golem_bngolem

March 24, 2017

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.

December 20, 2015

+1

You might choose a lens for the Nikon thaz also

advantageous to adapt to your crop Canon. 50/1.4

is a fine portrait lens on the crop Canon and a very

affordable relic to use on the Nikon as a normal lens.

November 1, 2015

Nikkors with the Q, P, S, etc attached to the name

are the verrrrry earliest F-mount lenses. This does

not generally mean they are the best ..... not to

mention possible mechanical problems, from heavy

use but also from lack of use.

November 1, 2015

"I believe that all the Nikon lenses will mount

on any Nikon body without damage " ........

This is dangerously quite false.

July 28, 2015

One more vote for the Canon 10-18 STM. Low weight, low cost, low shutter speeds aided by the OIS, only exterior moving part is a change in length while zooming ... focusing is internal, and it focuses down to 6 inches ... 6 inches from the sensor, which can actually image the dirt on your front filter almost in focus ... so thaz as close as anyone needs to go !

It feels cheap, but it doesn't cost much. A Rebel also feels cheap, so it's not gonna be a shock to put the two together. I have a Rebel, with the 18-50, 10-18, and the 24/2.8. It all feels like a bunch of toys, so I find it entertaining that it all performs amazingly well !

As others have said, it's pretty sharp and nearly free of distortion. Not bad as to reflections and glare, either .... especially for an ultra-wide. I don't have the lens hood and have never had a problem for lack of it. Lens hoods for ultra-wide zooms are bulky and only minimally effective.

So how do they do it ? Where's the "No Free Lunch" aspect ? Well, that f:4.5 ~ 5.6 is where you find that. If you can live with that, lunch is pretty tasty and very fairly priced, I might even say it's nutritious :-) `

July 28, 2015

If the animals are rather active, I'd keep shooting

full frame. Crop mode crops for you, whether it's a

usable composition or not. In full frame, even if

the subject is rather off-center, you can still make

a reasonable composition.

`

July 28, 2015

The original purpose of a hot shoe cover is to

avoid zapping your eyebrow area with a high

voltage from a studio flash thaz plugged into

your PC terminal which was usually parallel

wired with the hot shoe.

FWIW, most of my covers are too loose :-O

`

July 2, 2015

I used an app called EOSinfo,exe and

it worked for my 5D2 however at first

it replied that no camera was seen.

IIRC the solution was to have the

camera already powered up and USB

connected to the powered-OFF PC

[win8], ... and then power up the PC.

This was "above and beyond" the

easy instructions that initially got

me no result ... just an intuitive

maneuver but it worked.

So .... if your simple app is not

delivering, try a few typical tricks.

Don't be a slave to the exact

instructions provided with it.

Here's the source link:

<a href="http://astrojargon.net/EOSInfo.aspx">http://astrojargon.net/EOSInfo.aspx</a>

`

May 1, 2015

You can't have live view with the shutter closed anyway.

The sensor hasta see the image to deliver the live view.

`

May 1, 2015

Is this shot thru the eyepiece or he body flange ?

If it's thru the flange is the lens takig the shot

truly on axis as if it were the camera lens " ? Cuz

if not the the dots are at diffreing distangces e tothe

focuys plane mer takikng the shotand you kow how

that goes ...

February 28, 2015

AWB will fix the color in daylite etc.

If you shoot indoors w/o flash, you

have added to the burden on AWB

to correct the indoor colors, maybe

added more than it can fix, plus a

small lost of less than 1/2 a stop

in daylite, maybe not even a 1/4

stop indoors since the color of the

filter and the color of the ambient

light are extremely close.

If I were gonna play that game,

I'd use 82 series rather than 81.

Outdoors, the AWB will correct the

slight cooling effect, but indoors it

might actually help the AWB from

running out of range, by cooling

the tone before the AWB gets to

work on correcting it. In this case,

you will lose 1/4 or 1/3 stop with

indoor lighting, but if you need all

the exposure you can get you can

just remove the filter.

`

January 25, 2015

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

January 7, 2015

<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.

Nothing new!

</blockquote>

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.

Examples ? Les Krimms, Diane Arbus. There's more but it's late I'm tired.

December 23, 2014

Many years ago I decided that in my own thinking, and also

in certain conversations within a 'close circle', that I would

cease to think "Portrait" and substitute "Portrayal". Words

can control our thinking and our actions, so this was not a

rhetorical "difference without a distinction".

Once I had integrated this change into my pics of peeps, I

decided that a fortunate possible expansion of the concept

might be that pic of *things* could more readily be made

as "portrayals" whereas picturing *things* in a "portrait"

manner seemed kinda pointless ..... tho not to deny that

anthropormorphisizing inanimate objects can often times

be a creative exploration.

Anywho, we are not always fully or even partially aware

of our own intentions. Some portraitists are "portrayers"

of the persons, as persons, who they photograph. Others

may be using those subjects as inanimate objects for the

type creative exploration mentioned above ... or perhaps

as some sort of "body double" for a self expressive shot,

some kind of disguised selfie.

I won't try here to say who amongst well known and well

regarded portraitists are doing things which way. I just

wanna widen the way we see and discuss our own and

other photographers' work.

December 23, 2014

If you choose to just keep using it and ignore

resale devaluation, I'd suggest that you paint

the damaged area black. I've done this for my

own damaged optics but I must my own were

of decidedly lesser scale than yours.

December 23, 2014

After digesting the whole [linked] geek article

about the effect of the glass sandwiches ahead

of the sensors, one thing I'm fairly sure I got

from all that info is that the SpeedBooster is a

better compensated device than one would

understand from Metabones's own website. It's

claimed in the article that each SpeedBooster's

optical design includes consideration of the

glass sandwich thickness thaz native to the

camera model line represented by the flange

mount at the rear of that SpeedBooster as

compared to the glass sandwich native to the

lens line associated with the flange mount on

the front of the SpeedBooster.

This creates a puzzle. Some Nikkor lenses

were designed for film Nikons with no glass

sandwich while other Nikkors are designed

for digital Nikons. I did NOT see any mention

of there being 2 different SpeedBoosters for

Nikkors. The same would be true of Canon EF

lenses, whose history bridges the evolution

from film to digital. Boosters for Minolta MD

or Canon FD lenses face no such problem as

these lenses lines were ALWAYS for film.

Hopefully, a clarification will soon be posted

here in reply [pleeeeeaaaaze?].

`

December 23, 2014

`

I tend to believe you already can spell that out

on your own, but that would entirely alter the

intensity/tone of my remark ... converting from

'snarky re: IQ' to 'really offensive re: IQ-and-

much-else'.

Other than clearing *that* up, I spoze there is

less need of sooper triprods now that we have

image stabilization, but having made my living

for decades with everything from 35 to 8x10, I

know you can see technically better images by

deploying improved technology as it develops,

but thaz about pixel peeping [in current jargon].

The visual impression of clarity and sharpness

is, however, not really tightly bound to using all

the latest and finest tech.

December 20, 2014

`

Re: "Street Photography". While there's many differing

approaches and some dogmatic beliefs in the genre, I

find one advantage of a big klunky camera is that none

of you subjects will view you as a sneak thief. While

some [many?] might verrrrrry strongly prefer to *not*

be photographed, none [almost none?] will assume that

you are intentionally rendering them in an unflattering

manner. A photo sneak thief is not 100% unnoticed as

he goes about his pursuits, and the sneakiness casts a

rather large dark cloud over the nature of his intentions.

Big obvious cameras say "I have no reason to hide what

I'm doing" which can earn you access and/or cooperation

from your subject. Nobody likes a sneak. If you get what

I'm about here, then you'll dig that even a tripod can be

of value. Again, it all depends on *your* idea of "street",

but just by fact that you even consider a Mamiya-7 I'm

feeling that my idea of "street" and yours are not at odds.

December 20, 2014

`

Peculiar DOF can be intentionally dialed in via a tilt-shift

lens, and likewise unintentionally dialed *into* collapsible

lenses from a source generally not associated with great

precision in their manufacturing.

Not to isolate my accusation to Russia, it's also possible

that a collapsible Summicron when compared to a rigid

version might also exhibit some degree of "creative DOF

adjustment" such as what we *might* be seeing here.

`

December 20, 2014

`

Truth, Tension, Transformation

Action, Anticipation, Aesthetic

Soooomebody help me, I just

can't help myself. Is there a

12 Stepper Program for this ?

"Hello my name is Golem and

I'm an alliteraholic .... "

`

December 20, 2014

+1 about the general IQ degradation with a Star Filter.

But OTOH, this does mean there's little or no point in

removing your skylite filter.

Gotta disagree that fewer and flatter iris blades make

for better [filterless] stars. More blades is more rays

in your starburst, and when you stop down to double

digit stops, flat or curved hardly matters.

BTW altho you can get starburst without a Star Filter

the type of effect you get *with* the filter is just a

different animal. Not a better or worse animal, just

different. There's dog lovers and there's cat lovers.

`

December 20, 2014

Gotta agree and would looove to switch to the 50:1.4,

I mean *IF* anybody wants to swap one for 3 or 4 of

my "vintage" 50:1.8 film era gems :-) Aftroll, one can

only shoot thru one optic at a time ....

Been dreaming about a 35:2.0 IS as my new normal

for BOTH full frame and crop frame ... *deep sigh".

December 17, 2014

` Substance, Situation, Spontaneity Context, Content, Cohesivity Honesty, Humanity, History Reality, Reaction, Revelation Insight, Imagination, Instant

Thematic, Dogmatic, Catmatic Hey all !!! Seems like almost anyone can be dogmatic and spin these triplets out by the alliterative dozens.

December 17, 2014

`

Was just now reading the whole thread and

was struck by *The Three Ms* aka Meaning

Mood and Mystery.

There is/was a "Fourth M", who is/was rather

reknown for proclaiming that "2 outa 3 ain't

bad", and I got to wondering if this held true

even for the 3 Ms of Street Photography.

`

December 17, 2014

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

be used for delivering a story, most typically a fiction or

IOW a fantasy.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by golem_bngolem