mike dixon

<p><em>you can have a discussion off the topic of photography in a forum set aside for that purpose without disturbing a purely photography-oriented discussion (or you could if it were allowed)</em><br> <em><br /></em>You've conveniently ignored the fact that the off-topic forum was closed largely <strong>because</strong> of its negative effect on photography discussions and its overall negative impact on the site. As others have noted, if you have a strong desire to discuss non-photographic topics, there are plenty of other sites where you can indulge yourself. Insisting that photo.net should have such a forum is comparable to insisting that a book club should devote twenty minutes per meeting to arguing about sports, that town hall meetings should devote time to practicing opera singing, or that a science conference about quantum dynamics should have presentations on landscape photography.</p>

"My personal opinion is that moderators should not interfere in a discussion that has gone 'off topic' unless it has also become uncivil." Most people would see things such as going to the library to practice public speaking or going to a book club to argue about sports as uncivil acts. Disregarding the rules and intentions of the site, the forum, and/or a particular thread (and, in the process, showing no respect for the other users who are here because of their interest in photography) is fundamentally selfish and arrogant behavior. It is inherently uncivil. If moderators didn't interfere with posts that have not become "uncivil" (by your definition), the forums would be filled with spam.

Hugo, by your logic, only filmmakers can provide a valid opinion on whether or not a movie is good, only musicians can provide a valid opinion on whether or not a song is good, only chefs can provide a valid opinion on whether or not a meal is good, only brewers can provide a valid opinion on whether or not a beer is good, etc. The truth is that the overwhelming majority of people who might enjoy any type of creative work are not able to also produce good work of that type. If you're asking advice on how to achieve a certain result, then yes, I think it makes a lot of sense to see whether the person offering advice is actually competent in achieving such results. However, if you're asking people whether they think your photos are good or bad, their skill as photographers has no bearing on the quality of their opinion.

<i>DSLRs are already obsolete, but the RF system cannot be replaced (yet) with an electronic equivalent.</i><P> Meanwhile, out here in the real world, a majority of serious hobbyists and most professional photographers are still using DSLRs, and people have been mounting RF (and other) lenses on mirrorless cameras for years.

Here's the eBay listing for the item in question: http://www.ebay.com/itm/Honeywell-Pentax-Exposure-Meter-/161712883703?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2047675.l2557&nma=true&si=gjJSyoKLNboWSGemRm5PIizo%252BSw%253D&orig_cvip=true&rt=ncAnyone It sounds like the seller is not an expert in old photo gear, but he is a reliable and honest seller (100% positive feedback). If you did in fact receive the exposure meter described and shown in the listing, you don't have any basis for getting your money back. The listing clearly states no returns or exchanges. The seller did nothing wrong. There was nothing deceptive or inaccurate about his description. If you are going to buy old specialty items, it's your responsibility to do a bit of basic research on what you're buying.

I used to put a big, heavy book on top of them.

<i>I'm very sorry I've posted this much but no idea everyone was so fed up. if i'd known I'd quickly have gotten off photo net but am now. I tried to delete my post that opened this thread so no one would have to read it but that is not possible.</i><P> I just read through your last half dozen threads, and all I found was page after page of patient, helpful advice. I'm not sure where or why you're seeing that "everyone was so fed up."

A bit of nitpicking: Dodging is making a <b>part</b> of an image lighter (done in the darkroom by reducing the exposure from the printer on that part of the print). As to the question, Matt covered it.

Choosing to cover that war at that location at that time is far from being a neutral decision. A person's perspective cannot be divorced from his cause or ideology. While that person can attempt to present a more-balanced view, his idea of "balanced" is still profoundly influenced by his beliefs.

<I>I believe pure journalism should be about presenting clean true facts in a neutral way and then letting public opinion take over. </i><P> In the context of photojournalism, how would you do that? Close your eyes, wave the camera around randomly while continuously shooting, then publish every image it captures? If you make decisions about where to point the camera and when to fire the shutter, you are not operating in a truly neutral way.

When I travel, I focus on minimizing the weight and bulk of my photo gear. When I've taken more stuff, I very frequently regret carrying that extra weight; when I've taken less, I very rarely miss a particular piece of equipment I've left behind. I've learned to accept that I'm going to miss shots. Most of them will be missed because I wasn't paying enough attention or I just didn't feel like focusing so much effort on photography; very few are missed because I didn't have the right lens with me.

Already under discussion in this thread: http://www.photo.net/casual-conversations-forum/00dF80

The appropriate place is the Digitial Darkroom forum (the category Printing>Home Printer). You are much more likely to get a good answer there.

"how do you explain the success of photographers using film who's talent is what keeps them at the top?" They have a vision that gets expressed in their work. Using film is not what keeps them at the top (any more than using digital is what keeps other talented photographers at the top). The quote from the article does NOT say photographers who use film aren't "real" photographers; it says that the medium you use, the cameras you have, the lifestyle you want to emulate, etc. do not make you a photographer. The photos that you produce are what make you a photographer.

5D2, Contax 50/1.4, about f1.7 at 1/20, ISO 3200<div></div>

<i>Mike, someone disagreeing with you is not the same as someone not understanding what you say.</i><P> So you understood, and you consciously chose to completely misrepresent what I said. And, just to be clear, intentionally misrepresenting what I said is not the same as disagreeing with me. <P> <i>Discussing an issue is not the same as saying people don't understand unless they agree with your version.</i><P> Discussing an issue is also not the same as evading direct questions, ignoring the points I've raised, lying about what I said, making up facts (re legislation), and presuming to know what others will believe (re boarding up windows).<P> <i>No point, is there?</i><P> Obviously not.

<i> You brush what this photographer has done off as a case of accidentally catching a glimpse.</i><P> That is clearly not what I did. I pointed out that he was not a peeping tom because he was viewing (and photographing) things that were in plain view (rather than scaling the wall and trying to peer past curtains). In the future, if you don't understand what I'm saying, please ask me to clarify rather than making up your own version.<P> <i>There is legislation in place that expresses that general feeling.</i><P> If that were true, his neighbors would have won their initial suit; instead, they lost that and an appeal.<P> <i> all you need to do to is board up your windows so your neighbour doesn't have an opportunity to do so</i><P> Boarding up windows is hardly necessary. Drawing a curtain or closing a blind so that things are not in plain view is quite sufficient when you want privacy. Seriously, it works quite well. I have years of experience on this matter. Drawn curtain = privacy; open curtain = other people can see in through the window I can see out of.<P> <i>People will, i'm sure, think it better if that peeping neighbour's windows were boarded shut instead.</i><P> Yes, of course. Why should I be responsible for maintaining my privacy? It's much more reasonable to expect others to be prevented from seeing what's in plain view.

So, no, you refuse to directly answer my questions. Putting in smiley faces doesn't make it cute or clever--it just shows your unwillingness to directly engage in a substantive discussion.<P> <i>what would you say would make the difference between a peeping tom and someone who happens to catch a glimpse</i><P> What makes a "peeping tom" is fairly well established: making a special effort to circumvent someone's efforts to ensure privacy (for example, climbing up a ladder to closely peer through a small gap in someone's closed blinds or curtains). The artist in question photographed things that were in clear view from his own apartment.

I have taken photos out of my window, though I haven't been paying particular attention to what other people were doing in front of their windows at the time. If my neighbors spend all day looking at my apartment, they're going to be extremely bored. If I'm going to do something that I'm concerned about other people seeing, I close the blinds or move away from the window. Now, instead of evading my questions, can you actually answer them?

<i>The plaintifs did have privacy with a peeping tom taking pictures of them in their own home?</i><P> I've lived in high-rise apartments for several years now. So, if I'm in my apartment looking out my window, and I see a person standing in front of their uncovered window in another building, that makes me a peeping tom? Should it be illegal for me to look out my window and see stuff that is clearly visible?

Here's a fairly-thorough discussion: http://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/10232/what-does-it-mean-for-a-photograph-to-be-high-key Note that in the history section of that article, there are quotations from articles as far back as the 19th century about "high key." The idea that high key refers to the overall tone of an image predates the popularity of photography.

I agree with Matt. In a photographic context, "high key" and "low key" have always referred to the overall tone of the image. The usefulness of language derives from general agreement about what words mean. If you choose to use low and high to refer to lighting ratios, you're simply going to confuse people.

From the link: "However normally the focal length gets shorter the closer you focus," This is incorrect. Focal length gets longer as you focus closer, reducing the angle of view.

Is there a problem you're trying to report?

There's no point in trying to re-develop after the film has been fixed.