golem_bngolem

I'm not concerned whether I know the subject, but as to whether it makes any difference, well yeah, there is a difference. I have no strong preference. I'm glad there are both modes ... broadens my world, my outlook. Frinstintz, some listeners strongly prefer songs with a narrative story in the lyric. Or at lest that the lyrics express something that they care about ... or can sympathise ... or understand ... or can sing along [even silently]. I myself prefer lyrics in languages that I do not comprehend. Then the vocal are like another instrument and I can't be distracted by the narrative content or the whatever the words of the lyrics may be saying. IOW I do prefer the aesthetics, the music, and can focus on that and not be pulled-at by the familiar, the what-I-know, of words in a language that I comprehend. I do like short storys, essays, some poetry, etc as read on-air in some radio shows ... so I do like words and narratives. I just do NOT care to combine them into one thing. I really LIKE having two things, uncombined, to experience separately.

<p>+1</p> <p>You might choose a lens for the Nikon thaz also<br> advantageous to adapt to your crop Canon. 50/1.4<br> is a fine portrait lens on the crop Canon and a very<br> affordable relic to use on the Nikon as a normal lens.</p>

<p>Nikkors with the Q, P, S, etc attached to the name<br> are the verrrrry earliest F-mount lenses. This does <br> not generally mean they are the best ..... not to<br> mention possible mechanical problems, from heavy<br> use but also from lack of use. </p>

<p>"I believe that all the Nikon lenses will mount<br> on any Nikon body without damage " ........ <br> <br> This is dangerously quite false. <br> </p>

<p>One more vote for the Canon 10-18 STM.<br /> <br /> Low weight, low cost, low shutter speeds aided by<br /> the OIS, only exterior moving part is a change in<br /> length while zooming ... focusing is internal, and<br /> it focuses down to 6 inches ... 6 inches from the<br /> sensor, which can actually image the dirt on your<br /> front filter almost in focus ... so thaz as close as<br /> anyone needs to go !</p> <p>It feels cheap, but it doesn't cost much. A Rebel<br /> also feels cheap, so it's not gonna be a shock to<br /> put the two together. I have a Rebel, with the<br /> 18-50, 10-18, and the 24/2.8. It all feels like a<br /> bunch of toys, so I find it entertaining that it all<br /> performs amazingly well !</p> <p>As others have said, it's pretty sharp and nearly<br /> free of distortion. Not bad as to reflections and<br /> glare, either .... especially for an ultra-wide. I<br /> don't have the lens hood and have never had a<br /> problem for lack of it. Lens hoods for ultra-wide<br /> zooms are bulky and only minimally effective.</p> <p>So how do they do it ? Where's the "No Free<br /> Lunch" aspect ? Well, that f:4.5 ~ 5.6 is where<br /> you find that. If you can live with that, lunch<br /> is pretty tasty and very fairly priced, I might <br /> even say it's nutritious :-) <br /> <br /> `</p>

<p>If the animals are rather active, I'd keep shooting<br> full frame. Crop mode crops for you, whether it's a<br> usable composition or not. In full frame, even if<br> the subject is rather off-center, you can still make<br> a reasonable composition. <br> <br> `</p>

<p>The original purpose of a hot shoe cover is to<br> avoid zapping your eyebrow area with a high <br> voltage from a studio flash thaz plugged into<br> your PC terminal which was usually parallel<br> wired with the hot shoe. </p> <p>FWIW, most of my covers are too loose :-O </p> <p>` </p>

<p>I used an app called EOSinfo,exe and<br> it worked for my 5D2 however at first<br> it replied that no camera was seen.</p> <p>IIRC the solution was to have the<br> camera already powered up and USB<br> connected to the powered-OFF PC<br> [win8], ... and then power up the PC.<br> <br> This was "above and beyond" the<br> easy instructions that initially got<br> me no result ... just an intuitive<br> maneuver but it worked. <br> <br> So .... if your simple app is not<br> delivering, try a few typical tricks. <br> Don't be a slave to the exact<br> instructions provided with it. <br> <br> Here's the source link: <br> <a href="http://astrojargon.net/EOSInfo.aspx">http://astrojargon.net/EOSInfo.aspx</a> <br> <br> ` </p>

<p>You can't have live view with the shutter closed anyway.<br> The sensor hasta see the image to deliver the live view.</p> <p>` </p>

<p>Is this shot thru the eyepiece or he body flange ?<br> If it's thru the flange is the lens takig the shot <br> truly on axis as if it were the camera lens " ? Cuz<br> if not the the dots are at diffreing distangces e tothe<br> focuys plane mer takikng the shotand you kow how<br> that goes ...</p>

<p>AWB will fix the color in daylite etc.<br> If you shoot indoors w/o flash, you<br> have added to the burden on AWB<br> to correct the indoor colors, maybe<br> added more than it can fix, plus a<br> small lost of less than 1/2 a stop<br> in daylite, maybe not even a 1/4<br> stop indoors since the color of the<br> filter and the color of the ambient<br> light are extremely close.<br> <br> If I were gonna play that game, <br> I'd use 82 series rather than 81. <br> Outdoors, the AWB will correct the<br> slight cooling effect, but indoors it<br> might actually help the AWB from<br> running out of range, by cooling<br> the tone before the AWB gets to<br> work on correcting it. In this case, <br> you will lose 1/4 or 1/3 stop with<br> indoor lighting, but if you need all<br> the exposure you can get you can<br> just remove the filter.<br> </p> <p>` </p>

<p>No Metabones adapter with or<br /> without optical elements has <br />internal moving parts. Smart<br /> adapters work only on lenses<br /> that have their own internally<br /> powered moving parts and in<br /> reality thaz Canon EF and no<br /> others. <br /> <br /> Unfortunately, the focus of<br /> the statements on the pages<br /> you linked by Metabones go<br /> from specific to global and<br /> back again in a somewhat<br /> confusing manner. No fault<br /> of theirs, it's the fault of the<br /> person reading for not having<br /> enuf prior knowledge to see<br /> where that is happening ! <br /> <br /> What ! ? Did I just "Blame the<br /> Victim" ? Well sort of. Stuff as<br /> we see at the Metabones site<br /> is actually for experienced<br /> video professionals. $400 to<br /> $600 for SpeedBoosters ? To <br /> Fuji or M43 or Nex users thaz <br /> a heap of sheckels, but in the<br /> professional video world it's<br /> just pocket lint.<br /> <br /> Metabones products can be <br /> useful to amateur users of<br /> digital still cameras, and no<br /> law says you can't buy and<br /> use them. But you do wind up<br /> with visitors to Metabone's<br /> site who just might get a bit<br /> confused about the features<br /> of the various products.</p> <p> </p>

<p ><a name="00d33I"></a><a href="/photodb/user?user_id=19592">Jeff Spirer</a> <a href="/member-status-icons"><img title="Moderator" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/mod.gif" alt="" /><img title="Subscriber" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10plus.gif" alt="" /><img title="Frequent poster" src="/v3graphics/member-status-icons/2rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jan 04, 2015; 08:28 p.m.</p> <blockquote> <p>Nothing new!</p> </blockquote> <p>Can you give an example of that non-newness for <a href="http://i.huffpost.com/gadgets/slideshows/392580/slide_392580_4789160_free.jpg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">this photo</a> from that page. <br> <br> Examples ? Les Krimms, Diane Arbus. There's more but it's late I'm tired.</p>

<p>Many years ago I decided that in my own thinking, and also<br> in certain conversations within a 'close circle', that I would<br> cease to think "Portrait" and substitute "Portrayal". Words<br> can control our thinking and our actions, so this was not a<br> rhetorical "difference without a distinction". <br> <br> Once I had integrated this change into my pics of peeps, I<br> decided that a fortunate possible expansion of the concept<br> might be that pic of *things* could more readily be made<br> as "portrayals" whereas picturing *things* in a "portrait"<br> manner seemed kinda pointless ..... tho not to deny that<br> anthropormorphisizing inanimate objects can often times<br> be a creative exploration.<br> <br> Anywho, we are not always fully or even partially aware<br> of our own intentions. Some portraitists are "portrayers"<br> of the persons, as persons, who they photograph. Others<br> may be using those subjects as inanimate objects for the<br> type creative exploration mentioned above ... or perhaps<br> as some sort of "body double" for a self expressive shot,<br> some kind of disguised selfie. <br> <br> I won't try here to say who amongst well known and well<br> regarded portraitists are doing things which way. I just<br> wanna widen the way we see and discuss our own and<br> other photographers' work. <br> </p>

<p>If you choose to just keep using it and ignore<br> resale devaluation, I'd suggest that you paint<br> the damaged area black. I've done this for my<br> own damaged optics but I must my own were<br> of decidedly lesser scale than yours. <br> </p>

<p>After digesting the whole [linked] geek article<br> about the effect of the glass sandwiches ahead<br> of the sensors, one thing I'm fairly sure I got<br> from all that info is that the SpeedBooster is a<br> better compensated device than one would<br> understand from Metabones's own website. It's <br> claimed in the article that each SpeedBooster's<br> optical design includes consideration of the<br> glass sandwich thickness thaz native to the<br> camera model line represented by the flange<br> mount at the rear of that SpeedBooster as<br> compared to the glass sandwich native to the<br> lens line associated with the flange mount on<br> the front of the SpeedBooster. <br> <br> This creates a puzzle. Some Nikkor lenses<br> were designed for film Nikons with no glass<br> sandwich while other Nikkors are designed<br> for digital Nikons. I did NOT see any mention<br> of there being 2 different SpeedBoosters for <br> Nikkors. The same would be true of Canon EF<br> lenses, whose history bridges the evolution<br> from film to digital. Boosters for Minolta MD<br> or Canon FD lenses face no such problem as<br> these lenses lines were ALWAYS for film. <br> <br> Hopefully, a clarification will soon be posted<br> here in reply [pleeeeeaaaaze?]. <br> <br> ` </p>

<p>` <br> <br> I tend to believe you already can spell that out<br> on your own, but that would entirely alter the<br> intensity/tone of my remark ... converting from<br> 'snarky re: IQ' to 'really offensive re: IQ-and-<br> much-else'. <br> <br> Other than clearing *that* up, I spoze there is<br> less need of sooper triprods now that we have<br> image stabilization, but having made my living<br> for decades with everything from 35 to 8x10, I<br> know you can see technically better images by<br> deploying improved technology as it develops,<br> but thaz about pixel peeping [in current jargon].<br> The visual impression of clarity and sharpness<br> is, however, not really tightly bound to using all<br> the latest and finest tech. </p>

<p>` <br> <br> Re: "Street Photography". While there's many differing<br> approaches and some dogmatic beliefs in the genre, I<br> find one advantage of a big klunky camera is that none<br> of you subjects will view you as a sneak thief. While<br> some [many?] might verrrrrry strongly prefer to *not*<br> be photographed, none [almost none?] will assume that<br> you are intentionally rendering them in an unflattering<br> manner. A photo sneak thief is not 100% unnoticed as<br> he goes about his pursuits, and the sneakiness casts a<br> rather large dark cloud over the nature of his intentions. <br> <br> Big obvious cameras say "I have no reason to hide what<br> I'm doing" which can earn you access and/or cooperation<br> from your subject. Nobody likes a sneak. If you get what<br> I'm about here, then you'll dig that even a tripod can be<br> of value. Again, it all depends on *your* idea of "street",<br> but just by fact that you even consider a Mamiya-7 I'm<br> feeling that my idea of "street" and yours are not at odds. <br> </p>

<p>` <br> <br> Peculiar DOF can be intentionally dialed in via a tilt-shift<br> lens, and likewise unintentionally dialed *into* collapsible<br> lenses from a source generally not associated with great<br> precision in their manufacturing. <br> <br> Not to isolate my accusation to Russia, it's also possible<br> that a collapsible Summicron when compared to a rigid<br> version might also exhibit some degree of "creative DOF<br> adjustment" such as what we *might* be seeing here. <br> <br> <br> ` <br> </p>

<p>` <br> <br> Truth, Tension, Transformation </p> <p>Action, Anticipation, Aesthetic <br> <br> <br> Soooomebody help me, I just<br> can't help myself. Is there a<br> 12 Stepper Program for this ? <br> <em>"Hello my name is Golem and </em><br> <em>I'm an alliteraholic .... " </em><br> <em> </em><br> <em>` </em></p>

<p>+1 about the general IQ degradation with a Star Filter.<br> <br> But OTOH, this does mean there's little or no point in<br> removing your skylite filter.<br> <br> Gotta disagree that fewer and flatter iris blades make<br> for better [filterless] stars. More blades is more rays<br> in your starburst, and when you stop down to double<br> digit stops, flat or curved hardly matters.<br> <br> BTW altho you can get starburst without a Star Filter<br> the type of effect you get *with* the filter is just a<br> different animal. Not a better or worse animal, just<br> different. There's dog lovers and there's cat lovers. <br> <br> ` </p>

<p>Gotta agree and would looove to switch to the 50:1.4,<br> I mean *IF* anybody wants to swap one for 3 or 4 of<br> my "vintage" 50:1.8 film era gems :-) Aftroll, one can<br> only shoot thru one optic at a time .... <br> <br> Been dreaming about a 35:2.0 IS as my new normal<br> for BOTH full frame and crop frame ... *deep sigh". <br> </p>

<p>` <br /> <br /> Substance, Situation, Spontaneity <br /> <br /> Context, Content, Cohesivity<br /> <br /> Honesty, Humanity, History <br /> <br /> Reality, Reaction, Revelation<br /> <br /> Insight, Imagination, Instant<br> <br> Thematic, Dogmatic, Catmatic <br /> <br /> <br /> Hey all !!! Seems like almost<br /> anyone can be dogmatic and<br /> spin these triplets out by the<br /> alliterative dozens.</p> <p> </p>

<p>` <br> <br> Was just now reading the whole thread and<br> was struck by *The Three Ms* aka Meaning<br> Mood and Mystery. <br> <br> There is/was a "Fourth M", who is/was rather<br> reknown for proclaiming that "2 outa 3 ain't <br> bad", and I got to wondering if this held true<br> even for the 3 Ms of Street Photography. <br> <br> ` </p>

<p>As far as "Object of" vs "Subject of" ... I have no problem<br /> concerning the political incorrectitude of "Female person's<br /> body presented as an object". Photographs differ from<br /> cinema mainly in terms of audio. Motion ? Nope, I find no<br /> distinction. The freezing of motion/time [still photo] is still<br /> a visual statement about motion/time ... often more so<br /> than is conveyed by cinema. Story line [plot] ? Nope, still<br /> photos, even as a single frame, can have far greater story<br /> lines than much cinema delivers. Cinema viewing is a quite<br /> passive experience. It's all laid out, even if one has to view<br /> all the way to the final frame to realize that. A still image<br /> is an interactive experience. You hafta bring something to<br /> it to mix with what the image brings to you. Thus the "final<br /> frame" will differ for each viewer. <br /> <br /> OK so back to "Object vs Subject". My point in comparing<br /> still image to cine is that we all know that [other than hard<br /> core documentary] cine is fantasy [of varying degrees]. But<br /> we too often see a realistic photo [of NON surreal style] as<br /> something other than fantasy, other than story-telling. In<br /> that mindset, we then take issue with "objectification" of a<br /> subject, an in particular women subjects. But thaz all cuz<br /> we refuse to allow that even a detailed non-surrealist still<br /> photo *IS* a fantasy. Don't limit "fantasy" to a Freudian<br /> context. I mean it to be read as counterpunctal to seeing a<br /> still photo as automatically being a document or evidence.<br /> IOW if it's "evidence" then it's "evidence of things not seen"<br /> cuz as viewers, we hafta accept that no actual frozen time/<br /> moments really exist ... that the very presentation of frozen<br /> time verrrry powerfully implies that what we see is a very<br /> partial, very editted, very incomplete piece of a larger story. <br /> Elements within the picture may guide us or inspire us to<br /> paint-in the rest of the story along a certain path, but even<br /> then, huge freedom is granted to the viewer. <br /> <br /> OK, so a still image is like cinema except there's no audio<br /> and the frames per second rate is massively different. In<br /> cinema, we treat the persons we see as presenters of the<br /> story, as actors. They are objects in that sense and this is<br /> no insult to the cast members nor humanity in general. It's<br /> the same for the subject in a still image. They have a job<br /> to do within the storytelling context of that image, and as<br /> such are objects, tools of the director or photographer to <br> be used for delivering a story, most typically a fiction or<br> IOW a fantasy. </p>