... I just looked at your album of the paving of Washington Boulevard.  Do they think that paving the street will reduce the number of accidents?  :lol:

 

The city is repaving a lot of streets this summer, and Washington made the list because it was badly deteriorated. Even the patches wouldn't hold any more, and there's heavy truck traffic. Washington and Jefferson are a one-way pair that used to be the official route of US 24, and even though US 24 now bypasses the city via Interstate 69 and 469, the truckers barrel straight through town because it's shorter. So far, the city has never had an administration with the balls to enforce speed limits or ban the use of trucks' engine brakes in the city, so it's a free-for-all.

 

The weather has interfered with paving progress, and we only have the base coat now. After the surface coat is applied, the city plans to change the lane markings to restore parking to one side of the street. The planning department hopes that will calm the traffic and provide some disincentive for the truckers.

 

The existing lanes are wider than the engineering standard for an interstate highway, so there's plenty of room for a lane of parking while still maintaining statutory requirements. My memories of this neighborhood go back more than 50 years, and for as long as I can remember it's been one-way with no parking.

Any other fans of Broken Social Scene on UO?  Saw them on the 4th in Detroit as part of Comerica Fest.

 

I love this shot, though my camera zoom is awful and I couldn't get any close-up photos.

 

Must be cool to have fans hang out of a parking garage to see you play.  Notice the "I heart B2S" in chalk in the lower-left.  Guess it took more than one try to get the S right.  :wink:

 

I have some others from Comerica Fest that I might post sometime soon.

 

I took these on Superbowl Sunday, from the back yard of the house I was at.  If I had known this is where we were going, I would have brought something other than my cheap point-and-shoot:

 

 

Sadamsville, childhood home of PETE ROSE:

 

 

 

 

 

Ah Sedamsville - Price Hill's little inbred cousin. What a sh!thole. When I was little, we broke into that abandoned church. There's nothing more creepy to me than an abandoned church that looks like hell on the inside. Good times though.

Beautiful scenes, regardless of the point-and-shoot hardware. The photographer's eye is more important than the kind of camera.

Beautiful scenes, regardless of the point-and-shoot hardware. The photographer's eye is more important than the kind of camera.

 

I've seen people waste 2000 dollars on a camera, and make a statement with a 200 dollar P&S.

Any other fans of Broken Social Scene on UO?

 

I find Broken Social Scene quite enjoyable.

Taken a few minutes ago, glad I brought the umbrella!  :|

 

 

god's wrath on Jones Day......

Damn MayDay!  that photo is awesome!  I mean really amazing!

 

Give me chivers.  Reminds me of the storm i was caught in yesterday in chicago.  the wind was blowing so hard it was raining sideways of the handcock building.

Any other fans of Broken Social Scene on UO?

 

I find Broken Social Scene quite enjoyable.

 

I think that Map Boy does as well.  Great live band!

>I've seen people waste 2000 dollars on a camera, and make a statement with a 200 dollar P&S.

 

Well these folks were certainly making a statement with their $800,000 house and magisterial view of Sadamsville.  I dunno about these kinds of people who have "dream" houses and love to invite people over for stuff like the Superbowl.     

Let's not get into a camera war. I paid a considerable sum for my Nikon D3 and the lenses, not because I wanted web-graphics, but for photographs that can be framed, enlarged and printed, or sent to various publishers. Different uses for cameras. A point-and-shoot and a professional camera have totally different uses, totally different ranges and totally different users. Let's not compare the two on the basis of price-only.

Let's not get into a camera war. I paid a considerable sum for my Nikon D3 and the lenses, not because I wanted web-graphics, but for photographs that can be framed, enlarged and printed, or sent to various publishers. Different uses for cameras. A point-and-shoot and a professional camera have totally different uses, totally different ranges and totally different users. Let's not compare the two on the basis of price-only.

 

Sherman, I don't think anyone intends to put you in the same group with people whose expensive cameras are a waste. You're a serious photographer with the eye and technical grasp to make good use of the camera, and a need for its capabilities. Lord knows, I'd love to have a D3X and I know exactly the situations I've faced where it would be a blessing.

 

I got what the pope was referring to, right away. As soon as I read that, I remembered something from back when the Germans still dominated the camera business and Leica was the ultimate in 35mm. I was a student at Indiana University in Bloomington, and bought film and supplies in a little camera shop on Kirkwood that's been gone for years. One day I was in the store when a chauffeur-driven Cadillac pulled up outside. The driver got out and opened doors for a woman I'd guess was in her sixties, as she came into the shop carrying a nearly new, top-of-the-line Leica.

 

The shop owner opened the camera and loaded a 36-exposure roll of Kodachrome, and then made aperture and shutter-speed settings that were appropriate for outdoor scenes in the weather we were having that day. She left to take pictures with a camera I could only dream of affording, using it like a point-and-shoot, or what the dealer called an idiot camera (after she left). That was a regular ritual. A day or so later, she'd bring the camera in and have him rewind and remove the film and send it in for processing.

 

Kodachrome then was ISO 10, and contrasty like you wouldn't believe. Unless she shot everything in full open daylight, she probably got a lot of slides dominated by black shadows.

Sorry, I guess I failed to see the lead up to that post, and was under the assumption that the generic comment was a slam against those who spend a lot of money for a camera.

Rob your story reminds me of when I worked at a camera shop and I saw an amateur come in on the day of a parade with two Leica M6's around his neck and a Mamiya 7 in hand.  In total at least $12,000 in camera equipment on his person.  He set the Mamiya up on the counter to retrieve all his film from his bag (or possibly fanny pack) and if not for me grabbing it it would have fallen off and hit the ground.  I knew this guy was a joke because the move from carrying 2 cameras to 3 is preposterous, it's almost impossible to shoot a live event when you've not only got multiple cameras but multiple film formats.  Going around with two SLR's with two different lenses is commonplace for photojournalism and weddings, and sometimes you see a wedding photographer with a third camera, but I think at that point you end up missing shots because you've got to make big jumps in your mind and the controls are much different.  It's compounded if you have different speed film in the medium format camera.  Yesterday I was in the woods with a Bronica 6X6 and a Holga toy camera and that was silly enough and it's not as if the trees were walking around or playing basketball.  The other thing is when you're shooting for fun, it's tough to transition between taking photos of people and photos of stuff (landscapes).  It's a different activity entirely.   

 

Rob your story also reminds me of a recent house I visited where they had a car under a tarp in the garage.  I ask the lady what kind of car it was, she throws back the tarp to reveal a mid-90's Porche.  With cob webs all between the bottom and the garage floor.  Turns out the mom bought it for the son when he turned 16, then he got 3 DUI's and can't drive it.  I asked her if she starts it up once every few weeks and she said she and her son got in a big argument because she didn't know she had to start it up or else it would stop working and so it hasn't been working now for over a year.     

 

Almost every time I've tried to use multiple cameras I've ended up getting confused and messing up a bunch of shots, especially if there's too much going on. Digital and the versatility of the D200 and 18-200 VR lens pretty much eliminates the need to do that for me, anyway.

 

Ow! I dropped my Mamiya 7 when the tripod quick-release released quicker than I expected. Onto a concrete floor. It seems to have survived OK except for a slight misalignment of the rangefinder, but I've been able to work around it. I should probably send it in for repair while it's still possible to get it fixed.

 

I still get the urge to go out and shoot a bunch of medium-format, though, with the Mamiya 7 and Rollei TLR. I have film in the freezer, and I should probably use it up before it dies.

 

Oh. The car story reminds me of another one. I was acquainted with the company photographer at GE where I worked up until 1988. In the mid-80s he retired. He had done professional studio and on-site industrial photography on the outside, too, and he decided to sell all that equipment. I was interested in his 4x5 enlarger, and went to his house to check it out. We went out to his garage, which was cleaner and brighter than many houses I've been in. All his hand tools were in marked spaces on a board, and most of his power tools were in their original boxes, all lined up neatly on shelves. The enlarger, while not in its original package, was sitting on the workbench wrapped in plastic. It was a 1950s Omega and it looked new. Not a scratch or trace of dust anywhere.

 

In one of the garage bays sat a 1957 Plymouth 4-door sedan that he owned since it was new. It was clean and shiny in original paint with wide whitewalls and a spotless, completely intact interior. It started at the touch of a key. He was just as fastidious in taking care of his darkroom at GE. It was all stainless steel, and you could have eaten off any surface.

 

He always seemed like a nice, personable guy, but I had a feeling that he might have been hell to live with, unless his wife was just as obsessive as he was.

Taken a few minutes ago, glad I brought the umbrella! :|

 

 

 

Is that lightning bolt real?

Very much so.

Taken a few minutes ago, glad I brought the umbrella! :|

 

 

 

Is that lightning bolt real?

MayDay he can invoke lightning at will.

 

So be nice.

Yep!

Sorry, I guess I failed to see the lead up to that post, and was under the assumption that the generic comment was a slam against those who spend a lot of money for a camera.

 

it is kind of like dropping a lot of money for golf clubs, for people who don't know how to use them, all you do is slice the ball 50 yards farther

>Ow! I dropped my Mamiya 7 when the tripod quick-release released quicker than I expected. Onto a concrete floor. It seems to have survived OK except for a slight misalignment of the rangefinder, but I've been able to work around it. I should probably send it in for repair while it's still possible to get it fixed.

 

 

Wow, you've got a Mamiya 7?  I've always wanted one but could never justify it, and unlike the RB, RZ, and 645 it is retaining value.  Heck, you can get an RB setup these days for like $250.  I have been borrowing a Bronica 6x6 for several months now, I don't like the images and I don't like the ergonomics.  My favorite two cameras of all time were the Contax T3 point-and-shoot and the Hasselblad SWC but regrettably I sold both of them.  Both were fairly exotic and expensive but were both quite versatile.  Luckily I have free access to a darkroom and took the plunge and ordered 10 rolls of Tri-X so I'm going to get back into black & white 35mm this summer after a 4 year hiatus.  I remember when I used to order 40 rolls at a time (20 rolls of 100, 20 rolls of 400)!   

 

>He always seemed like a nice, personable guy, but I had a feeling that he might have been hell to live with, unless his wife was just as obsessive as he was.

 

Obsessive cleanliness is a blaring red flag.  I don't trust anyone who is too clean and/or short on personal anecdotes.  Clean + quiet = totally insane. 

 

What is the aperture of the second? And I am assuming you are shooting with the kit lens?

 

You gotta pay $$$ for good glass. I saw substantial improvements in sharpness and a better overall tonal quality after switching from the Nikkor 18-70mm f/4-f/5.6 (IIRC) DX kit lens to the Nikkor 20mm f/2.4. Do you do any post-processing? If so, run it through the unsharp filter (as long as you don't have a lot of noise).

 

What ISO were you shooting at for the night image? And were you using your hand to release the shutter, or using a cable-release/remote or setting it on a timer? Using the hand introduces camera shake and can do that to your images; I set my camera for a 2 second timer, use my remote, or set it in the Mirror-Up mode.

Wow, you've got a Mamiya 7?  I've always wanted one but could never justify it, and unlike the RB, RZ, and 645 it is retaining value. 

 

I picked mine up used from a local camera shop in 2003 for $700, with the 65mm lens (which is moderately wide-angle in this format). Pretty good deal, I thought. I love the camera; in addition to excellent image quality, the aesthetics are nice. Because it doesn't have all the clunky SLR machinery, it's super-quiet.

>picked mine up used from a local camera shop in 2003 for $700, with the 65mm lens (which is moderately wide-angle in this format). Pretty good deal, I thought. I love the camera; in addition to excellent image quality, the aesthetics are nice. Because it doesn't have all the clunky SLR machinery, it's super-quiet.

 

$700 is a great deal, that same combo used was around $1500 3 or 4 years ago and I think you'd be very lucky to get it under $1,000 today.  Right, the rangefinder's advantages all stem from the lack of the mirror box which both introduces vibration (and noise) and requires more complicated lens designs, especially for wide angles.  A view camera, aside from the larger size of the negative, has the advantage of having simple, "symmetrical" lens designs for all focal lengths, which is why even cheap large format lenses have little barrel distortion (however old large format lenses typically don't have multicoated outside elements, which is a disadvantage for color photography).  Part of the reason why 50mm lenses for 35mm cameras are so good is because these lenses are close to having "symmetrical" designs.  There were some rather exotic wide angle lenses in the 1960's and 70's that extended back into the mirror box, requiring camera bodies with mirror lockup and a viewfinder for the hot shoe which of course suffered from paralax.  A big part of the Leica M's optic advantages are inherent in a rangefinder's advantages, but a SLR is much more versatile overall and that's why it's dominant.  For instance both the Leica and Mamiya 7 systems suffer from not having practical telephotos.  I think the Mamiya 7's 250mm lens is locked on f/8, like a lot of cheap large format lenses ("barrel lenses") and 35mm mirror telephotos.  The classic Hasselbad system is interesting because there is a 40mm lens for the classic SLR camera body, but also a 38mm rangefinder camera called the SWC.  I never shot with the 40mm, but I did have the SWC and by all accounts it gave superior results.  The corner sharpness is perfect and there is zero barrel distortion. Also, that clown Ken Rockwell claims that the Mamiya 7's 43mm lens outperforms the SWC.  Perhaps, but the reason why that doesn't matter is because you can't put a ground glass on the back of the Mamiya 7 like you can with the SWC and /that's/ what allows the SWC to overcome paralax isues and that's why it's a professional architectural photography tool, not the Mamiya 7's 43mm.  Ken Rockwell claims he spends "all day taking photos" and brags about his 35,000 shots on his month-old D3...what a clown.  I can just picture him walking into a room with a bunch of professional phtographers thinking he's the big slurp.   

It depends on the use. When I was shooting photographs for UK (sports, events, etc.), I was shooting in excess of 15,000 images per month. A lot were throwaways, but I was pretty much using a continuous burst for events -- especially for sporting events. We were not allowed to toss any images -- only to mark them as "rejected" and move on and find one that is suitable.

 

On an average given month, I'll shoot almost 4,000 images for pleasure. I do a lot of bracketing and shooting from various angles, and I use at most, 10% of the images. Most are duplicates of some variant, or bad.

I still shoot with a Nikon N80 and a Canon AE-1 (both film bodies) from time to time, primarily color slides and only really during the fall. I had a Nikon D70 (DX) for four years but just sold that and upgraded to a Nikon D3 (FX) a few months ago. DX = 1.5x smaller sensor than a 35mm plate; FX = full frame (35 mm).

 

I have a variety of lenses for the Canon AE-1, which only accept the FD and FDn mount -- so there is a lot of limitations there, but can't remember the sizes. My kit lens with the D70 was a Nikkor 18-70 f/4-5.6 DX and I had purchased a Sigma 28-80 f/2.8-5.6 (IIRC).

 

The DX lens on a Nikon ensures that I am seeing a true 18-70 lens on the D70 (or any other DX). You can't use it on any other camera sans the Nikon D3 (and any future full frame camera from Nikon [FX]) since it has a compatability mode. Likewise, if I used the Sigma on the D70 (or any other DX camera), then the lens essentially becomes a 42-120 lens.

 

I later bought a Nikkor 20 f/2.4, and while it was 20mm on the Nikon N80, it was a paltry 30mm on the D70. I bought the D3 to finally take advantage of it on a digital camera -- and to allow for larger print sizes and higher resolution, among other things.

 

I also shoot with a Nikkor 80-210 f/2.8-5.6 (IIRC), and a Nikkor 50mm f/2 (IIRC). I'm a photo geek at heart :P

Ken Rockwell claims he spends "all day taking photos" and brags about his 35,000 shots on his month-old D3...what a clown.  I can just picture him walking into a room with a bunch of professional phtographers thinking he's the big slurp.   

 

Yeah. I've found some informative stuff on his site and I know of some people who think he wrote or at least edited the Holy Bible, but I've felt like in some cases he talks just to feel the wind blow through his head.

 

I have only two accessories for the Mamiya 7. I bought the Mamiya polarizing filter from B&H for $200, and I got the remote battery case with the extension wire that lets me keep the battery inside my coat in cold weather. The polarizer's flip-up design makes it easy to set it for the effect I want, and then swivel it down over the lens while maintaining the setting. It's also a very good piece of glass that doesn't seem to cause any shift in color temperature. That's a problem I've experienced with some third-party polarizers, notably Hoya, which seems warm.

 

I have a couple of other favorites, too. In 1967 I bought a used 2.8 Rollei TLR from a guy at work who had it for a backup camera in his wedding photography business and rarely used it. I looked up the serial number, and it was made in 1955. It has no meter or auto features whatever, meaning no battery to mess with. I paid $270 for it, and I suspect it's worth several times that, now. It still works perfectly and has given me some of the sharpest photos I've ever shot.

 

A couple of years ago my aunt, now in her 90s, wheelchair-bound and content with a point-and-shoot,  gave me her 3.5 Rollei TLR that she bought new in 1951. That was the first really high-quality camera I ever used, in 1962 before I bought my first SLR. Like the 2.8, it's very sharp and has stood the test of time. When she gave it to me it hadn't been used in probably thirty years, so I took it out and put it through its paces for a test. It still works perfectly.

 

For those all-manual cameras, I carry a little Gossen digital meter. When shooting with a polarizing filter, I take the meter reading through the polarizing filter before I put the filter on the camera. I think that works better than trying to compute a filter factor.

 

There's something gratifying about working with an all-manual medium- or large-format camera; it requires your full attention and can be close to a meditative experience in the right setting. And if you don't pay close attention, you can make really stupid mistakes and mess up once-in-a-lifetime shots!

^^Wow... something about that photo makes me feel so calm. Maybe it's the water. Beautiful photo, C-Dawg!

 

July 4th in downtown Williamsport. My friend and I went on the top deck of a 6 level parking garage and got a pretty nice view.

If only the light poles weren't in the way. Whatever lol.

 

Exif:

Canon Digital Rebel XTi

Aperture: f/7.1

Shutter Speed: 8 Seconds

ISO: 200

Focal Length: 28mm

Very nice, where is that located at?

 

I love photographing and visiting lighthouses when I am along the coast. One of my favorites is the Morris Island Lighthouse -- because it literally sits in the middle of the ocean today. Erosion and abandonment has caused it to be surrounded by water in all but the lowest of tides. I haven't yet walked out to it, but plan on it for my next trip down to Charleston (SC).

 

Thankfully, it's being stabilized.

Hideous add-on.

 

^Ah, another XTi user. What lens are you using?

 

I'm still using the 18-55mm kit lens.  It does what I need it to do for now, and I can't afford a better one anyway lol.

Hideous add-on.

 

That sort of thing has happened a lot. Probably there was a single-story porch there, with fancy wood trim.

 

Lovely security light smack in the middle of the bay, above the first-floor window, too.

Hideous add-on.

I don't care for the addition myself, but at the time that it was constructed it may have been all the owner could afford.  A lot of beautiful old buildings have been altered in a manner that leaves them less than visually appealing.  My house would be less than appealing to many people on these forums.  Just look at the bright side, at least the original structure is still standing and isn't a vacant eyesore - a comment that is also quite applicable to my home.....

Here's a link to OU's "star" photo student from a few years ago, he was really, really good.  If you were at the same event as him, you could count on him not just having better shots than you, but a lot of them.  He's got a lot of stuff better than what's on his site, but I think he just picked out the most famous people for his site 

 

http://www.robertcaplin.com/

 

Anyway for you lens nerds out there, the "portrait" gallery shows off the dramatic decrease in image quality from the pro zooms at 2.8.  Obviously he's got the best gear but there's an obvious improvement with those shot with primes and medium format.  You can see it especially in the out-of-focus areas.  And looking at the sports gallery, there is a dramatic improvement in the telephoto shots, moving from the telephoto zooms used for most photojournalism to the tele primes used for sports.   

After almost 100 years the concrete work was crumbling and the reflecting pools in Fort Wayne's Lakeside Park sunken garden area had deteriorated badly. Two or three years ago the city restored the gardens according to the original 1908 design.

I’m happy we’re back to posting pictures… Less words... More pictures.

 

Fort Lauderdale Beach

 

 

Miami Beach

 

Beautiful Florida pics.

 

My last visit was in January 1991 when my parents lived at Englewood. I only got brief glimpses of those places, and spent most of my time in midwestern retiree hangouts with Mom & Dad. Unfortunately, I had neglected to pack any golf shirts, pastel polyester slacks or white belt & matching shoes. I felt so out of place.  :wink:

 

I took this photo at the Whitley County (Indiana) 4-H Fair. If you like such things, come on over to my site and click the thumbnail with this photo on it. 135 photos.

a sweet and innocent pic from a sweet and innocent peson.  :wink:

From the Dayton Air Show

 

a sweet and innocent pic from a sweet and innocent peson. :wink:

 

I was going to go... uh... then I noticed Rob's tagline :D

Neat airplane shot. I always enjoyed air shows, and I haven't been to one in a while.

 

I always loved Stearman biplanes. I think they were used by the Army Air Force as trainers, pre-WWII. They used to turn up pretty regularly at air shows, and they have an entirely different sound from later piston-engine aircraft. I used to be able to identify one before I even looked to see what it was. I'd love to ride in one with a pilot I could trust to not try to make me lose my lunch. I used to work with an old-timer instructor pilot who offered to take me up, but he had a reputation for stunt-flying without the consent of his passenger.

 

At a show in Iowa about ten years ago I paid $30 for a 15 or 20 minute ride in a 1921 Stinson Tri-motor. I think it had capacity for about a dozen passengers. It was an interesting experience; unlike the corrugated metal fuselage of the Ford Trimotor, the Stinson looked like it had a canvas-over-wood-frame construction. It was a little noisy, but not a bad ride.

The Raptor is one bada$$ plane! I'd do anything to be able to take a ride in a classic P-51 though. I completely forgot about the air show going on this weekend or i wouldve went.

Tear down the @#$^ing riverfront expressway!

Gorgeous Pittsburgh Riverfront - one of the best in the US. Excellent photo!