Art X Photography

<p>The fact remains that the Elves have and do make the choice of PoW. To that end, attempting to hijack (IMO) the selection process by airing out grievances is somewhat fruitless. That said, I have no issue with the grievances made here (its another way to provide feedback to the administrators) but judging form the responses relating to PoW, I'd suggest the site is as active as ever and to that end remains 'healthy'. There are many reasons why 'good' photographers come and go on this site, none the least of which are a result of other site contributors/subscribers. </p>

<p>Looking at the specs of this lens, I wonder if any of the major bag manufacturers will supply a bag to fit!</p>

<p>my 70-200mm f/2.8 is the workhorse of my work. Hard to give up and so I'll stick to that</p>

<p>I remember paying about AU$9.5K for my 400mm which was a real stretch to justify to my wife. I wont even consider asking about the 800mm. I'll simply grab my pillow and go sleep in the dog house:)<br /> I can't imagine this lens being more than $13k. If, its speculated weight is correct at almost 5.5kg, this is definitely going to be a hand full to carry around. Maybe they should supply the hard case with wheels! Hard to imagine this lens comes without VR options (there's been no mention of it thus far)<br>

I don't think Nikon ever considered selling it in time for the Olympics. By "potentially in time for .." I'm suggesting it may be offered to pro photographers to use. By announcing it before hand they don't have to worry about hiding its existence </p>

<h3>"Announcing the super-telephoto, 800-mm, fixed focal length lens for pro photographers"</h3>

<p>http://mynikonlife.com.au/news#announcing-the-super-telephoto-800-mm-fixed-focal-length-lens-for-pro-photographers</p>

<p>Looks impressive and potentially JUST in time for the Olympic games (for pro photographers). Seems like a great match up for the D4. Of all the rumoured and expected announcements from Nikon, I admit I never saw this one coming!<br /> Thoughts?</p>

<p>Julie what you consider a revised question in my subsequent postings was in fact a break down of the same question, in laments terms since you don't actually know what humanism is nor do you bother to educate yourself before posting your response. What strikes me more is you STILL persist without knowing. Go back and actually read up on what Humanism is before continuing to comment. Also you didn't even bother to do me the courtesy of reading my post and the reference to the term "autonomous" (as I applied it) instead choosing to spent your effort towards insulting and offensive analogies. It only serves to undermine you. At any rate Its evident you and some others have no interest in understanding or answering the question and so there is no need for this to continue. I'm sure there will be many other threads for you and others to continue showcasing your 'dedication and zealousness to the Philosophy of photography forum!<br>

To quote someone who has best summed up the evident ignorance and hostility in this thread "<strong>The level of intolerance and willful misunderstanding may, indeed, answer your very question about values."</strong><br /> And so it has. Thank you</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thank you Fred and j.d. You have added value to the thread.</p>

<p>I'd happily continue this conversation in email and let others continue the thread in the spirit its intended. clearly you have lost the meaning of that spirit Eric :)</p>

<p>Julie, clearly you have confused my use of the term autonomy and the meaning of humanism in general. In my initial thread I said the following "..the autonomy of human reason.." as it applies to humanism as a school of thought; and to suggest autonomy from religious and spiritual doctrine in our reasoning. (as suggested by that school of thought)<br>

If you actually understand what humanism is and then re-read the question posed you will see there's nothing "nutty" about the question .<br>

Independent of religion and spirituality (ie humanism) do you find photography helps shape morality, ethics and so on or do those values shape photography? it's quite a simple question actually.</p>

<p>Eric, I do not need to test every Tokina lens to appreciate what many professional photographers are saying about the D800 and what lenses will maximise its performance. I also don't need to use the D800 to know that in order to work with the large file size of the 36MP processor one needs to have at least a 8Gb memory ram speed processor computer.<br>

I also haven't tried all Nikon lenses on my D700 but I know my 70-200mm f/2.8 is far better than other Nikon's zoom lenses based on its performance , versatility and price. Again to use your words this is not hearsay and speculation but an educated guess. That educated guess is based on my use of the Nikon 16-35mm AND the countless forums which support what I'm saying.<br>

I would also add that the Tokina 16-28 is heavier and doesn't take filters. I haven't used the Tokina to also know this, but just like these facts are undisputed I also accept when professionals who actually use the D800 make comments regarding the best glass used.</p>

<p>Leonard @ 18mm and above there is no distortion or vignetting in the 16-35mm.<br /> @ Eric,<br /> the compromise on the sensor (as I have suggested here) isn't specific to the widest angle of the lens where, as you suggest, the tokina may have the edge over the nikon. The compromise IS however in the sharpness of the lens <strong>overall</strong> and on this point I stand by my comment that the Nikon glass is in fact sharper and better able to optimise the camera's sensor. I'd suggest that's far more important to landscape photography! I haven't made any generalisation of Nikon <strong>"always"</strong>being better than Tokina (re-read my post please). Thats your interpretation and you have simply inferred that from my comment. To date Tonika do not produce a lens capable of maximising the D800 sensor, thats simply a fact. In fact only a few Nikon lenses can do this well. As I have stated and as Douglas has re-iterated, the distortion of the Nikon at its widest can easily be corrected in post production.<br>

I can give you many examples where Tokina produce a better lens than Nikon in DX format but thats not the issue at hand here. The thread is specific to the D800<br>

To use your words, I'd be a bit more careful when interpreting someone's comments when offering advise.</p>

<p>Fred G "How would photography determine our humanism?"<br>

Fred, one could argue that photography either as a form of language (as mentioned by Matt) artistic expression or documenting history could help shape our culture our beliefs and our actions present or future. I put it to you that as a language, photography could speak universally helping nations, age groups varying socio-economic groups etc communicate and so help promote secular humanism. As a form of artistic expression one can make the claim that photography can also help promote autonomous human reasoning as prescribed in post renaissance. In other words can photography help shape our thinking independent of church or spirituality (this is what I refer to as autonomous human reasoning in my initial posting)? Finally, in documenting world events (such as the Holocaust) could photography not help shape our global thinking of what governments should or shouldn't do to prevent future atrocities? Isn't this type of thinking a measure of humanism? <br>

You touch on this in your later acknowledgment that humanism on some level touches upon these things and this is exactly the question at hand as I have suggested it (I have purposely used the term humanism to suggest no religious influences. To look at photography and humanism independent of religious and spiritual thinking and apply a more clinical (if you will) approach).</p>

<p>@ Julie<br>

I acknowledge your suggestion from a religious perspective but I believe one can in fact analise human nature independent of it and so respectfully disagree with you that "humanism is an unwarranted assumption"</p>

<p>@ Alan<br>

my values too come before my photography but I also put it to you that looking at popular culture and/or the influence of the media, one can argue that photography has in fact helped shape young minds, generations of X's and Y's and given rise to a different way of thinking, be it body image, social interactions and so forth.<br>

I have purposely left spiritual and religious values out of the equation precisely because I'm interested in humanism and photography not human nature as it applies to religious or spiritual influences.</p>

<p>I know many people who are neither spiritual or religious and are very much "complete individuals"!</p>

<p><strong>("Humanism = A system of thought that rejects religious beliefs and centers on humans and their values, capacities, and worth"... <em>the free dictionary</em>.) </strong><br>

This definition of humanism is universal <strong><br /></strong><br>

In the hope of clarifying things, let me re-phrase the question....<br>

Independent of religious doctrine or the belief in a higher power, does photography help shape our values, add to our worth and help promote human welfare OR do those things (values, worth, welfare) influence our photography?<br>

I refer to humanism as a system of thought that deals with human interests, values dignity etc.. <strong>independent</strong> of religious doctrine/ influence and where the measure of moral value or even the advancement of humanity is not on the belief in a greater power</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Leaving aside any 'pretense' (the term is used suggestively) to religious, spiritual,cosmic or other power superior to that of human existence and embracing the autonomy of human reason, interests and well-being, <strong>does</strong><strong> photography determine our humanism or does our humanism govern our photography? </strong></p>

<p>Given you have yourself a pretty good camera body in the D800 I would suggest sticking to Nikon glass rather than any other brand. Firstly, why compromise on your lens? this only serves to undermine the quality of a 36MP D800 sensor . Secondly, the added $500 is a small cost when you consider a) you have already spent a large amount of money on a body and b)the quality in image is well worth the extra cost. Thirdly, I use the Nikon 16-35mm f/4 and can honestly say its well worth the money spent. With very little vignetting and blurring on the edges (@ 16mm) that can easily be corrected in post production with no cost to image quality and sharpness throughout (@ 18mm and above) this lens will be with you long after you've decided to upgrade your camera body. I believe in the school of thought that suggests investing in quality lenses before investing in camera bodies.</p>

<p>In another forum thread this topic was discussed in which I stated then and hold true still that style is born from experience and time.</p>

<p>In a photographic sense, style is formed through experimentation and refinement in post production. When one identifies what works and what doesn't they tend to stick to that and so their style takes shape. Style can of course be learned when one mimics another's editing technique/style and reshapes it/tweaks it to suit their needs thus making it their own. Style can also represent composition, again born through time and experience but also can be learned by mimicking another's compositional form and adapted to their own. Aside from mimicking, style can also be one's perception of the world through the lens but ever present for style to exist is time and experience behind the lens.</p>

<p>Great topic for discussion (well done on bringing it to light Andrew M) and fascinating reading of everyone's thoughts on this.<br>

For me its all about the light. Like colour (or the absence of it), light is not a static form of symbolism in real terms (its every changing and fluid), yet ironically enough in photography its very much both a momentary and timeless capture; an oxymoron if you will....<br>

And so for me light is the ultimate form of symbolism both as a viewer and a photographer. For me it represent the message being conveyed both obvious and subliminally, not independent of composition but part of it. As a simplistic example, for me, harsh light appeals to my sense of rawness/edginess/aggressiveness while soft light symbolizes an ethereal/soft/ gentle mood. I try to use soft light to symbolize the gentle nature of animals that may hopefully appeal to one's environmental consciousness , as an example.</p>

<p>@ Laurentiu<br>

point well taken</p>

<p>"<strong>I think where you go wrong is that the intent is reality (or making it seem real to viewers), and that the communication is based on false pretences. i think they're trying to sell a dream of perfection, and the photos are edited to suit that purpose.</strong>" Wouter</p>

<p>I don't feel the premise is false Wouter. They're selling a product and basing the end result of its use on the photo-edited version of the model's skin. They're saying 'use this and you will look like this' but its based on an image that's been edited in a way that the average person would not think twice to question (I know, I know I'm cynically not giving the general population due credit for appreciating a photo manipulated image from a genuine photo). They're making an analogy between their product and the skin of the model promoting that product. They're suggestively selling an end result which is based on air brushing rather than the true result of the product's use. I put it to you, that when that advert is viewed, the correlation between the product and the model 's skin texture is designed to be self evident without it being factual. Remember, they're not selling a Ferrari through suggestive selling of a lifestyle or a dream by placing a beautiful woman in the scene (which we all know in reality doesn't work that way). That type of image is blatantly obvious to be nothing more than a <strong>association </strong>of success . Rather, the advert promotes a product that the audience associates with the model's skin tone and the distinction of reality and fantasy is very much blurred. That's my point here. <br>

"<strong>So, should we consider <em>the matters of degree and the various qualities of these different sorts of manipulations</em>?"</strong><br /><br>

<strong> </strong><br>

No I don't think that's the point of ethical consideration I do however see it being about the product being sold and whether the photo/image in question is a marketing tool of humour, obvious unrealism and suggestive selling or intentional deception.<br /><br>

Applying a perfectly smooth skin to an advert of skin cream promotion <strong>is</strong> deceptive IMHO, when that image makes no clear distinction that the image has been manipulated. But I agree to disagree with you on this.<br /><br>

<br>

Fred also makes an interesting point when he says "<strong>I can distinguish intentional and non-intentional poses, though, from more natural movements</strong>" For me, this is where the reality of an image comes into question and so the intent of its use can be ethically analysed as opposed to it being right or wrong independent of its intended use. When an ordinary and rational person can look at an image and make a clear distinction of reality and fantasy then that image no longer carries an ethical dilemma. If, on the other hand, that distinction is not evident and that image is used to promote a product or a lifestyle as a factual end result, then it raises concerns for me. <br /><br>

**sorry for the long spill:) ** <br /><br>

<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Actually its not based so much on naivete (although that is also a factor) as much as its based on a 'need ' to believe what is projected through the media. That need circumvents both logic in questioning the validity of such images and allows for the sublime deception of such images to continue <br /> In answer to the question, Julie, regarding present and/or historical false advertising of body imagery... No I can't provide an example to the contrary because it has always existed. I'm not suggesting otherwise, nor am I laying claim to this being a phenomenon associated only to photography. I'm simply suggesting photography is another medium of such advertising and that the genre of images currently under discussion are part of the myth being sold. This doesn't negate the ethical questions and accountability of such advertising, much like the ethics of war cannot be negated simply because of its historical existence.</p>

<p>"Did those retouched photos fool anybody? (If they did, I guess you must be puzzled by this thread.)"</p>

<p>@ Julie. Yes they did and continue to do so. Look at any teen/tabloid magazine , then look at their target audience and you will see a large percentage of teenage girls, and boys for that matter, enthralled by images of supposed beauty and fitness. They are fooled every day and wanting of that beauty will starve, suffer from bulimia etc... in order to achieve it. But I'll go one step further than the teenage market audience and suggest the whole cosmetic industry is founded on false advertising towards a target audience of men and women far older. An industry managed through the use, in large, of photo editing/retouching images that most people simply do not see as anything other than genuine. </p>

<p>Although I agree with the first part of what Wouter Willemse says, where I do differ from him is in the suggestion that such photo editing software is 'no different to pushing the saturation slider way out on every fall foliage Landscape' and "What you like, and what you feel is correct treatment of an image and how it is presented, is not all that relevant". The creators intent is not to communicate facts but rather an 'idea'. That I can live with and accept only when it is not based on an illusion which is often perpetuated by the media into thinking its factual. It is nothing like pushing the saturation slider way up, or way down for that matter, because there is a conscious effort to deceive the view through sublime editing and communicate an intent based on false pretences. Although an image is not always about reality, when its intent is designed to be exactly that, then that image stops being about like and dislike and becomes an issue of ethics in false advertising (when these images are used to sell/communicate a product or an idea)</p>

<p>I think style is a measure of one's consistency in capturing varying subject matters. In reference to 'style' in photography being comparative to 'style' in dress sense, one can wear many different types of clothing yet exhibit a similar style in colour, texture or presentation. I find photography to be similar in that sense.<br /> I would go so far as to say that style is also a measure of habit. The more experience one gains the more habitual they become and the more pronounced their 'style' appears to be. Habit may not always be obvious to the subject so much as it is definitive to others.</p>

<p>my mistake I misunderstood the f/stop count for this lens. Josh has correctly advised</p>

<p>The use of a tele-converter will invariably reduce your f/stop count. The magnification value will correspond with the loss of f/stop. Reducing shutter speed wont change the f/stop count. For the lens you described, Annette, I see no problem with using a 2x tele as the f/stop will be around 4. That's more than adequate for such focal lengths</p>