July 23, 2014, 10:17:01 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 - unfocused

Pages: 1 ... 96 97 [98] 99 100 ... 127
Street & City / Re: Etiquette of Street Photography
« on: January 19, 2012, 02:04:51 PM »
Interesting discussion.

From what I have read, Cartier-Bresson was quite circumspect – circling the scene, sizing things up and then quickly taking the shot. Cartier-Bresson credited his success in part to hunting as a youth. In fact, later in life he clarified his use of the "Decisive Moment" to draw an analogy between hunting and photography, explaining that he was looking for the right moment to take a "shot."

Garry Winogrand was apparently more brazen, relied on a smile to disarm the subject, shot rapid fire and was constantly on the move.Someone described his approach as the camera being secondary to his making quick connections with the people on the street as he photographed them.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What makes a photographer, a photographer?
« on: January 19, 2012, 12:47:59 PM »
This got me thinking: was Matthew Brady the photographer or was Alexander Gardner?

I guess this question has been around for awhile. :)

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Why canon?
« on: January 19, 2012, 12:30:55 PM »
I bought a Konica SLR when I was in high school and used it through college and my first two newspaper jobs. When I got a job as a photographer at a small daily, I knew I had to upgrade. As a poor, underpaid photographer with a family to support I had to make every penny count.

Added up the cost of what I needed from Canon and Nikon and figured out I could get an additional lens by buying Canon. Borrowed the money from the credit union and bought an F1, four lenses, and an AT-1 body as a backup.

Hard to imagine now, but at the time, hardly any news photographers used Canon (Nikon practically owned the business). Got lots of sneers from others, but it was what I could afford and it was far superior to the Konica.

When I got back into photography a few years ago, I never considered anything but Canon.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: What makes a photographer, a photographer?
« on: January 18, 2012, 05:49:28 PM »
I'm unclear about what is being asked here.

If I set up my camera and then ask someone else to take the shot, I am not going to claim I took the picture.

If I set up my camera and then ask someone else to take the shot, I do believe I own the picture. (owner but not photographer)

Even though I own the picture, if the picture had some financial value, I would be hesitant to cash in on that value without sharing it with the person who took the picture, as they could very well have a legal right to a share of the profits. People sue one another all the time to get a piece of anything they were remotely connected with and it's almost always cheaper to work that out beforehand, rather than in court.

For me, personally, pictures triggered by infrared or other automatic remote triggers are a bit more grey. I guess it would depend on how much involvement I had in setting up the shot and how much was just chance. I'd certainly own the picture in any event, but how much credit I would take for it would depend on the circumstances.

No clear legal answers because each circumstance would have to be litigated. Which is something I can usually avoid since my pictures have more personal value than financial value.

If you really want to spur some controversy, try getting your head wrapped around these "appropriation artists"

Sherie Levine  http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1995.266.2

Richard Prince http://www.richardprince.com/photographs/cowboys/

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Tamron AF 70-300mm 4-5.6 Di SP VC USD
« on: January 18, 2012, 05:19:19 PM »
I also own the Tamron 70-300mm. I don't have the "L" lens to compare it too. I've lusted after the Canon 70-300mm L, but just haven't been able to justify the expense. (I decided to buy the 100-400mm Canon zoom for now, instead, and keep the Tamron).

I would say the Tamron is sharp (compares favorably to the 100-400 and the 55-250 -- which by the way is a pretty dang sharp lens), whether or not it is as sharp at the "L" lens I doubt (although some reviews have said the "L" is not knock-your-socks-off sharp -- like the 70-200 2.8 L.)

I have found the Tamron sometimes (but not often) will have a hard time finding a focus point (does a lot of searching).

My sense is the Tamron is superior to the non-L Canon 70-300 mm IS (and cheaper) but not in the same league as the "L."

If you want some good insights into the various options, take a look at the Lens Rentals commentary for each lens. I think his comments are right on.

Lenses / Re: 70-200 II and forget about primes? (70-200 IS I is rubbish?)
« on: January 16, 2012, 09:24:13 PM »
Not trying to go too far afield, but in terms of sharpness only, how do people feel about the 200 f2.8 prime and the 70-200mm f4 IS. Are they as sharp as, or sharper than, the 70-200 f2.8 II IS?

EOS Bodies / Rebate Extended/New Rebate
« on: January 14, 2012, 12:15:56 PM »
Looking at both the B&H and Canon USA sites, it appears the 5D and 7D rebates have either been extended or a new $100 rebate is in effect. Anyway, expiration date now appears to be Feb. 4.

I must be missing something.

Is this based simply on the age of most prime lenses? Because clearly there is zero relationship between how old a lens is and how often Canon decides to update the lens.

Prime EF-S lenses? Canon currently has a grand total of 1 EF-S prime lens and that's a macro lens. It seems to me that Canon has placed much more emphasis in the last few years on improving the performance of zoom lenses rather than primes (think 70-200 f2.8 vs. 200mm f2.8 prime).

APS-C vs. "Full Frame" -- Let's see, Canon now has five APS-C cameras. They have two "Full Frame" cameras and just killed off their APS-H camera. Fuji just introduced their top-of-the-line interchangeable lens rangefinder in APS-C. Where is the evidence that "full frame" will swallow up APS-C? Or is this just "my sensor is bigger than your sensor" foolishness?

Fast primes and/or fast zooms?  I wish. But unfortunately, it is pretty clear that Canon's strategy is to put less emphasis on the speed of its glass and more emphasis on high ISO sensors.

I'm not suggesting that Canon won't update their prime lens lineup. I would agree that we might see some minor updates and refreshing of the line up to take advantage of changes in technology, but I don't see Canon investing a massive amount of capital in their prime lens lineup.

EOS Bodies / Re: OT - hasselblad masters
« on: January 13, 2012, 05:25:40 PM »
Kind of agree with Wickid.

I liked the nature one, but the "fine art" was just stupid. It might make a good ad or illustration, but nothing particularly innovative or thought-provoking about it. Lots of people here didn't like Gursky's work, but at least he is creative and has a point. This is just bad commercial art.

On the other hand, this does remind me how arbitrary contests of this nature are.When you compare this work to the CR Forum contest, I would say the CR Forum stuff shows just how many really talented photographers are out there that get little or no recognition.

Site Information / Re: Should karma remain on the forum?
« on: January 13, 2012, 12:47:51 PM »
Whether or not a result of the karma system, this is one of the most civil forums I've ever been a part of (or even lurked on.)  I suspect the karma does play at least a role in that.

And now to up my bad karma...

I vehemently disagree on the positive only concept.  It's "hey, we're all good, just some gooder than others."  If you've spent more than 3 minutes on the internet, you are well aware that there are a great number of people who love the anonymity it provides simply to stir up disention and boost their own fragile egos by belittling others, practicing their swearing, and making off-color jokes.  If we can't smite those people, then they just get included in the positive karma love-fest and we all pay the price.

So if we're going to have karma--which does seem to serve it's purpose--then it has to have both good and bad.

Sorry to disappoint, but I'm giving you good Karma for this!

A thought and a personal confession.

The thought:
While many people are suggesting interesting ideas, I really think it makes too much of the system and makes it too complicated. The current system is simple, if imperfect (what in life is perfect?) I much prefer this to some overly complicated, stringent, forum-police system that stifles debate.

The confession:
I have given out bad Karma and I've given it to some of the most frequent and technically-knowledgeable participants on this forum. I give it to them when they belittle or mock other persons for disagreeing with their opinions (not their facts, but their opinions). They are particularly likely to receive negative Karma from me if they are mean to newcomers on the forum.  I do not give anyone bad Karma for reacting to or criticizing something I say (that seems petty to me), but if you pick on someone else, I will proudly give you bad Karma. A little passive-aggressive perhaps, but I find it much simpler and less frustrating than engaging in a prolonged debate on the forum over how their parents should have taught them some manners.

Site Information / Re: Should karma remain on the forum?
« on: January 12, 2012, 10:54:15 PM »
Karma is good, it generally keeps the tone civilised I think there is probably a bit of vengeful smiting but i think i applaud more often if i find a post particularly helpfull or brings some good information out

I agree. I've noticed that some participants behave a bit more civilly after receiving some bad Karma. It reduces the number of nasty drive-by comments. No one takes it too seriously, but it's not useless either.

EOS Bodies / Re: DSLRs are a dying breed, EVIL is the future!
« on: January 12, 2012, 07:48:47 PM »
I don't see anything troll like about it. its purely posting the opinion of a very popular photography blogger and people are discussing the view. I don't think many people agree with the expressed view though.

I agree. Attention-grabbing headline aside, the discussion has been entertaining, even if pretty seriously off-topic at times.

EOS Bodies / Re: DSLRs are a dying breed, EVIL is the future!
« on: January 12, 2012, 01:41:15 PM »
I use an M9 and Summicron 35 for 90% of what I shoot. I love the size and weight of the thing. I can fit it almost everywhere.

Yes...I thought that camera sitting on your workspace at CES didn't look like a Canon. Bad boy! Since it's your website, you don't get bad Karma, even though you deserve it. :)

Seriously though, of course DSLRS are a dying breed. It's just a question of how long it will take. Right now, there is nothing available that makes a better replacement. But, technology marches on.

In my lifetime, I've seen vinyl records, eight-track tapes, cassettes and now CDs come and go (well actually, vinyl records were here before I was born, but not the others). Same with the entire video store industry. For half of my life, there was no such thing as a video rental store. They came...they succeeded...they failed and technology marched on.

I accept that I am a dinosaur.

But, I'm also gambling that the death of the DSLR, when it comes, will arrive gradually and I may be too old and weak to lift a camera to my eye by that time. On the upside, if it comes sooner, the end of the DSLR just might give me the opportunity to pick up some nice "L" lenses at a discount when no one else wants them anymore.

We went to Provence last fall. As usual, I packed way more equipment than I used.

I have a 7D. For almost all my shots, the 15-85 was the lens I used. That's roughly comparable to the 24-105.

I also have the Tamron 70-300mm. The only time I used it was when we went to an ornithological park in the Camargue. Had we not been going there, I wouldn't have missed it.

To give you a sense of how versatile the 24-105 range is, we visited the Canyon du Verdon, stood alongside the running of the bulls in St. Remy de Provence, toured the Palais des Papes, walked across the Pont du Gard, watched gladiators "fight" in the Roman amphitheater in Arles, strolled along the beach in Nice and climbed to the rooftop in Saintes-Maries-de-la-Mer. And, as I said, I never really needed another focal length.

Lenses / Re: 135L or 100L macro?
« on: January 11, 2012, 05:11:41 PM »
I think we can add a new new answer to the Canon Rumors FAQ:

Q) Should I buy the 135mm F2 or the 100mm F2.8 Macro?

A) Buy the 35mm 1.2, it's twice as expensive.

Seriously, if you are really trying to decide between the 100 macro and the 135 non macro, here are a couple things to consider about the 100 macro "L".

1) It is crazy sharp.
2) It has great IS
3) You can use it for macro when you want.
4) You can hand hold close focus shots.
5) It's a good focal length for portraits.
6) It has an auto-focus distance switch that you can use, so that focus is faster and more accurate depending on whether you are using it for macro or for regular shooting.

Downside: for "true" macro the IS isn't all that useful since the narrow depth of field usually requires that you use a tripod anyway (too hard to get accurate focus handholding.) It is, however, very useful for quasi-macro work where you want to get in close to a subject.

I can't speak to the 135 f2. I'm sure it is a great lens as well. All depends on whether or not the extra stop and extra 35mm focal length are more important to you than the Macro and IS.

Pages: 1 ... 96 97 [98] 99 100 ... 127