For the last week or so I have purging old negatives and slides...

Many of the folks, men or women, were young or middle aged and now when I look at these old capture I think that they have gained about 20 to 30 years, some are likely dead from old age, sickness, accidents or whatever.

Same as when I look at some movies you see dead people... More and more. They animated our screen with their antics and so forth.

Then I realized that photographs, same as movies grow old and and as such lose their appeal for one reason or another.

Mostly the style or demand fell out of favor and like the fashion disappear to re-enter a few decade later...

(My weird observation of the day)

By the way I destroyed about 5k captures, mostly negatives.

I’m looking for some advice from those of you with experience using the Nikon 200-500 or the 80-400. My photography hobby consists mostly of trying to get good action shots at the grandkids’ soccer and little league games. I have the latest version of the 70-200 2.8 teamed up with a d500 and I’m very happy with the results. I can get close to soccer fields so the 70-200 would likely always be the lens for soccer. But my grandson plays travel ball baseball and many of the fields are set up where you must stand much farther away from the action to get an unobstructed shot. Sometimes I’ll use my old trusty 18-300 and manage to get some good pics, but because I often have to crop in I think I’d like a little more reach. The 80-400 would be more versatile, so maybe it comes down to how well these lenses AF on moving subjects. Any suggestions would be appreciated, thanks.

So, I am on Sony full frame A-mount ( A-99) and am looking for a SHARP AFFORDABLE 24mm - into the corners for landscape - preferably with a little speed ( for non-landscapes or astro) - can be manual focus - but prefer auto. I do understand that sharp and affordable can be mutually exclusive

Looking very hard at the dated Sigma 1.8 -

Currently using The Tamron SP 20-40 f2.7-3.5 zoom - which is pretty good.

Thanks for your comments ! .....Larry
.

Some artist in the past didn't even object to people recording their concerts. I'm thinking of the Grateful Dead where there was a section in the front for the "tapers". On the other hand, I can see artists wanting to control pictures that are released to the public. Some might not be flattering. The problem for them now is that if you can get close enough, you can take pretty good photos with a phone. I've been to concerts/shows where the "phone police" went around looking for the bright screens and telling people to cut it out. There are many places such as historic buildings in Europe that prohibit photography, but with cameras on phones, I think that such rules would be a challenge to enforce.

This was posted by my good friend and superb photographer on his Facebook Page. I thought his comparisons are worthy of posting on UHH:

"It’s good to know the difference,,,,or to coin a phrase,, “what’s in your camera?”

* Fine art photography focuses on the more detailed points in photo's and require thought unlike snapshot photos which are often taken randomly and have less meaning. Fine art photography has a longer history than snapshots and is a more important style when it comes to professional photography.

* “The most important element of a good photograph is the ability of the photo to communicate with the viewer. It should be able to tell a story through its composition, lighting, and most importantly its subject matter.”

* In this case, you may be taking snapshots and not portraits. Snapshots tend to capture a moment in time with little regard to lighting or composition. ... Portraits, on the other hand, require attention to detail—lighting, positioning of the subject, choice of an interesting background. In short, a portrait is deliberate.

NOTE: Definitions are from Wiki and other published sources.

Mark