You are right it is apples to oranges but its how you reach the goal that is important. Vector based programs can do all but a few minor tasks that pixel based programs can and for those few rare times when I need a pixelating brush I keep a copy of photoshop elements on hand, kinda like another "plug-in" The trade off in ease of use, zero degredation, speed, simplicity (fewer steps to do something) and real time editing makes using Xara a joy to use in comparason to Photoshop. I own the Photoshop CS4 suite (a gift from my son when he upgraded to CS5 at school) and I do not even like opening the thing. In Design is a nightmare to use.

Xara is focusing its upgrades to answer the shortfalls of vectoring Vs pixelation, especially in the area of photo manipulation, and is nearly up to speed. It will not be very long before using Elements will not be necessary.

My understanding is that a long while back a group of core engineers at Corel became disillusioned with the company and went to Australia and started a company called Xara. I have been using Xara (current version is Xara Pro 7), a vector based program, for nearly ten years as an advertising graphics artist and I love it. It is just as powerful and full featured as Photoshop as well as being faster, simpler, and much easier to use than Photoshop will ever be and it is compatible with any plug-in that Photoshop will use. Photoshop has a learning curve about as steep as El Capitan and is far too expensive. Photoshop does have name recognition and the resources to bully itself about but those who are more interested in pursuing photography and less interested in spending all their time polishing their Pixelating Photoshop skills should look to other photo editing software. It is out there and they compete very well with the Photoshop behemoth.

Let’s remember something; beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Anybody could have taken a black and white (or color for that matter) photo but sometimes it is personally pleasing to do and posses something that nobody else has done or possesses - namely a photo of that particular bridge altered to look like that. There is a certain sense of satisfaction in looking at something and being able to say to oneself "I did that" even if you are the only one in the whole world who thinks it's neat.

Now, having said that I must also defend the right of others to voice their opinion when it is asked for, if there is a chance that you will not like someone's opinion do not ask for it, it really is that simple, you cannot please all the people all the time and quite frankly honesty, even when it derails, is the best type of critique to get, it is the only type that will help you grow. The biggest disservice that someone who is looked to as a mentor can do is to tell someone else that their work is good and then be silent when it could be a lot better according to the well defined rules of form and function that affect how we look at things and how they make us feel.

How the bridge was colored against a B&W background is simply another art form that when done right can be quite pleasing but, like any other art form, it must be done right or it will fail in its intended effect.

Not only a tripod but, because the dof can be almost razor thin, a macro slider might be needed (but not always), but in any case for true 1:1 macros and extream macros a tripod is all but mandatory if you want to get it right. Also a ring flash comes in very handy for doing closeup work.

That is correct seeing that the only thing illuminated was that which the flash lit up. The shutter speed could have been quite slow, even on bulb with a forced flash, considering that it looks like the shot was taken in the dark.

You are absolutely right Greg, I did say whole stops but failed to remember that F2 is a whole stop between f/1.4 and f/2.8 and f/4 falls between 2.8 and 5.6 (must have been thinking too hard about decimal points because I know the f/stop number sequence better than the back of my hand, even the halves and thirds)- The f/stop sequence is a mathmatical calculation of area and not the simple doubeling of the number as my post incorrectly implied. Thanks for the correction.

Evan

My D700 has a DX lens sensor on it which will automatically crop the picture down to DX size in the viewfinder as well as on the sensor. Seeing as I do not have a 300mm FX lense (yet) and sometimes my 85mm DX macro is preferable to my 200mm FX macro (it just depends on what I am trying to accomplish and what experimintations I am doing) I will use my DX lenses on my FX Camera and they work well. As I refine my skills and increase my FX lens arsenal the use of my DX lenses will become more and more relegated to my D3100 kit where they will remain but for now I make good use of all my glass as the situations may require.

Evan

I agree with eugene, check out this offer very closely, make sure the quality of the lenses is not from some third world start-up and be gone later enterprise - it really does sound far too good to be true - just be careful!

:hunf: Evan

Godd Luck! :thumbup:

The 17-35mm f/2.8 is the lense I recently bought after much research. My sister, Tammy Jolley, is an internationally known master photographer with over 30 years experience, (as is her husband Bruce, but not so many years) and has won photographer of the year both nationally and internationally in her specialty as well as best in state for Utah more than once. She said that although the picture quality for zoom lenses has vastly improved over the years it is best to keep the zoom localized if you want your pictures to consistantly rival prime lenses. All my research suggests that the two lenses nearly every pro will have on the two cameras around his/her neck is a 70-200mm 2.8 on one and a wide angle on the other of which the 17-35mm super wide angle is the standard workhorse. I already own the 70-200mm so getting this one, for me, was a no brainer.

LOL,LOL :D I think you might be right, that's why I am getting the best I can while I can even though I am not a pro yet. This empty house thing I got going on is livable for a while but I will have to take the leap sooner or later and right now it is going to be later!

I'm expecting my 17-35mm f/2.8 in the mail any time now (I feel like the stork is bringing it ;)) and I am already gearing up to order my next piece of glass (sounds kinky doesn't it :)) - either a 24mm f/3.5 tilt-shift or an 85mm f/1.4 - the question is not which one so much as it is which one first! Did I mention that I only buy Nikon? ($$ouch!$$ but I am hooked - :XD: it hurts so good)

You are very right but you speak of the destination while I speak of the journey. True, the best works of art almost always follow one or more of the rules but only a sufficiently trained eye will see it, others will like the work and not know exactly why they might prefer one over another.

The rule of thirds is not the only consideration when framing a picture. Some compositions have no clear way to fit precisely according to the "rules" so the artist (photographer) must discern how best to proceed in order to make the work the best it can be and that takes practice and talent, sufficient talent to make other aspects of the work, things like lighting, DOF, Bokeh and color, make up the shortcomings of the frames lack of ability to compositionally follow one or more of the rules.

I guess what I am trying to say is that one should not get so hung up on the rules that they never pat themselves on the back for doing a good job otherwise. It's like Bryan Peterson always say when he closes a lecture or training session "You just keep shooting!"

If a person is always cognoscente of the rules without getting burdened down to the point of not taking the picture then the talent will come through persistent trial, error, and experience, it just takes time and dedication. I am quite sure that the road to the talent necessary to produce the 1000 works you spoke of was paved with countless failures that helped to polish the skills of the artists. I have seen a great many pictures that could have been made better but were still excellent as they were.

That's good advice, I agree completely, Cameras come and Cameras go but good glass will always serve you well. My first camera before my D700 was the D3100 with the 18-55mm kit lens. I added an 85mm macro and a 70-300 zoom (all total with accessories about $2200) and although I quickly outgrew the camera the DX lenses are still a valued part of my arsenal, I do not regret buying them in the slightest, they work great on my FX camera and the D3100 makes for a great backup camera and a loaner when someone without a camera goes with me on a shoot; better that camera than having to let loose of my baby into someone elses hands; I'm a recent widower and I told a good friend a while back that right now I would rather be holding my camera than a woman - at least until the right woman comes along but I am in no hurry LOL :) Hey, anyone who has been seriously bit by the shutterbug will undersdtand!!

A 50mm f/1.8 prime is a good lense, you can get great sharp pictures in low light conditions. Another great thing about the 50mm lens is that the human eye sees at 50mm (excluding periphreal vision) so what you produce is faithful to what the human eye sees all by itself.

The maximum aperture that a lens will open up to is a major consideration. The speed of a lens determines how fast a lens will let in a given quantity of light.

Each whole f/stop will let in twice as much light as the next smaller f/stop, ex: an f/stop of 1.4 will let in twice the light as a 2.8 which will let in twice the light as a 5.6 - F/stops are universal across all lenses meaning that an f/2.8 on one lens will let in the same amount of light as any other lens at f/2.8 when presented with the same intensity of light.

The big advantage of a fast lens, one with a maximum aperture opening of f/2.8 or larger (commonly the largest is f/1.2) is that it can collect adequate amounts of light for a proper exposure using faster shutter speeds (hence the term “fast” lens). This makes them especially useful in low light conditions where a faster shutter speed is needed.

Any lens will eventually collect enough light for a proper exposure but the smaller the aperture the longer the shutter needs to remain open and that may not be desirable depending on what you are trying to accomplish.

There are other considerations too such as fall off, quality of bokeh, vignetting, chromatic aberrations and so forth but its light collecting capability is the big issue – also these fast lenses tend to rise in price dramatically over those with maximum f/stops of 4 or smaller, often as much a four-fold, because of the amount of quality glass and mechanics involved in making one.