mike dixon

On the other hand, this Arkansas bill guarantees the right for people to photograph public officials as they are doing their job: http://www.thearkansasproject.com/arkansas-to-be-first-state-in-the-nation-to-protect-photographers-rights/

If you are using plastic reels, make sure they are completely and thoroughly dry before trying to load the film. Even a small amount of moisture can cause the film to jam.

I think you should send the event event planner a polite message explaining your policy, thanking them for crediting you on their blog, and asking that they replace the image on their front page with one bearing your information (include a copy of that image with your info clearly, but not too obtrusively, displayed on it). Think in terms of what will help your business. A letter demanding they remove your image will only burn a bridge; it won't benefit you in any way.

What do you consider lightweight? What do you consider fast? Lenses like 50/f1.4 and 35/f2 are compact and not very heavy.

Sticking with the St. Patrick's Day theme. It ain't easy being green . . .<div></div>

Very few of those shots were "selfies." A selfie is a self-portrait, usually shot at arm's length or, lately, with a selfie stick. Tourist shots that play with perspective have been around many decades.

As with most questions of this type, it really depends on what and how you like to shoot. I've traveled around Malaysia a couple of times and around Thailand many times. I carry a 5D, 24/1.4, and 50/1.4. I very rarely wish I had anything wider or longer. I do a lot of shooting in the dark, so wider apertures get used a lot. (I also have a very small, waterproof Sony point-and-shoot with a 24-100 equivalent zoom. Comes in handy if I'm not in "serious photography" mode and enjoying a day at the beach.)

<p>"It seems like they are trying to kill 35mm film."<br> <br />It seems like they're discontinuing a service that is no longer profitable for them. There are several mail-order film processing companies that will still develop and print your film.</p>

I think photography is the only field where anyone suggests that delayed feedback, practicing less, and paying more are beneficial to the learning process. I learned with film (starting when I was about six), and like Lex, I wish I could have taken a lot more photos without worrying about the cost. Probably would have learned a lot faster.

"If it is too difficult to understand, . . ." The saying itself isn't difficult to understand, but it's difficult to understand how it applies to moderating an internet forum. Not every concept reasonably applies to every situation. I wouldn't argue that having two lifeguards monitoring a big beach is safer than ten lifeguards monitoring that beach because, you know, too many cooks . . .

"do we really need a 24 hour guard to protect us against who knows what in each forum ? ? Are we talking about nudes or ad hominem violations, and if they appear is it really a question of minutes to push them out ?" People have already explained what constitutes "who knows what": deleting spam is the most-common moderator action, and moving threads to more-appropriate forums (where they are more likely to get a faster, more-useful response) is the second most common. Those actions probably constitute about 95% of what moderators do. No one has yet offered a clear explanation of how having more moderators interferes with the running of the site. If "too many cooks spoils the broth" is the most-substantive argument that can be provided, I could counter that with "a stitch in time saves nine."

M3, 50 Summilux, and 75 Summilux.

This "totally crazy and impossibly arrogant" seller has 100% positive feedback for a couple hundred transactions. He seems to do a much better job of satisfying customers than responding to complaints (from non-buyers) about his listings. I notice that there isn't actually a question in the first message to the seller. Perhaps he was annoyed by a second message demanding a quick response to an unasked question during a busy holiday period.

"what magazine you know, Mike, grants its readers the right to do whatever they like with the images they publish?" None of which I'm aware. Are you implying that photo.net grants its readers the right to do whatever they like with images published on photo.net? The Terms of Use very explicitly state that that is not the case. From photo.net's ToU: " Submitting User Content to any area of the Site does NOT transfer ownership rights. You retain the ownership rights to your User Content. By submitting User Content, however, you give certain limited rights to both photo.net and other photo.net users. You grant to other photo.net members permission to download a copy of images contained in your User Content, to make such alterations and markups for the purpose of commentary as they see fit, and to attach the modified images to their comments on your User Content. You also grant other Site users the right to quote your User Content in their own postings on the Site " The context in which a user is allowed to modify and re-post another user's work is reasonably specific; users are clearly NOT granted "the right to do whatever they like."

"does PNet redefine and retain ownership, for the sake of 'thread coherence'," No, photo.net makes no claims of ownership; photo.net is making use of the images under the terms agreed to in order to use the site. If you agree to allow a print magazine to publish one of your photos but later decide you don't want it there, is the magazine claiming ownership of your images by NOT collecting all copies of the magazine and cutting out your photo? Of course not! The image is being used in the way to which you agreed.

"Leica has the resources and the expertise to make a dedicated film scanner if there was enough demand for one." What resources and expertise does Leica have that Konica-Minolta and Nikon lack in the field of manufacturing film scanners? I suspect Nikon would still be making film scanners if there was sufficient demand to make it profitable.

"Photo.net said they weren't able to verify that I fact was myself because I can't remember the correct email adress, much less have access to that email at this point, so I wasn't allowed access to the account." I see this as a good thing. I really wouldn't want someone to write to photo.net claiming that they were me, and even though they couldn't even say what email address was used to create the account, photo.net would give them access to my account.

Getting a "correct" (or appropriate) exposure really isn't that challenging under most conditions, and other than post-exposure level adjustments, it typically has little bearing on how I further process the image. For me, the "first principle" is to take the shot at the correct instant of time--there's no way to fix bad timing after the shot.

You have an <b>unlimited</b> amount of time in which to edit and revise your posts <b>before</b> you hit the Confirm button. The words that get posted to the thread don't change from the way they're presented in the preview.<P> I won't repeat the arguments why there is only a short time to revise your post after it has been added to the thread because none of those have changed since previous discussions on the this topic.

Every photography grant I've heard of is awarded based on the vision and talent of the photography and/or the idea for the project. You're best luck in finding one based on capture media will probably be to check out grants offered by film-manufacturing companies.

Aside from a lens system to focus an image on the photoreceptors/sensor, your eye (and visual system) has very little in common with a camera and sensor. Your eye only has high resolution in a very small area directly in the center--as you move away from this area, the acuity and amount of color information decrease very rapidly. The reason you see a sharp-looking world with detail in both the bright and dim areas of a scene is because, as Edward Ingold said, your eye is constantly re-focusing and adjusting aperture and sensitivity as you scan the scene, and your brain puts all those pieces together into the world you see. Rather than a camera taking a single photo, a closer (though far from perfect) analogy to how your visual system works would be a camera with a telephoto lens scanning around a scene rapidly taking a series of photos (adjusting aperture, ISO, and focus for each shot) and a very-powerful computer assembling all those shots into a panoramic HDR image. In real time.

Another vote for something (bug, fluff, grass, etc.) right in front of and very close to the lens.

Bull's eye? Seriously? Voluntarily participating in an online forum where you can go any time the mood strikes you and discuss photography and directly-related topics with other people who share that interest is like going in to a factory at a designated time and being required to work a set number of hours in order to keep your job and earn your pay? I've never looked at it that way, but if that's the prevailing view, it's surprising that anyone participates in online forums.

Lex (and Ellis) are correct. It's a result of halation caused by overexposure in those areas. It's normal. Nothing is wrong with your camera or development.

5D2, Contax Zeiss 50/1.4, about f2.4 at 1/250, ISO 3200<div></div>