You did not mention the distance from the camera to the subject for each photo, only that you tried to fill the frame, which meant you kept getting closer as the focal length got shorter.

It is actually the distance from the camera to the subject that controls the perspective. Changing the focal length only serves to crop or expand the framing.

You will probably see that the most pleasing perspectives resulted from a subject distance beyond 10 feet, maybe around 15 feet being optimal. Having picked that distance, the focal length then determines whether it is just a head shot or a wider view.

I don't know where the xenophobia comes from. Maybe somebody has something to hide.

Most of us are envious of your beautiful country and wish the airfare was not so prohibitive.

How wide is the hall?

The environment does not need to be completely blacked out, just relatively dark. If you can register almost no exposure (manual aperture and shutter speed) without the flash you have a good start. Then you should just have to watch out for unwanted reflections from walls, etc.

It didn't become obnoxious until you showed up.

If you look on Amazon.com you might find a different source that is willing to ship to you.

Also, calumetphoto.com (a little more expensive than Adorama or B&H) is spread out more geographically and you might find one of their west-coast outlets willing to ship to NZ.

As a last resort, you could contact the manufacturer and ask them to suggest a source.

I guess you would classify that as an editing error.

How should I categorize your response – defensive, sarcastic/joke or abusive?

You seem to be determined to prove my point by your example.

This thread actually started under Main Photography Discussion and got moved to General Chit-Chat by the Admin.

The score so far: 9 sarcastic/joke posts, 3 defensive comments and one serious response.

Exactly the point made by Ken Rockwell in his Megapixel Myth article: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm

If you follow his reasoning, and I don't disagree with him, a lot of people have been chasing the wrong goal and wasting a lot of money on technology.

We need to stop and smell the roses - learn more about what makes a good photograph and not expect Nikon or Canon to help us achieve Nirvana.

So true. I worked for Kodak in the 60s and the Colorama was a source of corporate pride.

But don't forget, viewing distance helped.

I suspect that Krispix is gone but I can guess that he will be happier with http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/

Others (not you) that have responded to my comments seem to confirm my impressions.

Doesn't cover the 20-24 mp range either but we can extrapolate.

It is interesting to see that scanned 35mm film is in the realm of 20-22 mp. That would seem to put 36mp in the vicinity of medium format film.

Do you know the source for this PDF?

The problem is that too many UHH members do not care that they are turning off others with their personal attacks on one another and their inability to address other members in an civil manner. This forum should be about helping each other, not about defending our opinions and verbally abusing others.

Many of the threads here quickly drift off topic and it becomes difficult to pick put the serious responses from the jokes. The lack of a proper search mechanism does not help either.

Is it really necessary to collectively rant for fifty or more pages about one member’s insensitive remark? Where is the harm in simply ignoring it?

It should also be OK to recommend to someone new to photography that they could benefit from visiting a library or book store before coming here and reopening topics that have been flogged to death many times in the past. Do we really want to spend our time spoon feeding every new photographer the information that they can find in their camera’s manual? Why not simply direct them to a link that explains things without having to repeat everything over again.

You only have to look at a few other forums to see that a vocal minority on this forum is just here to bloviate.

This sounds familiar. Although we could all watch our bedside manners talking to beginners, I can sympathize with the frustration in the response.

This forum can serve a useful function for photographers who cannot easily find answers elsewhere. However, before asking for advice here, a poster should make an effort to learn something about the subject.

Many of these questions have been discussed at length in recent posts, so if you need to start with UHH, you should at least look at a couple of recent pages. There have been at least two threads about moon photography this week.

True. But if that light is too strong and you have no fill at all (i.e., nothing bouncing back from the opposite wall) you risk not get anything for the rest of the face.

I depends on whether you are interested in photography itself or in digital photography in particular.

Outdoor Photographer and Popular Photography (and most magazines with “Digital” in their title) are inexpensive but they contain an inordinate amount of advertising and promotional material disguised as editorial content.

On the other hand, more expensive publications, like Aperture, have more interesting content and much less promotional material. You might want to order a back issue before you subscribe since they are not cheap.

You are going to get what you pay for.