Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
 1 
 on: Today at 08:51:05 PM 
Started by Rob C - Last post by Eric Myrvaagnes
I'm going to have an Ambiguity Button installed on my point-and-shoot.

 2 
 on: Today at 08:06:18 PM 
Started by Tim Lookingbill - Last post by Tim Lookingbill
Thanks, Wolfman.

 3 
 on: Today at 07:56:33 PM 
Started by leeonmaui - Last post by BernardLanguillier
Sigma Art lenses covering 44x33mm will offer fast aperture / shallow DOF that was up to now unknown in MF photography:

You can add the Nikon 105mm f1.4 to that list.

Cheers,
Bernard

 4 
 on: Today at 07:53:35 PM 
Started by leeonmaui - Last post by kers
Would it be possible to use Mamiya7 lenses with an adapter?

These lenses are very high quality.


 5 
 on: Today at 07:38:40 PM 
Started by Tim Lookingbill - Last post by N80
The BIG question is this, why does mankind do such evil?  The possible answers are: 1. There's something fundamentally wrong with mankind (that arguably needs fixing), or; 2. Mankind just dances to his DNA and what we do (whatever the banner it is under) is just the outworking of unguided evolutionary processes and nothing much to find odd.  If this is the case, then even talking about "good and evil" is pretty much irrelevant.

Yep.

 6 
 on: Today at 07:38:09 PM 
Started by RDMAX - Last post by Jeffery Salter
Why not simply do both?  Some projects I shoot with my IQ300, others with a KB Canham 8 x 10 or even with my awesome 4x5  RB Super D Graflex.

Life is too short quibble.   Once I decide what I want photograph, and figure what I want to convey visually.  The next step is to choose the tool which helps produce the image that lives in my mind's eye.

Thank you.

 7 
 on: Today at 07:36:09 PM 
Started by leeonmaui - Last post by siddhaarta
Thanks for the information !!

 8 
 on: Today at 07:33:17 PM 
Started by Tim Lookingbill - Last post by Rand47
Right. But the point that often gets made is that religion is a source of evil in the world. This is undeniable. But the context in which this is said is that without religion things would be better. And that just doesn't work. Take Hitler out of the scenario (he was small change compared to Mao and Stalin). Take the words humanism and secularism out of the picture. The fact remains that the most horrible acts of genocide, torture and systematic murder (not to mention wars at all) were not committed in the name of or under the banner of religion and they were far, far more destructive than all of the cumulative evils done in the name of religion.

With the rise of Islamic extremism that may change one day. But it does not change the facts. Men do evil. Religious or not.

No disagreement from me here at all, except that I'd not call religion the "actual" source.  It appears to be the source because it was/is the banner being carried as evil is done.  I think it incumbent on people of faith (especially Christians) to be honest about the evil that has been done "in the name of" religion/Christianity.  But it is also important to point out that, in the case  of Christianity at least, the evil was "in spite of" the actual teachings of Jesus, and 180 degrees in opposition to what he taught.  The main point for me is that mankind, left to his own devices, does these kinds of things.  History is replete with this.  Dawkins explanation that we're just dancing to our DNA is a good explanation if the universe is at bottom a product of time plus chance plus nothing.  All materialists should be equally willing to see the kind of evil perpetrated from secular ideology as being the banner (or source, if you like) of most of the 20th century's horrors of human evil.  Largely, they deny that, or ignore it or chalk it up to a "cult of personality" (what the heck is that as an explanation?) or some such that misses the point.  The BIG question is this, why does mankind do such evil?  The possible answers are: 1. There's something fundamentally wrong with mankind (that arguably needs fixing), or; 2. Mankind just dances to his DNA and what we do (whatever the banner it is under) is just the outworking of unguided evolutionary processes and nothing much to find odd.  If this is the case, then even talking about "good and evil" is pretty much irrelevant.

This is why I appreciate the likes of Dawkins, Sam Harris, the late Christopher Hitchens, etc.  They are/were honest enough to "just say it outright" as the logical outworking of their philosophical position on the nature of the universe.

Someone mentioned a while back in this tread (I think - or it may have been a similar one) the "golden rule."  Someone else mentioned the inverse of the golden rule that is common in many other cultures and religions, i.e., "DON'T do to anyone else what you wouldn't want done to you."  The difference is really profound.  Jesus' words were, "DO TO OTHERS, precisely what YOU WOULD WANT DONE TO YOU."  This is an active, affirmative "doing" rather than a passive "not doing."  The difference is too often seen as relatively unimportant - but that's not the case.  The difference is profound.  Really profound.  The Golden Rule calls mankind "higher."  The inverse is mere restraint on the status quo.

Rand


 9 
 on: Today at 07:25:54 PM 
Started by Fred Salamon - Last post by Hoggy
If I may ask, what factors lead you to use the Display CAL/Argyll over the i1 Display Profiler?

I'd like to hear Mouse's reasons too...

But for myself, the number one factor was that at the time I stopped using the OEM software, the OEM was only able to do ~400 patches - whereas the DisplayCAL(name change)/Argyll allows for up to 11,000 - and likely more if you build your own test charts.  Although I tried ~11,000 once, it was still calculating the next day - and VERY slowly, at that - so I aborted it.  Now I just do about 6-to-8,000 or so.  Even with that number of patches, it still gets through the calculating phase rather quickly.

Another reason would be the sheer number of advanced options possible with it.  Even though many are still over my head, it's nice to know that they're there for when I learn more about them.

 10 
 on: Today at 07:22:30 PM 
Started by disneytoy - Last post by Dan Berg
If you use 13x19 sheets or larger, save those boxes.
You could center the prints in those boxes and use cardboard on the inside front and back.
I would prefer something harder like luan or gatorboard but i understand the cost issue.
The biggest thing you have to watch is always keep the prints an inch or two smaller then your hardboard outer protectors.
If it gets dropped on a corner you still should be good.



Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10