andre_grobler

<p>My dad had one, a SFxn with a 35-80 SMC-F and a 70-210 SMC-F. I wasn't really interested, just snapped away if I needed pics for varsity... all looked fine - even though I knew nothing.<br>

When starting my own company, I got a p&s for fieldwork, that got taken along with the other gadgets a gps and a PDA. Insurance time came around and my SO, now wife said, you need the GPS, you really enjoyed the camera, the PDA was a cool pain in the butt cause it never lived up to the promise. How about getting a nice camera? I went to the (you call them mom and pop style) store and picked them up, the K100D just felt solid, think I held a Canon 350D and some or other Nikon. I picked the Pentax, because it felt right from the beginning, not sure why I believed I had a notion as to what right might be, but being a fairly intuitive person, I've learnt to just trust my gut.<br>

Well in two to three years I've gone from happy snapper to dedicated photographer, the camera is just always there, fieldwork, holiday, when I pick up my wife from work, birthdays, weddings, baptisms, namings, housewarmings, work avoidance behaviour in the veggie patch. It'll be there when our first child is born next year, it might even get used, although I suspect I might not, but it'll be good to know my Pentax is there.</p>

<p>My K100D 26483... Which is surprising since I thought it was closer to 36000, was sure it rolled over a third time... Anyhow... two years on that's where it is going...</p>

<p>Re: flatbed scanner - Lighting possibilities?<br>

While I do not know much about coin photography, for general use the shorter macro's give a very nice field of view and have less intense lighting and Dof restirctions. So with a 50/60mm one can often get away with no flash, where flash is absolutely necessary for a 100mm</p>

<p>The extension tubes, your chosen lens' resolution sweet spot (with tubes diffraction sets in quicker) and focus stacking software, I like Combinezm - it's free, but allow good overlap between the exposures - otherwise lots of halos, wide open lenses contribute to these errors. Don't / (sharpen very little) the raw before the stack.<br>

Lighting - i've heard that too diffuse light is OK, not good, but haven't tried jewelry just flowers and bugs.</p>

<p>Curves, which I sortof prefer... even though you loose bits</p><div></div>

<p>My biggest problem is getting the grass / leaves to stand still when bracketing exposure... SO am mostly doing single exposure +PPP. Am still not too fond of the tonemapping I get, but then again I just use freeware (qtpfsgui), so i suppose the payware could be better... Here is prolly the best image that I tried to get done by single exposure and pp-ing five exposures and the other one is just curves applied to original exposure... in Pentax Photolab. Must say I have only tried this on a few images... Can't say I'm too fond of the jpg engine... but maybe it is the noise in the pp that causes loss of res when making image smaller...</p><div></div>

Have to agree, tubes mostly easier upto 1:1 but it is verynice to have auto aperture... when getting more than 1:1, Re: light, beyond 1:1 it is not much of a difference...

10/10 and 3/4... first time round... Dunno there is just something missing about some images...

P.S. anything beyond 1:1 is quite hectic i.t.o dof etc, so reversing 50 on 17-50 will already be nice to play with

INverted lens gives me my best IQ results between extension tubes and close-up lenses, but vignetting is a problem when at 1:1 less so at 2:1, it is also the most difficult, as the DOF is tiny and reach very short. BTW use old Pentax 50mm 1.4, works great. just use two of those filter stand off thingys and glue back to back... I find extension tubes the best compromise between IQ and ease of use... for chasing stuff, i have plenty of M42 that I can use the m42 pentax extension tubes with latest is old chinon 135 2.8, not great past f 11 and good for larger insects, even three stacked tubes only get you to 1:2.5...

Just mail her the links to this and other similar threads.

 

Was in similar situation, father in law got married again... I put it like this:

 

Me. You want pictures like at our wedding, right?

 

Dad - in law. Yes! their lovely

 

Me. Mmm... I cannot give you that...

 

DIL. But you take lovely pictures

 

Me. Yep if I'm at a social event indoors I usually get about one in fifty to sixty that is technically OK, and a

few of those are anything but record shots. You get to see those one in about 200 shots. Much better outdoors

though, we can make it one every 50... if there is no pressure... and I almost only do it if there is nice light

to start with... You are getting married at 9 am on the beach... if we are lucky it's cloudy

 

DIL, REALLY!?!?!

 

Me, Yup and besides, its a memorable occasion, I'd like to be part of it

 

So in the end they got a young nice wedding tog that did a two-hour stint, with inexpensive lenses and an

expensive flash, that took perhaps not sublime photos, but good solid photos of absolutely everything, no missed

people, no flash shadows in a very pleasant and natural style. and I got perhaps four natural light moments that

were quite good and just got the moment... and about twenty record shots after the pro left that could be

salvaged in pp. Of course they still think if I could get that four I must have been able to get the hundred the

pro got...

 

BTW, there is no reason from your portfolio that you wouldn't be able to do this, it is just the first time, the

inexperience with flash and the unknowns of light, and of course the family that counts against you...

My local photolab gives me a CD with photobook software, a screen tuner and a printed image that is also in jpg

on the CD... do exactly what you say, except using their printers instead of mine. Chucks out the trial and error

though, gives you a printed image already... Works a charm, the pictures are always much better printed than

on-screen... theirs is now one of my Nvidia profiles... must say I used the Graphics card colour management

utility instead of theirs recently... I got it last year... dunno how long it's been around...

I was uncomfortable with a lot of the nudes in the galleries, some still make me

uncomfortable - but that is me, it has no bearing on those involved in creating

those images - as they seemed perfectly happy doing so and the intent behind

them seems to be the beauty of form and a vision of circumstances - I may not

consider it art, but I don't think it is pornography either.

 

Recently I wanted to explore what it was that made me uncomfortable with the

nudes in the gallery, because I don't think they area wrong in the sense of

right and wrong (which has no bearing on how good they are). The process of

consciously thinking about these images showed me that my discomfort sprouted

mostly from my social upbringing. My spirituality has very little issues with

the images that my sociality have issues with... weird feeling. I tend to trust

my spirituality more for right and wrong, because it lies deeper and I think it

is more important.

 

So I have formulated this view - which you are welcome to tear to pieces.

 

I think one aspect is our predilection with what is right and wrong and my

social background focused heavily on this (so it may not be universal - and for

those unaffected people I am sorry for the wasted cyberspace) and as a result

the need to make rules to allow us to know which is which. I have come to the

conclusion that once one has to make rules to distinguish between the two you

are in trouble - rules are great for managing, not base decisions of right and

wrong. And I think the moderators and site-owner sums this up neatly "if they

think its pornographic, they take the image off"

 

I personally believe right and wrong hinges upon love, and from this flows that

the intent of the artist and the impact on the subjects/principal contributors

of the images, are probably paramount to know what is right or wrong in terms of

the image.

Of lesser importance to right or wrong of the image, is the effect on the viewer

and the suitability of the viewer, that is the responsibility (right or wrong)

of the viewer and the distributor - their social acceptability part - this is

the responsibility of the society to say we don't like it, we don't support you.

Not bad boy go to jail.

 

I think the intent is an important personal reality check for an artist, it is

mostly quite clear if you care to look at the image from the outside as well,

without prior prejudice - the without prejudice is a bit difficult - for me in

any case.

 

I think as an artist it would be wrong to make an image solely to hook a buyer

because of the viewers need for something. not saying you may not do it, just

saying it's not art, it's craft, or sales. An artist has to make an image from

his viewpoint / relationship of / with the world or subject and respect for this

relationship is at the core. After image is made they can be business person.

The same applies to nudes, wildlife, landscapes etc...

It is unfortunately difficult, but no less important to see what the impact on

those involved in the art is. Damaging the subject is wrong. So if

socio-economic circumstances forces, say a model, to do something that otherwise

he/she might not want to do (however deep that is buried) it is wrong, but the

same image will be perfectly fine for another model. If laws exist to prevent

this exploitation this is great - but I hope they rather try to deal with the

socio-economic issues rather than images.

I placed the limits on our wedding togs... just no flash during the sermon part, no shots during vows and I do parts. The kiss and rings etc. do what you want and need, preferably from about 3m+ away... don't interrupt proceedings. after service go wild as long as the light was good... Picked time and location for good light in the first place...

Loved the results... the church has lovely light that time of day, some of the pics were a bit noisy, but as I told them I'd rather have the moment than the shot... but it was a very spiritual thing for us, ymmv. We set the whole tone like that, so all the guests fell in with it, without being told, they only snapped while togs did...