Peterff wrote:
You say that like it's a bad thing! :D
Actually, no, it's not a bad thing. Being drunk helps SharpShooter get through the day/week/month/year/decade. :lol:
SharpShooter wrote:
Oh com'on Onyx, and when you sober up and realize that all you've been doing is shooting yourself naked in the mirror again...., then what??
Off to thel liquor store for another gallon of Thunderbird...., and another nude session with yourself?!?! :lol: :lol:
SS
Sorry, the only one who drinks around here would be you, grasshopper. Proven on 2 points. One, you think you live in northern California. Two - you use a Canon.
You're obviously drunk all the time. :lol:
Oh, and jealousy ill becomes you. :wink:
B&H...extremely reputable. I've bought several items from them. Returned one with no issues whatsoever.
Don't know anything about KEH. In fact, I've never heard of them. But, they ARE an authorized Nikon dealer, so they are likely very reputable.
'Grey market' was fine back in the old days of film cameras. Lenses especially. Very little to go wrong with a lens of old. So I bought a couple back in the early 70's. They still work fine.
But nowadays, with all the electronics, etc in the digital lenses, I wouldn't take the chance, unless, as somebody mentioned, the price was really super good.
Just Fred wrote:
Thanks, Bob! I like steaks, too (although I like them the opposite way: Cut the ears and the tail off and run the cow past the oven). :)
Hear! Hear! I once told a waitress to chase it through a warm room. She came back and told me she'd shown my steak "the door to the kitchen! " The steak was perfect!
Never mind. Superfluous post!
Nikon 3200 is a good choice. That was my first digital camera. The kit lens I got with it was perfectly satisfactory. 55~300. Tamron and Sigma have always been pretty good secondary market lenses.
I might suggest you try renting one of each or either from a place like LensRental. They, quite often, have a Buy it price available. That way you can try the lens for performance and ultimately keep it if you're happy with it. You can always buy one from B&H Photo or Adorama. If it turns out you don't like the quality, you can return it for a refund.
A lens, like anything on an assembly line, can vary in quality and performance from one to another. Right next to each other on the assembly line and one is great while the other may be a dog.
As a recent retiree, I DO understand the need for watching how you spend your money. I, too, buy for the long haul as I do not expect to upgrade every few years like so many seem able to do.
I've just made my last upgrade for the rest of my life. I purchased a Nikon Df. I absolutely love the classic look, feel and performance of the camera. I also love being able to use all my old film lenses on it.
Nkon 3200.....great choice.
burkphoto wrote:
There are only so many sources you can find in arenas:
HMI usually about 5000K
White Flame Carbon Arc usually about 5000K
Quartz Halogen usually 3200K
Yellow Flame Carbon Arc usually 3200K
High Pressure Sodium Discontinuous spectrum, spikes in the yellow range
Mercury Vapor Discontinuous spectrum, spikes in cyan/blue range
Fluorescent Generally 4100K "Cool White" tubes, which spike in the green range, but could be 3500K (yellower) or 5000K.
3200K is yellow-orange. 5000K is close to daylight, generally regarded as 5500K (at Noon, in Washington, D.C., on the vernal equinox, according to the 1934 standard!).
You can generally color correct (white balance) images made with the first four of these sources, if you know which one is in predominant use. But if they use theatrical gels over the sources, their intention is to color the subject!
The purple you recorded looks like it came from a theatrical gel placed over HMI or white flame carbon arcs.
The realistic approach is to set a Kelvin white balance for the type of lamps in use, and accept the gel colors the lighting designer intended to be seen.
An alternative approach is to adjust the color balance with the white balance tool in your post processing software (if you work in RAW). If you capture JPEGs, there isn't a better way to work than to use a custom white balance at the point of exposure, and that is often impossible when the lighting changes color during the show.
Auto white balance works best in daylight, especially on dSLRs.
Note that gels filter out HUGE chunks of the visible spectrum from any light source. You cannot put back what was not there to start with! So in some cases, you may have to accept what you get with the "realistic" option a Kelvin setting to match the lamps in use, and no, or little, correction of what the gel is doing.
There are only so many sources you can find in are... (
show quote)
Very good and comprehensive. I could not add to anything burkphoto had to say. I still have, and use, my old Gossen Sixticolor light meter.
Revet wrote:
I have always wanted to try nude photography. Any ideas on how to sway my wife on this???
That's funny. I've never had to ask a woman to model nude for me. They've always asked me to photograph them. The first time was in college - oh so many years ago. My girlfriend and I were walking up to a lookout point at Patrick's Point State Park in northern California. About halfway up, she asked, "Would you like to photograph me nude?" Without batting an eye, I replied, "I'd really rather keep my clothes on."
At which point she hit me in the back, (I was in front of her), and said, "You know what I mean."
I photographed her, and later, when she showed the pictures to her roommates, 2 of them wanted me to photograph them nude also.
Anyway, over the years, I've never asked a woman to pose nude...they've always volunteered.
Somebody mentioned the Art Dept at a college. Good place to start. I remember my first figure drawing class at college. We also got a couple of girls to nude model in my beginning photography class at college. Again, so many years ago. (I graduated college 1970).
Good days, good times, good memories. :wink:
burkphoto wrote:
That's an accurate observation!
The advent and confluence and congruency of the Internet, digital imaging, sharing sites, smart phones, and other mobile devices has certainly revolutionized the entire industry.
Most of the school picture companies have consolidated, mostly into Lifetouch. That entire market is shrinking.
Tens of thousands of other professionals have closed their doors, unable to compete, because they are not able to find willing customers.
Almost no one prints anything anymore. Those who do are making just a few to frame, or making really big, fine, art prints to hang on the wall.
Many people who used to buy commercial photography services just whip out their phones. The results ARE good enough for the ephemeral uses of their photos.
Photography has been democratized, and has become just another, albeit somewhat universal, language.
It's still a great hobby.
That's an accurate observation! br br The advent ... (
show quote)
This is sad, but true. All my film photography today is for my benefit only. But even that has fallen by the wayside, as I've had to give up my darkroom.
I still have my Durst 4x5 enlarger and all my El-Nikkor lenses for it. I still have my Sinar f 4x5 camera with all the lenses for it. I still have all my Nikon film cameras, including the old Nikon F I carried in Nam. I also have another Nikon F, 2- F2S's, and a Nikkormat EL. Complete range of prime Nikkor lenses from 24 up to and including a 500 mirror.
I've shot thousands upon thousands of images with those cameras. Mostly B&W.
The only good thing I can say is that with the acquisition of a Nikon Df I can use all my old lenses. And for that, I'm very grateful.
I miss the magic of the darkroom. Will I ever go back? Probably not.
Since retiring, I have neither the space nor the inclination to build another darkroom. I miss the feel of developer and fixer on my hands....yes, I know, I'm supposed to wear latex gloves. Never have, never will. I miss the thrill of the image first developing.
Darkroom and film photography today is almost a lost art. It is certainly a dying art. *Deep sigh*
:cry:
phit4life wrote:
I need help with a lens question.
I've decided I will purchase the Nikon D7100 on Saturday. I can buy the body only or can get it with a kit lens of 18-105.
I know that eventually I need to invest in some other lenses. Would it be best just to get the kit lens and start with that 18-105? I love to shoot wildlife and honestly, most of the time, I can't "zoom with my feet" :wink: Deer and birds tend to run away :mrgreen:
Will the 18-105 work for what I want to do primarily?
I was thinking about getting the body only and then an 18-200 lens but the Nikon runs almost $600, Sigma $400 and Tamron $200 and of course then I'm not sure how to choose which of those lenses is "best". I can't always assume that more money is better.
I feel so silly asking questions which are probably very basic questions but I don't want to go into the store and feel like I'm getting pressured to buy all sorts of things.
I need help with a lens question. br br I've deci... (
show quote)
You know, I've got 3 kit lenses. (I gave one to my daughter for her Nikon). I've had no problem with any of them. "Kit lenses" are badly maligned or looked down upon by some people.
Now, in response to your question, a 105 will not suffice as a wildlife or bird lens. Somebody mentioned a minimum of 200mm. That is most definitely a minimum...unless you're an elf and can move very quietly through the brush. :-D
One of my favorite 'kit lenses' is the Nikon 55~300. But, for wildlife, I regularly use my 400 or my 500 mirror. With a lens doubler, I can take it out to a 1000 mm.
Btw, as an aside, 85~105 is the ideal focal length for portraits. I carried and shot with my 105 for over 30 years. Love that lens, and I'm now able to use on my Nikon Df, which is fantastic.
My advice, get the body only and get a longer telephoto separately. You can get good deals on both new and used Nikon lenses at B&H Photo. I've bought 3 lenses from them and they've all be good.
You can get a Nikon 'kit lens' from them for well under $300. In fact I bought a 55~300 from them for my daughter.
Good luck.
SharpShooter wrote:
Big, welcome to the Hog.
I'm probably the worst shooter here but that doesn't mean I can't pretend to be a pro. So to pretend, I shoot with a Canon!! For nature and action they are the best camera/lens combo you will find.
I suggest looking at a used Canon 7dmkl(one generation back, semi-pro body) and a lens that will get you started, depending on what you want to start shooting, like maybe a Canon 18-135 STM(look for a refurb at Canon).
That will be a pretty versatile rig for all-around shooting and should be within your budget.
If you want to start off on the wrong foot, you could always look at Nikon, or worse, one of those cameras with those tiny sensors!!! :lol: :lol:
Good luck.
SS
Big, welcome to the Hog. br I'm probably the wors... (
show quote)
Starting off on the wrong foot would be listening to anything from Sharpshooter. And he doesn't really live in Northern California. He's just a wannabe.......on so many levels.
:lol:
Scubie wrote:
I have been a Nikon Camera user most of my professional life and I would never use anything else. I have a Nikon film camera going on 25 years old and it works perfectly.
I recently invested in a Nikon 3200 for a vacation camera. I bought two and returned both. I am not slamming Nikon because like I said I have been very happy with the cameras.
The 3200's however in my opinion were not close to Nikon quality. I had lens focusing problems with one 3200 and the other the battery door literally fell off. Has anyone else had similar issues with Nikon. I have noticed Nikon is having some of their camera's made in Thailand...What happened to the superior quality of Japan.
I have been a Nikon Camera user most of my profess... (
show quote)
I, too, have been using Nikon since about 1969. Would not consider anything else. I got into the digital market with a Nikon 3200 and then a 3300. I have had NO problems with either camera or the lenses. I converted the 3200 to infrared only, and I've just upgraded to a Nikon Df. This camera I love.
I love being able to use all my older lenses.
So, I would guess you simply got a bad one...a lemon....a tosser. But, in rereading, you said 2. Very strange. I've had no problem with my 3200. So, I really have no idea what to say.
Said to say, I actually remember a lot of those responses. Funny then...still funny
Graham Thirkill wrote:
Little Johnnie Strikes again
You can substitute your politicians to the joke, but you will see where this is going without a problem.
-----
Ed Milliband was visiting a London primary school and the class was in the middle of a discussion related to words and their meanings.
The teacher asked Mr Milliband if he would like to lead the discussion on the word 'Tragedy'.
So our illustrious leader asked the class for an example of a 'Tragedy'
A little boy stood up and offered: 'If my best friend, who lives on a farm, is playin' in the field and a tractor runs over him and kills him, that would be a tragedy.'
'Incorrect,' said Milliband. 'That would be an accident.'
A little girl raised her hand: 'If a school bus carrying fifty children drove over a cliff, killing everybody inside, that would be a tragedy.'
'I'm afraid not', explained Milliband, 'that's what we would refer to as a great loss'.
The room went silent. No other children volunteered. Milliband searched the room.
'Isn't there someone here who can give me an example of a tragedy?'
Finally, at the back of the room, little Johnny raised his hand and said:
'If a plane carrying you and Mr Balls and Mrs Harman and all the other LABOUR members was struck by a 'friendly fire' missile & blown to smithereens, that would be a tragedy.'
'Fantastic' exclaimed Milliband, 'and can you tell me why that would be a tragedy?'
'Well', said Johnny, 'it has to be a tragedy, because it certainly wouldn't be a great loss, and it probably wouldn't be a f***ing accident either!
Graham/098
Little Johnnie Strikes again br br You can substi... (
show quote)
Substitute obama and all the useless liberal democrats and you've got it.