Poo d'état

Unfortunately not... Not that time anyway

Almost missed that one Rocco1, it'll be slightly more obvious at 17, decreasing as you move towards 35. You might already have a feel for it with the 24 end of yours. It all comes down to personal preference. I don't mind a little bit of distortion or Big Head (Or Other Body Part) Syndrome, especially with portraits; Platon uses it very effectively, check out his portraits of Clinton, George HW Bush, Pat Buchanan and Rev. Al Sharpton. Eta: And go look at Christian Bale, Jim Carrey, Prince, Alexander McQueen and Paul Smith.

I'm actually rather fond of the Big Head

It's definitely smaller and lighter than the D3/D300/D700 varieties, though i think probably heavier than the rest of the mid-range models. Eta - Just looked it up: D3 - 1.240kg D700 - 995g D300 - 825g D90 - 620g D70s - 600g

I do

17's not that bad, here are some shots borrowed from work: 17mm 17mm 17mm 22mm But yep, if you stick to Kja's advice, to keep people from the edges and keeping the camera flat, you should be fine.

I usually have it left on neutral, unless i'm shooting something with vibrant colour in which case i'll use vivid for a bit more punch, to save having to adjust in raw later.

Ah, if it doesn't have a border on it then yes, you'll lose a bit around the edge, so it really comes down to how large the whole image is. As far as i know acrylics need to be mounted with a print rather than canvas, so i'm not sure it would work with yours. Maybe just go to the framers and ask them for advice? Not sure if this would work but, off the top of my head, perhaps you could have it framed in a proper frame but with no glass or matting, with the canvas going right to the edge of the frame? Might look good with a nice box frame.

I too thought that was interesting. Melbomb how big is the image/canvas? I'd have it stretched on a frame. Was it printed with any sort of border?

He didn't ask, it was just mentioned that maybe if I offered it might work in my favour. The person hasn't even been approached yet! LOL then yep i think an 8x10 sounds fine

Ruth, what you've offered sounds very fair. The images are still yours, your work, your copyright. If he wants high res files, he can take them himself!

That's the only way to do it, really. Ummm no - then it's posed, it's portraiture, (available light). But not street, not candid, not photo-journalism. And how difficult (impossible) it'd be to get permission from the Anzac Day marchers as they go by, or a small crowd-scene of people watching the march. And you'd have to forego city-life shots like a group boarding a tram or patting a police horse. My comment was in response to Rocco1's friend's style of photography. Furthermore, posing/portraiture and street photography/photojournalism are not mutually exclusive. You can go up to a fruit-seller and take a photo upfront, eyes to camera and all, and that would still be street photography. The only kind of truly candid and unposed shots, puristically (is that a word?) speaking, are either papparazzi-type voyeuristic telephoto shots, performance/sports/etc, or live news as it's breaking. In terms of street/people photography, in a documentary but non-news sense, the proper way is to ask your subject for permission. 'Asking for permission' doesn't always have to be verbal - it can be much more subtle like making eye contact, lifting your camera and suggesting it with the cock of the head/raise of the brow/pointing, or by making it very obvious that you're about to take a person's photo but giving the person time to object to it*. If it is a special or unrepeatable moment where you don't have time to check, then asking for permission afterwards is an option. If the person is your 'shot'#, like in the case of Rocco1's friend, then the only right thing to do, imo, is to ask for their permission^. *There are situations where permission can be 'assumed', such as a public procession like the Anzac Day marches or Mardi Gras, or even rallies/riots. It is a major event/spectacle that participants know will watched and photographed/recorded by the media as well as members of the public #As opposed to more general shots of a particular scene such as a group of people boarding a tram ^That's also why the papparazzi are so reviled by celebrities and real photojournalists alike I disagree with this - strongly The proper way is to NOT ask for permission. I think it's perfectly acceptable to stand on a street corner and take photos of the goings on - without any permission what so ever. That is the essence of streed photography imo - totally candid, unposed. Bresson, Winogrand, etc... A street photographer has to overcome shyness and just snap away like he belongs. No long telephoto lens - a 50mm or shorter. I've done some street photography before. The easiest method is to simply plonk yourself somewhere and start snapping away - after a while people start to ignore you and get on with their lives. I think we, as photographers (and society in general), risk loosing some important historical records if we allow true candid street photography to disappear. My 2c. Shooting a photo of a person is somewhat different to a general streetscape shot - i mean, if someone's just a dot in the background, then the shot really isn't about them. So how do you take a shot of someone (at frame-filling distance... unless you like your people tiny in your composition :p) with a 50mm or shorter lens, without them knowing? And if they did, would that automatically render it posed? Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother was taken with the subject fully aware of Lange, yet it remains one of the most well known images in documentary photography. There's no way of proving it but i'm sure that a good portion of Cartier-Bresson's subjects of his closer shots were well aware of his presence, especially since his longest lens was a 50mm. Like i was trying to say, they're not mutually exclusive. Again, the only way to shoot a photo of someone (for purposes other than background fill or a wider general streetscape shot) and for them to be completely oblivious to it is to use a telephoto lens. If someone was using a 50mm lens to take a photo in my general direction from across the road, i probably wouldn't be too bothered. If someone was using a 300mm lens to shoot a photo of me sipping on a coffee, for example, from across the road, i wouldn't be very happy, even if it's perfectly legal. I was taught to use a simple line like, "Do you mind if i take a picture of you, just the way you are?" (though i confess i still struggle with it as i also haz a case of the shyness). I think ultimately it comes down to the comfort level of you and your subject; personally i will never be comfortable photographing someone's image without knowing they're okay with it. To quote Cartier-Bresson, "One must always take photographs with the greatest respect for the subject and for oneself'". But getting back on topic... Great choice with the lens Rocco1! I'm v.v.envious. Looking forward to seeing some shots!

That's the only way to do it, really. Ummm no - then it's posed, it's portraiture, (available light). But not street, not candid, not photo-journalism. And how difficult (impossible) it'd be to get permission from the Anzac Day marchers as they go by, or a small crowd-scene of people watching the march. And you'd have to forego city-life shots like a group boarding a tram or patting a police horse. My comment was in response to Rocco1's friend's style of photography. Furthermore, posing/portraiture and street photography/photojournalism are not mutually exclusive. You can go up to a fruit-seller and take a photo upfront, eyes to camera and all, and that would still be street photography. The only kind of truly candid and unposed shots, puristically (is that a word?) speaking, are either papparazzi-type voyeuristic telephoto shots, performance/sports/etc, or live news as it's breaking. In terms of street/people photography, in a documentary but non-news sense, the proper way is to ask your subject for permission. 'Asking for permission' doesn't always have to be verbal - it can be much more subtle like making eye contact, lifting your camera and suggesting it with the cock of the head/raise of the brow/pointing, or by making it very obvious that you're about to take a person's photo but giving the person time to object to it*. If it is a special or unrepeatable moment where you don't have time to check, then asking for permission afterwards is an option. If the person is your 'shot'#, like in the case of Rocco1's friend, then the only right thing to do, imo, is to ask for their permission^. *There are situations where permission can be 'assumed', such as a public procession like the Anzac Day marches or Mardi Gras, or even rallies/riots. It is a major event/spectacle that participants know will watched and photographed/recorded by the media as well as members of the public #As opposed to more general shots of a particular scene such as a group of people boarding a tram ^That's also why the papparazzi are so reviled by celebrities and real photojournalists alike

If money were no object, i'd have the 17-35 2.8, 50 1.4 and 85 1.4, but until Bill and Melinda Gates decide to adopt me, i'll be quite happy with my 17-55 2.8. I think the 35 prime is a good option, it'll keep you nice and close to your subject for it (the close distance) to still show in the photo. That's the only way to do it, really. And it's a skill that not everyone has, least of all myself (hence the course i'm taking... starts next weekend, can't wait!). When i was at uni (and before i became interested in photography, strangely), this American photojournalist came up to me in a bookshop one day and asked if he could take my picture, just because he liked the way i looked (which i thought was a really nice compliment). And he didn't take it then and there - we met up a couple of days later at Hyde Park and chatted, he was genuinely curious about me (as a citizen of this city and that), then afterwards he took some snaps. So it was a very nice experience, not a Hi!-snap-Bye! type of event (and had he not caught me completely off guard and tried to kiss me after our third meet, we might've stayed in touch and i might've gotten to see how the pix turned out... whole nuther story but anyway ). Just don't forget your trench coat! :)

Rocci1, As far as photojournalism/documentary photography goes: the closer you get to your subject -- the better the photo, which your 24-70 should do fine, but the 17-35 f/2.8 would be awesomer. That said, Sebastiao Salgado is known to persistently use only 28mm, 35mm and 60mm lens on his Leicas for many years up to the earlier part of the '00s, so you could well be sorted. In which case, if it were me, i'd go the 85mm f/1.4, mainly because i don't ever really need that long a lens for what i do. Happy decision-making!

I've worked with photographers who use/d The Lab (Dank St, Waterloo), Vision Graphics (St Leonards) and PhotoTechnica in Chippendale (couldn't even find their website now, i hope they haven't gone under? They were pretty big). The Lab was always really good, and picking up prints was always great because we'd go and get a really nice coffee at Dank St Depot next door; i think they've since merged with Vision Graphic's Redfern arm (possibly a franchise) so not sure what they're like these days.

That's a great shot of Polo, FHRP! All he needs is a red cape and he'll transform into Superdog

I came across this brilliant photo of Tactix the dock-jumping dog the other day. My Frenchies are way too nuggety and top-heavy to do anything like that, but it looks like a lot of fun and really interesting to photograph. Does anyone know if they are done anywhere in Australia?

Nice work Vickie! I like the spinning top better too. How many light sources are you using?

Wow, what a nifty idea! Vickie have you tried it out yet? Any pics to show?

Completely missed this - Rocco, i'm eyeing this one too Have you gotten it yet?

I've only worked with incident meters so can only comment on them. As far as i know, they are more accurate than the in-camera metre, especially for portraiture, as the hemispherical dome reads reflected light from a much wider range of angles. You'll also need it if you're synching flash units. With the advanced metering systems in SLRs these days, i think the in-camera is sufficient for general stuff, but ultimately depends on what you're after. The photographers i used to assist all use the Minolta, it's a fantastic little piece of equipment. I think brand new ones are hard to find these days, but you might be able to get a second-hand one (though bear in mind you may need to get it tested for accuracy if it's an old one, so factor that into the cost).

Yup, if you can afford it, why the hell not? :cool:

Interesting way to put it, as a former Mac owner i don't necessarily see it that way :rolleyes: But definitely agree that: :rolleyes:

Yup, most certainly is, that was my replacement camera (for the stolen D70s).