ANTIFA = ANTIFAscists.

It's quite an oxymoronic term, since the tactics they use are the same as those used by Mussolini's fascists after the Great War. They claim to be anti-discriminatory, yet their tactics are violent, and they use violence to shut down anyone who speaks against them. Famously they caused UC Berkley to keep Milo Yiannapoulos from speaking there. They're also virulently anti-Trump.

The Fascists and Nazi's/neo-Nazi's are all Socialists, not seeking a Communist political system. They're all left-wing by actions, if not by definition. They decry the Klan, but use the exact same tactics as them.

The $3.2 Million is only the amount B&H agreed to pay to settle the claims of the workers. The legal bills aren't normally included in settlement amounts. B&H's lawyers' bill is probably only known to B&H, since that's not normally public information, and would only be available to the public, if B&H were a publicly traded corporation. There may also be a clause in the settlement that precludes revelation of lawyers' fees, etc. Publicly available cost data such as filing fees and court costs are known.

This action was brought by the DOL, because B&H is a Federal contractor; therefore the tab for the complainants is borne by the U.S. taxpayer.

And don't believe, for even an instant, that this was only an altruistic, Quixotic, quest for justice. Any time the U.S. government gets involved, from whatever department, you can bet that there are politics involved. The truth always resides somewhere in the middle of both ends of what's stated publicly. B&H was likely responsible for its hiring and employment actions, but don't believe that the workers were being chained to their fork lifts for days at a time.

Finally, I've known Henry Posner by reputation and contact, since the advent of internet forums, before Netscape. He's an honorable man.

Like I stated earlier, I've used the pop-up only a few times. Most of the time, if I think I'll need flash, I'll mount the SB800 because I can control it a bit easier. In my very earliest days with a Brownie Starflash, I was always disappointed with red-eye, and no way to correct it.

This was a civil settlement, not a criminal one. Therefore, the respondent was responsible, not guilty. The burden of proof in civil matters amounts to a preponderance of evidence (50.xxx%), not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In these cases, the complainants take their beefs to the U.S. Government. As such, they have no "skin in the game", and the Federal government becomes their advocate. And, if the government at any level decides to make the case one of "righteousness", then there is no end unless the respondent says "uncle" through settlement.

Labor laws have been tilted in employees' favor since passage of the Wagner Act.

As to a capitalistic solution, it's far from that. If the complainants had to sue on their own, and then be on the hook for the respondents legal costs if they lost, there would be less litigation. Further, I don't believe any of these aggrieved employees were held hostage to their working conditions. The 13th Amendment did away with slavery.

I blow hot and cold about pop-up flashes. My D750 has one, and it's hardly ever been used (maybe 2-3 times). I always get concerned about having any type of flash so close to the lens axis. Offsetting that is the ability to use it as a slave for my SB800's.

Worked for years without them with Nikon F3, F5, and various medium format cameras.

I believe it's probably more a case of what you "grew up" using.

PS - The Feds never, ever lose. They have unlimited resources, and they'll beat you to death with the paper work storm.

Advertising photography walks a fine line between putting products' best feet forward, and going into fantasy land. Real estate sales has long been known for hype in trying to market and sell homes, especially in adverse market conditions. In the past, my wife and I have looked at homes and wondered just how the home "deteriorated" from the initial photos, to the actual walk through. That "spacious" family room turns out to be a converted 3rd bedroom; the "master" bedroom turns out to be barely big enough for necessary furniture.

The photos can't be artwork. Anyone who's seen more than two homes, and doesn't have stars in their eyes, will see through the phoniness. It's one thing to move the shortcomings down the list of features, but you can't Photoshop the house to non-reality.

Although I wore a light blue dinner jacket, the setting could be the same, right down to your glasses. My girl friend was shorter, though. Same graduation year.

We had our 50th Anniversary class reunion two years ago. It was amazing in some respects. Some of us picked up right where we left off the night of graduation.

We were fortunate, in that none of our class was lost in Viet Nam; although a half-dozen did leave legs or arms there. One of the hardest parts was recognition of those who had passed away in the interim. Still get a bit teary thinking of them; some were very close friends.

Even after 50 years, though, a lot of the activities revolved around athletics; football game recognition, etc. And some even carried grudges after 50 years. I'm long past grudges and hard feelings.

The OP wasn't asking whether anyone knew about view cameras, and I do believe that a large number of photographers (not snapshooters) will know what a view camera is, and it's very basic features. He was seeking advice on how to improve his photos.

The subject drifted a bit, and the use of a PC lens came into play. My comments were geared toward the hardware needed to do a downtown job. For some applications a view camera has no peers. Even PC lenses are limited in their movements and bringing perspective distortion under control. Whether the photographer is industrious enough to learn and use all the necessary tools for successful imaging, is another story altogether. Even DSLR users who do photography, will go to a lot of trouble to get a successful image. And, remember, a lot of the processing work that went on in the development of film and darkroom processing, has now transferred to digital editing. People spend a great deal of time during the post-processing phase.

PS - Anyone who's seen an Ansel Adams photograph will know the type of camera he used.

Agreed.

And it's why I like my 90mm f8 Super Angulon with the bag bellows, on my Cambo. I can frame portrait, and use the swings to increase depth.

I worked with a local architect a number of years ago, and he taught me some very nice techniques for gaining depth indoors. I wondered why he used a Bogen 3053 that he could take up to around 9 feet. He could get very nice views above eye level with that monster tripod. I still haul out my Bogen 3036 when I need a bit more height.

Most folks work from eye level, even with a tripod. A lot of distortion goes away with a taller tripod and small step ladder.

I can imagine that your 24mm PC lens and a bit of elevation would make some great images. Thanks for the response.

Lots of good replies and suggestions. PC lenses help, but for the most part, don't have enough range.

There are limits on any digital camera, and you're going to need work on composition and lighting. In fact, you should think about some type of studio lighting which can effectively expose corners and high spots. You can use a couple of off-camera flashes, expose the shadow images over several exposures, and stitch the images together, using editing software.

Lenses wider than 24mm on FX (16mm on DX) cameras bring nearly uncorrectable distortion especially the instant the sensor plane gets off the perpendicular axis. It's one reason why view cameras are still great for interior photos. With the adjustments available, a lot of "sins and weaknesses" can be corrected pre-exposure.

The digital era has allowed folks to take twice or three times as many bad images as before. Ever wonder how a fixed focus camera from the 1950's could take such out-of-focus images? Now, we can take many more bad images because folks don't understand that the eye has to "previsualize" the shot. Wonder why Jack Nicklaus was such a great golfer? He could always picture a successful shot, then execute his vision.

Ansel Adams knew how he wanted to visualize El Capitan. He used the darkroom, but he got the image he sought. In the days when news photographers used Speed Graphics, they got the "shot" because they could visualize the finished photo. Motor drives enabled bad news photographers to capture many more bad frames in the hope of capturing one.

I don't think were so lazy; it's just that technology enables us to record a lot of images. But if you can't visualize the finished product, then the 50 exposures of Johnny's soccer score won't capture the magic moment. It will be between frames.

It's all about vision, whether writing or taking photos. Spell checker helps only good spellers. The rest ignore the red underline. Their or there; it's or its; loose or lose.

And therein lies the rub.

I, too, sat through any number of chem, psych, and a few other types of lectures where questioning, if not outright banned, was very much discouraged. And you had the obligatory regurgitation of facts and data which I found were nearly useless. The lecture hall classes were designed to weed out a large number of freshmen and sophomores, and the universities had that down pat.

My best experiences were in smaller classes that were at the upper class (junior, senior, post-grad) levels. In my economics, finance and poli sci classes, the professors expected to be challenged. My best poli sci professor, while a dyed-in-the-wool Roosevelt Democrat, always expected one of us, especially political conservatives, to challenge her notions about how the body politic works. Just never come to class unprepared to defend your arguments.

A number of years later, when I took post grad studies, small classes of as few as five people, became the norm, not the exception.

The Greeks had it right with Aristotle, Plato, etc. The open air (literally and figuratively) setting does provide superior learning.

Now, I agree that there are types of learning that require rote methods. I know of no way to learn multiplication tables and some of the rules of grammar, where there's a magic code book for ingesting knowledge. But, when we get into learning literature, history, the so-called arts, then Socratic methods do carry the day.

We all learn "peer-to-peer", and it comes from our interaction with each other. One of the prime examples is in the work place. We all come from a variety of backgrounds even among the same professional credentials. How you earned a degree at UCLA will be somewhat different than someone who graduated from Indiana University with the same degree. The professors, students, TA's etc., all have different ways of imparting their knowledge to others. You have a different way, I'm sure, than I do. And we all have slightly different means of absorbing knowledge. Now, when you enter the work place, all those learning methods become interwoven among the work group. You then have to find a method to absorb the knowledge of your peers, as well as passing on your knowledge to your peers.

The late Michael Crichton noted in one of his novels about what was termed "mountain hopping". Doctors, and I'm sure other professions, find out what others know by a series of questions. Each professional asks the other a question, and the other professional responds with a question which demonstrates their mastery of the subject. This is continued until a parity is reached.

You "speak" volumes.

The educational system is badly focused in America. Teachers spend huge amounts of time, either bringing students up to speed, or dealing with the huge amount of bureaucracy in a closed system, not accountable to the public market place. Government-funded education comes with all the subtlety of a sledge hammer.

Students learn from their peers. Teachers should be mentors, mediators, and arbiters. They shouldn't be in the business of top down knowledge dispensing.

There needs to be honesty in achievement; students should not move along until they prove mastery of the subject matter. Does that mean that the grade system (EL-HI) should be eliminated? Absolutely. The school system doesn't take into consideration the huge variance in learning rates. And the closest I came to a true balance, was in the 2nd and 3rd grades, when we had "fast" and "slow" learners in the same class. The "slow" learners were nearly always a year older than others. It worked perfectly.

I graduated from high school in 1965, and there were only two teachers who knew that knowledge was passed along peer-to-peer. That's how they taught; that's how we learned. With a laptop and Google, a student could learn the elements of micro-biology without a teacher. Students will ask the appropriate questions.

We also have a problem, in that education nearly always badly lags changes in science and technology. When I took Chem and Physics in HS, the structure of the atom was pretty much taught at the proton/neutron/electron level, and chemistry hadn't yet moved out past similar knowledge. By 1975, that had changed so much, that students couldn't comprehend the changes.

Moore's law doesn't just apply to computer chips. The pace of discovery gets faster, and those changes don't move down the learning change nearly fast enough.

There's a scientist in England by the name of Matt Ridley wrote a book titled "The Evolution of Everything: How New Ideas Emerge". It's an absolute eye opener, and it will change your mind about how education works.

This swan taking flight was taken at Crosswinds Marsh, Wayne County, Michigan, earlier this spring. He only flew about 150 feet before landing again on the water. The goose seems totally uninterested.