adobe.photography
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography?hl=en
adobe.photography@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Canon > Nikon D3 > Sell All & Switch - 14 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/0f2b645b7ef778d9?hl=en
* Epson Stylus R1900 special buy - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/ec147a00fbb0bf1f?hl=en
* So is the photography forum dead or grasping for its last breath? - 10
messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/df98f10b5350a14c?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canon > Nikon D3 > Sell All & Switch
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/0f2b645b7ef778d9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, Mar 23 2009 11:54 pm
From: Fred_Nirque@adobeforums.com
What on earth are you on about, Wade?
My main point was to correct your inference that the only Micro lens that does 1:1 is the 60mm. It isn't - the 105mm manages that perfectly well without accessory tubes. See:
<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1NUKpENdbWWizajiEJITR2DYXuw5Uy0>
(pardon the lack of quality - this was done in haste using a Lumix P&S).
The mention of the VR on the 105 is also pertinent, for although Nikon recommend against using it in the macro field, it works just fine and has made hand-held shots that were unpredictable or impossible before with the 60mm quite feasible (1:1, strong wind blowing, position too cramped to set up a tripod, hand held @ 1/80 sec). Any closer and probably the insect would probably have flown off (a 60mm at this magnification would probably have touched its wingtips while moving in and out to catch focus):
<http://www.pixentral.com/show.php?picture=1RJb6rfcAW4blbasc0Cc7wcftkXlx4>
It also helps out in general photography, as my example was posted to illustrate.
I fail to see how you get that I was canning the 60mm or making "rules" (geez, talk about the pot calling the kettle black!), all I did was point out a couple of quite valid reasons why the 105mm is a very useful lens, moreso than the 60mm in my experience with using both of them in a far wider general application than just taking architectural models. Obviously both have their advantages, but I carry the 105mm in the field and leave the 60mm on the copy stand because the 105mm is a more versatile lens in general use.
I treat my replies as being read by anyone, so seek to be as general as possible. Not all of us photograph little else but steel, concrete and glass, after all.
== 2 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 3:58 am
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
I treat my replies as being read by anyone, so seek to be as general as
possible. Not all of us photograph little else but steel, concrete and
glass, after all.
You know some people think I have a way with portraits as well.
== 3 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 4:12 am
From: Fred_Nirque@adobeforums.com
You know some people think I have a way with portraits as well.
For which the 105mm would be the choice of the two lenses to use, one would think....?
== 4 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 5:17 am
From: LRK@adobeforums.com
Fred, I love the older man with a guitar you posted. It's one of those shots that you connect with. It's rich.
== 5 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 6:19 am
From: PShock@adobeforums.com
Do you know that you can come across as mean and shortsighted at times?
That's because I tell the truth. Obviously, you're only interested in feel-good comments and advice on where to spend your money so I'll bow out for good.
-phil
== 6 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 6:30 am
From: LRK@adobeforums.com
That's because I tell the truth.
As you see it. This door swings both ways. Is it possible that you are not always right about your assessment of others?
Back to the topic at hand. Trust me. I don't want to have to switch. I just want Canon to quit focusing on video and work on quality that matches the D3 at high ISO. I'm willing to pay for it, but I don't see it.
== 7 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 6:39 am
From: Fred_Nirque@adobeforums.com
It's rich.
As was his music, Linda.
Cold night, on the front porch of an old 1819 farm mansion, lighting was mainly by one desklamp on the floor in front of him, and there were about 40 very appreciative people in the impromptu audience. One of those situations where taking a bad photo would be very difficult indeed.
== 8 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 7:08 am
From: Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com
Fred:
I should be suing you for damages!
You post images like those ones and expect me have self-restraint and not to go and buy a 105mm instead of paying my taxes?!
On the other hand I could always send my Tax Bills to you instead?
Anyone who has the 24-70mm, investigate its use as a close-up lens.
A zoom for macro? Yes — incredibly.
At 70mm you can get in to almost 1:2 and still get amazingly good results.
== 9 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 7:26 am
From: LRK@adobeforums.com
Cold night, on the front porch of an old 1819 farm mansion, lighting was
mainly by one desklamp on the floor in front of him, and there were about
40 very appreciative people in the impromptu audience. One of those situations
where taking a bad photo would be very difficult indeed.
Fred, I can so appreciate this experience. It had to be a magical moment. We had the privilege of gathering with a small group and listening a Russian musician in our home and a friend's home, followed by a performance in Palm Beach a couple of years ago. His gift is such that it brings tears to my eyes.
== 10 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 7:30 am
From: Fred_Nirque@adobeforums.com
I don't expect restraint at all :-)
Even with escalating prices, the 105 is a bargain for what you get for the money. Its features are a virtual dictionary of Nikkor acronyms: SWM VR ED IF N Micro.
== 11 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 10:32 am
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
Linda
Phil thinks this is a hobby me as well and that I am a silly women as well!
I don't know if he still teaches but he once said his students could out perform me, that might be but then they would be out performing him easily as well. However I gave him the challenge of having his students visit my portfolio and offer their criticism and comments but we never heard even a peep.
I think it would have been a great class project.
So from one silly women to another do what you think is right.
As for Fred I tend to use the 24 mm pc lens for portraits. It gives a natural look to the subject at least they way I shoot with it. 60mm would be my idea of a mild telephoto.
== 12 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 2:01 pm
From: LRK@adobeforums.com
Phil thinks this is a hobby me as well and that I am a silly women as
well!
So from one silly women to another do what you think is right.
:-)
I really don't want to have to switch, and I can appreciate how it does seem silly that I would entertain the idea. I realize Canon makes a great product. I am just so impressed with the huge strides Nikon has made since the D3. Being able to shoot at such high ISO's in low lighting and get the kind of results I've seen samples of, is a breakthrough to a whole new level, both in achieving quality of product, and of flexibility.
I don't do much for fun. Those that know me well realize I am somewhat of a workaholic, and often have to pull me away from my work, for which I usually am grateful. I just enjoy excellence and quality in different areas of life. And though I fall short, it's something I continue to strive for.
== 13 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 2:30 pm
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
Linda many of the users here even the professionals started early in life taking photography seriously and they think the concept that people pick up a camera and explore the use of the camera solely for use as a business is a bit foreign. They do not quite relate all the tie t the concept that one sees this in a different way.
I point this out all the time that not everyone sees things the same and they mostly view photography as a very personal thing and a profession secondly and a business in the third place. So when someone comes along who sees it as a business in the first place and there is no second or third place, well that sort of throws them off. that is why they often response with excitement about your queries about equipment and they go a bit wild and you can get this one and that one and this one and that one.
I have often tried to explain the Linda is in business graphic arts is her business photography is not a hobby, she has to see a return on her investment, right or wrong feels she has to offer her clients the latest up to date services, that is all there is to it.
And also she is hard to educate so the education part is a much harder sell and probably not as important as long as she can provide her clients with the services.
I am just being honest, not insulting you.
have often pointed out that I know many well regarded pros and fine artist that use the photography media that know no more about the traditions and techniques then you do and by now probably know less then you do, but that does not make them any less well regarded their audience is happy.
I personally think they can be more efficient if they had more of a background and understanding of the process but i still regard them as artist and professionals in most cases.
Your in business and do well that is all that matters and you do what ever you think is correct but like with the photo guild the information here is not about you as much s it is about the poster in amy cases.
I personally think you spent money on things you do not need but that is what we all do and no matter how much we are warned we always do it.
I am killing time as I have to do a shot at dusk.
You know you client base serve them not us. And get the check and make certain they sign it.
== 14 of 14 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 3:02 pm
From: LRK@adobeforums.com
Wade, Thank you for your thoughts. I would say you did a good job of being perceptive. Learning is something I am constantly working at, but it does not come easy for me as it does for others. My retention is not so hot either. I do best by reading, re-reading, and highlighting my library of books, while getting help from others, such as yourself, Ann, Ashley, Phil, and several others... to help fill in the blanks and answer specifics... for which I am most grateful.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Epson Stylus R1900 special buy
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/ec147a00fbb0bf1f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 6:54 am
From: Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com
Are you shooting Camera RAW or as JPEGs?
If you are shooting JPEGs with embedded sRGB profiles in your images, then set your RGB working space to sRGB instead of AdobeRGB.
If you can shoot RAW and Convert to a wider space such as AdobeRGB or even to ProPhoto RGB, you will get even better color out of the R1900.
If your images look too dark at Gamma 2.2 that is because they probably ARE too dark — as reflected in your dark prints — and need to be corrected in either Photoshop or your RAW converter.
I have no experience with laptops but perhaps somebody who has could tell you how you can calibrate and profile the monitor on one.
(Does Apple's calibration work with lap tops or can you use a puck with them?)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: So is the photography forum dead or grasping for its last breath?
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/t/df98f10b5350a14c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 6:59 am
From: Lawrence_Hudetz@adobeforums.com
No more flags. Instead,"New Flag" is posted.
== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 9:28 am
From: John_Cornicello@adobeforums.com
The noise actually slowed down the process. Attention was gained about a week ago on the first mention.
== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 9:44 am
From: Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com
John:
It is important that Adobe gets the wording right this time.
There has to be an absolutely clear and unambiguous statement that while the Users consent to our Copyright "Content" being stored on Adobe's Servers, and disseminated on the Internet solely in the context of the Forums on which that "Content" was posted;
no other reproduction of our work, in any other media, is sanctioned for any purpose without the Written Permission of the Copyright Owner.
== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 9:58 am
From: Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File>:Gadsden_flag.svg
== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 10:08 am
From: pfigen
Then there should have been some sort of acknowledgement a week ago. That might have slowed this thread and calmed the tone down, but this is the first I've seen any official response from Adobe.
== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 10:20 am
From: Wade_Zimmerman@adobeforums.com
I agree Peter and Ann…it's sheer nonsense!
== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 10:45 am
From: John_Cornicello@adobeforums.com
I did respond last week that it was sent on to Legal.
== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 11:04 am
From: Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com
I think that the problem is that "sending it on to legal" is a very different matter from receiving some solid confirmation that Adobe recognizes the seriousness of the issue; and intends to amend the TOS to something that is more equitable and acceptable.
And that they will do it promptly before the New Forums are launched (with their dangerous trap for unsuspecting Users who might foolishly upload their images directly into the new Jive Forums).
== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 12:11 pm
From: Allen_Wicks@adobeforums.com
Silly me, but what is wrong with the "old forums?"
== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Mar 24 2009 12:16 pm
From: pfigen
I think at this point, because there has been so much hypothesizing and conjecture, it would be helpful to have an official posting and clarification of whatever policy is finally adopted. Make it up front and out in the open and put it both in legal terms and in layman's terms, but not in the horribly written layman's terms that were in the original terms and conditions.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "adobe.photography"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to adobe.photography+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photography/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment