Robin Smith

Ed: the Pro-100 has dye inks. Do you have the Pro-10(?) which has the pigment inks? I have the Canon Pro-100 which is the second one I have had. When I got it it cost about $100 as a special offer if you bought a Canon lens or body. Fantastic value and excellent printer so I am sure the Pro-200 will be great. No cleaning cycles required and no clogging. However as with all printers, they get through the ink really fast. In fact most of the time when I start the printer up it tells me that one of the 8 cartridges needs replacing or will do soon. That's how they afford to effectively give away the printer itself since they know you need the inks.

That's available in Photoshop (linked through in LR) using Raw data so no need for TIFFs and it's very good too.

I generally don't much like seeing black and white images of a subject mixed with color images of the same subject, although if the shot is very different it can work. I feel the photographer should make the choice to prevent us with the conflict of making the choice ourselves. In other words, you edit it so we know what you like: you are the artist after all. But I have no problem with mixtures of color and black and white otherwise.

No idea. Won't any lens flare if you are photographing a halogen or high intensity LED light head on? Most of us avoid taking a photo when you can see that happening in the viewfinder, by changing our position or changing the framing. I assume you can't do that for some reason. Perhaps the best plan is to rent a few and try them out, but that could work out $$$.

I do not regret giving up film at all. Greater than medium format quality even from m43 and easy "development". AF systems are miles better than my film cameras. Easy storage and cataloging. Then there is the revolution in lens quality stimulated by digital. I have a bunch of film cameras that bring back happy memories, but I never use them. I always think I will use up my residue of film in the freezer, but never actually get to it. Cameras are complicated, much of it is AF or video related, but you just have to pick out the items that matter to you and ignore the rest. I like being in control of the process from start to finish, which never was the case when I shot color film.

The Magritte-ish content seems slightly cliched or sophomoric to me, and given that and considering it solely as an image (without the words) I don't find it very interesting. I chuckled reading David's, "...many are too casual in shooting doors." That reminds me of Monty Python.

The main argument against them is that they are very old now so even more likely to require repair or servicing, which is harder to find, but they are cheaper. The B50 filters (80 and 150mm lenses) were quite easy to find. The series filters less so. The interlocked EV scale is also something alien to current photographers (although it is nice to use when on a tripod as you are probably not worrying about shutter speed). They may also be heavier than the CF lenses (don't know this). I used a set of silver C lenses with the 50mm and 80mm with T* and 150mm single coated. They all worked very nicely. The C 50mm does not have the floating elements that improved close up focusing imagery found in the CF CFE lens. I agree with the OP that they are absolutely beautiful pieces of optical machinery and much more so than the CF lenses, but logic tells me this is not a reason to buy them over CF lenses.

Leica M6TTL plus lenses. Wanted to go digital. I'd probably have a digital Leica today if I hadn't sold all my Leica lenses. Canon 135mm f2L sold it, then bought another. Still have it. On the other hand, I was delighted to see the back of my Hasselblad kit.

Rolf was an Australian, so he probably sang it too. He sang novelty songs and anything Australian would be his thing. He was very popular in my youth, before his fall.

I keep thinking it is a view of Mars. The light on Yosemite (shining from behind you) is hopelessly inconsistent with the sky (sun in front of the observer), which is why it looks otherworldly, also the low contrast on half dome is jarringly different to the sky and the rest of the contrast. So unfortunately it ends up looking very obviously a composite, which is another way of saying it looks fake. Why not pick a non-sunset if you want to replace the sky?

There you go. De gustibus non disputandem est

My guess is that it is a special lens for covering a sports event or similar, so not necessarily a lens that a photographer would know about unless they were a cinematographer. My thought is that the Leica 800mm Telyts (simple 2-element achromats) were long, but not nearly as long as that.

More like 2000 mm

It's a little too subtle for stupid me. I suspect I am not alone. The labyrinth is only apparent on studying and then I think "so what". Composition-wise I guess it is fine, but the image as a whole has little impact for me.

Is this in Romania? It's what I used to call a "record shot".

Stand out to me is the woman with the phone: shows welcome movement and indicates the vibrancy of city life. It's not sharp, but that just adds to the feeling of bustle.

Agree with Marc. Nothing sets it out as particularly interesting, unless you have a fascination for late 19th century door decorations in particular. Why not take a shot of the whole door is my thought?

The composition is a classic rule of thirds with respect to horizontal placement, and it works well. You could change it, but I'd leave alone

B&W is much more suitable, even if it's a bit of cliche. But most of us take cliches all the time. I wouldn't try the GCT one.

Shot's nice Marc. You do like a heavy hand on the clarity/contrast, which is not to my taste really, but composition is nice.

I think it is dull. It's a shot of a drainpipe. There must have been more interesting shots is my reaction, I am a big fan of cemeteries too.

I like the first version-very striking. Is this Denmark somewhere? Maybe reduce the clarity a tad. I like punch, but this is perhaps a little overcooked.

It's vaguely depressing, which I guess is part of the idea. I wonder whether cutting off more of the bottom and making it more panoramic in format might heighten the impact. The mistiness is good.

The eye definitely runs out of the top of the picture. Not sure that works very well. I think darkening the far distance would improve it. Add a linear mask to the top third is my suggestion.

Backs of people are generally not inspiring to my view. I'd straighten and crop off the black area at the bottom to concentrate on the subject of interest (even if it is people walking away).