what missing girl. and when r u on dis date again (Typed on pda)
posted by asiliat at 9:23 PM

DUH. Don't you watch the news or anything. BOOOO.
posted by Larry at 5:39 PM

when did you mention a missing girl? my memory fails me.

shes not the same person you scored a date with, is it?
posted by yodaslap at 4:32 PM

So the missing girl lives in my apartment building. It'll be weird if I run into her. What would I say? Good to see you're still alive and not sexually assaulted?
posted by Larry at 3:57 PM

posted by yodaslap at 9:57 AM

since when did eating dinner and watching movies become old-fashioned? thats about the extent of whats left of my social life, and thats during a good week. speaking of which, almost time to eat.
posted by yodaslap at 3:24 PM

Well thanks Eric, that's pretty much what I needed to hear. It's going to be as old-fashioned as it gets (movie and a dinner), so no shopping. Maybe for a second date though.
posted by Larry at 5:05 PM

Eric, not sure if i can really give a "crash course", so ill just tell you what [little] i know:

for starters, heres a glossary of photography terms from that same site you provided. it appears pretty extensive.

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/glossary/terms_a.htm

ok, so the Nikon FA can shoot fully automatic, thats good. no need to buy a light meter, which i have no idea how to read/use anyway. your 35-105mm lens is basically the same "3x optical zoom" you see advertised on most consumer level digital cameras out there. skylight filter basically just protects the lens, and doesnt really serve too much purpose beyond that. im still in the process of learning how to use flashes (actually im sorta saving up for one) so cant really offer too much help there.

a run-thru of the basics that i know...

aperture: how large/small the lens opens up. the smaller the number, the larger the opening. this is what ppl refer to with "f stop", and the "f/3.5~4.5" from your lens' specs. more on that in a bit.

shutter speed: obvious, duh

how the two work together: smaller the f stop (larger the hole), the shorter the shutter speed required to capture a certain amount of light. in point n' shoot cameras, this is all done for you automatically (in the FA it'd be the "P" mode"). edit: like you mentioned thru yahoo, different combinations produce the same exposure. just a matter of balance between aperture and shutter speed combinations. makes sense, right?

depth of field: not sure if you already know about this , so ill just touch on it really quick just in case (edit: you just said it was foreign so here goes). basically just how "deep" of a distance stays in focus (ok that was REALLY poorly worded, but hopefully made sense). this can be controlled by the aperture. the larger the f stop (smaller the hole), the larger depth of field, i.e. more of your picture is in focus. works exactly the same as our eyes: when its dark our pupils dilate, creating a 'smaller depth of field', which is why our vision tends to be blurry at night, and on the flipside why it helps to squint (simulates a high f stop, if you will). a hopefully-practical application: if you want to take one of those shots where the subject is in focus and the background is blurry, just zoom in as far as possible and bump it down to the lowest possible f stop. note that not all lenses are equally capable of this effect. your particular lens is a "macro" lens (not really a true macro, but it gives a decently short focal distance at 10" or so), which will help in achieving the aforementioned effect.

ok, now getting to the "f/3.5~4.5" part. basically the less zoom, the lower the f stop can go. makes sense if you think about it --> the more zoom, the longer the "tunnel" will get, so the smaller the hole needs to be to prevent the "halo" effect. thats why fixed 50mm's are great for low light shots, cuz their f stop can usually go below 2.0 (which is pretty low, hence allowing a faster shutter speed) since the barrel is so short. anyway, so basically the first number (3.5) is the lowest f stop while zoomed all the way out (at 35mm), and 4.5 is lowest for when youre zoomed to a full 105mm.

now for the tips i know for portrait shots. the ideal distance/zoom combination is 4 feet away at 70mm. of course in a non-controlled shooting environment you may not always have the luxury of time or space to set up this exact combination, but here are some things to keep in mind. if you shoot too closely to the person, their faces will have fisheye distortion (nose will be unusually large, face will appear to bulge more, etc). if you shoot from too far away, their faces will appear too flat (which may or may not matter, depending on the results you wish to achieve).

a bit more on zoom. first off, get the "[#]x optical zoom" term out of your head. its a worthless term. try to think only in terms of mm. the [#] x doesnt say anything besides the relative range of zoom, but gives absolutely no information on any specifics. for example, "3x zoom" can be 35-105mm, 28-84mm, 70-210mm, etc, you get the idea. it just so happens that 35mm somehow became the industry standard, so "3x zoom" just HAPPENS to be 35-105mm. ok, so pretty much any point n' shoots start/are at 35mm (note this is NOT the same "35mm" in "35mm camera"). 28mm is the most common wide angle, since anything less than that will start to cause somewhat significant distortion. 50mm produces roughly the same amount of peripheral vision as the human eye(s), which i think is why there are fixed 50mm zoom lenses (not sure, and i guess probably doesnt matter?). by definition, anything beyond that is considered "telephoto", so dont let that term fool you into thinking youre guaranteed a certain zoom range or what not.

ok, thats about it. again, dont know much about flash or metering, sorry. hope what i have helps. just dont forget that knowing the technical stuff will never compensate for poor composition, so practice that too!
posted by yodaslap at 3:29 AM

"im sure Ivan and Eric have advice up the wazoo. good luck. girls are dumb."

well, apparently Eric does. i, on the other hand, don't. in fact, i don't think i'm really qualified to give advice about anything.
posted by ivan at 12:31 AM

okay, my turn to need help here.

I need a REAL quick and easy to understand crash course on photography. Give me a link or explain about light exposure and how to manually meter it.

I just scored myself a Nikon FA SLR for unlimited use no strings attached.

I need to take some *professional* looking pix in two weeks time, so I have 2 weeks to get proficient. I know this is probably not possible, but I've got to give it the old college try. The pix don't have to be artsy, just presentable. Mostly people shot, as I'm going to a birthday banquet of importance.

Thanks all in advance, and I hope I can learn enough by midweek so I can be confident in shooting.

Here's my equipment -
-Nikon FA body
-Zoom-Nikkor 35-105mm f/3.5~4.5s MACRO lens
-hoya hmc 52mm skylight filter
-Nikon SB-16 flash

I need to rock in two weeks. Going to get intimately familiar with 1 hour photo shops for the next two weeks.
posted by asiliat at 9:12 PM

Larry: journal.losir.com
posted by asiliat at 11:03 AM

my sanity day
decided to stay home from work today. got up, wasnt feeling the best, and the recent sleep shortage finally caught up with me so i called in. slept til 1pm, havent felt this good in a long time. should do this more often, heh. yeah right.
posted by yodaslap at 2:09 PM

im the expert on becoming (and staying) the "gay friend" with girls, so i cant really help you there. im sure Ivan and Eric have advice up the wazoo. good luck. girls are dumb.
posted by yodaslap at 11:22 PM

Duh. Well now I really need some help. I'm going to the movies with a girl I like next week, and I think she likes me, but I'm not entirely sure it's a real "date" date. How do I find out? Just ask straight out? I want to avoid the "friend" trap.
posted by Larry at 5:58 PM

Mud's the name. Just mud.
posted by asiliat at 2:10 PM

ok, and this is coming from someone whos doing cancer bio research :D as far as im concerned, im still churning out childhood memories.

no worries about charlie, im not a big fan of sandwiches except for good ol jimmy johns. subway is acceptable once in a while, if i get hungry enough. speaking of which, i nuked up some food about half an hour ago and remembered just now. whoops.
posted by yodaslap at 11:25 AM

Duh, I guess I was just in a weird mood. Seriously though, where do you guys learn all this stuff? Do you even have childhood memories left?

I had some food poisoning Friday night, and it was the worst thing I've ever felt these last two days. Just in case you guys have a Charlie's Subs chain around you, don't go there! The cook was high and the beef was undercooked.
posted by Larry at 12:37 AM

I'm just going to have to ignore Larry's post. :D Since I have no idea what the heck he is talking about, I'm comfortable in my ignorance.

Actually, I think I'm holding off on getting a cam for now.

Sorry, thanks anyway
posted by asiliat at 12:39 AM

duh!
posted by yodaslap at 12:15 PM

Personally, I feel that the Sony T352 has the best shutter micro-adjustment. The Canon R32 certainly has the advantage of a strong f-ryd and R.56 that clearly makes it a value. However, its requirement of two "D" batteries cancels out its forward islating feature. If I had to make a firm recommendation, it would have to be the Zeiss N4743.54-PR13 mono-detatchable prylon setup with the optional 3.5mm tile advancer.
posted by Larry at 11:17 AM

while i may not be nearly as helpful as dan, i'd like to toss in a few thoughts too.

the flip LCD on the canon G is ridiculously useful. frankly, i really don't know how i ever did without one. as for other features not previously mentioned, i really enjoy the manual focus on my G2. it's button-controlled (as opposed to rings) and it's a lot easier to use than a lot of similar cameras (including the sony F717). the macro mode on the G is just so-so, but i'd recommend you use the manual focus for close-ups anyway so it's not a huge issue.

personally, i'm waiting for them to come out with a DSLR with a flip LCD before i'm going to blow big bucks on one.
posted by ivan at 12:56 PM

alright, did a bit more research. sorry, but the Fuji's gotta go. first off, the S602 and S602Pro have a minimum shutter speed at a sorry 3 seconds. thats treading dangerously close to bottom-of-the-totem-pole-model's-dummy-nightshot-mode territory there. also, the aperture range of all three Fuji's starts at a not-terribly-impressive F2.8, while the G family hits F2.0 at 35mm. another factor that killed it for me was the batteries. rechargeable or not, do you REALLY want your camera running on 4 AA's? (for reference, with moderate shooting on weekends and maybe on a few weekdays, my G2 can easily last 2 weeks+ without a charge). lastly, i dont really know too much about the whole super CCD thing, but ive never been completely comfortable with the idea of interpolation. one thing i forgot to mention last time was the flip LCD found on the G's. that feature alone would be enough to guarantee it a permanent spot in my shooting arsenal. im sure you can probably imagine, but you wont fully appreciate that feature until youve made use of it. unless they somehow eventually figure out how to make d-slr's with realtime preview capabilities, you wont be seeing them sport a flip LCD anytime soon. so yeah, G3 baby, G3.

on a sidenote, if 3.2 MP is acceptable to you, the Canon S1 IS seems interesting, at a glance. no idea how much itll cost, but its got 10x optical zoom (the catch is it starts at 38mm).
posted by yodaslap at 11:19 AM

While I wasn't aware of the G5 bugs, I kind of caught on that it's really just a G3 w/ more pixels.

I'm not chasing the megapixel game. I think I could live with a very well done low (3.1+) mp camera, so G3 is definitely on my shortlist.

The Fuji cameras are something of a crapshoot. While it seems fairly well designed, the SuperCCD format has so far failed to live up to my standards. But for sentimental sake, and from an aestetic POV, I like them.

I think in the end, I will go for a G3 or similar. Maybe save up $ and pony up for the Rebel. The plastic body turns me off some, but other than that, nothing else comes close at this time.

Maybe I'll even just take my stupid little 6800 and get more pix this summer. Dunno yet.

Probably won't get anything in the end, but right now, reading all these cam reviews have got me hyped.
posted by asiliat at 9:01 PM

dont want to claim that ill be of any practical help, but heres my 2 cents anyway.

first off, nix the G5. while its still a solid camera in its own right, its got some problems that make it worth overlooking for serious photographers out there. the common verdict is to get the G3 instead, which id also recommend (purely based on reading articles, reviews, etc). it shares most of the useful featues with G5 without the bugs. G2's a great camera, but youll be lacking some of the bells and whistles of G3/5's. the ones i can think of off the top of my head include 4x optical zoom (G2 has a run of the mill 3x), digic processor, and built-in neutral density (ND) filters. G3 also has an updated scroll nav, which ive tried and makes much more sense than the G2 but that depends on each individual's preference of course.

as far as brand, id stand by Canon (although partially biased of course). fuji isnt a bad brand or anything, but i overall i trust canon optics over most. i may have to do a bit more research, but from what i know id recommend the G3. if you wanna take a gamble (as well as willing to shell out a bit more cash), the Canon Pro1 is worth taking a peek if you want to kick it up a notch.
posted by yodaslap at 6:56 PM

Need some help here couz.

For you camera freaks of course.... ;0)

Right now thinking of getting a better digi cam. Stuck between decision. Also because I know next to nothing about performance, I want the best bang for buck type cam.

Right now, I'm looking at: Canon G2, G3, G5 Fujifilm S602, S602Pro, and S7000. The Canon G2 may be all that I need, but I frankly want to try a different cam, and don't want to be a copycat. THe S7000 sounds good on paper, and reviews are positive (haven't finished reading it yet). But I am wary because of the seemingly lack of accessories (lenses?) available for the unit. The Canons sounds like they can get any lenses on there, which will be important for me because I want to buy something I can keep using for 5+ yrs without getting bogged down by the lack of creative options.... if you know what I mean.

I am by no means going to aspire to the shots that Dan and Ivan take, but I would like to try at least to attain to their level of creativity. I plan on buying some photog books and stuff. It's a hobby I'd like to try (even if no one else appreciates the effort but me.)

Anyway, that's it. COuld I get some feedback and maybe suggestions as to what cam to buy? I really don'\t know anything about F-stops and such, so be patient.

Thanks.
posted by asiliat at 2:45 PM

Booooooooooooooooo.

Nice pics Dan. They look like they belong on the cover of a magazine.

Duh I haven't been posting because I forgot about all my blogs. But I'll start checking again more. Not much going on here though, just more work and not enough beer haha boo.
posted by Larry at 5:26 PM

duh


posted by yodaslap at 10:37 AM

was bored, so shot some pics last night. fun with utility lamps!
posted by yodaslap at 3:31 PM