GB111

Artistic manipulation has its time and place. I do it sometimes for fun, to create an idea, or to enhance a promising though otherwise flawed picture. See below for a modified shot from the Imperial Sand Dunes in near Yuma, Arizona.

Dallas I actually thought that the cloud made the shot I think I've been out there so many times that anything different looks better.

a time warp? :)

It is an excellent capture, but I wonder how it would look with a little color (was it desaturated, or just a very overcast day that eliminated the color?). Either way, I would play with adding color, as an artistic expt. Note that according to a fellow presenting on compositing, this is often the way compositers do it because it is too hard to adjust the colors of the different images to look the same, so they just desat and add color in from scratch. Gb

Dallas, SF does lie on a fault, and so does LA, etc. San Diego also has a fault that runs through the most exp part of the town (La Jolla). Crazy for sure, but perhaps this adds an air of 'live now' philosophy?

Thanks guys, I also feel that the ship adds to the shot, rather than hurts it (some may feel the opposite). I didn't realize that there are many such classic vistas on the north end of the bridge, an area they call Salsalito. There are several roads you can take off the main one to mountain tops, each w/ their own unique (though familiar) angle (you see these shots on postcards, etc., so nothing is really unique). The area is extremely windy, and it's hard to believe they don't have windmills, which makes photography a little more challenging. Below is a pic of the homes around the small village of Salsalito, they are all extremely expensive as the SF Bay area is the least affordable in the USA.

From a recent visit. Windy, blustery, and scenic. Photogenic area, also. GB

Walking the streets of San Jose, California.

I just checked both lens at infinity: same thing. The newer F017 has a higher/farther focal length than the older lens. Strange. I wonder which is 'right?' I will compare to my other zooms that cross 90mm and see.

Chris, Yeah, I know about that version. It was out there for a good 10-20 years. They only released the F017 about maybe 5 years ago. Footnote: in several ways, the older version one I have is better designed. The actual glass is receded, hence protected from the sun and from anything touching it. As a consequence, I don't believe I've ever had to clean the lens! Also, you can have the hood stored on the lens and still use the manual focus, whereas you cannot with the F017 one (that seems like a big time design flaw, as macro photographers do go manual sometimes). Here is a picture of the old one, you can see how the lens is receded (not sure this is the right version, but you get the idea).

Thks fellows. The theory that the different internal elements affect the focal length may be the answer. Note that the two images were shot using the same tripod, same distance to bottles. I will do another test where they are both at infinity and see what happens! G

I'm right handed but left footed; I guess that gas pedals in cars discriminate against me. (OK, enough silliness.) Just to let you guys know that here in the USA this is the kind of stuff University professors write, especially ones from NYC... Endless theories of discrimination, etc. While some are true, many are not, and appear to be used to gain advantage. But since this is a matter of opinion, it is argued back and forth, with no resolution, and the cows still haven't come home. As for her argument, you have to consider her occupation. As I've heard, when you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail. A dark skinned model with a bright white shirt is not the way to go! That is, unless you're going for a very high contrast look. To me it just looks wrong... it is also hard to place a very white skinned blonde haired model in a pitch dark shirt. You can also partially compensate by using very diffused light: softbox, etc.

Folks - I own a 25+ year old Tamron MF 90mm f2.8 macro. It works great, but not having AF was limiting when shooting moving objects. Since the new Tamron 90mm AF 90mm f2.8 (F017) got pretty good reviews, I purchased it about 2 months ago. I've found that its bokeh is different, so decided to check it against my MF version (which I still have). Now this is strange - the focal lengths are supposed to be the same, but they're not. The following were shot at f 8.0 using a tripod. The newer version appears to be several degrees (at least) longer than the older version. Comments or explanation? Two images here. The first image is the MF older lens, and the second the newer AF version.

Is photography equipment racist? 😕 You tell me.. Apparently this college professor thinks so. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/lens/sarah-lewis-racial-bias-photography.html?utm_source=pocket-newtab

Thanks fellows. Here is the full shot (I cropped it for the forum post). I think the effect is a Corel Photo-Paint one (I pp'd it several years back).