zack_zoll

Huh, shows you what I know. Explains why I'm having a hard time finding 8 or 10 gauge stuff online. And while 120 film cases are easy to find, good luck finding one that holds more than 4 rolls and isn't a handmade leather thing. I only shoot once or twice a month, but when I go out I usually shoot 6-12 rolls. It would be nice to be able to quickly see how many exposed vs. unexposed rolls I have without taking them out and counting every time, or dedicating two separate pockets in my bag. I was thinking about a product like this: 10 Round Shotgun Shell Holder Folding Ammo Bag Hunting Bullet Holder Shell Pouch Bullets Bag Shell Pouch Bullet Pouch Online with $10.15/Piece on Happyfish958's Store | DHgate.com . I have elastic shot holders on my skeet bag, and I can jam a roll in there - but I have to really struggle with it. There's a fair distance between the openings though; if they were close like in the linked item, I couldn't get them all in there. Maybe I should take a roll down to a sporting goods shop and try a few things. Maybe somebody makes a looser one?

Hi all! I'm looking forward to Summer, and backpacking, and traveling light, and looking for a way to avoid having a pocket full of 120 film when I go shooting. It's fine in jacket weather, but I don't want them getting all sweaty in the heat, nor do I want to carry another bag for my film. As I was cleaning out my basement, I came across an old 12 gauge shot shell bag from when I used to shoot skeet. It didn't quite fit my film, but it wasn't too far off. Does anyone know how the size of 120 film compares to 10 or 8 gauge shotgun shells? I ask because while I could buy a 120 film holder to put on my strap, it would look like I was carrying around shells - and in today's climate especially, I don't want to make myself any more noticeable. But I could probably find a 10 or 8 gauge case that attaches with molle webbing, and stick that on the bag I'm already carrying. And no, the irony of using a firearms product to look LESS like I'm carrying firearms isn't lost on me. Thanks for any help you guys can provide!

Lever locks aren't all adjustable; when they loosen up over time, cheap ones often don't have the capacity to be tightened, and they stay loose. Those that are only somewhat cheap (like this one) MAY have a mediocre-quality collar or metal internals that weaken with successive tightenings, which means you can only tighten it X times until the thing seizes up. I say may because some will do this, others won't. If it can be tightened, you're almost always guaranteed several years of all but the heaviest use without a problem though. By contrast, only the cheapest of twist locks will wear out in less than several years, even under heavy use. You may have to twist them more to lock, but they will still lock. Twist locks are also smaller, and less likely to catch - important when backpacking. My travel tripod has twist locks. My studio tripod has levers.

<p>I use prime lenses exclusively these days, and very few of them have AF. When I did more commissioned work, especially sports and weddings, I always had a 2.8 zoom handy, even if it stayed in the bag the whole time.</p> <p>Sure I think l prime lenses have a lot of benefits over zooms. Well, obviously. The big one is that if you leave the house with a single prime, there are absolutely no lens choices to make: you make the photo the way that you can, or you don't make it at all. Similarly, most prime lenses are brighter and/or higher quality than zoom lenses in the same or similar price points. An OEM 70-200 is usually better than a Rokinon, but it's not like those two are likely to be on the same photographer's budget.</p> <p>That can offer a lot more freedom than you might expect. If changing focal length on a whim isn't an option, you(or at least I) are a lot less likely think, 'if only my lens were a little wider', or 'if only my lens were a little brighter.' For the most part, I find that having what I have makes it a lot easier to take photos. If I can't take the photo I want, I just move on - there's no messing about with twenty photos of differing zoom lengths over the span of ten minutes. I have it, or I do not.</p> <p>But these days, I only take photos for me. I do photo work a few times a year, mostly volunteer for the same few organizations. Prime lenses work for me, because I have a really solid idea of what my pictures should look like, and it turns out that I can take all of them with a 50. Or a 60, in an ideal world.</p> <p>If I were to go back to doing commissioned work, I would try to do it with my 50, and the 100 and 20 that usually sit in the bag. But after (presumably) failing that, I would get myself a couple zooms again.</p>

<p>Hi all. Longtime member, almost equally longtime hermit here. Glad to be back.</p> <p>There are a lot of kinds of photography McCurry could make that are all closely related: editorial, documentary, and photojournalism as mentioned, but also just wandering around with a camera. Before we even start talking about the ethics of Photoshopping trivial stuff, we need to first figure out what McCurry's intentions are. Once we do that, the ethical answers come a lot easier.</p> <p>We tend to assume that McCurry's photos are editorial(or documentary, if you agree with his opinions), because HE makes them. But in many ways, that is the same as assuming that a David Lynch-directed Spongebob film will be about drugs, insomnia, amnesia, and repressed sexual desires. Those might be the films Lynch makes, but this time around it's a Spongebob movie. We'll debate endlessly the symbolism of the Krabby Patty, but chances are that a Krabby Patty is just a Krabby Patty.</p> <p>I think it's fair to say that most of the response to McCurry's poorly-doctored images has nothing to do with the images themselves. I think most of the response comes from the fact that McCurry has a certain reputation, and as such we assume that any images that he produces will be the same quality and style as his previous images.</p> <p>Granted, I like to mess with people. Anyone that challenges the status quo with any sort of talent to back it up is a champ in my book - those that are willing to risk alienating their own audience are absolute heroes.</p> <p>McCurry is in a unique place. There aren't a lot of people who are old enough to have a reputation as a master from the good old days of The Establishment, but that are still young enough to have lots of good, relevant work left in their future. That's important, because it means that young AND old people respect him, as do MFA students AND commercial shooters and wannabees. Offhand, I can't think or more than two or three other people in his position.</p> <p>Which is why this whole thing makes me sad. Not because of what happened, but because of what could have happened.</p> <p>So McCurry showed these images which came from a highly respected artist who presumably knows his stuff, printed huge(which usually means a lot of attention), and with clear, but not-quite-glaring Photoshop mistakes.</p> <p>Could you imagine how the conversation *could* have gone?</p> <p>"Mr. McCurry, we've noticed a lot of Photoshopping in your recent show."<br> "Yeah, what of it?"<br> "Well, that hardly seems like ethical documentary process."<br> "Why? These aren't for NewsWeek or NatGeo. These are just photos I like."<br> "Well, don't you think someone of your reputation should be held to a higher standard?"<br> "Um .... why?"</p> <p>I think that based on McCurry's response, the conversation that we can have about these images pales in comparison to the one that we could have.</p>