March 02, 2015, 02:31:17 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - 7enderbender

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 43
Software & Accessories / Re: Exporting in Lightroom 3
« on: December 23, 2011, 04:10:47 PM »
sending them to for physical printing

That makes it easy: check their web site or email them and ask what export process gives them the best results.  Make sure to tell them what you expect from the prints: are they vacation snaps?  Paying customer prints?  Art prints?  If they say JPEG for everything you might want to consider a different print company.  (JPEG is fine for small prints, but if it's an "art" print you'll get better sharpness and tone gradation from a lossless format)

You might want to wait for more responses here: I actually don't do a lot of printing, so other folks here might be able to speak from greater experience.

This may be a stupid question but are there any companies that print anything BUT jpegs? I don't mean what file formats you can send to them but what they actually end up using.

I'm still under the impression that of my 5DII files a big chunk of the information will not translate to any print really (especially at sizes like 8x10 or smaller) since resolution in the digital age is limited to about 300 dpi - which makes an 8x10 print, what, a 8MP file or so at best. So essence it comes down to the question who or what will do the best job resizing your image, you in PS/LR or the company's printer software.

Do I have that approximately right?

Also: I am still also confused by the sizing and exporting functionality of LR3 since it works significantly different and uses other terminology than PhotoShop CS5. I haven't figured out the exact meaning of the percentages for jpegs yet and how they relate to the 12 quality steps in CS5.


Software & Accessories / Re: PC or MAC
« on: December 23, 2011, 01:14:54 PM »
For example, I bought a new laptop a few months ago from Dell for $2200 and I looked at the comparable MacBook Pro with the same processor, hard drive, video card, and with half of the RAM of the machine I bought and it was $2900 from Apple.

Did the 'equivalent' PC have a slot-loading optical drive? Backlit keyboard? Multitouch trackpad? Digital/optical audio input and output?  7 hours of battery life? A breakaway power connector?  All in a case less than 1" thick?

That's the problem with 'the same computer for a lot cheaper'.  It's not the same.  Of course, for many people those features are dispensable, and the lower cost it preferable. For others (many others, judging by Apple's stock price and market cap), the additional features are worth the cost.

The only thing my MacBook Pro and MacBook Air are missing is the red ring.  :P

My 17" Dell laptop, Intel i7 2.4 GHz (Turboboost up to 3.5), didn't have a slot-loading optical drive (I personally don't trust them, a friend of mine has had nothing but trouble with his), 7 hours of batter life is very good, I only have 5 hours, and my machine is not 1" thick, it is 1.3" thick, otherwise my machine has those features.  However, my laptop also has 16GB of RAM, the best Mac offered on their store site was 8GB, and it has a FHD (1080p) 3D Display.  For $700.00 less than a Macbook Pro, I can put up with the extra third of an inch two hours less battery life.  I'm not against Mac per say, like I said in my post, they look great and they're very popular, but they are wayyyy overpriced IMO.  Now if price isn't an issue to you, then hey buy two Macbook Pro's its always nice to have a spare. Lol.

I just look at $700 as 1/10 of the money I'm going to need to get 1DX.  ;)

To each there own. Good that there is that much variety available. I was thinking the same thing. A lot of the "features" that Apple products have are really non-appealing to me. Why would I want a slot-loading drive, the silly old magnet power plug or backlit keyboard? Same with the ubiquitous iPhone. You'd have to pay me to use that big heavy thing without a real keypad - and now it even talks to you and you have to talk back. I only hope that normal BlackBerries will be around for a while longer...And laptops with TrackPoint option.

Software & Accessories / Re: PC or MAC
« on: December 23, 2011, 12:23:42 PM »

You've obviously never suffered the loss of fire damage.  I have.  Learn to back up your stuff, and make an offsite copy as well.  Problem solved.

Excellent and important point. I didn't have fire damage, but just lost about a thousand archived film negatives in a flooding situation that filled my basement. I make it a point now to regularly backup my digital photos to two different drives and then to another portable drive that stays at another location. That way in, say, a fire or break-in I could still lose a lot of stuff and there may be some loss of more recent files. But all digital photos since 2002 are safe in another place.

Software & Accessories / Re: PC or MAC
« on: December 23, 2011, 11:59:39 AM »
I've just been looking into the same question again, only for a new desktop this time around. You'll ask 3 people and get (at least) 4 answers. The good news though is that these days lots and lots of computers will do what you need them for at a reasonable price - even laptops.

I've never been a latest-and-greatest-computer-geek type of guy. I still happily run my 5 year old IBM/Lenovo laptop (T60 with 2GB and some Centrino something) as my main computer (even at home). Why? Because it does what it's supposed to do, because I love love love the old IBM-type laptop keyboards and the relatively small (12"?) high resolution screen is just wonderful and still in the "standard" 4 by 5 ratio and not the new 16:9 ratio which I find still weird on laptops (unlike on large desktop screens where it makes sense). And its not glossy.

Mac or PC? Ouch, that can of worms again. To me a non-religious question and I've always been open to any system including Linux. But I always come back to Windows PCs. I find them most useful and the best value. Macs that do the same are just a little too pricey. And I need my computers to do three things well: business applications (including Excel/Word/Access 2003 and Powerpoint - none of which works properly on a Mac), music applications (Cubase and others - PCs and Macs handle this pretty well these days) and obviously my photographic needs (Photoshop, LR3, others - PC and Mac can do this well, but there are license issues with Adobe where you have to decide or pay extra; stupid, I know).

So summing that up, the Mac has always been out for me because it's too limited and too expensive. And I don't like their screens compared to my ThinkTank. Without the Adobe licensing issue I may have considered a desktop Mac as my main home recording machine, but it still seems like a bit of a waste since a custom built PC for under $1000 will serve me equally well as 2.5K Mac. Even my ancient current music/photo desktop serves it's purpose pretty well and that's only a tweaked Pentium 4 running 32bit XP pro.

If I'll need to replace my laptop one day I'll likely look at the professional Lenovo ThinkPad series again, like a tricked out T420 or so (even though I'm not happy about the new screens, but at least they still kept the keyboards).

EOS Bodies / Re: File numbers up to IMG_999999 ?
« on: December 23, 2011, 09:36:56 AM »
This might be a silly question, but does anyone else out there get annoyed at having lots of files with the same name, because file numbering is limited from IMG_0000 to IMG_9999?

Apologies if this is already available on some camera bodies, but could the 1DX number its files from IMG_000000 to  IMG_999999? If there is a problem adding the extra numbers due to the length of the file name, then maybe the letters 'MG' could be left out (e.g. I_000001).

Any thoughts or ideas?

There are different ways of getting there. I use the EOS utility program to manage that and make it a point to always use one PC to do the imports from the camera. All copying to backup drives and other locations happens right after that. So there is a reduced chance that I mess it up or end up with out-of sequence files or duplicates. Lightroom and other programs can do that for you as well but I don't use them for it.

In the EOS utility program you can go into "preferences" and then "file name" and set a naming convention. The camera already puts files towards a three-digit "folder", so you really have 100-999 with each having photos 0000-9999 in them. Then obviously the date makes things unique and in my workflow is the key identifier for everything and get stored also in dated folders.

My naming convention:

"<Shooting Day yy/mm/dd> | <Folder Number> | <Image Number>"

So I end up with:


Makes it easy to keep things unique in the long run and I can also find things more easily in the order it was shot. But there are multiple ways to set things up depending on your preferences.

EOS Bodies / Re: New to Full Frame - some help with lens(es)?
« on: December 23, 2011, 09:22:01 AM »
Hi all,

I will be upgrading to a 5DMkii in January, coming from a 400D which I have owned for over 5 years now and has served me well, but I truly have outgrown this body. I shoot mainly landscapes and portraits (studio, as well as more and more low-light bar/restaurant portrait shots) and need a bit of advice as far as lens(es) for the 5Dii.
I always knew I would be moving to FF, so I've been using the 17-40 L on my 400D for all things landscape and as a general walk-about lens. I can't wait to get this lens onto a 5Dii body as I usually crave even wider field of view than it currently gives me on the 1.6 crop body, so this will very much become my 'wide landscapes' lens.
For portraits and low light stuff I have the plastic-fantastic 50mm 1.8 - it does okay for what it's worth, just not too keen on the feel of that lens compared to my L lens!

My budget for the upgrade is about £2000 (UK) - possibly a little more depending on how much this Xmas period is going to cost me...   ;D

So... I was simply going to buy the 5dii body only and just continue with my 2 lenses as before. However I'm very aware that I will only have a max focal length of 50mm, which might not be long enough, so have been toying with the idea of the 24-105 L Kit as it will extend my range. I would however also like to upgrade the 50mm to the 1.4 version as I'm really not fond of the idea of putting the 1.8 on the 5Dii. It may sound silly to some, but to me that would be like by buying a Mercedes and then sticking cheap & nasty tyres and alloys on it - it just ain't right!

What would you do given the budget? Maybe not bother with the 24-105 and go for a couple of primes instead? 50mm 1.4 + 85 1.8? 24-70 L 2.8 maybe? Although I'm really put off by the massive size and weight of that lens, plus it would really stretch my budget to the max...

Thanks in advance & a very Merry Christmas to you all!

Hi there,

The 17-40 should indeed work well for your landscape needs. Getting the 24-105 with the 5DII seems like an obvious choice given how good of a deal it is as a package. It really is a great lens and I say that as somebody who otherwise prefers primes and fast lenses.

Not sure how this pans out for you with your budget and how much you'll have actually left in a body only scenario. In a studio setting the 24-105 is a great lens as well. In low-light/bar/candid situation it may or may not work. I used it during (very) low light live music situations lately and I am positively surprised by the results the high(ish) ISO capabilities of the 5DII and the IS actually can work. The later won't help you with motion blur obviously so it all depends. The 24-70 may serve you better for certain things. But maybe not.

Primes are clearly the obvious choice here and there are quite a few alternatives there depending on which focal length you want to cover (first) and what fits into the budget. I personally skipped the 70-200 zoom option that so many people like these days and went with the 50 1.4 and the 200 2.8L II. I'll be adding the 135L next. All of these are extremely good, relatively light - and relatively affordable. Any 85 lens may be a good choice as well. Or maybe even a fast lens with a wider angle, like a fast 35 or so.

Good luck.


If you are a Photographer, then mean it. Earn income. . . do it to sell prints . .. do weddings . . . portraits, commercial, etc . . . .

I guess anynone that takes photos religiously can be considered a photographer, but that is not what is meant when we speak of "Photograher." Stop wattering down terms/language people ;)


If you are a physician, and you are retired, you are still a physician. . . you have been one since graduation, whether you practice or not. If someone goes to school to LEARN photography, upon graduation, you are not a photographer by trade unless it is your profession. . . . what you do as a career. MANY people are self taught at home by practice and hands on witha camera. A physician has no such "career" they ARE a physician as soon as they graduate. They don;t even need a hospital setting to be one, or need to have a scalpal in thier hands . . but to be considered a Photographer, you must be in the profession, or you are a hobbyist/enthusiast, etc.

Why so bitter? And I'd agree if this was really a case of watering down language, which it is not and I otherwise would have an issue with. The primary definition derives directly from the original words "light" and "to write" or draw. So a photographer is someone who paints with light if you will. Merriam Webster in fact adds a secondary meaning as someone who earns a living by doing so. So both interpretations are valid from a language standpoint - at least in English and when considering the Greek origin. Fair enough?

And then there is the question of a)not selling anything b)giving stuff away for free c)selling the occasional print or d)trying to actually make a living off being a photographer

In my life as a photographer I am at B currently pursuing C. I'm not interested in D. The money doesn't seem good enough and the lifestyle wouldn't suit my role as a husband and father I believe. Maybe wouldn't be good enough to even make the meager living that the average "professional photographer" these days seems to make. But that's not the point.

It's the attitude of telling people how they have to label whatever they do just because they make an economic decision that their money is earned elsewhere in a better way and how to judge what they do with the rest of their time. Know what? I'm a pretty good guitar player and at some point in my life actually would have been considered "semi-pro" or whatever, because I was actually earning a living (in addition to my "day job"). I was considering going all pro - but I also saw what happens to the vast majority of people who do it. That wasn't for me because I care enough for music and art and anything I do outside my "professional life" to not end up teaching 15 year old guys how to play Metallica riffs and playing in a wedding band at night.

It's the underlying assumption that you need a) a formal education and b) something be you official "profession" to be any good at anything is just bogus. And very un-American I shall say. And I say that as an immigrant to this country - partly because that has been exactly my experience so far over the last few decades. Most people will not try to tell you what to do and how or that trying to get really good at something new is somehow equated to being a failure at something else. I can homeschool my kids and they may still go to Harvard. Or not. Anything goes within reason and based on merit. Do I make any sense here? Sorry to keep going on but this kind of stuff is close to my heart in a way. I wouldn't want the OP (or anyone) feel discouraged just because of somebody's word smithing or prejudice.

It's interesting to consider all the different directions this thread has taken. 

Words are flexible in the English language. Nobody practices medicine as a hobby, so "doctor" has a fairly uniform meaning. Yet, one can be a doctor of philosophy or recieve an honorary doctorate. Again, there are no hobby-barristers (that I know of), so we all have a fixed idea of what someone calling himself a lawyer does as his day job.

Drift over to an activity that can be performed recreationally and we have "pilot" who may only fly Cessnas and possess a PPL. Yet, fighter pilots, commercial pilots and airline pilots are not offended when someone calls them simply "pilot" despite the years of additional training and higher graduation of licencing.

I am likely the worst, least-knowledgeable photographer on this site. Yet, because I share a passion for photography and have carried a camera around in one form or another since acquiring my Kodak X15 in 1972, I have no problem describing myself with the term.

Now, others might not share my interpretation....    ;)

I agree with you. And you were able to express almost the same thing in fewer words.

And actually, I know of at least one physician (I personally try to avoid the term "doctor") who does his work more like a "hobby" or passion or whatever. He is independently wealthy and does not draw a salary. Still a professional, right?

Good example regarding the pilots. I've noticed that in the way how pilots of all sorts talk about and to each other. There is a lot of respect involved, even if a fellow pilot is "only" flying his or her own Cessna at the local airport. Maybe it's because there are so many licenses and protections build in that those folks are not considered a threat. Maybe it's the military background that many of those folks have.

In any case, there seems to be a lot more mindless bickering among photographers and talking down to one another.

Interesting discussion that touches on many different issues in my opinion. There are the obvious cultural and language implications that I can appreciate as someone who grew up in Western Europe and now lives in the slightly different cultural and professional climate here in the United States. And based on my conversations with people from different parts of Asia, some of the differences and societal demands are even more different. And I think that is the biggest issue for the OP (great portfolio by the way - and I personally see no reason to be discouraged calling him a photographer).

The other issue is that of the "professionalism" as both a mannerism and a monetary question. I'm too much of a libertarian soul to get worked up about this. As far as I know, at least in this country, "photographer" is not a protected term or anything that requires licensing, registration or any union nonsense (not even here in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts...). That may be different elsewhere and worth checking any exact terminology. I, for example, would call myself a "Registered Nurse" here in the States, because it means something very specific. I am a nurse though by training (many many moons ago and I haven't practiced in years), but my license is elsewhere and hence the protected term RN does not apply here. Doesn't mean that my knowledge went away and would come in handy in my life as a healthcare consultant in non-clinical areas. You get the idea.

With photography the lines are also blurry between "arts" and "business" - nothing wrong with that in my book. And people can pursue both and sometimes art sells and sometimes "guns for hire" can be great artists. Which of them is more or less "professional"? I don't know. Picking a craftsperson/artist/business owner for any of your needs is always a bit guesswork. We had a great photographer for our wedding and I'm still pleased with the results. Certainly more the artist type and I don't think he is still in business. Professional? Sure - at the time I think he made a living from different types of photography. Maybe he made money also with other stuff. I don't know.

Or my carpenter. True artist! And a professional. And I have no issues also letting him fix some electrical wiring while he is working on something else. Does that make him a professional electrician? No. And the unions would crucify him. But the man knows what he's doing. And he can see the big picture and comes up with ideas that work for his clients. In other words: there can always be overlap between "trades" and skills and business models.

If that offends any of the professional (wedding) photographers I can't help it. I'm sure a lot of them are great and very engaged and care about the outcomes for their clients and worth their money. And there may be the occasional kid out there who is also talented and is shaking up the market a bit. It's all good. People should embrace that.

EOS Bodies / Re: Upgrading from 5d... 1ds2 or 5d2
« on: December 21, 2011, 08:48:11 AM »

I have been wondering what to upgrade next from my 5D. I am looking for the following:

1) Better ISO performance Primarily
2) 7 AEB in Burst is a nice to have

I don't care about big jumps in MP or Video.  The used prices of the 5d2 and the 1Ds2 are not far off. Which one should I consider and why? Thanks!!

I think you can't go wrong with either (though I've never used a 1DsII). My only concern is alway to buy any used digital SLR. You never know what people did with them and there seems to be a lot of mindless clicking away these days resulting in busted shutters. With the current price of a new 5DII you might as well if it fits the budget.

Hi guys, I'm quite new here and really need your opinions here.

I know that the term 'photographer' might be sensitive, but for most people that doesn't involve in photography they didn't care as long you have the big chunky black camera you're a photographer. (I think you guys understand this)

 (especially in my country/region/culture, the term photographer refer to the people that earns money through photography, otherwise you're just a cameraman or just having an expensive camera. The funny things is if you call yourself a photographer, some of the real photographer will pissed you off )

I just a hobbyist and I always deny some of other people that call me photographer. But the problem is how to describe yourself with your commitmenttowards photography to the other people. I called myself 'photohunter', but that term seems doesn't work and people don't understand. Can I just used 'hobbyist photographer' instead??

*In case you wanna know I've been a year involve in photography and videography, produced two videography, and get a certificate from Canon (Malaysia) for the workshop I'm attended.

**sorry for my broken English, I'm not a native speaker

This may be a cultural difference but I'd have no problems calling myself (or you) a photographer. I also call myself a father and a husband and a guitar player and a politician without having any official certification or making money with either of those descriptors. Hey, I even call myself a Project Manager at work and they pay me for that. Go figure.

Seriously, I am a strong believer in the concept of the "Renaissance Man" or "Polymath" and the right if not obligation of a man to constantly reinvent himself in different areas. And that can be professionally (e.g paid for work) or otherwise. Just because I try to get as best as I can at something (photography, music, charity work, public service, whatever) without doing it "for a living" doesn't mean that what I do is any less serious than the stuff I do for money. Actually, I even enjoy the freedom of not having to make money by playing/shooting weddings and such. To each their own.

I fully understand that in some cultures this concept doesn't fly that easily. My European relatives to this day ask me what this silly "MBA" stuff is and if I'll ever have a real "profession" one day - and a secure position for life...

Lenses / Re: Why no fixed Super-Tele-Lenses for APS-C?
« on: December 19, 2011, 10:53:58 AM »
I don't think this would be viable. As it is I doubt that Canon makes a lot of money from these specialty lenses and I'm pretty certain they maintain a full range of all sorts of gear mainly for marketing reasons. So adding even more specialized stuff that is expensive to develop and manufacture to cater to a small fraction of enthusiasts wouldn't make sense. I don't see how EF-S specialty primes would be any cheaper than what's already available in the EF line. Unless, of course, 35 mm sensor were bound to go away for the pro series. Doesn't look like it.

EOS Bodies / Re: Who uses printers?
« on: December 15, 2011, 11:11:12 AM »
I don't mean this as a criticism.  I'm curious who uses printers these days for photos and why?  WHCC and Costco are so affordable that I would never buy a printer.  WHCC is very affordable for professional quality and Costco is extremely affordable for great pro-sumer quality.  Walmart and other stores are pretty dang good too.  Turnaround time is very fast, and I've always had the understanding that lightjet printers are superior to any inkjet printer.  Am I wrong, do some lightjet printers fall short?  Have inkjet printers risen in quality?  Is it the convenience of immediacy?  I also live in Southern California where there is a walgreens/costco/walmart every 5 feet.  I assume in rural areas it's less practical to drive a long distance to pick up photos from a store.

Inkjet printer fans, weigh in.  Enlighten me.

I'm with you. My Canon 5DII kit last year came with a "free" Canon printer. Didn't even open the box and gave it away. For my home office needs I was very happy when laser printers became affordable. I have one of those in the house (a cheap and compact b/w Samsung) and that's all I need.

My prints I order from WHCC, MPIX or Kodak depending on purpose and location. For quick and easy print outs fo something there is a Walmart, a Target and a Walgreens 5 minutes from my house. Those prints are likely not worse than what I would get from a "free" Canon printer at home. And the space that those beasts eat up I can use for something else. And dealing with clogged/dried ink cartridges, jammed paper, and the maintenance cost of it all: not worth it.

And to sum it up differently: anything that comes out of a printer will not be great no matter what or who does it. Still waiting for some new technology that addresses that and uses traditional paper and a chemical process at high resolution.

EOS Bodies / Re: Whortwhile to go for 5D Mark II?
« on: December 15, 2011, 10:55:58 AM »
I have waited for too long time to finally be able to buy my first digital SLR-camera, which has to be a Canon due to all the lenses I have since before. I was quite interested in 5DMII when i tcame but when it was revealed that the video functions were not the best I put everything on hold hoping that a new camera would come later on.

As I'm still heading for a full framer I wonder if the newer DMII's have been uppgrade with better firmware/functions making it worth while buying? My goal is to get rid of my old heavy video camera and have a modern SLR instead. Would appreciate if some one with experience could tell me what the difference with old and new 5DMII is today? The price is definetly very appealing.


Marco, welcome.

Hard to say what is right for you. I came in from a similar angle last year. I had been postponing going digital (with my SLR) for several years because things just didn't seem to be quite there yet or were too expensive (given that I had to start from scratch since my old Canon FD system is not really compatible with anything serious). A fat bonus last year and the availability of the 5DII at a more reasonable price point made me take the plunge. Haven't regretted it for one second. Is everything 100% perfect and the way I would want things? No. But what really is? It's pretty close to perfect even.

As far as video capability goes: I have no idea and have never used it. For video I prefer designated video cameras and based on what I've read from other people would caution anyone to think of a DSLR as a replacement for that. Yes, these cameras can deliver stunning results that due to the sensor size and high ISO capabilities look very film like under certain conditions. And I see why video pros with a larger budget are drawn to these options (likely in addition to other cameras). For good results it appears you need a lot of expensive additional gear (viewfinders/screens, steady-cam frames, a well thought out selection of specialized lenses, audio gear, etc). Not sure if that makes it really cheaper or lighter in the end compared to what you may be using now.

For photography the 5DII is one of a few available alternatives that will be as good or better (depending how you look at various aspects) as your current 35mm film cameras (guessing that you have an EOS film body plus EF lenses right now). In fact, I find it so good that I've been tossing around the idea of getting a second body given the current discounts putting it at around $2000. I don't expect to see anything new coming out any time soon that would be more interesting for me.

EOS Bodies / Re: Why not 16bit?
« on: December 14, 2011, 04:49:43 PM »
Why not 16 bit?

Shouldn't it contribute to a better DR?
There were some cameras that had 16 bit RAW files (so it is possible)

While the Digital SLR's are replacing the gelatine 35 mm SLR's
wich had astounding Dynamic Range (especially Black & White Film)
they are relatively matching the resolution,
and surpassing the noise/grain (ISO),

The only thing they develope sooo slowly is the DYNAMIC RANGE.
If it continues with this rythm, we are too far away of matching the film

I don't think that there is someone who wouldn't want this,
and i think that at the stage of the digital photography that we are now,
the DR should be the priority of developing instead of resolution and ISO.

Thank you for sharing with me a word weather you agree
with my opinion or not.
and i feel that we need a revolutionary discovery to match the film DR

I'm totally with you. Problem seems to be that it wouldn't really matter since the output (screens or prints) wouldn't match it anyway. If we ever want to see the same kind of depth we saw with film then we need better output technologies first. It's my opinion that cameras have reached a point of diminishing returns as long as nothing new happens on that side of the equation. I have no numbers or detailed technical knowledge to back this up other than looking at my prints from pre-digital printing days and compare it to anything I've gotten back from any lab since the late 90s or so. I compare it to the audio world. We have reached a point where digital audio processing is really really good. So we're back to the point where it really matters a) how good the analog input is (if there is any) and b) how good the analog output device is in the end. You can have the latest greatest guitar amp and microphone or the most nifty digital amp simulation and run all this with a sample rate of 96khz - once it hits your cheap little iPod headphones as poor MP3 files it really makes not much of a difference anymore.

Same will be true with you 16bit files and your L glass and your 48MP 5D Mark VI once your photos come out of that Walmart inkjet (or their more expensive equivalents from a slightly better lab).

Pages: 1 ... 34 35 [36] 37 38 ... 43