pete_dickson1

<p>In response to those looking for a way to frames & mat 8x12s, Nielson Bainbridge makes a studio metal frame for this size in their Artcare line. DickBlick.com is one on-line distributor. All things considered, these are a relatively reasonable way to get an 8x12 print hung under glass pretty quickly.</p>

 

A couple of months ago I had Mr. Elliot install the chip for my 400/3.5. The workmanship was top notch. The turn around time was as promised. I spoke to him "real time" on the phone before sending the lens mount. I e-mail a follow-up question and got a prompt reply. The lens works exactly as promised (on a Fuji S2).

 

as they say, though, your mileage may vary.

 

Pete

Bob is right, of course. This is what I've found: When I'm watching an animate subject through a long lens I'm waiting for just the right moment - so there's no time to mess with MLU anyhow, furthermore the thing's moving around so I constantly have to reframe - So, my left arm is draped over the top of the lens above the tripod mount, my right hand is on the shutter release, and my face is smashed against the camera back when I press the button. This gives me sharp photographs. If I'm shooting something like a distant portion of the landscape with a long lens + TC I use an additional long-lens support that attaches to the camera tripod socket and one of the tripod legs - the whole thing is very rigid and I can use MLU and a cable release. This gives me sharp photographs too - but you obviously can't always work this way.

 

Question two: it depends on what you mean by "is."

Curt - before you weld the bolt onto the C-clamp, make sure it fits the tripod head. I think many of the common tripod heads in the U.S. are threaded 3/8-16 thread on the bottom not 1/4-20.

I'm considering a spring trip to photograph flowers in any of several

desert regions. I understand the flowers generally do better when it

rains. Is there someplace I can find data on current season rainfall

to help with the decision?

If I understand the concept it would let you plop the tripod down and have the base of the tripod head level itself or be easily leveled. If that's what you're thinking, it would be a gizmo that I wouldn't buy because it would do ME no good. Besides, I wouldn't want to carry it. I do try to level the tripod base to get the most stable base possible, but I use a ball head, so the level that I record is determined by the camera position, not the tripod position. I wouldn't want it any other way because most things I photograph have no horizon and I shoot at the angle that gives me the best composition. Same's true of most other heads I can think of - I reckon that's why pan-tilt heads have two handles. What I need is a really thin, but sensitive pair of levels at right angles that I can affix permanently to the back of my camera. I don't like the hot-shoe levels because they're not sensitive enough (and they're easy to lose). I have such a level set, designed for rough carpentry, but it's kind of bulky - and very cheesy looking. I still might glue it to the back of the F4 - what's another 100g on the back of that beast anyhow? My hesitation is that I won't be able to get the thing off when I break the vials in the levels.

Looks like "The Wave" formation in the Coyote Buttes. BLM land in Utah. I've never been there, but I've seen 1000 photos of the place.

Dan,

I get paid for working in a different creative area (research and development)and there is no question whatsoever about who owns anything I create using company time OR resources - The Company does. It seems logical that other types of employers would take the same stance, fair or not.

A Dachkantprisma is a pentaprism. A Dachkanprismensucher is a

pentaprism finder. Given this, I don't think there's enough

information to know if there's a real glass prism in there.

I don't know if he's still alive, but a gentleman named Ralph Scott used to do an occasional program and/or judging for our photo club. Mr. Scott used one of the Olson flash units you're asking about. His inflight bird photographs were sometimes astounding. Some of his work is posted here

 

http://www.gregscott.com/rwscott/rwscott.htm

 

maybe someone associated with that site can help you.

I spent a few days in the Capitol Reef area last March. I need to go back a few times. Based on my very limited experience I think the Cathedral Valley might be your better choice because it is quite different from Zion & Bryce - (don't know about Escalante/GS because I drove through that area at 4 am in a snow storm). On the other hand, it's not an easy place to do in a day - it's a long drive on an unpaved road. Unless you get up very early - or camp back there - you won't be in the Cathedral Valley itself for the best light - even then you might not be in the best place if you haven't had a chance to scout your morning shoot properly...

Title says it all. I would like to rent a Fuji GW690 for 10 days. If

I can't find that I'll go for a GW670. USA shops only, please.

That's what I get for providing more information than necessary. What

I meant was the exposure meter display in the viewfinder of the F4

reads out in 1/3 stop steps. So if you need 1/3 stop less exposure

you tweak the aperture ring until the display shows the next tic lower

- it'll be between f-stop detents on the lens, but is really is a

metered 1/3 stop. One more tweak until the display shows two tics for

a 2/3 stop change.

This fell on apparently deaf ears elsewhere, so I'll try here:

 

<p>

 

Do any of the F100 owners out there know how the camera functions with extension tubes. This might be a decisive factor to me. Specifically, I'm wondering if the meter works directly or if it requires some compensation (like the F4 does). Thanks!

Yes, that's right. The metering display is in 1/3 stops, so you can

tweak exposure with the aperture ring.

There's the question of unethical photographic practices - like uprooting wildflowers because you don't like where they're growing or staging predator/prey interactions - then there's the question of unethical photographic descriptions, ie lying. If you use a mister then claim it's natural dew, you are lying which is unethical.

 

Using reflectors, unnatural backgrounds, and even spray bottles is not unethical as far as I'm concerned. Not telling the truth about how you made the photograph would be unethical.

Well - at least I was right that the grand announcement was about big

stuff. At 7am EST today, the D1 digital SLR, 17-35f2.8 AFS, 85f2.8

Tilt/Shift Micro and SB-28DX were announced by Nikon. Sigh. I

couldn't afford the 20-35/2.8, so I'm sure the 17-35AFS will be way

out of my league. I don't care about a digital SLR. A flash upgrade,

nah, I sometimes use an SB23 that doesn't even have a TV screen on the

back.

 

<p>

 

But Tilt/Shift Micro now there's an idea. If that lens costs less

than an EOS body and Canon's 90-TS I might jump on that bandwagon.

The lens interests me primarily for landscape work, so I wish they'd

introduced a 35-TS, but at least Nikon is reponding to the TS lenses

Canon has had out there for years!

You guys just don't get it. It has to be something "big." Something

Nikon is sure a lot of people will care about. Sorry, a fix for

design faux pas like the F100 MLU and plastic back wouldn't be the

sort of thing they'd even want to draw attention to. Neither would

extension tubes that work. Most people wouldn't even know what an

extension tube is. Same thing for the tilt-shift lens. No, I think

Nikon is going to announce their reponse to Canon's IS (Image

Stabilization) technology. I don't know what it will be though, maybe

all F5s will come with one of those Kenyon gyro stabilizers welded to

the tripod socket.

After I read this thread I looked carefully at my AFD 200/4. Mine's cracked too. The lens is not that old. It was the most expensive lens I owned when I first got it. Now I see it has a cheesy plastic part where metal part would have worked and should have been used. I'd expect better from a top of the line lens from a major manufacturer. I have 30 year old Nikkors that I still use and they're mechanically perfect. I would have expected the 200 micro to live up to the same standards - nope. I guess the times are changing. Next thing you know Nikon will be making white telephotos.

Dave Muench�s photograph on page 103 of the June 1999 issue of

Smithsonian Magazine is printed upside down, backwards, and is

captioned with the wrong geographical location. How do I know? As

fate would have it, I made a recognizably similar photograph of the

same subject last March. One of my photographs of this subject is

posted as "Sandstone Flame" at the Photo Critique site. Before anyone

accuses me of being a tripod-hole seeking jerk, let me say that

yesterday was the first time I ever saw Muench�s photograph.

 

The question is, do you think the misrepresentation in print was an

intentional attempt to protect the location, artistic license, or an

honest mistake? I tend to think it was an honest mistake because the

actual location (Antelope Canyon) is far more accessible and generally

known then the one given in the caption (Round Valley Draw).

 

If you tell me it was intentional, I�ll feel like an ass because I

already sent a letter to the editor pointing out the "mistake."

I also have that lens - only because I got it very cheap. I don't use it much because it doesn't have a tripod collar. It's quite a heavy lens. I feel well armed when I carry it and an F4. I can't imagine having that heavy thing teetering on the end of a camera perched on a monopod is very stable. Try it on a tripod in the backyard before you blame the optics. I don't have a TC I can use on it, so I don't know how much quality suffers, but it's a good bet that it suffers quite a bit. I'm not sure what image brightness means or clarity for that matter, but I've found the results technically quite fine. I'm still trying to figure out how to put a tripod collar on it though.

If your lens doesn't focus to infinity it must be a little further

from the film plane than the designer intended. It's like having an

extension tube permanently in place. This could happen due to a

manufacturing defect or if the mount moved somehow. This happened to

one of my favorite Nikkor lenses once. I brought it into a shop and

they fixed it right up in a day or two. If you're interested in

keeping the lens you should bring into your local camera repair shop.

I understand Dan Smith�s reaction to the Macro "Photography" book with the faked cover. It�s not actually lying, but it�s telling a half truth. Presenting a digital composite under the title "The Sierra Club Guide to Close-Up Photography in Nature" is misleading. How about "� Guide to Close-Up Photography in Nature and Subsequent Digital Manipulation?" Calling the compositor a liar and a cheat might be a bit strong, but I don�t don�t have to make a living trying to compete with this borderline dishonesty, so I can just shake my head. To answer the question, yeah. It bothers me that we have to label the real thing. I stand by what I said in the miraculously-undeleted "wistful comment" thread. Sigh.

I'd sort of pigeonholed Mr. Morris as a photographer of big, garish, often ugly (sorry) water birds. This misconception came from looking at magazine covers. I didn't think I'd have much interest in his book. I don't live near the sea and I don't use Canon equipment either. Well, now that I've been reading photo credits a little more carefully, I see Mr. Morris makes amazing photographs of the attractive little passerines I'm more interested in! I'm not a bird photographer at all, but I will take a look at Arthur Morris' book now.

Once you've completely digested all the technical information people have thrown out in response to this question you might read Galen Rowell's "fluffy" observations on the notion of sharpness at http://www.mountainlight.com/articles/op1196.html

 

You might not like his philosophical ramblings, but you have to agree that there's something to be said for the fact that sharpness is a perception. Some photographic situations will give a greater perception of sharpness than others even when an critical evaluation on the light box would suggest that the technical sharpness is the same.