Robin Smith

In the US you can carry a gun and violence is absolutely no problem on TV, but show a touch of genitals or erogenous zones and outrage ensures. Then there is a moralistic attitude to drink too. What a weird upside-down society.

A working but ergonomically hopeless camera being better because it still works is fainthearted praise in my opinion. You still won’t want to actually use it. The Minox was a pleasure to use, although I can well believe they do not last forever. I sold mine because I was gifted a Contax T, which was the same idea as a Minox, but with a rather useless rangefinder. That was stolen and I replaced it with a Contax T2. The fancy auto lens jammed one day and that was that, and that was way more expensive than the Minox. I guess the message is to steer clear of fancy P&S film cameras with electronic shutters. I did not bond with the Contax T2 the way I did with the Minox, even when it worked.

Love the look, hated the camera. My favorite P& S was the Minox 35, which has similar capabilities, but smaller, lighter and simple to use, but not likely to get much joy as an object for the glass display cabinet.

Delete

Might this disparity be explainable by the much greater installed Windows population? If the problems occur at roughly the same rate in both systems then one might anticipate that there would be many more Windows complaints. To answer this question might be necessary to know how many photographers who use LR are Apple or PCs. I assume Adobe know this. I am not in the Apple camp at all. The only Apple product I like is the iPad. I have had no problems with LR on a PC, until recently but I know this is due to my machine being 11 years old and with a no longer supported GPU. I get the impression that the latest LR classic is very crash prone, but again this may well be my machine, although it fulfils the requirements on their site to be able to run LR successfully.

Any help to their economy is good, even for mere photo stuff.

There is one, so-so shot from Death Valley in the set, so it may be possible. Finding a dark sky might be more of an issue.

I find that a rather comical thought. Like bringing a howitzer to squash a fly. Stop worrying about it. Blow your sensor occasionally and get a sensor cleaning kit if necessary for the occasional clean.

Alas this is also the operating principle of a certain ex-President we all know. Look where that has got us.

Picked up a Nikon F (non-meter) with 105mm f2.5. Nikon F in excellent condition. 1 sec shutter does not work so slow speeds are probably all slow, but otherwise good. 105mm f2.5 original is well used but has good glass. Lens does not stop down past f5.6. Should have checked that, but I'll keep.

Nothing is needed at the end IMO

I think a panoramic crop of the bottom third might improve it as it is the receding trunks that are the strongest elements in the shot.

I reckon this is just bad luck and I agree that you could add padding to the bottom of the Domke. While you may feel that the OM was fragile, a controlled experiment would be required to see whether another camera would not have been impacted just the same. There is always the tradeoff between padding and extra bulk and weight. Domkes are wonderfully light and flexible and can be packed with stuff. If you like messenger bags then the Tenba you mention or the mirrorless mover would work. Personally, I dislike messenger bags, the large flap just gets in the way. Also I usually carry a camera +4-5 lenses and 3-compartment bags are not so good to work out of because you have to stack lenses. I have the Domke F2 and F6 and I seem to have settled on them. They don't give me any pleasant feelings about their looks, but they are splendidly functional. The mirrorless mover is a bit too "designed" for my taste (fancy color scheme and logo). I always like Tenba and Lowepro since their bags are usually low key and nicely priced. Bags are such a nightmare. I liked my Billingham Hadley Pro, but it is 3-compartment and way too deep and big for m43. Perhaps you could pick up an EPL7 or even better an EP7 on your travels.

This is a shot that seems to want to say something, but I am not sure what it is. My first thought is that this shot belongs in a natural history museum - a detailed shot "scientifically lit" of the lion's skull. Now all we need are the other 5 views to make this a complete description of a skull in the collection, so useful for research. But then there is a leaf and I think what does it mean? It seems insufficiently artistic in presentation to work as an intriguing still life, and the leaf makes it too adulterated to be a scientific record. So although it is a fine photo technically, it leaves me cold otherwise. Mysterious intention can be interesting, but it doesn't seem to work for me on this one.

new version=much better.

I think we all have to accept there are many (so many) photos we do not warm to, even if we can see what they are driving at - I understand that. Some photos I have no idea why they were taken at all, so that was the basis for my question. On the other hand there are also photos that do not require us to understand the motivation, because their appeal is obvious because it chimes with your own aesthetic understanding immediately. Of course a universal answer to my question is "why not?" That strikes me really as a non-sequiter. If Wayne loves pipes positioned like that and I don't then there is not a lot more to say. If on the other hand he was to say he was documenting the installation of his house's new plumbing I could grasp that. Not sure it would make me appreciate the picture, but at least I can understand a bit why it was taken.

Perhaps I would prefer this in color (nice blue sky and beach in the upper "window", for example).

I think the cut-off branches and the chaotic composition does not work very well in this particular case I think.

I much prefer the color version. The teal color is beautiful. It's a bit boring in black and white. The sand in the background reduces its impact a little. Going in closer and rearranging the shells, or removing one, may allow you to exclude the sand, and yet still maintain the diagonals.

MS Publisher. Comes with Office 365.

I think a standard answer would be that it depends on the space and the size. A smaller image is more likely to need matting to provide "visual spacing" between the print and the surrounding wall, particularly if the wall is a different color. In a gallery, of course, walls usually are white/off white, so less of an issue. A large image however has enough area to not need such a wide matte, or any at all, if even bigger. Likewise, if the display wall is small, then a print may not need a matte either. I think I am not alone in finding the "tiny print in a huge, wide matte" an unwanted affectation. Of course, what constitutes a "big" or a "small" print is difficult to define. If you think high falutin' types will be likely buyers for your shots then I suspect big can mean really big (4 x 6 + feet) as richer people will have more space to hang this kind of print. If more modest, then a 13 x 19 matted and framed print or a 17 x 25 could be classified as big.

Details do not always need to be seen in highlights or shadows. Very often that makes for a muddy image. The highlights are the points that stand out in the image, so if anything I would make them brighter. They are chrome and are reflecting an out of focus sky - what might you be expecting to see in them? What we see in the latest is sufficient, and we could see the same detail in a brighter image, which would have more impact. I think the basic permutations have been tried in the thread. My opinion is that somehow the shot is not as interesting as one thinks it should be. This would fall into my category "I've spent too much time on the image to make it work, so time to try again with a different image." Some shots never work out how we expect.

It was obviously Elvis. He liked coke, so this proves he’s alive.

Maybe time to consider some of the excellent smaller formats (m43, Sony/Fuji APS) which are generally speaking, smaller, lighter, and less expensive?

No doubt this is sorted by now, but although I coughed up for the Canon 5DIV back in 2016, I am not convinced it was worth the cost up from the 6D. It is a better camera (more AF points, slightly higher fps, higher resolution), but I enjoyed my time with the 6D more. The main thing I disliked was the 5DIV’s increased size. It fitted poorly into my bags and was noticeably bigger and heavier, I felt it was a poor return on investment given the improvements over the excellent 6D. In fact, ever since spending that money I have resolved never to pay over $3000 ever again for a camera. A secondhand one now is going to be way cheaper, so that complaint is moot for the OP. It is a good camera, but it was the camera that made me transition to an m43 system, although I have since acquired a Sony for my old EF lenses. I guess what I’m saying is that, unless the improvements of the 5D will really make a difference, I’d probably have got the 6D2.