TonyP wrote:
Hi Daryl
This is the message I get:
Your connection is not secure
The owner of dnewphoto.mozello.com has configured their website improperly. To protect your information from being stolen, Firefox has not connected to this website.
This will limit your visitors considerably Id think.
Be careful. The majority of these Firefox messages are fake. Following any instruction will install a ransom virus in your computer. If the message does not go away INSTANTLY when you hit delete, close your browser and shutdown your computer IMMEDIATELY. You may have to force quit both.
We heard this very type of nonsense when AutoFocus came on to the scene. People told me to get rid of my Nikon manual focus lenses, that in the very near future they would be useless except as paper weights.
I kept them, and each is now worth more on the used market than their original purchase price.
Gene51 wrote:
The only method I have found that works flawlessly 100% of the time is the Xrite ColorChecker Passpor. Nothing else I have tried even comes close. And it is the only device that will resolve dual light sources with different color characteristics. The best part, at least for me, is that I can use multiple cameras, each with it's own slightly different color response curve, and I can make the shots look like they were all taken by one camera.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDtebpvATzc
White cards, gray cards, Expodiscs and other approaches do not provide reliable results. And none give you a camera profile. No, you don't need a 100% color managed profile to take advantage of a ColorChecker Passport. I use it when color is important - portraiture, real estate photography, etc, or when I expect to record highly saturated color (flowers, usually), where the camera would otherwise clip a channel or two. Nothing out there can provide that level of color accuracy.
The only method I have found that works flawlessly... (
show quote)
I went to your link, scrolled down a bit, and found another made in conjunction with the same company that also addresses accurate EXPOSURE:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=foa_aEzGcUY
Don't stop here; look at a few more. Using one is an individual preference, but you will learn and understand the reasons every photographer should know why and how to operate a handheld light meter.
It's quite simple: with "manual" you are telling the camera what to do instead of the other way around.
One other thing: seeing the world in large geometric shapes has given me an incredible command of composition.
I think that Chris T also has sound advice. I have considered dumping my beloved Nikon gear and switch to a Pentax DSLR and old school Pentax MF glass.
Best,
DJO
tjim-
I have have had poor eyesight since the day I was born. In the past few years it has gotten much worse; it can no longer be improved with glasses. I don't know the definition of impaired, but everything is overcast; I stumble, fall and knock things over. Don't get me wrong; I'm not complaining; I know that I have had more good fortune in my life than one person should even ask for.
Doctors tell me I have a "brain problem" (Gee, thanks for the diagnosis. Friends and relatives gave me that information free of charge). Apparently optic nerves are sending correct information to my brain, but my brain is getting it it mixed up.
I compensate for this, quite successfully, just as I have in the past. How? I only use manual focus lenses. Not once in my life have I made an exposure with my subject in focus. I press the shutter when the subject is "least blurry". That's right, LEAST BLURRY! Yea, I miss a couple of shots now and then. Other than that, my results are tack sharp.
Your life in photography is far from over. Trust me. With some practice you will be able to do this and do it well. In fact, most of the time you will be quicker than an AF lens. Much of the time, a lot quicker.
I wish you nothing but the best. Feel free to contact me at any time through a personal message.
GoofyNewfie wrote:
Wonder how the cigar figures in to the equation?
Maybe it helps mask the smell of decomp from the corps. Then again, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
I haven't done the research. Weegee's response to a specific query may be frivolous, genius or both. HOWEVER, if there is a technical reference it is more than likely related to the type of flash bulb he used.
Press photographers of the day commonly used flash both indoors and out. You've seen it in movies and newsreels. Outdoors on a sunny day: "Hey Marilyn"! POOF! Jackie Robinson sliding in a cloud of dust while stealing home plate, late afternoon sun has most of infield in deep shade: someone with a Speed Graphic is crowding the first base line, maybe less than 10 feet away. POOF!
When mixing constant and intermittent light sources, f stop takes president over shutter speed.
Absolutely nothing to with sunny 16.
AndyH wrote:
That’s a bet I’d take up. Your anger dies not trump the constitution. You would be arrested. The photographer might be, as well. But in the end, the law is on his side, not yours. There is much case law supporting this.
Sorry to burst your bubble on this, but there are plenty of precedents. As long as you are shooting from a public space where you are legally entitled to be, and the subject has no legal presumption of privacy, the shooter will generally prevail.
Andy
Look again and take note of the quotation marks on either side of the word "photographer". Look again at today's date. We are approaching the third decade of the 21st Century. Pedophiles hiding in plain sight are no longer invisible. Nor are they tolerated, not by parents, not by cops, not by judges. Child molesters do not do well in prison; even stone-cold killers have a line that can't be crossed.
I'm going to stand by my statement. Wager whatever you wish.
If you are photographing minors not in your care you deserve any type of abuse that gets dished out, be it verbal, legal, physical or otherwise. If I witnessed a "photographer" doing so I wouldn't even hesitate to give that person a beating. Go ahead. Call the cops. If someone ends up in handcuffs, I guarantee it won't be me.
I never have this problem because I use a 3-way pan head. Ball heads certainly have a purpose, but I think far too many photographers have become enamored with "The Look". Call it whatever you want: Pro, Cool, Sophisticated or In With The In Crowd.
I would guess (yes, just a guess) that a vast number of UHH members have spent a boatload of money on a "good" ball head; in reality they have made a huge investment with an end result of a sub-optimal rig.
The Nikon 18-55 kit lens is awful. It has both pincushion and barrel distortion. A complete waste of what once was perfectly good plastic.
Best I've ever owned? Nikon 200/4.0 Ais Micro, Nikon 75-150/3.5 Series E (Micro at 150mm) and a 127/4.5 Schneider Xenar, in a Linhof shutter on a 4x5 Crown Graphic. All razor sharp.
Best I've ever used? Hands down a Nikon 135/2.0 Ais. Beyond my budget at the time, I borrowed one from a friend. Square prints of equal size blew my Hasselblad right out of the water. Square prints of equal size means the image from the Nikon 135/2.0 was enlarged 6.25 times more than the image from the Zeiss lens.
My opinion, shared by the vast majority of my NYC pro photographer friends who used Hasselblad, is that Zeiss lenses are way overrated. Great camera though.
Wanna save a ton of dough? If you're going to buy a Rollie TLR, get one with a Schneider Xenar, not the Zeiss Planar.
By the way (as has been mentioned), a late model Nikon 43-86/3.5 is a FANTASTIC lens. Even Tony whatshisname says so. As long as you check the serial number before you buy, it may be one of the best readily available bargains out there. I have one, purchased in like new condition for next to nothing, and love it. BONUS: it has a constant aperture!
dragonking wrote:
I have several old lenses and some are 50years old. I have to admit I bought them all from new.
I remember that some of them produced really sharp photographs and I still have the proof in negatives and prints.
I kept them so I could use them on any camera I bought with the same results.
This was true until I bought my first DSLR.
You see all of my previous lenses had M20 thread or were Tamron Adaptall.
The Adaptall (Original) fitting system adapters stopped being produced shortly after I bought the lens.
Now the bad part.
Without looking into the use of old lenses I opted for a Nikon DSLR, this was a mistake.
I like the camera and have no complaints with the results with the Nikkor lenses I bought.
I have since found out that the distance from the lens mount to the focal plane of the camera is smaller in Nikon cameras compared with other cameras.
This means that although old Nikkor lenses can be used on it with no problems, Practika or M20 lenses have to have an adapter with an auxiliary lens incorporated into it to allow for the shallower body if focus at infinity is required. Not many people don't want to focus at infinty!
Another lens behind the main lens unfortunately degrades the image and they are much softer than I remember and have proof of.
I have bought cheap and middle price range adapters and there isn't much difference between them.
I haven't used the expensive ones as I might as well buy a new lens.
The only lens I couldn't use at all was my Helios 50mm which came with my first SLR a Zenit B as the back elements of the lens go into the camera body when focusing.
It hits the auxiliary lens before full travel and I am worried about it hitting the mirror if used without the adapter.
I have several old lenses and some are 50years old... (
show quote)
"I have since found out that the distance from the lens mount to the focal plane of the camera is smaller in Nikon cameras compared with other cameras."
I share your frustrations! The cause, however, (perhaps just a typing error on your part) is that the distance from lens mount to focal plane in a Nikon camera is greater than other major manufacturers. Hence, any addition will prevent focus at infinity. I was told by my now retired but still brilliant camera repairman that this distance is one dimension of what is called "the mirror box".