All Forum Comments
PS I read somewhere recently that the red poppys actually started in the US, so perhaps it is we who should ask you what they reference
Comment by Mongoose posted on Remembrance? at 11/11/2009 - 15:22
broadly speaking, yes.
I think the red poppy is a reference to the poppys which grew on Flanders fields after WWI. The date is also to mark the signing of the armastice at the end of WWI (11 am on 11/11/18 ), although all those who have fallen serving crown and country are remembered today.
I think the red poppy is a reference to the poppys which grew on Flanders fields after WWI. The date is also to mark the signing of the armastice at the end of WWI (11 am on 11/11/18 ), although all those who have fallen serving crown and country are remembered today.
Comment by Mongoose posted on Remembrance? at 11/11/2009 - 15:21
I have no idea where it is, but I once had a roll of film jam in my 35mm compact. The camera thought it was winding on, but the film wasn't moving so I ended up with a multiple exposure as the last frame.
That frame ended up as a wierd ghostly image of my cat partially superimposed on a number of other images.
It was quite spooky, particularly as the cat had died while the film was at the printers.
That frame ended up as a wierd ghostly image of my cat partially superimposed on a number of other images.
It was quite spooky, particularly as the cat had died while the film was at the printers.
Comment by Mongoose posted on My favorite bad photograph at 11/11/2009 - 14:03
Mike-P wrote:
I've read that as well, although much like the back focussing which I occasionally observe, every time I set up a well controled experiment to test it the problem disapears. I think in my case at least the problem resides behind the viewfinder.Utopia Poppy wrote:
My tip would be to make sure your horizon is level (unless you purposely don't want it level). I swear one of my legs must be longer than the other!
Fiona
I think I read somewhere that the K10D does that on a lot of bodies .. it may not be you.My tip would be to make sure your horizon is level (unless you purposely don't want it level). I swear one of my legs must be longer than the other!
Fiona
Comment by Mongoose posted on Today's tip for the taking of the photographs is... at 11/11/2009 - 14:00
dangie wrote:
Indeed it does, I believe in direct response to the K10D. The D70s viewfinder is rubbish, as are those of the D40, 60 and 5000.Mongoose wrote:
just think yourselves lucky you didn't go for a low end Nikon, or worse an Oly.
Having said that, the Nikon D90 has an excellent large clear viewfinder.just think yourselves lucky you didn't go for a low end Nikon, or worse an Oly.
Even the D90 is no better than the K10/20/7 finder. In my opinion this is the only currently sustainable reason to go to a larger format.
Comment by Mongoose posted on Viewfinders compared at 10/11/2009 - 21:38
just think yourselves lucky you didn't go for a low end Nikon, or worse an Oly.
Comment by Mongoose posted on Viewfinders compared at 10/11/2009 - 17:17
cabstar wrote:
When you get to photograph a band that hasn't toured for 20 years & you get a one of the few photo passes available. Make sure you set your body to take the largest size jpeg possible & is not set to the minimum size which is useless for your photo agency or anybody else!!!!
Ouch, it's incidents like this (although not quite such amazing oportunities) which caused me to institute my current policy. My policy is that my camera only has one image size setting, raw. On very rare occasions I can be convinced to use maximum size, maxium quality JPG, but since getting the K10D I will generally shoot raw and process in camera in preference to this.When you get to photograph a band that hasn't toured for 20 years & you get a one of the few photo passes available. Make sure you set your body to take the largest size jpeg possible & is not set to the minimum size which is useless for your photo agency or anybody else!!!!
Comment by Mongoose posted on Today's tip for the taking of the photographs is... at 10/11/2009 - 16:35
impotentspider wrote:
The only thing wrong with the 80-320 is its tendency to hunt for focus, apart from that I find it an excelent lens, In the past I have sung its praises by saying the quality is better than the considerably more expensive Bigma, though to be fair I am comparing these at 320 and 500mm respectively.
I think I read somewhere that the 80-320 is the best of Pentax's cheaper range long zooms and that the silver version is slightly better than the older black.
PS; dare I say John that I think its a tad oversharpened?
Hence I must try harder, I have the silver version and I've never been completely satisfied with its results beyond 200mm. My Dad's 55-300 blows it out of the water in all respects.The only thing wrong with the 80-320 is its tendency to hunt for focus, apart from that I find it an excelent lens, In the past I have sung its praises by saying the quality is better than the considerably more expensive Bigma, though to be fair I am comparing these at 320 and 500mm respectively.
I think I read somewhere that the 80-320 is the best of Pentax's cheaper range long zooms and that the silver version is slightly better than the older black.
PS; dare I say John that I think its a tad oversharpened?
Comment by Mongoose posted on Pigeon Posing in front of 80-320mm at 06/11/2009 - 22:07
well the 80-320 clearly performs well in the right hands, I must try harder with mine!
nice shot John
nice shot John
Comment by Mongoose posted on Pigeon Posing in front of 80-320mm at 06/11/2009 - 18:45
if you can't get the telegraph, they're in the Sun as well.
before anyone asks, someone in my department buys it and leaves it in the tea room!
before anyone asks, someone in my department buys it and leaves it in the tea room!
Comment by Mongoose posted on Sandcastle images at 06/11/2009 - 18:42
