jordan2240

Shun, yes, I see I've remained logged in for a couple of days now. That solves the login issue, now if I could just get re-interested in photography... But I did think of another possible name for the new forum - "Human Nature" (perhaps a bit too cryptic)

Obviously the 'like' factor is going to be acceptable to some and despised by others (though 'despise' might be too harsh a word), and it isn't going anywhere regardless. Perhaps there is less of a sense of obligation to 'reciprocate' at some sites than others, but I think it is human nature for most to reciprocate generosity, and in the social networking world, it's almost mandatory if you want don't want to be shunned (no pun on 'Shun' intended). There is a local wildlife photographer who could take a snapshot of dog scat, and it would be 'faved' by hundreds of her flickr followers (and some of her work is well-deserving of such). Tim and Shun make valid points, and the horse has left the barn on the issue anyway. But I think it's a convention, particularly in forums that are picture-centric, more likely to turn people away than attract them, though we'll obviously never know how many turned away. Regardless, it's not really a conversation suited to this thread, so I apologize for bringing it up.

Haven't been active out here for quite some time, mostly because I haven't been very active in photography lately and also because I was having to log in daily, which just annoyed me. There is another reason that I'll get into in a bit. But I do still lurk from time to time, and this thread caught my interest because I was 'scolded' a time or two for posting inappropriate pics in the MiN thread that I had no idea went against the standard (though once I posted something in humor that I knew did not meet the standard that apparently only I felt was funny). Anyway, my suggestion for the thread title would be 'Nature Unbound,' and I would allow whatever someone interpreted as having 'nature' as the focus - and just live with what some might consider poor choices. The thing about 'common sense' is, in many instances, one person's 'common sense' is another's 'nonsense.' The other reason I stopped participating out here was that the site added the social networking convention of "Likes." To me, this simply breeds cliques and reciprocity. Another thread I follow somewhat is the 'Post Processing Challenge' in the digital darkroom forum, and I notice that some folks like nearly everything posted, but imagine what the poor sap who's new to the thread thinks when he/she posts something and no one or very few 'Like' it because he hasn't become one of the boys. Frankly, if I was in charge of a forum the focused on pics vice discussion, I'd forbid 'Likes,' at least on the picture contributions. If someone wants to 'like' a discussion point, then that's a bit different, and certainly replies to picture posts would be acceptable, as they require a bit more thought and generally have a purpose. And now I'll go back to lurking.

bob_bill, I only lurk out here, but wanted to mention that I really like the processing on your shot. Subtle enough that it doesn't look overdone, but definitely adds some interest, for me anyway.

James Dainis, thanks for the instructions. It appears that functionality is reserved for paying members. I can go into my profile and change my 'Screen Name,' but that apparently doesn't show anywhere.

As someone who looks at it almost exclusively for the forums, I'll say that I haven't noticed any negative changes to those, and I do like being able to see when the last entry to a forum and forum thread was without accessing it. Not sure why I can't seem to get a new screen name to display though. I've changed it in my profile, but my username is still what's being displayed.

Love the versatility and portability of my FZ1000, and the image quality is just fine for my wants.

Well, it's not on your list, but I'd take a look at the Panasonic Lumix dmc-lx100. No need to fool around with detachable lenses, and it looks like it will serve your needs nicely and will save you a ton of money. You might also want to check out the DMC-ZS100 for even greater versatility (10x zoom lens).

Rick, not sure what the issue might be for you, but I generally do not have to re-log in each time. Once in a while I get kicked off, but for the most part, I stay logged in. Don't know if it matters, but I use Google Chrome as my browser.

Joined this site back in the late 90s when I first got interested in photography. I dropped my paid membership recently (prior to the change) simply because my interest in photography had waned to the point where I just wasn't using the site much. I still enjoy popping in on the forums from time-to-time though to see what's going on. But pretty much every year since I first joined, there were folks clamoring for site changes. Not sure what they were looking for exactly, but I think this new version was an attempt to respond to those criticisms (and there were many). So for every one who dislikes the new format, there is probably at least one other who likes it. I personally had no problem with the old format, but don't think the new one is so bad. But again, my interest has always mainly been in the forums, and they seem to be as accessible as they always were.

Haven't tried to upload since the new site went up, so not sure if this will work as I intended. Guess the nature folk weren't really interested in further discussion on the issue (or at least the forum moderator wasn't), but while shots like these might not occur enough to have their own forum, I wholeheartedly believe they would add some interest to the "Monday in Nature" threads, What could be more natural than the way flora and fauna interact with man.

My photography is merely a hobby, and certainly not up to par with many out here, but I used to participate in the forum until it seemed there were some cliques forming, and now they've added the 'like' option, which I absolutely 'hate,' because I think that social media standard provides an even greater opportunity for cliques. But I do still visit the forum with some regularity because I enjoy much of the work that is posted. However, I'd like to say with regard to the whole 'hand of man' issue that I think you shortchange your subject matter with such a requirement, and lose the opportunity to display photos that are far more interesting than another shot of a deer against a grove of trees. To me, the interaction between nature and man can be truly amazing, and as far as the wildlife is concerned, they certainly don't know the difference. A snake hidden under a wheel-well in someone's driveway would be a more interesting find than the same snake hidden under a log, at least for me. I realize some say you can post such photos elsewhere, but this forum would provide a singular place to find such shots. Anyway, just my two useless cents, but I'll continue to peruse the posts each week or so regardless, so keep up the good work. As far as who posts each week, my methodology would be to have whomever posts first for the week solicit for and select the volunteer for the next week.

Three reasons come to mind for me: 1 - I love being able to capture a moment in time that I find interesting and that will never occur again. 2 - I love being able to visually document significant events in my life. 3 - I can't paint, so photography provides an outlet for creating pictures that are aesthetically appealing to me.

If the location is relatively close, I will try to return when the light is more favorable for what I'm looking for. Obviously, if it's too far to travel, you get what you get. Either way, I like to play around with the shots in post most of the time, and while I might do some cloning to remove some extraneous stuff, I won't add stuff that wasn't in the scene.

I was in shoes similar to yours, buying new lenses and bodies every so often, until it finally dawned on me that, for my interests (purely hobbyist), one of the superzooms would suit me just fine. So I sold what I needed to to purchase a Panasonic Lumix FZ1000 sometime in the middle of last year, and haven't used a different camera since (I did keep one of my Pentax bodies and a couple lenses). For me, it's been the perfect tool. Took it to Ireland last year, and got every shot I cared to get. I used some of the manual adjustments to get different exposures of the same shot, but didn't do anything too drastic with it. I agree with marc above that post-processing is where you can really make a photo stand out, no matter what camera it was taken with. You don't have to do it for every shot, just concentrate on those you like the best. Play around with layers and different blend modes for them. I like to play with the 'equalize' filter and a black-and-white gradient fill layer (blended as 'overlay' or 'soft light' typically and then adjusting the opacity). Also look into applying a high pass filter for general sharpening. Whatever you do, it's for your own enjoyment, so who cares if someone else likes it.

"I just want to be able to do a job that I absolutely love, be more flexible for my family & be someone my daughter can be proud of."<BR><BR> Keep in mind that a lot of folks who 'love' a hobby find that they don't love it so much as a business. Taking wedding pictures is most likely the easy part. Competing for business, dealing with clients who have very specific expectations, doing all the post processing work, are all facets of the business that you might not enjoy as much - though you could certainly derive a great deal of satisfaction in a job well-done and fully appreciated.<BR><BR> As for flexibility, I don't know that there is a whole lot of flexibility in making a living as a wedding photographer. Certainly, you lose most of your weekends if you are successful (which might be the most meaningful time you can spend with your daughter as she grows), and clients want their pictures sooner than later, so when you aren't shooting, you'll most likely be working on what you've shot as well as trying to drum up more business.<BR><BR> As for your daughter being proud of you, most kids are proud of their parents for being good parents. I don't think they typically care what your job is.<BR><BR> None of this is to say that you shouldn't try to pursue your dream, as most everyone who has ever done that has had plenty of naysayers, but going in with a full knowledge of what to expect would certainly help. If I were in your shoes, I'd try to assist a successful photographer in the area, or at least talk to them to see what their normal day is like (if they are willing to do that). You might find that keeping it as a hobby suits you much better.<BR><BR> By the way, absolutely nothing wrong with your pictures, but I'm not sure they would set you apart from other wedding photographers I might be considering if I was in the market for one. <BR><BR>

I upgraded bodies a number of times over the years (shot Pentax) until I finally decided an all-in-one 'bridge' camera (the panasonic lumix fz1000) was suitable for my photo interests, and each time I upgraded bodies, nothing about my results changed significantly. However, if I bought a better lens, I'd usually see some improvement in results. Doing some research on your camera, it looks to be very well-reviewed, though it's practically ancient in terms of digital bodies. Looking at the specs, there are a few reasons that would have me looking for an upgrade in your situation. One, it apparently doesn't do video. Also, it looks to me like the auto-focus system is not as advanced as later offerings and the fps speed might be a little low for some action. And finally, the highest ISO is rather low, and it likely doesn't perform as well at the high ISO as some of the newer models. I don't know much about Canon, but simply looking over their selection of cameras at B&H, the Rebel T6i looks like it would offer pretty much anything you would use, though there is a later T7i waiting in the wings apparently. So my purely amateur advice based on my own experience would be to upgrade the body to one you'd likely never need to upgrade again (and I think the T6i fits that bill), then start looking at additional lenses to suit your needs. There's always the used market, and Canon has tons of lenses out there.

I wouldn't purchase anything based on a single review, unless perhaps it was the only review out there. Typically, you can find reviews from a number sources, and I'd take them all into account in making a decision on what to purchase. I think Rockwell's are quite thorough and certainly deserve a look.

Given most people purchase a telephoto lens for the reach, more reach is generally better, especially if lens quality and pricing is similar. Used to use a Sigma 150-500 (for Pentax) until I went to an all-in-one 'bridge' camera for portability and versatility, but don't have any direct experience with the lenses you are considering. However, after doing some research on the net, my choice would be to go with the Contemporary version of the Sigma. Will save you around $1000, and image quality and functionality seems to be very much in-line with the Sport version, with some actually preferring the Contemporary. But if you are only considering the Sport version vs the Nikon, I'd still go with the extra reach even though it's costing you more money.

<p>Totally amateur response based on no particular experience, but I would think that, if you want to make a career out of the very competitive business of photography, then you would want a good education in marketing. I see small businesses fail around here all the time, and one thing they generally have in common is that I've rarely if ever seen them advertise. With all of the folks taking pictures these days, photography cannot be an easy field to earn a living in (I don't think it ever was), but it is going to be nearly impossible if no one knows who you are or what you do. If you're interested in doing it as 'Fine Art,' then you probably need to make people think you're a bit unstable ;). Best of luck to you.</p>

<p>In response to the original question, my guess is that visitors view the film gallery as 'real photography,' and the digital gallery as computer-manipulated. Whenever I am with non-photographers at a gallery, and they see a work that is attributed to 'digital photography,' they assume it was mostly the work of a computer. When a work is attributed to just plain 'photography,' no such assumption is made. Essentially, they see the film photograph as being more genuine.</p>

<p>When shooting birds-in-flight, the clearest shots will be those of the legs leaving the frame.</p>

<p>While smartphones put a decent camera in the user's hands, I wonder how much they have actually contributed to the decline of the interchangeable lens camera. Do people who are 'into' photography (i.e. those who would typically purchase an SLR in the past) find the phone to be good enough for their needs? I don't even own a smart phone, but have tried to use my wife's to take pictures, and I hate it. Can't hold the damn thing still for one thing, and do not like the absence of a viewfinder.</p> <p>However, for me, I stopped using my DSLRs when I purchased the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000. It was a considerably lighter package, especially when you consider the lenses I would have to carry for the equivalent range, and the photos it produces are more than satisfactory for my amateur needs. So, I think the all-in-ones have had a significant impact on interchangeable-lens cameras, perhaps even more than other equipment.</p>

<p>To provide aMUSEment, of course.</p>

<p>Craig,<br> Perhaps off the beaten path a bit, and doesn't fit all of your criteria, but ever since I bought the Panasonic Lumix FZ1000, I stopped using my DSLRs. Granted, I'm just a 'rank amateur,' but it is a flexible tool that has allowed me to take any picture I've wanted to take, with the convenience of a single lens in the 25-400mm range (with extension on the zoom end possible). Yes, it gets a bit noisy at higher ISOs, but I've printed pics from it up to 13x19 at home, and they look fine. Recently went to Ireland with it, and found it and excellent tool for the trip. Much better than the phones many were using. You can view some of my pics from it here:<br> https://www.flickr.com/photos/107794064@N02/albums/72157675331936582<br> https://www.flickr.com/photos/107794064@N02/albums/72157665343977573</p> <p>Pics in those albums have been post-processed using Elements 13. You can view the same pics on my website here if you want to see full-res segments:<br> http://billjphotography.com/</p> <p>The camera has an electronic viewfinder, which I like because it gives you immediate feedback on what your adjustments are doing to the image.</p> <p>Just some 'food for thought.'</p>