Posts for: riverlass
Dec 12, 2014 13:42:25 #
Dec 12, 2014 11:25:21 #
Lonna wrote:
Beautiful work. As a scratchboard artist, I could not agree with you more. Color often mutes the drama of light.
That's what you lose with color... the lightness of being. Thank you. The drama of light may be even more what he means... even more than the distraction of color. Your comment has inLIGHTENED my understanding of this quote.
Dec 11, 2014 21:56:56 #
MarkD wrote:
A good photographer photographs their souls in B&W or color.
This could be true, Mark. I just happen to agree with the quote.
Dec 11, 2014 21:55:11 #
lighthouse wrote:
The quote you provided said photographing in colour makes it about their clothes.
My question is, what if they have no clothes on?
It cannot be about their clothes if they have none on.
So if it is not about their clothes, does it then become about their souls?
My question is, what if they have no clothes on?
It cannot be about their clothes if they have none on.
So if it is not about their clothes, does it then become about their souls?
OK, I've got it. You have a point, but I would guess that if the subject didn't wear clothes then it wouldn't be about clothes... it would just be embarrassing.
The quote, to my way of thinking, just says that without the distraction of color, the source of the personality (the "soul" he refers to) in the photo is more evident. I think my images show this. Maybe not for some.
This is a child's "soul", which is sometimes hard to see with the distraction of color.
Dec 11, 2014 21:13:01 #
lighthouse wrote:
What if you photograph them naked in colour?
What?
Dec 11, 2014 17:34:21 #
Frank47 wrote:
You have captured the young man's soul through his eyes as a perfect example of Ted Grant's mantra! Terrific!
Thank you Frank.
Dec 11, 2014 17:16:35 #
When you photograph people in color, you photograph their clothes. But when you photograph people in Black and white, you photograph their souls!
― Ted Grant
I'm going to work on this.
― Ted Grant
I'm going to work on this.
Dec 11, 2014 14:46:01 #
Beautiful! I have heard this song sung by Barbra Streisand on her Higher Ground album and it is one of my favorites. Absolutely beautiful song. I like Barbra's rendition more, but this is lovely.
Didn't know that there were opera lovers here on UHH. So glad to know this.Me too.
Didn't know that there were opera lovers here on UHH. So glad to know this.Me too.
Dec 10, 2014 11:05:44 #
MarkD wrote:
I use it on a D5200. All-in-ones are controversial... (show quote)
This is good information, Mark.
Dec 10, 2014 11:03:35 #
Mountainlife wrote:
Thank you Riverlass. Glad to hear that this is a good lens & versatile for most situations.
I have read those two reviews. I guess you have the earlier version of the lens (f3.5-5.6) weighing 830g. I would like to have the new version of the lens -f3.5-6.3 weighing 530g released this April, I think. what do you think of it?
I am not towards pro photography but use images for my travel articles & I would be having only this lens & the D 7000.
I have read those two reviews. I guess you have the earlier version of the lens (f3.5-5.6) weighing 830g. I would like to have the new version of the lens -f3.5-6.3 weighing 530g released this April, I think. what do you think of it?
I am not towards pro photography but use images for my travel articles & I would be having only this lens & the D 7000.
You're right. I've been having so much fun with my "old" lens that I didn't realize that they made a newer, lighter version. Here's a link to the new one.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-300mm-vr.htm
Mr. Rockwell says that the new one is a little softer at the 300mm end than the old one, but makes up for this with less weight. I don't know if that's a good exchange of attributes, but I will keep mine and deal with the weight until I can't lug it around anymore.
I would definitely consider this "new" 18-300 lens. The convenience really does outweigh using two of your old ones. If there is a lens that covers the use of two... why not. Money would be the only issue, which is a huge factor for a lot of people. You might find a used or refurbished one online. Good luck with your decision. :thumbup:
Dec 9, 2014 13:28:20 #
Delderby wrote:
Well - I would not suggest that they might be insincere, which would mean that they set out to mislead.
In the last couple of days there has been a thread (again) about embedded JPGs in RAW. So many different opinions - yet all sincere.
So when does a Parrot become an Ex spurt? :-)
In the last couple of days there has been a thread (again) about embedded JPGs in RAW. So many different opinions - yet all sincere.
So when does a Parrot become an Ex spurt? :-)
Sincere "parrots" all, on the 'embedded JPG in RAW' issue. I didn't see this one. I've been having visions of "sincere" parrots. They are everywhere. I suspect that this will go down as one of the epic topics of all times on UHH... and your comment is hysterical.
Dec 9, 2014 02:04:02 #
Delderby wrote:
Problem is that people often accept what others have written, especially if written with conviction. Then when they read a question, they sincerely believe they have the answer - and, wishing to help, jump in.
There seems to be a lot of this on the Hog. It's not the "parrot" at fault - it's the misguided person whom they read - who might also be a sincere parrot? and so it goes on....... :-) and on.
There seems to be a lot of this on the Hog. It's not the "parrot" at fault - it's the misguided person whom they read - who might also be a sincere parrot? and so it goes on....... :-) and on.
"a sincere parrot"? Really?
Dec 9, 2014 01:56:58 #
Didn't you specifically asked about the 18-300 lens? "...has any one handled this lens & if so, what is your opinion about it?" All appreciated advice from your commenters but none of them have the lens.
I have it. I love it. It's a heavy, rather expensive lens. I use it almost exclusively. If you want a lens that you don't have to remove from the camera, this is it. It's a very good lens and will work with your D7000 camera. I have a ultra wide angle lens, a 105mm macro prime and other lenses for specific photography work, but this lens is my lens of choice for the walking, hiking, animal, people and landscape images that I use on my blog and for printing. It's probably not perfect for the pro photographer, but I love it.
Have you read either of these links?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-300mm.htm
or,
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon-af-s-18-300mm-3p5-5p6-vr
I have it. I love it. It's a heavy, rather expensive lens. I use it almost exclusively. If you want a lens that you don't have to remove from the camera, this is it. It's a very good lens and will work with your D7000 camera. I have a ultra wide angle lens, a 105mm macro prime and other lenses for specific photography work, but this lens is my lens of choice for the walking, hiking, animal, people and landscape images that I use on my blog and for printing. It's probably not perfect for the pro photographer, but I love it.
Have you read either of these links?
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/18-300mm.htm
or,
http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nikon-af-s-18-300mm-3p5-5p6-vr
Dec 3, 2014 11:58:56 #
LOL! This is hysterical.
Dec 2, 2014 12:21:48 #