anunes

<p>I am looking for a company that have insurance for my photo gear but still could not find. I live in Brazil and would like to have a policy with worldwide cover. I actually could find some companies with this kind of policy, both in US and UK, but they do not accept non-residents as their clients. Does anybody have any tip?</p>

<p>In the LCD it display a combined charge of the two batteries. In the main display you can find their data separately.</p>

<p>Well, I could unpack the files and install them as directed in the Readme file. However I got the following error message as I load up PS:<br>

 <br>

Plug-ins that failed to load:<br /> <br />    Adjust NO VERSION -  - from the file “PTools”<br />    Correct NO VERSION -  - from the file “PTools”<br />    Perspective NO VERSION -  - from the file “PTools”<br />    Remap NO VERSION -  - from the file “PTools”Flash:<br />    Connections<br />    Kuler<br /> Installed TWAIN devices: NONE<br>

 <br>

Any thoughts?</p>

<p>Guys<br>

I swear I've read every post regarding Fish Eye correction before puttting this question. Does anyome can guide me throgh a proper installation of PanoTools for Mac so I can finally correct barrel distortion on my fish eye taken photos. I can't not even unpack the .hqx file I've downloaded - I gota error message.<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Remember EF-S lenses don't fit in FF bodies - if you decide to upgrade later...</p>

<p>I'd go with Zenfolio. I've done mine with it. Check it out: www.anunesphotography.com</p>

<p>Fred<br>

I really appreciate your May 10th post, related to my last comment. I think we are in the right track here in this thread with many more contributins and open-minded comentators than the opposite (although we still have those who like to show up in the middle of a progressive and constructive debate just to criticize it - OK, we should be open to that)</p>

<p>All: as the OP I should be more present to the discussions but unfortunatelly work is taking much of my time right now. Please lets keep feeding good ideas and references. I promised I'll be back soon.</p>

<p>Try Zenfolio!</p>

<p>Steve, thanks the new ACR solved the problem.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Not to me. You'd have to flesh out what you mean by a feeling as a representation.<br>

 </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred<br>

 <br>

If for example I look to a photograph of a father and a son and it makes me remind my childhood an all the love I feel about my own father, I understand I can say this photo is a kind of a representation of love, more than just a ordinary scene.</p>

<p>Does anyone know why Photoshop CS4 is not able to open a s-RAW file generated by a 5DM2? Although its file name extension is CR2 like the standard Canon files, something is happening that I cannot open the files.<br>

Thanks</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your use of "representation" and "copy" seems object-oriented. For me, it leaves out how stuff looks and feels. Sometimes, it's about how a photo looks or makes me feel, not what it looks <em>like</em> or what it makes me think <em>of</em> .</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fred<br>

I agree with you that many times a photo can make us feel something - isn't this feeling just another form of representation?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When you have time, please explain the logic that gets you to this conclusion. I don't understand how you've moved from what I said about Impressionism to the idea that a photograph is a copy of a representation. What are the steps that lead you from Impressionists expressing something about the qualities of nature to photographers photographing copies of representations?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Fred<br>

The steps were as follows: when you say "The Impressionists did not <em>copy</em> nature, they were more concerned withsome of those <em>qualities</em> you spoke of when referring to the apple: color, texture, light, movement", I understand that, when trying to express those qualities in their paintings, they were nothing but <strong>painting a representation of something</strong> they envisaged in a particular object (or scene if you like). If one, for instance, gave importance to the texture of apple and tried to refer to that in a particular drawing, what he was implicit doing was extracting a particular element that composes the totality of that apple and representing it in his painting. So, if I do the same with photography (if I try to extract from something an element of it) I am copying a representation of such characteristic.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can you explain or limit what it is that is meant by "event" of which you say a photo is made of "several" and also, what is "a single frame" of which a photo is "never"?</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>What I meant is the following: to take a photo is to register an interval of time, as several comments in this thread has also explained and agreed. Considering that you are never capable of determine or capture/register a single frame - what you do is to capture/register a sequence of events that, by the limitations of our senses, appears to our eyes and mind like if it is just one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Impressionists did not <em>copy</em> nature, they were more concerned withsome of those <em>qualities</em> you spoke of when referring to the apple: color, texture, light, movement. I wouldn't say that Monet didn't paint haystacks. He did. But I don't think he painted copies of haystacks.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Using the example of the Impressionists you've just confirmed my thesis that sometimes we are copying a representation of something when we photograph! A representation, but still a copy.<br>

I know I am not being able to follow-up every post, specially those who are questioning my initial proposition - I'll promise I'll try to catch up things in the weekend...</p>

<p>Please keep posting once I think many good points of view are appearing and the debate is exciting.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>All<br /> To those who are trying to take my proposition and have a high level debate over the questions, I'd like to apologize for my reaction above to Paul's post.<br /> Let's go back to where we should stay and remind the very beginning of our discussion. As Phylo mentioned the main question was if a photograph is a copy of a real subject or if it is a copy of a representation. Implicit in my question is an affirmation that a photograph is a copy, which I think the majority here agree.<br /> Before asking that, I've mentioned time and its relationship with photographs just to make a point whether our senses are capable of capturing the "real" or if, even in our daily activities, all we face and fell are representations of the real objects, as described by several philosophers - and that photographs, with its intrinsic limitations, would only demonstrate that.<br /> I really think we can extract very good insights from several posts above. Let's keep exploring!</p>

<p>Paul<br>

If you don't bother about philosophycal issues, I politely ask you: what are you doing in a forum like that? Just stay in the Gallery area of photo.net looking and laughing....</p>

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

My intention when proposing this thread was not to eliminate or diminish our pleasure as photographers, which in my opinion should be kept in its plenitude. So if you prefer not to think about the "magic"in itself, no problem - just keep shooting!</p>

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

If an object may vanish from a picture just because it does not stay still during the shutter aperture, it does not mean that a photograph is not <em>a kind of a short</em> movie (please mind the "kind" word in my original post). Even in a traditional movie, if an object just passes in front of the video camera fast enough it will not be capture. It is all a matter of proportions, not concepts.</p>

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

I totally agree that capturing is different from recording and all this debate should be about the capacity of photographs to really capture a single moment and the difficulties we, as human beings limited by our senses, have in understand such peculiarities.</p>

<p>Guys<br>

I really appreciated your cooperation along the discussion. Just as a matter of curiosity I'll keep my Xsi and probably start collecting some better glasses as long as my budget allows.<br>

Thanks everyone.</p>

<p>Fred<br>

You've raised a good point in all this discussion which is how the representation or reality of things may or may not affect our photographs. To be very honest I am still not exploring such (alleged) dichotomy into my work and neither I'm aware of someone that has done it on purpose (but I'm not what you'd call an expert in the history of photography). But I do think we can incorporate these thoughts into our routines as photographers, and each time we point out to a subject think if we are planning to capture the object in itself or some kind of its representation. Thinking a little bit more about this, I think we all do something in this direction when shooting: sometimes we are aiming at showing "something" behind the scene (its meaning, its correlation to the world, its context to a situation, etc), and in other opportunities we are just looking for the pure beauty of a picture (like in a landscape photo).</p>

<p>All, I'm loving the different angles that are appearing in this thread.<br>

Just as a matter of refreshing one of my initial thoughts, I'd like to emphasize the distinction (if possible) between real and its representation, as thoroughly and brilliantly explored by Schopenhauer and the likes.<br>

When I look at an object, say an apple, what exactly am I looking at? Is there such a thing like an apple or are a certain shape + smell + texture +... something that we represent to ourselves as an apple? I know this is a long an almost eternal debate - wheter our senses are limitations to our minds and thoughts - and that it is was addressed by some of the most famous philosophers specially from the mid-1800.<br>

What I would like to discuss here is how phoptographs can add (or subtract) from such debate. Is a photoghraph a proof that objects exists for real? If I can materialize a copy of it, does that mean it is real? Or the photograph is just another type of representation, captured and sensed by the same system we have in place by mother nature and which is limited by its own characteristics?</p>

<p>Alain<br>

I agree with your "there's a lot of peace in simplicity" statement, but I have to put another perspective to the rest of your thoughts. Although we can opt to forget about all philosophical aspects of our lives and simply enjoy it (including photography) I believe things and life can gain some more meaning and, at least, more excitement if we just not stop questioning and reflecting about it. Isn't philosophy all about it?</p>

<p>Peter, thanks for your post - it was really useful!<br>

As you've touched in the lenses subject, I'd like to have opinions about the right set of lenses to have, taking in consideration what I already got, which is:<br>

- a very old Canon EF 35-80mm/1:4-5.6<br>

- a very old Canon EF 75-300mm/1:4-5.6<br>

- a Sigma DC 18-125mm/1:3.8-5.6 HSM<br>

- a Sigma APO Macro 70-300mm/1:4-5.6 (I've got as a gift from a friend)<br>

- a Canon Macro EF 100mm/1:2.8 USM<br>

I really don't have specific photos I like to take, basically I'd like to have a set that enables me a good performance in any field (portraits, macros, landscape, etc)</p>

<p>Guys, I'm kind of lost here. Lets use an example to have it cleared:<br>

XSi with a 100mm lens<br>

5DMkII with the same 100mm lens<br>

I understand that the Xsi has a crop factor of 1.6x making the lens above appears like a 160mm used in a FF body. I would have more zoom using the XSi and consequently I would loose some of the overall image when compared to the same photo (taken from the same position) with the 5DMkII, although the resolution (# of pixels per line) of the XSi would be 23% better than the FF. Is that correct?</p>

<p><strong>"To reach the limit that not even mathematics can explain and trying to freeze time and capture a moment of eternity - that's what photography means to me and this is the reason I'm always trying to see things as unstable as they are."</strong> <br /> <br /> This is how I present myself in my website (www. anunesphotography.com), and I'll explain why and propose a debate around this thought.<br /> <br /> Any photographer knows that when you press your finger to take a "photo" you are actually commanding the shutter aperture which will be opened for a while and capture a reflection of your subject during that time. It may be just a small fraction of time (say 1/1000 sec) or even minutes, depending on the type of picture you are aiming at.<br>

Even though the time may vary what we will capture is NOT a single moment, it is actually a kind of a short movie or the sequence of infinite moments that our eyes and thoughts cannot reach! What we see when we look at a photograph is simply the occurence of several events in a row, never a single frame!<br>

What does that mean? Maybe with photographs we are facing an example of what some philosophers treated as the limits of our senses, or the limit of what is actually real.<br>

Is a photograph a copy of a real subject or is it a copy of a representation?<br>

Let's debate!</p>

<p>A. Nunes</p>

<p>Hi everybody, I'm new to this forum (my first post) but already impressed with the level of cooperation I could see in other posts!<br>

I used to take photos when I was a young adult with an old EOS 1000F which I still have. I have recently resumed this passion and bought a Rebel XSi for begining - to be very honest I started to study and read about every aspect of modern photograph AFTER I bought the camera and rapidly regreted about not going to a better body - so I decided to invest a little more and went straight to the 5D Mk2.<br>

My doubts are:<br>

- Should I keep the XSi as a backup? Is there any benefit of having a full frame as well as a crop sensor body? Can I use my lenses taking advantages from the different sensor sizes?<br>

Thanks<br>

A. Nunes (please take a look at my portfolio at www.anunesphotography.com and live your impressions)</p>