The facts are, a man took a photograph of a flower that was grown from a seed in a green house or garden. The rest is a story.

It was a higher end Sigma, 18-250 with the quiet motor, DG/OS. Kind of my "Go To" field lens. I'm thinking I may have lost some focusing range @ one end, but I still think the focusing should be based on sensor feedback not ring placement. Hope I'm correct. Thank you all!
D.

Hey kids,
I have a strange one. If somebody I know were to say, be switching from Manual Focus to AF, and then inadvertently turn the Focus Ring while it was in the Auto Focus mode (and it did click a few times, that's what he told me), is there an issue?
I told my idiot friend that the focussing is done with the sensors, regardless of the position of the ring. Who's right, Me or my, um, dumb friend? And technically do I (Um, does He) need to have the lens recalibrated, if there is such a thing?
I am grateful for any insights.

Get yours, It'll be 6-2!!

DaVinci states it as "There must always be a balance of Art & Science". There are plenty of examples of the use of Math in Photography that people have responded with, some with merit, some are absurd. You can create an equation for the opening of an aperature at a specific setting, but do we do this upon actually shooting? Attending many high level shoots with world famous shooters in NYC, I've never seen one pull out a pen & paper to calculate the circumference of their lenses, just to prove that it can be found. Also, if you calculate the distance from an object, set your tripod & your composition or object isn't the way you want to make the shot the way you want, do you back up or zoom in/out? Or shoot because the math is correct? I use the 39 sensors in my camera for example to let them do what they're designed for. I use light meters & electronic feedback to perform functions & to calculate pertinent info & precise data for the same reasons you most likely have an Excel document that creates quotes & totals your line items automatically versus adding & multiplying on paper first; (I don't really need to answer that)

I agree! There was a Mathematics test that was general & basic which was fine. My beef was AFTER that test, was a test just got Algebra. I was making waves based on the principle of breaking out this additional Math requirement. A personal battle based on logic, admittedly.
DaVinci calls

Good point, but I didn't do collage pacifically for that reason, ie; I ain't got no ability to to take no college level entrance exam! Also, I flunked Algebra twice in High School and after intense aptitude testing, I attended a 3 year, non-academic Art School. I understand an equation when it has value (That's a math-uh-matical funny!), meaning that it applies to something real, like Color Management baselines (You forget that one, it was a "Give away"). Problem is, the people of this fine country have figured a way for software to do it for us, as a matter of efficiency.
In addition, the results of my Strong Interest Inventory & Myers Briggs aptitude tests both show, with the express inclusion of math skills, that Photography, not Math, is where I make the best use of my talents and skills. I respect that.
Your examples make sense as they are "In context" with the circumstances to which they apply. Those equations? I could calculate easily, ones that dont? I'll not waste a moment of my ability for. Taking it "Just because" is wasteful. Case in point; Even though I fell below the score I needed in random Algebriac ability, and after me fighting passionately for logic over suffering, the school realized the inadequacies of their case, and accepted me! It pays to questionable, when logic is what you champion. All else is egoic self-glorification. And my opinion? Means nothing.
Thanks Hog! (Is that in terms of riding? 'Hope so, I'm a huge, All American Harley-Davidson fanatic!) Roll easy!

You're right, but in these terms, in this application, there are no variables so to speak. I'm not finding an indefinite, just because, it's got a PURPOSE! That's my point, if it has a direct application, I get it! Brackets times a number squared in parentheses means nothing!
Thanks

Hi Peers/ Friends/ Pros,
I started applying for Studio Photog- Certificate course; I'm curious as to what formal training you feel is necessary or required to "Go Pro".
The course I found is awesome, but 2 days prior to starting, I was told I need to pass a college level Entrance Exam. I passed Math & English very high, then there was a 3rd test, arbitrarily for Algebra. I am frustrated beyond belief, as I am a Right-Brained creature (Geometry!) & required to pass a Left-Brained (Algebra) Math test for a Right-Brained course in Photography!!!
I have worked in 8-12 hour shoots with very famous shooters when I sold PhaseOne Digital Backs in late 90's, there was NO Algebra. My previous Aptitude tests have Photography far above any other interest/ability. I aced Geometry, and flunked Algebra, and have "above average" ability with Spacial Relationship.
What's my question? No idea. But, how do you apply Algebra to Pro-level shooting? And what formal training was most valuable or necessary in your experience and opinion?
Thank you, please send any/all responses as I need them desperately!
photogumbo
Dave 908-581-0775

Troubleshooting has many approaches, only one works; Try every combination possible, go to exaggerated extremes, & find patterns.
Will it format another card? Can you offload everything & re-format? Did you buy a $20 multi-card reader & use your computer to format? or scan for virus/fragmentation/ media integrity? Also, don't focus only on the media, try Firmware on the camera. Good Luck! Find the pattern & you'll find your answer!

Hi Mr. Barton,
I just viewed your website on my phone, then desktop computer. My initial impression is that it looks as though you have future plans to tweak it & have a good starting point. It is currently easy to navigate & find. It is, however a bit cold or cookie cutter in its "Feel", what one might expect from a professional but something more visual from a photographer.
Also, when I hit the "About Me", it told me about Steve, not Joe Barton. The pix look good, but a creative flair/element/ feel would help. I commend your open-minded approach to welcoming opinions!

How dare you! (That's too funny!! I'll have to feign insult),
I'm 49, my joints are 127, and my eyes are 74, and I'm very immature, so, do the math & get back to me.
I broke down and got new "Spectacles" (just to be age appropriate) and love them! Diopter couldn't compensate enough, but now I use Auto, then Manually focus for max clarity. Thanks so much!

How dare you! (That's too funny!! I'll have to feign insult),
I'm 49, my joints are 127, and my eyes are 74, and I'm very immature, so, do the math & get back to me.
I broke down and got new "Spectacles" (just to be age appropriate) and love them! Diopter couldn't compensate enough, but now I use Auto, then Manually focus for max clarity. Thanks so much!

Thank you, I did try it at first since even after 25 years I've never gotten used to wearing glasses. When I got my new can, I didn't have new ones yet & my script was worse than the diopter could compensate for. Now with new Oakley Coil over glasses, I can see and actually use them, as they don't fall off, pocketed, crushed, lost, etc. I can now Autofocus then adjust manually and get my s#!t clear!!!
Thanks again!

D7000 is your choice. I labored over this for over a year myself and spoke to everyone I could. I had a Canon previously so you understand I'm open-minded. Canons are cheaper and take very colorful, which is what most people want. Color, dynamic range and detail however just aren't there. If you want "pop-ey" go Canon, true to photographic representation and accuracy, GO NIKON. Canon shows as a "Better Buy", but if that's true then McDonalds is the best burger you've ever had (and I KNOW it ain't!). I'll explain the megapixel differences if you'd like.
Be ready for the learning curve, this is a highly advanced computer with a tube of glass attached, that makes it a bitch or an amazing tool once you realize what's possibly & available to control/alter/create with. You will be overwhelmed at first, novice or beginner. But now you know. Presets are amazing & somewhat complex all at once. Once you get off them & shoot "Manual", you'll be on a f#(Kin' rocket to the "Pro" level. Sigma is great, especially to start & as to not limit yourself $$$-wise, just upgrade with Nikkor glass later. I have a 15-250, & Prime 50 w/Macro in Sigma, that's all I'll need for a long, long time. I'd welcome some BS'ing on the phone if you want before you buy: dave.kalbach@gmail.com, shoot for the stars!!!