warren_wilson

<p>Too blustery to stand outside behind a camera, so here are some tiny florets, backlit by the grey light coming through the window. D800 with a 105 f/2.8 macro with one 20mm extension tube. About 20 images focus-stacked in Zerene.</p><div></div>

Here is a pic taken with the hoary old 80-400 on a D300.<div></div>

I bought the 80-400 when it was first released: the VR seemed magical at the time. I used it on a film body, then a D70, D200 and D300 before mounting it on my D800. It hunts a great deal for focus on the D800 and it is much too large for me as a "walking around" lens (for that I use the 28 - 300 on the D800 and the 18-200 on the D300). I am leaving next week for a month in the Andes and two weeks on the Galapagos: mostly walking with a backpack. So I have been very busy evaluating my lens selection. I am most likely going to take my 70-200 f/2.8 with the 2x tele rather than the 80-400, even though it will mean more weight. The snappy AF and sharper IQ mean enough to me to pack the weight. (I can't bear to be without the 14-14 f/2.8, or the 105 f/2.8 macro either: I am sure I get as much pleasure from using nice tools as I do from actually making images. I will be able to carry my photo gear and one change of socks).

<p>I vote for cheesiness. That is one of the cheesiest fashion models I've seen. Thanks.</p>

<p>Thanks, Michael. Great Ted talk. I love knowledge for its own sake, and fresh ideas are always exciting.</p>

<p>Interesting thoughts. While I sell nature and landscape photography, I certainly have not pursued any markets for my travel photography. I still end up taking considerable camera equipment with me and I suppose that is because I enjoy working with good tools. </p> <p>Your thoughts give me pause on that, Karim, particularly in light of the fact my daughter was recently featured on the cover of a glossy fishing magazine (holding a spring salmon that looks as big as her 5'7" frame). The point is that the pic was taken with an iPhone -- and made it to a cover.</p> <p>So much for the Arizona Highways standards.</p>

Thanks, Lex. That is very helpful. And informative.

Thanks for the responses. The challenge was to put the metadata where it can be easily read by a variety of programs, and it sounds like using an IPTC field will put it where it can be accessed by a non-techhy non-photographer. (And be available to future generations, barring electromagnetic pulses and zombie attacks on the cloud). Thanks.

<p>My sister is scanning a boatload of old (20's - 80's) prints as part of a genealogy project, and she is sharing them with her siblings.<br> She would like to embed information about the photo in the metadata to make the archive more complete.</p> <p>How can she ensure the data can be readily read by a variety of applications & platforms? For instance, my brother has no interest generally in photography and uses a Windows-based computer. My sister has moderate interest and runs PS3 on a Windows computer. I am a tad more avid and use PS6 on a Mac. By the time you include children and grandchildren, there is a real range of devices. <br> <br> Is there a metadata field that can be readily read by a variety of devices using a variety of viewers?</p> <p> </p>

It's always enjoyable to debate what constitutes art. For me, art requires a great deal of skill -- enough skill to elevate it above craft (which I see on the same continuum). In my mind, skill is a necessary (but insufficient on its own) component of art. Art also has design. As an interesting sidelight, I recently wrote a college course on drilling and blasting. As I worked in the field I came to understand that highy skilled blasters elevate their craft to art: reading the rock (both the geology and the hardness), planning the blasting pattern, choosing the products, setting the delays, establishing the amount of stemming, etc. A good blast never rises much above the surface, it's smooth and undulating with no flyrock, no airblast. It leaves a pile of rock where it should be, and it is perfectly fragmented to the final use. The remaining rock (often the face), is also perfectly conformed for its next use. Putting a few sticks of power under a car does not qualify as art either on the photographic side or on the explosives side.

I have been pondering the purchase of Helicon Focus to tether my camera to my Mac (or perhaps my Window-based net book). For focus stacking I already own and am happy with Zerene Stacker. When reading the Helicon info it remarks that their Focus product works seamlessly with their stacking product. My question is whether anyone has had success using Helicon Focus with Zerene Stacker.