morena

<p>for event work and possibly product photography I find the increase DoF a bonus. being able to get all the subjects of a group shot in focus can be much easier with the smaller chip. I use a omd and a7 for event and find a place for each but If i were going for one system It would probably be the fuji. As far as images you can't go wrong it's more about usability and comfort level. </p>

Those are great lenses. I would definately consider selling some of your less used cameras and by a cl.

Simon you made me laugh out loud with that last one. Bruce Gilden and too intrusive are a match made in heaven.

He's done some great work being overly intrusive but I don't mean to minimize your points (you've made some great

ones) we would all struggle one handing a big zoom all day especially while holding a flash in the other. For me, I

prefer the ergonomics of primes but sometimes zooms are just the right call.

B

<div></div>

I've always dreamed of finding a camera like that at a forgotten flea market.

I always looked foward to tacking picures of my kids, such great production value. I bought my first dslr a d80 3 mo. after

my son was born. 14mo later I upgraded to a d700 which is what I always hoped a dslr would be. A year later we had a

girl. Almost all I shoot is them with the exception of a few small jobs and the occasional random subject matter that peaks

my interest. I'm about to return to my rangefinder roots with a m8 and I imagine my family will continue to be my favorite

subject. One upside of taking so many pictures of my kids is it really forced me to develop a strong work flow. The only

negative I can come up with is being too generous with my editing. With my kids as subjects I get alot of "keepers".

 

Brian

 

morenaphotography.com

<p>I love rangefinders! although lately ive been shooting a slr my rangefonder is a great. sometimes a new camera is perfect for inspiration. take a look at the voightlander bessa the're a good value for camera and lenses take a look at cameraquest.com. I also agree the m6 is a terrific vamera and would definnately be my choice if youve got the money.<br>

b</p>

<p>Thanks for looking, <br>

As mike quickly pointed out it does seem to be more a question of style or taste. It seems most here just don't like them but I was hoping to gain some insight as to what you find so displeasing. I agree with John that adding polaroid boarders to a print that didn't originally posses them is basically displaying an untruth. Jeff pointed this out very concisely. I'm not sure overuse really bothers me that much which seems like the biggest complaint from the last three posters. I always thought they were cool, contributing to my photos. Darin, thanks for the compliment. Do you think they take away from my photos? Do the rest of you think they take away from any picture the adorn?<br>

thanks again <br>

b</p>

<p>Hello all,<br>

I first discovered sloppy boarders by accident in college. I couldn't afford a negative carrier for my 120 film and made one out of cardboard, the rough edges created a look I loved and from that point one I gave it to all my prints. When I moved to a digital darkroom 8 years ago I was pleased to find tutorials that helped me mimic this effect and have been using different variations ever since.<br>

I always read posts related to this subject(mostly in this forum) looking for any tips or tricks I haven't used or discovered. Every post of this nature includes some degree of mocking or disapproval of this technique. There is some reference to it being untruthful or misleading as I suppose you can add it post crop which was easy to spot in a wet print. I mostly leave my photos uncropped so using a black edge with a sloppy boarder is very close to what I'd be showing even if I was printing in a traditional darkroom.<br>

I invite all dissenters and supporters to share with me their thoughts.<br>

Here's an example of what I use now <br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/10220753<br>

happy shooting<br>

brian</p>

 

<p>Hey Tim,<br>

Center punch is something I definately didn't expect to hear but thanks for looking and taking the time.<br>

b</p>

<p>Stefon,<br>

Could you elaborate about what you find messy with the gallery layout? <br>

thanks for looking,<br>

b</p>

<p> The studio may have had a legitimate concern if someone was in fact taking credit for one their images. However, I do believe they handeled it poorly by requesting removal before investigating into who owned the copyright. I would expect them to be familiar with copyrights and it seems out of line and unprofessional of them to try and infringe on those of another protographer. The blog host responed far too quickly before lisitining to the OPs position which I think is lame but understandable.<br>

I would write a stongly worded but professional letter to the studio asserting my rights and asking them what grounds they have for surpressing my images.<br>

As to professional courtesy; it doesn't trump my own interests! The only other people who MAY have any claim to my photos and their usage are the people paying me or the people in them.<br>

Missy, I would be a little flattered that the studio went to all this trouble. Good for you. They either took your photo to be of such quality they mistook it as their own or they were embarrased that a guest could make images as good if not better than their own. <br>

Can't wait to see them.<br>

take care,<br>

B</p>

<p>sorry about the lack of a hotlink <br /> brian<br /> <a href="http://morenaphotography.com/site/Home_2.html">morenaphotography.com</a></p>

Hello all,

I've just created my first website and looking for comments. I'm hoping to

provide an outlet for some of my personel work. I realize it's a bit vague but I

have broad interests. People have expressed interest in using me In a semi

professional capacity so I wanted to basically create an online portfolio. Thanks

for looking

brian

morenaphotography.com

<p>Hey Luis,<br>

I totally think you should get the d700 and use your primes on it. It's a great full frame digital body with exceptional high iso performance. There may be better primes than the ones you have but I'm sure you'll be impressed. Of the ones you have I have the 35 f2, 50 f1.8, and 85 1.8, they all perform admirably. I only want to replace the 50 because the build quality doesn't match the d700 which I think is a silly reason. I love the 85, not sure what kent from SD is talking about.<br>

I tend to agree that a lens is more important than a body but to say the body is crippled by an old lens design is ridiculous. Older lenses have their own charm, a quality which has made nikon famous for their optics. Technically perfect photos do not neccesarliy make great photography. <br>

BTW nice photos <br>

Brian<br>

Morenaphotography.com</p>

<p>i bought a used tamron 28-76 from BH. about a week after i received it a sales rep called and said they needed to return my lens to the police. After talking with the salesman he said it was stolen from a NYC traffic cam. Apparently they figured the cameras had been stolen after they stopped getting pictures of people running lights.</p>

<p>Hey Lil,<br>

I Love primes as a low weight option. If you must have a zoom I'm curious why you haven't considered the nikon 35-70 f2.8? The tamron sounds interesting, I love my tammy 17-50 for dx. Tell Ross I say hello.<br>

Brian <br>

Morenaphotography.com</p>

<p>Hey Lil,<br>

Yeah Ross showed me some of your very impressive work a few years back and told me how you were reverse mounting lenses which inspired me to try. I was getting a roll developed and scanned to 24MB tiffs from A&I for 15$ in August but just learned that the new price is 25$ for the same service, so needless to say I don't have a good lab recommendation for well scanned negs but am on the look out and will let you know if I find anything interesting. Super fun to find you here.<br>

Brian</p>

<p>Hey Lil,<br>

Tell Ross Brian Morena says hi. If your looking in the used market Minolta made a scan duel 4 which I have and like, they also made a 5400 which was their high end model. Both well regarded and much cheaper than Nikon but probably not as well respected. Just a heads up, scanning film can be tricky buisness with a steep learning curve to get it right. The film I shoot these days get processed with a mid res scan which gives me 24MB tiffs of everything I shoot and costs less than prints. Not sure where you get your film processed but that could be worth looking into. Doesn't help with the old negs but saves tons of time with the film your shooting now. Good Luck and happy shooting,<br>

Brian </p>

<p>Hey Joel,<br>

I checked your site out looking for examples but didn't notice any size variation. Unless of course your referring to the portrait vs. landscape orientation? Give me a couple examples to look at and maybe I can be of more help. </p>

<p>Good luck,<br>

Brian</p>

He was definately thinking in similar terms. They were shooting in spherical 35mm with a 1.33:1 aspect ratio. They

probably had a full set of lenses but I'm not sure what the standard was. I've never seen a zoom that old but they may have

had them. Sorry I'm not much help with the specifics but I can say the lenses they were using had the same field of view to

the 35 lenses your used to using. If it looks like they are using a 150 the camera to subject distance would be the same for

your camera if replication is what your after. As to knowing exactly what lenses there using for certain shots, I would say

your best guess based on your experience is a good place to start.

 

Brian

Most cinematography consists of spherical 35mm lenses, for those movies field of view is basically the same as

a standard 35mm still camera your leica included. The aspect ratio which is basically piece of the film we finally see can

range from the whole negative which is would be a square like a T.V. to 1:1.85 which is the rectangle we view most

movies at, to 1:2.35 which is the narrow rectangle many bigger movies are shown in. There is also anamorphic 35mm

which is basically a squeezed picture that is unsqueezed while being projecting resulting in the 2.35 aspect ratio. These

lenses divide by half, a 100mm has the field of view of a 50. Your john ford western could have been filmed in this

format but is hard to tell with out knowing the title. As to bob and ronalds point about the different film size 70mm while

used is hardly popular and is usually reserved for special projects and imax these days. 16mm is probably more popular

these days and those lens's are times 2, a 25 has the field of view of a 50. Sorry for the longwinded and potential

confusing response. It seems like your question was mostly about field of view, so i hope i clarified more than confused.

BTW I've been a professional camera assistant in movies and television for over ten years just to let you know I'm not

talking out of my a**.

 

Cheers Brian

Good on you Patrick! Nice to see a grass roots effort to make the world a better place.

Brian

I had to share my recent story which may be of relevance to your situation. After my son

was born in august I decided I wanted a dslr so after much deliberation I decided on the

d80 and the 18-200vr as a one lens solution. I love the camera but the lens was the wrong

choice and after only having it for 2 months i sold it at quite a loss. The f5.6 was just too

slow and if I was wider at a f4 I would zoom in and forget to compensate resulting in a

dark picture. I bought the tamron 17-50 f2.8 and haven't looked back. For longer range I'll

probably get the sigma 50-150 2.8 even with a 1.4 extender it's still a f4 which is fraster

than most consumer zooms. For daytime soccer the nikon 70-300 would be a good bet,

the 5.6 wont be such a problem. Just remember for available light nothing is better than a

fast aperture I wish thought about it before my initial purchase. Good luck and have fun!