markci

<p>Even if you're at the right distance for the frame lines to be accurate, it's only accurate for your subject. Stuff in front and behind will shift relative to it, because the finder is offset from the taking lens.</p>

<p>Well one thing is for sure: the lawyers will make out well.</p>

<p>It's not really illegal to take a picture of anything. How you use it is what counts.</p>

<p>"A publication that starts using second-rate photos has undoubtedly decided to become a second-rate publication."<br>

A little news flash for you Harry: virtually every news outlet in the world made that decision some years ago. How does your local paper look? Laid off any people? Most dailies, if they've survived at all, are running on less than half the staff they had just a few years ago. Ditto television news, magazines, you name it.</p>

<p><em> "I didn't see any claim for infinity focus in the offer."</em><br>

I didn't see any claim that it would focus at all, or that it's not dangerously radioactive either, for that matter.</p>

<p>I wish I knew where all these over-payers are, and when this "auction fever" takes place, because I listed a really nice 300 f/4 IS L for a starting bid of $800 in November and didn't get a bid. B&H price is $1259 for grey market.</p>

<p>I think film is like shaving a cat, and digital more like plucking a chicken. Discuss.</p>

<p>Annie was never that good a photographer. She has always relied on props, gimmicks, huge budgets, talented assistants and unparalleled access to iconic and extremely photogenic subjects who are themselves very camera-savvy. You can't really ask the Obama family to wear blue face paint or pose in a bathtub of milk, so these are the results you get. Photography at that level (actually any level) is a matter of self-promotion, not talent.</p>

<p><em>"I'm not sure what Gaga's looks have to do with anything."</em><br /> Clearly her natural looks don't, or she wouldn't be where she is. Both sides seem to be exaggerating their case. She has a nice body and average features (above average post-nose-job). Without the makeup, wigs and the rest of her getup, she looks pretty ordinary. (Look at the first result for her name on google image search for example). She knows she's no supermodel, or even Madonna, in the looks department, but has figured out another way to get attention. A way which she's turned into a performance art project/critique of pop fame. Good for her. If I had 10% of her talent for self promotion, I would be posting this from my vacation home in the Cayman Islands.</p>

<p>And I think you're right, Lex. The value of the Polaroid brand at this point (to the extent there is any at all) lies with the hipster crowd.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>The photo is not fake. It just isn't of JFK, and was never passed off as JFK until now.<br>

On another note, does anybody know the photographic forensics "expert" that TMZ consulted (Jeff Sedlik)? It's clear as day that this photo was copied from a magazine or newspaper -- you can see the halftone in the enlargements, big as baseballs:<br>

<a href="http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/1228092jfkpic2.html">http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/1228092jfkpic2.html</a><br>

From his web site it appears he testifies in court on photographic matters. It's scary to think that somebody may be in jail because of this clown.</p>

<p>I think you probably need to find a way to pick up the pieces of your shattered life and move on.</p>

<p><em>"I guess John Shaw doesn't use Tubes anymore."</em><br>

Of course he doesn't. He uses zooms, he's tried diopters, and he's not an idiot.<em><br /> </em></p>

<p>Anyone who recommends extension tubes with a zoom has never used a close-up diopter, and has no idea what they're missing. The ability to zoom while staying in focus is insanely great for composition in macro range. And it's not just a small matter of convenience; refocusing in macro range changes magnification, altering the composition. Again, this is a difficult thing to appreciate unless you've experienced it.</p>

<p><em>"To make a constant aperture zoom the working aperture must be coupled to the zoom mechanism, it must automatically allow the aperture to increase in size by a factor of 2x diameter for each doubling of focal length." </em></p>

<p>No, that also is completely inaccurate. The physical aperture does not change in these type lenses. Nothing is "coupled to the zoom." What changes is the entrance pupil diameter, which is a somewhat abstract optical quantity (and what actually matters in computing the focal ratio). It corresponds to the APPARENT size of the aperture as viewed through the front of the lens.</p>

<p><em>"Take any f4-5.6 lens, scale it up in width by a factor 2 and you have an f2-2.8 lens, that is optical physics."</em><br /> <br /> No, actually it's optical ignorance.<br /></p>

<p><em>he didnt look in your bag, search your car.</em><br>

He had zero legal right to do those things, and could have gotten into a great deal of trouble for doing so without reasonable cause. Basically he was about as much of an ass as he was legally allowed to be.</p>

<p>If there is less actual fine detail in the frame then the compressed (.jpg) file will likely be smaller, even though it will have the same number of pixels once expanded and displayed. This is because of how the compression algorithm works. It exploits the fact that pixels close to each other tend to be the same or similar color.<br>

If you zoom in and get smaller files likely one of the following is happening:<br>

1. The background is more out of focus at longer focal length.<br>

2. You're getting more motion blur due to the longer focal length.<br>

3. Your lens sucks worse at longer focal lengths.<br>

I would guess it's likely #1, with some #2 thrown in.</p>

 

<p>I don't think anyone with enough serious interest in B&W photography to buy a whole camera for it isn't going to be that concerned about "bare minimal" post processing. Bare minimal post processing is going to give you mediocre results with any camera, and you can do better than that now.</p>

<p><em>"It really shows that even though your photographs are not necessarily great, as far as technique and composition goes, they can still become famous"</em><br>

<em>No, that's not at all the point. The point is that people who rely on assorted rules for "technique and composition" generally don't have a clue what they're doing.</em></p>

<p><em>"It really shows that even though your photographs are not necessarily great, as far as technique and composition goes, they can still become famous"</em><br>

<em>No, that's not at all the point. The point is that people who rely on assorted rules for "technique and composition" generally don't have a clue what they're doing.</em></p>

<p>Actually if the focus had been on the man in the foreground in that Bresson photo, the photo would have sucked. Focus was where it belonged.</p>

<p>*** I guess you missed that entire Enron incident. ***<br>

Yeah, and the Wall Street bailouts of last year as well.  Hilarious.</p>

<p><em>and peter says the nikon tc's won't fit that lens??? why wouldn't they fit??</em><br>

Because the lens is not meant to take a teleconverter as it would not perform well with one. Rather than getting complaints about how badly their TC's perform on lenses that weren't meant to work with them in the first place, they make it impossible to mount.</p>

<p>Kent, your assertion is an approximation. It is not technically true. Depth of field is absolutely a function of focal length. It can be approximately considered a function of magnification, though the approximation degrades at very short distances.</p>

<p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field</p>

<p>Please stop "correcting" people who are more technically correct than you are. You are adding noise to the discussion.</p>

<p>The price of the 28 f/1.4 has nothing whatsoever to do with photographers.  It's priced by collectors.  Period.  Photographers weren't buying it when it was being manufactured and sold at a fraction of its current price, which is why it was discontinued with only a small number being made.  Which is why it's so valuable to collectors.</p>