markci

Wow, what a bunch of stupid comments.

 

There are good reasons why a professional photographer might want to simulate the look of a particular film. For example, you might want to make a photo look like it was shot during a particular era. And the "why go through all the trouble - just shoot on film" comment is especially hilarious. Running a digital image through a filter is hardly any trouble, especially compared to dealing with film and scanning. It's certainly easier than constructing a time machine if the image in question has already been taken, or if the film in question is no longer manufactured.

 

Thanks for the url by the way. I may pick up a copy.

What could possibly require more freedom of expression than rationality? Or more closely related? Reason was the defining feature of the Age of Enlightenment, which gave birth to the Bill of Rights.

<i>It seems that physics has some more cards up its sleeve... :-)</i>

<p>

No, it seems a few theoreticians have too much time on their hands. That page is basically a combination of idle and deliberately contrarian intellectual masturbation by legitimate physicists, and pure fantasy by crackpots and science fiction authors, plus the "superficial" section at the end describing phenomenon which don't surprise anyone because they don't violate relativity.

Diffraction effects are the same at the same f/number, regardless of focal length, for reasons explained by Patrick. Anyone saying otherwise is simply misinformed.

 

f/64 worked for them because they were using large format cameras and therefore not enlarging much, or at all. Also, lenses and film sucked very badly compared to what we have today, so diffraction was the least of their worries.

I think it means corporate photography for institutions that aren't corporations -- government entities, educational institutions and the like.

<i>I don't think any lens manufacture will design a lens that can withstand a drop on the floor.</i>

<p>

If they can't design one to drop from bed height to a carpeted floor for 2 grand then they are selling substandard goods and should be ashamed of themselves.

*kidnapping

Looks like Sasquatch to me.

On a more serious note, as one who has probably not made the best use of my time in the 12 years or so I've been seriously interested in photography: you have all the time in the world, but the thing is to get started and keep at it. It's very easy to get distracted and let another decade pass you by. Believe me the next ten years of your life will pass as quickly as the past five. I don't know how it's possible, but that's the way it is, as anyone in their late 30's will tell you.

 

There is a story (it might even be true) about a time when Napolean Bonaparte decided that shade trees should be planted along the major roads of France, so that the French infantry could be moved more quickly in the summer heat. His advisors pointed out that it would take 25 years for newly planted trees to grow large enough to provide any useful shade, to which he replied "well then we haven't a minute to lose."

Anything fun (or else they wouldn't) that doesn't require professional licensure (or else they couldn't).

Screw this "de minimis" b.s. You know what - OJ Simpson was charged with kidnapped for detaining a couple guys in a motel room for less time than that. Cops need to know the law and respect citizens' civil right, or be fired for incompetence if nothing else. It's part of their job.

<i>To me, any photo in PN is equivalent of publication. And no reputable magazine/journal will publish any thing unless you provide key data.</i>

<p>

You're reading the wrong magazines.

<p>

<i>Again, I am asking for many of us, who are novice but eager to learn is to provide some key information (for whole portfolio/gallery): camera, lens, exposure, main digital manipulation tool.</i>

<p>

The camera and lens make no difference. The "main digital manipulation tool" is almost invariably Photoshop. Happy?

<p>

The main reason the usual "key information" on equipment or exposure isn't provided isn't because it's "below" anyone. The real reason is that it just isn't useful in any way. It's a waste of time and a distraction. Most of the time equipment is completely unimportant. And exposure is a thought process -- posting the end result of that process just isn't useful information.

At 26 you only have 41 years until retirement, per the Social Security Administation (at least until they raise the age again). How will you ever pull that off?

My question is why does anybody use songs on their websites. There's absolutely nothing more obnoxious than having someone else's musical taste inflicted on me just because I visit their stupid site. And nothing makes be hit back-arrow faster.

And it's true -- there are "employers" like that in just about every field, including software development. There are web sites where people post small (and sometimes not so small) programming jobs for prices you coudn't get me to start up Visual Studio for. I think mostly they get done by people in India, or else college kids.

<i>Look at golfers. How often do you imagine the PG tour players sit around crabbing because millions of people play golf each day, without getting paid for it? </i>

<p>

That's got to be the most pea-brained analogy I've heard in some time.

<p>

PGA tour players get paid BECAUSE there are millions of golfers that their sponsors can peddle their products to, and for no other reason. Playing golf isn't a job that needs doing, and amateurs aren't competing with professionals for some finite amount of golf that needs to be played.

<i>The reason I question this is because as DSLRs tend to get more pixels every generation, a point will come when (as perceived by the pixel peepers) that the images will become blurry because of motion.</i>

<p>

They already are. That point is long past, as it was with film. If you want maximum sharpness, use a tripod. Guidelines like the once you cite are only about acceptable sharpness, and definitely exclude "pixel peepers."

I'm not sure I really understand the question, but I guess I'll answer anyway. It's never stopped me in the past.

 

Basically it sounds like a game that simulates having a career as a nature photographer. (With one important difference: you can actually make money - haha!). I have no idea if it's been done before, but there are games where you can have a career as a zookeeper or race car driver or football coach, so why not? I doubt you'll learn any more about wildlife photography than people who play SimZoo do about zookeeping, but games are boring when they get educational anyway.

 

As to what extent photography "should" be incorporated into gaming, I have no idea. People have always enjoyed taking screenshots within games though, and some games (such as Second Life) do allow you considerable control over camera position and lighting. And many games are used to produce extremely low-budget films, called machinima.<div></div>

1. When you ask a question, leave out crucial data. By no means take 10 seconds to upload the photo you're asking questions about. Ignore any requests for additional information. Or if you provide it, be sure to get snippy.

 

2. If the question is answered anyway, don't post thanks or any sort of acknowledgement. If you can manage, simulate having dropped off the face of the earth as soon as you get the information you need.

 

3. Buy gear before you ask questions about it.

 

4. After doing #3, a nice thing to do is to ask how good the lens you've just purchased is. Soliciting opinions from online "experts" is much easier than using your equipment and examining the results.

 

5. The quality of questions/answers/uploads/critiques/articles/reviews has really gone to hell lately. This has been true for the last 11+ years.

 

6. I wish I could think of a #6, but I've got to go pick up my new car from the dealer. Sorry.

<i>As sensor size increases the yield should decrease proportionally to the area.</i>

<p>

It's actually worse than that. Past a certain size yield essentially goes to zero.

<i>I said I had a snap shot, that means a picture.</i>

<p>

Neither of which provides any real information. And getting snippy while asking other people to help you is a class act all the way.

The only point of a monopod is to support gear that's too heavy to hand hold in a situation where you can't use a tripod. They do provide some stability, but nothing like a tripod.

The officer shouldn't have been "disciplined." He should have been fired and criminally charged with both assault and false arrest.

<i>The guy has ZERO credibility now.</i>

<p>

He had zero credibility before.

<p>

I guess if I fake up a dark, blurry, low-res photo of the baby Loch Ness monster in my home aquarium and call a news conference, CNN, Fox "news" and the others would show up. Oh, wait: I'm not known for a fact to have pulled hoaxes before. Therefore I'm less credible.

<i>upcoming lawsuit from Biscardi</i>

<p>

If you believe that, you probably believed the original story (and I pity you). Biscardi is the biggest crook of the three.

<p>

I've officially had it with broadcast and Internet news media. Journalists are one of the stupidest and most useless constituencies imaginable, but I was (mildly) surprised that even they ran with this idiot story.