didereaux

<p>Okay I will avoid the screaming to be said, 'Doesn't anyone RTFM anymore', and instead ask if anyone actually looks at their menus on these cameras/<br> Like any Custom Function, you can always return the camera back to factory-default operation by returning that Custom Function to option “zero”, or returning the Custom Controls C.Fn for the shutter button, AF-ON, and/or AEL button to the first of each button's available options.</p>

<p>Golf? Proper lens? I'd use a Lyman 6x12 on a .270 Winchester. Some might go lighter. ;)</p>

<p>I agree with Michael, but as some of the responses show clearly there are those that are unwilling to change anything. This is what happens when a thing stagnates, or maybe it is what causes the stagnation.<br> One mentioning the 'Philosophy' thread as having many thoughtful responses, I would suggest that all those comments are made by a very tiny number of the same people. I have witnessed how newcomers, not knowing the 'traditions' get squeezed out very quickly. This is the case in a couple of other long running sections as well. <br> Some judicious experimentation is what keeps something like a forum or blog interesting, when forgotten so is the forum.</p>

<p>Steve Gubin wrote, "</p> <p align="LEFT">Very often – too often, I fear – I look at another photographer's work and allow the feeling it gives me to guide me in my appreciation of it. I am capable of discerning certain basic technical elements (composition, color, tonality, etc.) but I am often at a loss to “see” what critics praise so highly in certain images.</p> <p align="LEFT"> </p> <p align="LEFT"> </p> <p align="LEFT">For me, this applies especially to some contemporary work, and to many abstract works from the past. (A few brief examples and not limited to these – Minor White, Man Ray, or some of the selections made for the annual photography show in Paris.)</p> <p align="LEFT"> </p> <p align="LEFT"> </p> <p align="LEFT">My impression of much of certain contemporary work which seems highly regarded is that it seems to be possessed of either an extreme post-postmodern ironic banality, or it is a highly produced, fantastical neo-pictorialist construct. I am not railing, as some are fond of, against the so-called “Art World”. I am seeking greater understanding."</p> <p align="LEFT"> </p> <p align="LEFT"><strong>Your view is entirely valid.</strong> What is said in reviews and professional critiques is heavily biased by the fact that almost all of the contributors have a vested interest. Their livelihood depends upon their acceptance within a very closed group (both numerically, and psychological). They must adopt the current jargon, and respond in the current fashion when considering 'Art' in any form. this in turn is aped by the ignorant, and smelly masses.</p> <p align="LEFT">At the more mundane level of say Wedding photography we are being inundated by over-exposures. While other photography is being viewed as good only if over processed to the point of being fit for only fantasy comic books. Any critic who points out that such things are not artistic will be shunned and have no say, or place (paying) in which to say it. Ten years from now those so-called techniques will be as pooh-poohed as pink glossy lipstick and plastic hair of the 60's. </p>