed out in the rain for at least 15 minutes during a very heavy down pour. Not a single drop of water got inside.</p>

<p>>>But one might look at a lens selection from a different point of view: the criteria changes radically when shooting subjects that are not moving, not inaccessible, not poorly lit.<<<br>

If a subject is NOT moving, NOT inaccessible and NOT poorly lit then every one with ANY lens can capture that image. Therefore no one will ask the question for a lens recommendation in the first place. So what is your point? Give me a pinhole camera and I will take that picture!<br>

<br /></p>

<p>Anyone with a camera in a wedding ceremony can take pictures. However that doesn't make them a photographer. </p>

<p>You are not looking at photography with the proper perspective. Photography is not about beauty. It is not about ugliness either. It is about capture light or the lack there of. If you find dreary monochromatic lighting, capture it. Many very powerful images were rendered in black and white.<br>

You concept of subject is limiting you.</p>

<p>The question has nothing to do with the style of your image. It is more about your concern with criticism. If you like to cut off the head then go ahead and do it and don't worry about what any one thinks. If you are asking if cutting off the head is a good style for you to pursue then you have to deal with your family and not us.<br>

The reason I cut off the head is because I want to get in close to focus on something else. Most people don't even noticed the head was cut off because the point of interest draw them away from the head.<br>

If you want to be a successful photographer/artist you have to know how to sort out your criticism.</p>

 

<p>How can a Nikon non-existing 24 mm f1.4 be limiting if it doesn't existing? I know what you mean by saying that it does exist. Yes I have the Canon 24 f1.4L but you failed to understand the point. If you wanted the Canon 24 mm f1.4L so badly you would have purchase the entire Canon line up. Why stay with Nikon. You are your own limit. Nothing more nothing less.<br>

If the Nikon FM with a 50 mm prime is the only camera setup I can afford or if that is the only camera available I will work around the limitation. We live in a world full of compromises. If I consider something a limitation there will be limitation. If I don't consider something a limitation there will be NO limitation. There is no oxymoron in limitation. You seem to be very stuck on your high horse and stir the pot. You have done well in stirring the pot. I simply do not like the perspective you have on this world. I do not agree with your view point. I wish people like yourself will open your mind a bit more to see beyond what they are they limiting themselves to.<br>

You are you very own limitation. If you don't understand that concept then you are more limited than you think you are.</p>

 

<p>An assistant with an umbrella.</p>

<p>A camera with shutter speed control and a light source. Any light source. You can light paint with a candle if you like.</p>

<p>Ok let me clarify. <br>

1) I am not here to offend anyone. <br>

2) I grew up being told that there is no limit in what I can do and I believe it.<br>

3) Why would we want to make such a statement that a certain manufacturer does not make a specific item and therefore the lack of that item is limiting our ability? That is a totally absurd statement of you look at it a bit more in depth. <br>

4) Do we hear that a race care driver is limited by the speed of his/her car?<br>

5) What the manufacturer DID NOT make is NOT an item in existence. Therefore it is a non-issue. It cannot limit any one for anything.<br>

6) What happens if we only have a Nikon FM and a 50 mm prime? Is that limiting? No, you work with the limitation.<br>

7) This world is NOT infinite. We don't have infinite time on earth. Nikon will NOT make an infinite number of lens covering every single focal length and aperture. Neither will Canon nor Leica.<br>

8) What if there is no digital camera that can give us ISO 3200? <br>

9) Why isn't the ISO limiting us instead of the lens? Why single out the 24 mm f1.4? <br>

10) We never had ISO 3200 in film. A 24 mm fast lens is not going to make any difference.<br>

It sounded so ungrateful to me. Again I am not trying offend anybody. Just because we don't see Nikon making a fast wide angle we complaint. How about instead we appreciate what we have in life. Thank Nikon for creating all those wonderful lenses for us to enjoy so far. <br>

My glass is always half full instead of half empty. It is all a matter of attitude.</p>

<p>I did not read the entire thread because it is pointless. Nothing limits me in my photography. Yes I am perfectly happy with an FM and a 50 mm prime. If using an equipment limitation as an excuse that is limiting your photography you must be very young or very inexperience. I will dare go one step further to expand on Shun's answer. The limit is not the person behind the camera the limit is the 6" between the person's ears.<br /> Please don't bother answering me because I do not want to read any more excuses.<br>

On the practical side simply going to the D700 would have solved your problem.</p>

 

<p>I found the Canon has fatter grip with a larger radius. The Nikons have skinnier and pointier grips.</p>

<p>Throw it away and buy a new lens. 18 to 55s are not very expensive. It will cost you more in money and mental anguish thinking about it or to get it repaired.</p>

<p>Suitable compromises with price? What is your budget?<br>

You have the lens. Pretty much any Nikon body with a three digit number will be fine. For example Nikon D300, D300s, D700 etc. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Damn it, that is "awesome". I finally figured out which setting to use! I have been using M for menopause!</p>

<p>How you do qualify "famous"? Once you can figure what "famous" meant than you can figure out how to search better.</p>

<p>>>Weird............ anyone know why this might be?<<<br>

I gave up calibrating my monitor. The only way you can get an accurate view of any image is by printing it out. There are millions or monitors out there and none of them view the same image the same way. I found that I see my own images a certain darkness in four of my Mac computer and various monitors. Then the images look very different when I put them on my different PC's. Then the images look different again when I view them on the internet within photo.net and without. So there is really no standard what so ever.<br>

That is something I have come to accept. I can only control what I do and nothing else.</p>

<p> </p>