Just got the programme through for my local club next season. Our 2nd competition is TYPICALLY BRITISH.

I've got a few ideas but I'm thinking that what I'm thinking is what a lot of others are thinking too.
So I'm asking Hedgehoggers (non U.K.) what do you think is typically British?

I'm thinking of RAIN, Sports Car (AH Frogeye Sprite or TR6), Red Telephone Kiosk (though none have phones in these days), Old London Bus, Full English Breakfast, Afternoon Tea etc.

Looking forward to hearing what 'forgieners' have to say!

It's my first year in the Intermediate classification and I want to make a statement.

Thanks.

Define current. Try to put a Canon EF lens on an EOS 80D, or a 20D thru 70D.

No need to read your post again...
Here are your words: "In the Nikon world, FX is referred to as Full Frame, DX is referred to as Crop Sensor."

Full frame is referred to as FX and crop whatever is referred to as DX. See what I'm saying. The references are reversed, so, it actually doesn't clearly state what you say it clearly does. Remember William Clinton and the whole is thing. Take the is and as away and make referred to refers and you will have said what you meant.

And, I'll bet you never had a moment's trouble with oil on the sensor, with your D600 - huh, Chris?

You owned Digital Sinars and Hasselblads, huh? … Must have cost you a pretty penny. So, you think the product you get from your D800 is better than the product you got from THEM - huh? …. Amazing!!!!

Just shows you - it doesn't necessarily mean - going LARGER - makes things BETTER - huh?

Hey, listen - not everybody can afford to put down $3300 for a D850, or even TWO GRAND, for a D500 - Let alone $6500 for a D5 … so don't feel bad, Chris … some folks are just in diff price brackets - yaknow?

`


The 24x36mm "FF" dimensions derive
from the 135 film format, which varies
a bit but is ~21.5x33.5mm.

The variable is the actual aperture in
the negative carrier. The film cameras
made images of ~24x36mm so that
the image would be larger than the
aperture in the negative carrier, thus
avoiding a bright outline of clear film
base, which would acoarst result in
harmful scatter light between the film
and the lens.

Most users of 135 film cameras sent
color films to commercial processors
who either mounted the chromes into
cardboard mounts or printed 4x6 inch
borderless prints. In either case the
actual format in use was far smaller
than 24x36 ... the borderless [bleed
printed] machine prints often using
only ~20.5x31.5mm image area.

OTOH, digital "FF" uses the entire
image, which is ~23.5x35.5mm, a
definite improvement vs 135 film :-)

-----------------------------------

FWIW, the wastefulness of the 2x2"
cardboard mount for chromes was
unjustified, since there was no clear
film base surrounding the 24x26mm
on-film image area. Only negs had
clear film base outside of the image.
[Chromes had black.] Unfortunately
there was no industry standard for
locating the sprocket holes relative
to the image area.

.

If you're walking around with a DSLR or mirrorless and pointing it a random people in public, you're going to attract attention. In a crowded, touristy area, you're not going to raise much suspicion. But walk around a cozy neighborhood snapping pics, and you're probably going to make some people uncomfortable.

I was in Portland visiting family, and in the middle of a weekday thought it would be interesting to walk around his neighborhood taking pictures or some of the old houses, coffeeshops, etc. Started inside a cool old coffee house, and was immediately aware that my activities were making some of the other patrons uncomfortable, so I shuttered my lens, drank my coffee, and headed out to the street.

As I embarked on the sidewalk, I took a few test shots to calibrate my exposure settings, and as I was looking down at my camera, I was approached by a man who aggressively threw his paper coffee cup at my head: missing by inches, but certainly catching my attention.

"What the f-ck are you taking pictures of boy!"

I was shocked, and as I looked up and gathered a comprehension of what was happening, I realized that a homeless/crazy man was coming at me. I hadn't even taken a picture of him, but he clearly didn't like that I was taking pictures. He came at me and tried to grab my camera.

Fortunately, I am no slouch, and was able to dodge him, but he kept coming at me. I told him I didn't take any pictures of him, but he was screaming that he wanted to see my camera. Fat chance.
What ensued was a 15 minute chase through the streets of the Portland suburbs with him eventually giving up on the pursuit. But my heart was racing and my lungs burning: a less athletic victim would have faced a potentially violent confrontation.

While I'm sure this kind of reaction is probably reserved for the mentally unstable, it's likely that more reserved individuals would still harbor a bit of resentment towards an outsider entering their neighborhood for the novelty of capturing people in their home environments.

So my advice to your question would be this: street photography is probably most suited for areas that could be described as downtown, crowded, touristy, or some kind of event.

Ok, I have been looking into a converter, BUT,, always has to be that word in there... I don't understand … Are they for only certain lens, cameras? I have a Nikon D600, Nikon D800 and a Nikon D90... I have a whole assortment of lenses to equip them with. I can see that sometimes it would be nice to reach out further with a lens, produce a nicer photo, but is it only with certain lenses? Then my final question, in the long run,,, Are they really worth it, do they really improve a shot? Please share your ideas on this matter. I want to know, so I can make a better decision on this matter. Thank You

I store photos in Windows' file system. If I double click on a photo it is displayed. Until about three days ago on my Windows 10 laptop if I then right-clicked in that photo I got a menu that included "File info." Selecting File info gave me EXIF data like date the photo was taken, camera used, and exposure settings.

Suddenly that is no longer the case. Selecting File info now causes the menu and photo to simply close.

Can any of you tell me what happened and how I can fix it. By fix it I mean get it to work the way it used to.

Thanks for any help,

Jerry

The bicycle tour "Tour de Lopez" each year runs past the top of my driveway. that gives me a good opportunity to practice motion blur in order to show motion. I can either pan with the moving bike as they whiz past or allow he subject to blurr against a stationary background. Most folks whom I've asked have a strong presence for the panned images. That leads me to two questions.
Why do they prefer the panned image?
If image preference is ignored, Which technique better demonstrates motion?

He's an example of each technique to give a visual reference for your responses.

BTW I know that the photos have artistic shortcomings. For this topic, I'm interested only in which technique makes, in general, a better picture and which technique better conveys the concept of motion. If you can tell me why you believe as you do. that would be even more helpful.