LenMarriott
-
Posts
9,881 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Downloads
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by LenMarriott
-
-
<p>Jeffrey, If I was happy with the lens to this point I'd opt for the repair. Should come back like new. How much service has it seen? Has it been a stellar performer for you? Your portfolio indicates that you demand high quality. Is one extra mm on the wide end with the loss of one stop worth $349? How deep are your pockets? For me, no! For you? Well, that's the question only you can answer. Good luck making your decision. Come on back & let us know what you decide & how happy you are with that decision. Best, Len.</p>
-
<address>Alan, Another vote for Norton (360) Like Dave (knock on wood too), since installing Norton a few years ago I've had no virus problems. Happy Camper so far. Not saying there are no BETTER options, just saying what has worked for me. I recently bought a new computer & gave the bundled McAfee the boot while installing my more familiar Norton. (I hate new learning curves) Best, Len. </address>
-
<div>
</div>
-
<p>Ian, Looks better than <a href="/photo/4434445">my offering taken with Leica equipment</a>. OK, your subject was larger than mine, but still....................! Nice find. Best, LM.</p>
-
<div></div>
-
<div></div>
-
<p>Tony, Beautiful machine. Many will envy you. Thanks for broadening my horizons. I never knew what my<a href="/photo/7074587"> 'Farm Structure' </a>was for. Now I do. Sheep! Who knew? :-) Best, LM.</p>
-
<div></div>
-
<div></div>
-
<p>Martin, I've accidentally run a 120 roll through a 220 back with no ill results though I wouldn't recommend doing so on a regular basis. The others are correct in pointing out that if you do happen to do this you'll not get a warning that you've passed the 12th frame. (I was lucky, I noticed the error after the first frame & watched the frame counter closely) Hope you can get a 120 back inexpensively. Best, LM.</p>
-
<p>John, Dang, mine just went to 'Goodwill'. LM.</p>
-
<p>Bill, Duct tape comes to mind. :-) Seriously, even <a href="/photo/9777397&size=lg">normally cooperative kids</a> can give you heartburn. Michael's approach works if you can be happy with candids but formals call for more psychology skills than I have. You could let THEM take the photo (set camera up on a sturdy tripod & set the self timer) by tripping the shutter & running back to a predesignated spot. In other words, involve them, make a game of it. Hmm, I just made that up. Maybe I'll try it some time. :-) Best, LM.</p>
-
<div></div>
-
<div></div>
-
<div></div>
-
<p>Bill & all, Anyone think this might be fine as a B&W? The subdued or muted colours and low contrast prompted a try in that area for me. I tried to keep any manipulations low so that they wouldn't be obvious to the viewer. Using photoshop cs, I tweaked the contrast and brightness levels and, using Channel Mixer, tried to emulate a yellow filter (R-60, G-28, B-12) in order to lighten & separate the yellow tones from the green ones. I also burned in the sky a bit. (perhaps too heavy a hand there) Anyway it was a good exercise & I welcome any critique of my efforts. All the above attempts are great but I really like Alan Klein's texturized version. Best, LM.</p><div></div>
-
<p>Tanya, You could<a href="http://blog.kitfphoto.com/Zeltsman/index.html"> start here. </a> Ignore the old fashioned clothing. The posing is classic though. Best, LM.</p>
-
<p>Allan, You could try lighting both with the same single light source but insert a scrim between the light and the product you are photographing in order to avoid overexposing said product. I've seen it demonstrated but never tried it myself. Just make sure the scrim doesn't affect the background. Best, LM.</p>
-
<p>Rachel, The D5100, D5200, & D5300 are all menu driven. What you might want to consider is a D7000 or D7100. Best, LM.</p>
-
<div></div>
-
<div></div>
-
<p>Jannine, I too own & use a D5100. For outdoor shots I find the kit lenses 18-55 and 55-200 to be more than adequate for school & soccer photos. I get more than acceptable (for my quality demands) results indoors as well though faster glass would certainly be a welcome substitute. Depending on the distance you are tied to I'd suggest looking for a fast 35mm, 50mm, or 85mm prime as opposed to a fast zoom ( only gives you f2.8 at best anyway) which may be too expensive. For the situations I've found myself in I'd likely go for the 50mm f1.8. Your mileage is likely to vary. Welcome to PN. Come back & let us know what you decide & how it works for you. Many could benefit from your experience. Best, LM.</p>
-
<p>Stephen, Welcome to Photo.net. You'll get many good answers to your questions here. All you have to do is choose the one that works for you. My home studio setting is basically what Makul suggests: white paper background (bed sheet works in a pinch) and a flash bounced off a white ceiling. Prop baby up on a pillow. I also light the background separately. As with a few of my other posts, <a href="/photo/16265053">I did this one with a P&S camera.</a> <a href="/photo/15743753">And this one a few months earlier</a>. Same subject. A little photoshop hanky panky smooths out any wrinkles in the paper or sheet. Post some of your results for critique and I'm sure you'll get suggestions for fine tuning the image. Good luck. LM.</p>
-
<p>Peter, In general I agree. A good 'rule of thumb' to follow. While it may not be exactly true in every case, following it is not likely to lead too many of us too far astray. Diffraction is the compromise one must make only if maximum depth of field is desired\necessary and, in my experience, not worth getting too anal about. The masters among us may not agree. Each of us has quality parameters we will not violate. Mine, good, bad, or ugly, are posted for all to see. :-) Best, LM. </p>
Lens Repair Or Buy A New One???
in Nikon
Posted