As far as posting comments about other peoples pictures, or indeed having comments passed about my own, I would say the following...

If an image does nothing for me, I tend not to comment on it. I mean, if it neither pleases or displeases. Usually, that depends on whether the subject matter appeals to me, as much as the execution of the shot.

If it pleases me, I'll tend to say so, but I'll usually try to find at least one fault with it, just out of pure jealousy.

If it displeases me, I might say so, but probably only if it's in the context of a debate regarding the images.

I feel that unless someone says "This image doesn't seem to work for me, any ideas why that might be?", then they're posting a pic because they're pleased with it, and it works for them, and that's what matters at the end of the day. To have someone then say "It's rubbish because..." might not be helpful to the self-esteem of the photographer. I'm not saying that in relation to this post, just a general observation.

Regarding Pete's pics, I like the bridge one, but I'd like it more if there was a more defined path leading away from the other end of the bridge into the woods. I realise Pete couldn't do anything about that without a bowsaw.

The Stream I didn't like much, I found the grasses in the forground cutting across the water distracting, disecting what I considered the subject in two.

The Obalisk did nothing for me, just didn't engage my eye. There didn't seem to be a journey there, you just looked at the obalisk and that was pretty much it.

That's how I saw them, I'm guessing Pete saw them differently. I would guess they evoke emotions in him that they don't in me, because he was there, and can recollect the sound and smell of the stream, the birdsong nearby, etc, and the image therefore has more in it for him. Detaching the image from it's surroundings is, I think, one of the most important and difficult things in this type of photography, but without doing so, it's too easy to feel that the image works as a seperate entity, but when viewed by someone else it fails to elicit the same emotional responses.

That's fine if you take pictures for your own pleasure, it's more of a problem if you're selling them.

Going back to the 'journey' idea, I think the viewer should be able to move around and through an image, and that's why the bridge picture doesn't quite work for me. At the far end of the bridge there's a barrier, and it therefore feels a bit disjointed.

With the Stream, the grasses across the water force you to start the journey at the top of the waterfall, and from there you go straight back along the water and it's not a very interesting trip.

The Obalisk, I don't feel, is worth the trip to get there, it's not enough of a feature.


So there you go, that's my 2 penneth!

Dan

Okay, okay, it's yours for £60, just PM me your address.

Dan


P.S. I am of course referring to my Sigma 70-300 APO Macro, I assume that's the one you meant...

Hope it gets sorted soon, Peter.

Dan

Peter brought the camera along to see me today, and there is a serious problem with it.

First off, I tried it with the kit lens and got just plain black images - the histogram shows a peak at the far left-hand side.

I thought it might be a lens problem (perhaps closing right down instead of using the set aperture, although I very much doubt this would result in a black image), so tried my 16-45. Lo and behold, we had images, correctly exposed, no problem.

Put the kit lens back on, and we still had images, again fine exposure-wise. Put my 16-45 back on, and we're back to black. Very odd.

Tried my 50-200 too, with similar mixed results.

Browsing through Peter's images on his card (half of which were black), I saw a couple that looked like those 'Magic Eye' pictures (you know, stare at them and they turn 3D - didn't check the firmware, could have been a new feature ). One of the pics I took with the 50-200 turned out like this too - just a speckly, random mess.

I told Peter to take it back, and make sure he got the software manual changed for a british one too.

Presumably it's a processing problem, and although it seemed to have some relationship with a lens being changed, as I was turning the camera off and on again each time I changed a lens, I assume this was having more of an effect than anything else.

George, Peter tells me he's done nothing but read the manual, it is apparently something he does with anything new. Cover to cover. Which is certainly more than most do I reckon.

So perhaps it is a battery problem - could be that it doesn't have enough power to perform correctly, although it showed fully charged on the LCD. I suspect an internal fault though, but that's just my opinion only.

Hopefully though, changing everything will get it sorted. Just Sod's Law that it happened to Peter.

Dan

Peter,

If you haven't already been over to Chelmsford and sorted it, I'm at Bedfords Park tomorrow (Sunday) if you wanted me to have a look at it. I'm there 9 to 5, and we've got an 'Optics Day' too, lots of nice binoculars to play with...

Cheers,
Dan

Was the rule of 600 devised for 35mm photography? If so, you'll need to increase it to 900 because of the narrower field of view with DSLR sensors.

Dan

EDIT: Just read what the rule actually is, and realised that I should have said "decrease it to 400"!

I could definitely feel his mozzy mate sucking the blood out my arm - thought I'd lent against a stinging nettle.

Dan

I've only got a non-Pentax, non-dedicated, non-TTL flash, and I can quite happily take macro shots of insects, so don't let that stop you Ralf!




With my set-up, I find an aperture of f/11 gives accurate exposure 90% of the time, and shooting RAW gives me the leeway to adjust if it's wrong and I haven't been able to re-shoot.

Dan

...which apparently gives mixed results with non-A lenses, so if it works for Peter, I see no reason why he shouldn't use a method he's familiar with.

Dan

I seem to remember you decided the same thing about the K10D...

Dan