OK, you meant a trade show, the purpose of which is for manufacturers to show off their products. A fair is an occasion to sell things.

G

Opethian, if that is your sincere opinion, then I can't really argue with you, since it's partly subjective. However, the lighting in both is dull, and consequently the pictures are rather lifeless.

The compositions are not exactly arresting, though I think something could be done with the second one. It needs more emphasis on the building, but there are the makings of a picture there.

It's old hat but it needs repeating. It's difficult to make a good picture with bad light. On a better day, these two might come alive, so it would be worth a return visit.

G

That's not a camera fair. The OP meant places where small traders and individuals go to sell stuff, often used.

G

I presume that is a V for Victory sign, and not a response to an improper request.

G

Indeed. Academe is another area where standards ain't what they used to be.

But perhaps I am being unfair. To what extent are artists today the victims of the age, rather than the cause of the current artistic morass?

Had the professor lived 150 years ago, might she have founded the Pre-Raphaelite Sisterhood, and produced some wonderful work? Or would it still have been dross?

I am not sure, but neither would surprise me.

G

I think you overlooked my third sentence. Easily done, as it was very short.

G

Surely all photography is art if a human being produced it. Some is good art, some bad. Some dire.

In my view, what separates good art from bad art is a combination of creativity and skill. (The word art originally meant skill). This is why I would never describe the stuff produced by Emin, Hirst, and their like as good art because whilst arguably there has been some creative input, there is no skill that I can discern.

Coming back to photography, I think the OP shares my view that a lot of current photography relies on digital manipulation after the event. Personally, I prefer what I term "pure photography" where composition is the be-all and end-all of the image.

That is not to say that people like Adams didn't spend a lot of time in the dark-room, but in doing so I like to think that they were trying to make the print look as much like what they saw as possible. They weren't trying to change what they saw.

But I have said all this before, and am in danger of boring long-standing members.

G

Price

G

I am not sure you are correct.

On manual at 1/25 power at ASA 800 (OK, ISO nowadays) and an aperture of f2.8, you would be OK at a distance of 8 metres.

Or bounce it off the ceiling, and it would be OK at around 4 metres (depending on ceiling).

Alternatively, put it on full auto at ISO 800.

But thank you for your other information. Perhaps I should join a few clubs.

G

Forget these namby-pamby modern gadgets and get a proper flash. The AF400-T has reliable auto-exposure, ample power, and by God it looks the part.

With this flash and a black leather jacket you'll have people calling you Bailey and offering to pose naked.

Guaranteed!




G