Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Posts for: larryepage
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 442 next>>
Jan 21, 2024 12:37:42   #
Bill_de wrote:
With the many times you speak for or about most everybody, it must take you weeks to mail out all your Christmas cards.

---


STOP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read my signature line. I speak for no one but myself. I am sick of this idiotic nonsense.
Go to
Jan 21, 2024 12:31:44   #
Linda From Maine wrote:
The below comments of yours don't teach reality; they are your opinions formed to sound like truths. They are misleading and unfair to novices. They are representative of the reason I generally don't participate in main discussion forum

"Photographing architecture is like photographing statues. Its derivative, not artistic. And of course there are exceptions, but not very many. But it's still much more documentation or photojournalism than artistry..."
The below comments of yours don't teach reality; t... (show quote)


The OP asked us how we dealt with composition. It's really an interesting question. I used to get a tangled up over it after taking my photography courses.

But after spending several years hanging out with and substituting for the Art1, Art 2, Art 3, and Art 4 teachers at school, hearing what they tell the kids, and seeing what they paint, my attitude has changed quite a bit.

You see, about once each year, they talk for a few days about composition. For two or three weeks, the second year folks look in quite some detail at perspective. The rest of the 144 weeks or so of their high school education, they draw things, paint things, or make things. The goal is enabling, not creating barriers.

Some of the kids choose to enter contests. Discussions around how to do better in competition may involve some discussion around composition. It may also involve discussion about any number of other topics.

Rules of composition do have value. But understanding that value involves where the rules came from. And the answer to that is that someone somewhere said, "that is a very cool looking picture." Someone else then was bold enough to ask, "Why is it so good?" Discussion or researcb then led to it's being divided into 9 squares, each used in a specific way. Or whatever. All of a sudden, "POOF." Rules of composition. But no real magic involved.

Also...I encourage anyone who reads anything I post to also read my signature block. It has said the same thing for at least a couple of years and is fairly important.
Go to
Jan 21, 2024 10:22:10   #


We learn from generalizations. We practice on exceptions. Trying to learn without the general principles can lead to insanity. Besides, what are the rules of compisition if not sweeping generalizations.

You folks go ahead and talk it out.
Go to
Jan 21, 2024 10:16:49   #
kcj wrote:
A friend has a Nikon D3000 I haven’t had a chance to check out the camera or the lens because I will get the battery today or tomorrow What should I look at she says it is not auto focusing. besides seeing if its on auto focusing, the menu, and also checking out the lens which is a Nikon. Thank


I'd start by taking it outside during daytime and seeing what happens. And...what lens is she using? Several of the lower cost lenses from the time of this camera (2009) had a reputation for failing autofocus. Focus on the lenses first. And yes...the D3000 requires lenses with built-in motors. Also...this camera won't work with the new E and P lenses.
Go to
Jan 21, 2024 08:19:58   #
btbg wrote:
Ibwouldnt necessarily choose the 35-70 over the 16-80 eitjer. It woild depend on what I intended to use the lens for, but I would not buy the 1680 when I already owned the other. Thats the point. Its at best a lateral move, especially when for the same o less money he can expand his focal range.

For example the sigma 10-20 costs less and would give the op more options. The nikon 24-120 would also expand his focal range. So my point is he has better options. Even the 80-300 which I dont think is really sharp still woild expand the ops options more than the 16-80.

This should not be about one lens. This should ve about what would give the op the most bang for his buck with what he already owns.
Ibwouldnt necessarily choose the 35-70 over the 16... (show quote)


Understood. I might or might not. 35-70mm doesn't seem like a particularly flexible lens, especially on a DX camera, where it is a 2:1 normal-short telephoto. On a full-frame camera, it's an f/2.8 normal lens with a small amount of adjustment on either side. I'd just use a fast 50mm lens, which I already have, instead.

Whatever faults it has, the 16-80mm is fast, light, and generally just very agile and quick to handle. It offers a 5:1 zoom range from pretty wide to long enough to make a difference. The changing max aperture used to be a problem to me until I learned that it isn't.

To me, these are just different lenses for different purposes. Having one does not impact the value of having the other in any way.
Go to
Jan 21, 2024 08:05:37   #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
There are some strange distinctions there. I would never think of railroad photography as a special category that has particular rules. And architectural photography has no real artistic value? Maybe if you’re doing real estate photography, . architectural photography can be some of the most creative and interesting stuff I’ve seen. The thing is there aren’t different rules for different genres. Maybe there are guidelines about things that are important, like eyes in focus for portraits, but as for composition genre doesn’t matter.
There are some strange distinctions there. I woul... (show quote)


My point was that composition in photography is different from composition in the more additive arts. Painters have the freedom to "build" a composition however they choose. In photography, the primarily available tools are position, framing, and cropping. At least two, and maybe three of those are available at the time of exposure. Only framing and cropping are available later.

I spoke of railroad photography because I do it. It's what got me interested in photography. Most railroad photographers aren't really very good at it. They are just documenting something interesting which they have seen. Very few viewers find any interest in their photographs unless they are interested in the locomotive or whatever that is (generally quite poorly) recorded. I'm not a lot better, but I do try to make railroad photographs that others might want to take a look at.

Photographing architecture is like photographing statues. Its derivative, not artistic. And of course there are exceptions, but not very many. But it's still much more documentation or photojournalism than artistry. That doesn't mean that the craft can't or shouldn't be good, just that it's not usually art unless there are special circumstances of some sort.

Finally...there are many subjects that are worth being photographed but that offer no opportunity to even support any sort of classical composition. That certainly doesnt mean that we do not photograph them. I have photographs of a number of interesting geological formations. Nature, unfortunately, created them in places with boring foregrounds or distracting and overpowering backgrounds. None of that means that I don't take a photograph. Nor do I remove those distractions. They are part of the experience.

Compositional rules exist for good reason. But those reasons are not to enslave us.
Go to
Jan 21, 2024 00:02:59   #
btbg wrote:
Os it better than the 35-70? No it isnt so what would the op gain by buying it?


I have no experience with that lens, so it would be pretty silly for me to make a direct comparison. From what I can learn, it is an AF-D lens made from 1987-2005. Since it was in production for 18 years, I doubt seriously that it was a piece of junk. But since it is 28 years older than the 16-80mm zoom, it would be a real stretch to believe that it is a better or more advanced design.

I do not choose between one lens and another based on any one single performance parameter. Right now, there is nothing about the 35-70 that would compel me to choose it over the 16-80. Since I don't have one, I have no basis for saying I would keep one versus buying a 16-80.

From what I have learned, the 16-80 is not a perfect lens. But it is also not a bad lens. It offers a number of significant advantages, including really good VR and almost instant auto focus. I know that there is no way the 35-70 offers either of those (or offers VR at all). So...how important are those two functions?

I'm still learning about the 16-80 zoom. What I know is that it is a lot better lens than I thought it was.
Go to
Jan 20, 2024 21:08:27   #
Miamark wrote:
I have to agree with you about the phony bs on this site, mostly from people who never used this lens. I used this lens for many years and it is great. I frequently carried this with a Nikon 80-200 f 2.8 and sometimes an 85 1.4 or a 28 2.8. All were excellent lenses and this is based on actual use. I regret selling all of these lenses as they served me well. Most of the time I only carried this with the 80-200 and my pictures were great (IMHO). I would not buy a variable aperture lens or trade the 35-70 for the one identified in the original post.
I have to agree with you about the phony bs on thi... (show quote)


And have you used the 16-80mm zoom referenced by the OP?

I carried a number of wrong conclusions about it for a long time based on what I thought was a comprehensive tryout at my camera store. I own one now, and have had a chance to learn that a number of conclusions I was very certain about were incorrect.
Go to
Jan 20, 2024 17:58:35   #
JZA B1 wrote:
Square crop, rule of thirds, or something completely different?

How do you know which one to apply in any given situation? Any time-tested rules or just what looks best?


For me, this divides several ways...

Landscapes--if there isn't some intrinsic structure in what I see that suggests a composition strategy, it's probably not worth a serious photographic. I may still "take a picture" to record something interesting or to serve as a momory or reminder, but not as a "serious" photograph. This would be a situation that says why I save JPEGs.

Railroad photographs--these are all about positions and angles, which have to be preselected. The default is an engineer's side (right side) quartering view, but sometimes other angles are nesessary.

Architectural--no real artistic value here usually. Clearly depict the building or structure and include anough of the environment to provide location and context.

I don't do street photography, but USER ID has shown us several good examples. My impression is that he is more concerned with the subject and some context than with geometric composition.

Portraits--I'm not big on pictures of people, but generally find posture, expression, and framing to trump more traditional composition concerns.

Candids--who cares about composition? Who and what (and maybe where and when) are the parameters of concern.

I am not claiming here that the rules of composition are not useful or beneficial. I do consider them, but that happens in my visualization, before pushing the button. That frees me up to "check the edges" and get the framing right. I usually shoot pretty tight, cropping only minimally, if at all. The exception is when shooting moving subjects, whether animals, aircraft in flight, automobiles, or nieces and nephews. Then I leave myself room on all sides to avoid uncorrectable errors.
Go to
Jan 20, 2024 16:40:31   #
druthven wrote:
Rather than trying to remember all the different scenarios for exposure comp I rely on just two. I discovered the first while as a high schooler on a ski trip back in 1953 all of my Kodachromes were underexposed. Thus, rule #1, dark subject light background needs overexposure. Rule #2, white swan on dark water must be underexposed to prevent the swan from being washed out. Then I just go from there.


Keep in mind that in 1953, light meters were much different from metering systems in common use today. Averaging meters were the norm, and there was poor agreement between the field of measurement of the meters and the field of view of the lens. Even so, the effects described do match what would occur with matrix metering.
Go to
Jan 19, 2024 22:59:08   #
JimBart wrote:
Need a little help… . like I’ve forgotten something Tell me if I’m correct and if not please set me straight
Attempting to get the detail of the subject against the background
1. Light (white, creme etc) subject against a dark background equal a negative ex comp
2. Light subject against light background equal a zero or plus exp comp
3. Dark subject against dark background equals plus exp comp
4. Dark subject against lighter or bright background equals a zero or minus exp comp
5. Subject in front of a bright or dark no curtained window equals a negative exp comp.
Thanks for setting me straight
Need a little help… . like I’ve forgotten somethin... (show quote)


Exposure compensation should ordinarily be based on your primary subject, not the background. You also have to consider what metering mode you are using.

When backgrounds are different from the subject, they will likely confuse matrix metering. Center weighted or spot metering may provide more accurate results without requiring EC at all.
Go to
Jan 19, 2024 11:59:53   #
btbg wrote:
Yes he could gain a weight advantage. Since you own both, which is the better lens the 16-80 or the 24-120? Pretty sure it's the 24-120. Don't know anything about the 18-140 as I don't generally use lenses with that kind of zoom range because my lenses are all based on how fast they are. The only lenses that I own that aren't fixed f2.8 are the sigma 10-20, which I don't currently use since I am only using my full frame cameras, and the Sigma sport 150-600.

Obviously weight has not been a consideration in my evaluation. If that is a major consideration then yes, the 16-80 might be a good fit. Otherwise I believe he would be better served to select a lens that either adds to his focal range, or to stick with what he already owns.
Yes he could gain a weight advantage. Since you ow... (show quote)


It can be dangerous to choose a lens based of a single parameter. Even with the problems I'm having, I can see that the 16-80 mm zoom is a better lens than I have always thought. Just can't know how much better until it comes back repaired. I suspect that it is going to end up being a very good "consumer" lens, but not nearly as good a "professional" lens, despite the gold ring. It displays nothing of the feel and build of the 24-120mm zoom.

Where it can never measure up, in my opinion, is in value, based on its list price. The almost $1100 list price that it carried through its entire retail life was about twice what a reasonable value would vave been against similar lenses.
Go to
Jan 19, 2024 10:59:53   #
billnikon wrote:
Yeah, my bad. But I do not consider the Z50 a professional body like the Z8 and Z9. I am lukewarm on the ZFC.


This has developed into a very interesting discussion. But it also indicates fairly clearly why the probability of a D500 replacement is not likely...it's too misunderstood, with the result that there's just not a big enough market for it to make it a feasible product.

I've had and used a D850 for almost 6 years. I love it. And yes, like the Z8, one quick menu selection will turn it into a crop sensor camera with just under 20 MP. I've used it that way several times when it was the only camera I had, and I needed to create some high-resolution but emailable JPEGs. It worked great, but it was absolutely not the same as shooting with a D500.

On other occasions, I've been at school without my camera and had to use theiir D7200. Again, using the unfamiliar consumer interface made the whole process close to a nightmare. The pictures ended up okay, but the process was everything but.

I'm not faulting those who believe that the D500 is only a sports and wildlife camera. Nikon did that to themselves from the start in their advertising and brochures. But just about everyone who doesn't have one (and a pretty good portion of those who do) really doesn't understand how good it really is as a general purpose camera.

My D500s are my primary cameras. I use the D850s when appropriate and necessary, which is maybe a third of the time. I'd like to have a Z8, but am in no hurry to spend the $6000 or more necessary to get one and get it set up to go. A mirrorless D500 might be interesting. I just don't see that there is a market for it. This belief is strongly reinforced by reading the comments in this discussion. Read carefully if a Z90 is introduced. Test it thoroughly. My guess is that it will likely fall quite short of really replacing the D500.
Go to
Jan 18, 2024 23:27:40   #
btbg wrote:
Ken Rockwell likes the lens, but when you look at his entire review you will see that when shot wide open at both the wide and telephoto end the edge sharpness is not good. In addition in spite of what you are saying having f2.8 for the full range of the lens zoom is pretty important if the photographer shoots in low light.

So, yes, sharpness is important and the ops older lenses are generally sharper on the edges. As to other characteristics that are important, yes there are other considerations. However, lens manufacturers almost universally make their fixed f2.8 lenses with better sharpness and bokeh than their other lenses.

So, what exactly do you think is the advantage of the 16-80? I will admit it has one advantage and that is that it has good vr. Other than that I can't think of any advantage over what the op already has.
Ken Rockwell likes the lens, but when you look at ... (show quote)


The electronic aperture is a real advantage also, especially if a person shoots video. It also has updatable firmware, although from what I can tell, there have never been any new versions subsequent to the original version 1.0.

I have not been able to detect any corner sharpness problems, but I am very curious to learn what has failed to make the whole focus system not good. I'll be able to speak more intelligently about that in a few weeks when mine gets back from Signal Hill and I can read the service report.
Go to
Jan 18, 2024 18:49:46   #
flyboy61 wrote:
I just went to use my Nikon SC -29 cord with lighting asssist, and found the cord where it fastens to the camera hotshoe unit's insulation sheath has failed, exposing the inner wiring for about an inch and a half. Is it worth it to have it repaired, , or just buy another? Fortunately, I have some other cords that will serve, but none with the lighting assist.
I just went to use my Nikon SC -29 cord with light... (show quote)


NikonUSA's website has a section dedicated to support and repairs. Some accessories are repairable, some are not. If you go there, you can find out what is repairable and what is not. The repair centers charge a flat fee of $17.50 to return your repaired items, so even if the SC-29 is repairable, it may make more sense to buy a new one.
Go to
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 442 next>>
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.