michael s.

<p><< ... I wish there is a focus aid light on the camera. ... >></p>

<p>I don't have the camera, but one reviewer suggests the following:<br>

<em>"In low light you'll really want to pop up the flash (which is used as an AF-assist lamp), otherwise the camera will struggle to lock focus." </em></p>

<p>Quoted from this page:<br>

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/e620-review/compare</p>

<p>Your other choice, of course, would be an Olympus flash unit mounted on the camera.<br>

<em><br /> </em></p>

<p>Actually, Ton (and Scott), the Post Gazette's notes on the linked page include this one, asserting that the photographer used stitching software to produce his images.</p>

<p><em>"</em> <strong><strong><em>About Pittsburgh Revolution</em> . </strong> </strong> <em>Photographer Steve Mellon takes several pictures over a period of time, then stitches them together in a computer."</em></p>

<br /> There are a number of stitching programs available for download -- some free ones as well. Never having used this software, I can't say much more. :)<a href="http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09278/1002888-429.stm#ixzz0afDikKVY"></a> <br />

<p><< ... <em>"Without a word", you have the legality issues as well to deal with. Without a very identifiable people's written consent, you are opening yourself up to a can of worms if you publish them on the www and they object.</em> <br /> <em>Jus' sayin' ... >></em></p>

<p>Nope. That caution generally does <strong>not</strong> apply to the U.S. As a general matter, there is no prohibition against taking, publishing (on the web or otherwise), and even selling (as works of art) photographs of identifiable persons on the public street -- all <em>without</em> the consent of the person(s) photographed. On the public street (vs. for example the public restroom stall), there is no reasonable expectation of privacy.</p>

<p>Now there are some specific exceptions, including photos published for commercial purposes or trade (think endorsements or ads), or "false light" cases (think of a photo of an identifiable person with a caption describing a 'notorious drug corner' when the person photographed is in fact <em>not</em> involved in the drug trade).</p>

<p>For helpful info, take a look at Bert Krages' publication, a short summary of which is found here:<br>

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm</p>

<p>Hey, Mark -</p>

<p>Don't have the M8, but I found this on Leica's site:</p>

<p><em>"The choice of SD and SDHC cards in the market is already very big and is constantly growing.<br /> Therefore, Leica Camera AG is not able to do comprehensive compatibility- and quality testing with<br /> all available cards in the market. We recommend “Extreme III” or “Professional” from the leading<br /> brands such as “SanDisk” or “Lexar”. Using other card types, will not damage camera or card, but<br /> as especially “no name” cards do not respect the full SD or SDHC standards, Leica Camera AG<br /> cannot warranty full function with those cards."</em></p>

<p>Found by clicking around here:</p>

<p>http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/m8/</p>

<p>My sense is that the recommendation to use "Extreme" is based upon the faster write speed, which may or may not be important to your style of shooting. My hunch is that the <em>less Extreme</em> cards like yours are not less compatible, they're just slower. But I'll let M8 owners comment on their experiences.</p>

<p>[Personal note: I've had 2 sd cards fail or malfunction. Both were so-called "leading brand" cards.]</p>

<p>Hope you're well.</p>

<p>John D and Steve D -- fine job with the critter photos.</p>

<p>Now Claus, your critters ... well ... :-)</p>

<p>Having spent part of my misspent youth in Glencoe, a million years ago, I enjoyed the photos.</p>

<p>The shot of the Wienecke's sign in particular warmed my heart. (Wienecke's was an old fashioned, family owned hardware store, and while I believe the store is no longer operating, the space and the sign have been rehabbed/preserved.)</p>

<p>But nostalgia is an unreliable sentiment. And my bias cuts both ways. Even without people (though I spotted one people !), I'd have wanted to see more of what Glencoe's streets look like now, in 2009. I understand that <em>wasn't</em> <em>your</em> <em>objective</em> in this set, but that is my bias.</p>

<p>So I'd say that as a photography self-assignment, this is a good set. But I didn't warm up to these shots as much as I hoped to, because for me the outcome of this assignment resulted in objects seen at uncommon angles, but the objects didn't collectively convey much of a sense of this place.</p>

<p>Probably a bit harsh, but as already noted, I'm biased. :-)</p>

<p>You can shoot and you can process, Michael. Look forward to seeing more.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sorry, Chuck, but we're already at the outer edge of my 'repair' skills: change battery, bang device in hand or on nearby surface, repeat ...</p>

<p>:-)</p>

<p>I guess my 'technique' -- such as it is/was -- more or less matched my subject's technique: a fast glance in a dark spot.</p>

<p><a title=". by sandbagm, on Flickr" href=" title=". by sandbagm, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3306/3176194752_0e427cd629_o.jpg" alt="." width="750" height="563" /> </a></p>

<p>Fresh battery in the camera, Chuck ?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Portraits are now on display in two places:</p>

<p>(i) National Gallery of Art in D.C. (I haven't been yet, but plan to go.)</p>

<p>(ii) P.S. 1 at MOMA's Contemporary Art Center in N.Y.</p>

<p>Here's a link to a National Public Radio (NPR) story and a small online gallery containing 13 of the portraits:<br>

http://www.npr.org/blogs/pictureshow/2009/11/who_is_robert_bergman_and_who.html</p>

<p><em>Wrong lens</em> ?</p>

<p>That's an easy one, Geoff -- a regrettable mistake that Adorama should promptly rectify ... and entirely at its own expense, including return shipping, etc.</p>

<p>Costco film experiences vary as well. I'm generally a big fan of the store, but locally I cannot recommend Costco for serious film processing. </p>

<p>Back when I was shooting quite a bit of film, processing was hit or miss -- both in the days when they sent it out and when I began to have it processed and scanned there, on premises.</p>

<p>Some good ones, Sebastian, though for the most part I liked your 'cityscapes' more than most of the street photos, and I'll tell you why:</p>

<p>(i) For my taste, some of the street shots overemphasize background blur -- some perhaps taken with a telephoto or long zoom (where there may have been quite a bit of distance), and some perhaps performed in post-processing ? For me, the street, and especially a street in New York City, is often an important part of the photo. On some, the blur worked reasonably well; on others, it was just too much for me. </p>

<p>(ii) In my view, the titles -- as distinct from notations as to location of a photo, or something purely descriptive such as, "3 a.m. Chelsea" or "Man reading" -- <em>very rarely add</em> anything to a street photo, and more often they detract. The more cute the title, the less I generally like it.</p>

<p>Also, I find myself wanting to ask whether the photo entitled <em>"Isaac"</em> is a picture of a man named Isaac and <em>"Don"</em> is a man by that name ? If so, that's fine -- no problem. If not, you are potentially getting into the area of some dangerous and offensive stereotyping. I imagine this would be absolutely unintentional on your part, and I recognize you're from Finland, not the U.S., and these issues and sensitivities may be very differently regarded there.</p>

<p>(iii) Generally, I don't care for part color/part b & w in a street photo. </p>

<p>(iv) With some rare exceptions, I don't warm up to a photo of someone down-and-out, defenseless, lying on a street or sidewalk.</p>

<p>From these negatives, you might take my overall tone as discouraging. But I don't mean it to be. On the contrary, you've obviously got an eye, and a sense of what your camera and lens can do, and considerably more post-processing interest/capability than most. </p>

<p>So I'd conclude by saying 2 more things. First, these are just my opinions, and I'm by no means either an expert or a critic -- just a guy with opinions. :)</p>

<p>Second, get out there and take more photos. You're off to an interesting and provocative start.</p>

<p>I'm far from an "insider" but I've been to Paris. (My wife has lived there and is fluent -- a big help)</p>

<p>We were there most recently in late March '07, quite pleasant with some cool weather and a bit of rain. Still, a great city to visit -- so much so that even if you were limited to the heavy tourist season, the summer, I'd say go anyway.</p>

<p><a title=". by sandbagm, on Flickr" href=" title=". by sandbagm, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3104/2302749640_5a2390e851_o.jpg" alt="." width="700" height="604" /> </a></p>

<p><a title=". by sandbagm, on Flickr" href=" title=". by sandbagm, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2576/3815189284_b1e2a930c2_o.jpg" alt="." width="750" height="536" /> </a></p>

<p>(Player/event details by clicking on photo)<br>

K10D w/ Pentax 50 - 200 f/4.0 - 5.6 @ 5.6, iso 1250, 1/400 with -1/3 comp</p>

<p>Mis - good street openers. <br>

Camus - your first macros ... an awfully nice start.<br>

Robert C. - neat look on the river</p>

<p>No argument, Eric. (And I, too, pointed out that this article is <em>not</em> about photography.) </p>

<p>An issue of interest to me, in a more general way, is the sort of behavior -- <em>short of the commission of a crime</em> -- that leads to a person being stopped by police these days. Related issues include the manner in which such stops are documented, if at all, and the consequences of that documentation.</p>

<p>(I'll take a look at that "Vanity Fair" piece if I can.)</p>

<p>Several times on this Forum, we have discussed what appears to be an increasing tendency on the part of police in the United States to stop persons on the public street who are engaged in what is often referred to as "suspicious behavior." </p>

<p>On occasion the so-called "suspicious behavior" has been nothing more than photography -- an activity many of us believe ought not be regarded, in an of itself, as suspicious.</p>

<p>Here is an Associated Press article which, while <em>not</em> <em>about photography</em> , addresses the prevalence of stops in the U.S., objections to the practice, and consequences of it:</p>

<p>http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091008/ap_on_re_us/us_stop_and_frisk</p>