New posts

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dysfunction" data-source="post: 1323628" data-attributes="member: 51052">Quoting Doug because it's fun.  Besides, I'm probably not adding anything useful to this thread at this point (Doug's covered it pretty well already) You and me both, I chose a regular income.  Well, and I did not find that spending my days doing environmental portraiture and editorial shoots for the local paper all that.. fulfilling.I'm generally not a huge fan either.  There are times though, when you're kind of 'stuck'.  Lets say we've got a scene we're looking to capture with about 10 stops of tonal difference, unless you've got something like a Mamiya or 'blad digital you're just not getting there with a dSLR (well, certainly not MY dSLR.. I probably need a better body).  Since you can't always pull this off with ND filters and supplemental lighting.So, it's back to that "Understanding Exposure" bit (I've never read it, or picked it up to be honest.  I did, however, have a prof that was a student of Ansels, so I've had the Zone System pounded into my head with a 5# sledge, repeatedly).  I probably should, my recommendations would still be the age-old standards.. The Camera, The Negative, and The Print for startersWhat I noted when this first became 'popular' was the expanded, non-realistic, look was seized with gusto.  I think some of this had to do with it being 'new'.  It seems to be waning.  That said, there are absolutely times and images where a non-realistic look is perfectly appropriate.  (I have to say this, much of my pre-digital work was cliche' verre, montage, alternative photographic processes like photo-xerography, gum bichromate etc)As an aside, Doug, have you played with the lensbabys?  I keep waffling on renting a couple and playing with them.Exactly.</blockquote>

Verification: How many occurrences of a n-u-m-b-e-r between "d" and "f" in this example...(sdgs6ngklu3gd#f9%)?