u/And_Justice

Looking to get into bird photography. I've got a Canon 6D but nothing telephoto beyind a broken 100mm macro lens.

I was originally looking at Sigma 50-500mm but as it turns out, it's only the OS version which has image stabilisation which limits my affordability to only a copy of the lens with a "dry" manual focus ring and dust in the lens elements.

I could look into the first gen of that lens but no IS - would that be a problem?

I've found out also about the Canon 400mm f5.6 but wondering if that might be out of budget and/or impractical? Same goes for the 1st gen Canon 100-400?

Do I just say sod it and go for a tamron 200-500?

Help a brother put, please. I want competent AF and need to know if image stabilisation is a must.

I don't know what to believe anymore, I'm pretty sure I'll come out of this thread still not knowing what to believe...

Someone on instagram said that Another Victim formed to fight people who messed with Earth Crisis after a 1993 incident where people threw chicken nuggets at them on stage.

True or am I falling for horseshit?

I learned SQL supporting a piece of software that tracked assets - I was in that role for 5 years, I tuen went in to support document control software that was also SQL based for 3 years. Fast forward to now and I'm a systems administrator for a customer of the first software company.

Over that time, I've gotten pretty good - complex queries, cursors, debugging, basic query optimisation, SQL jobs, triggers, stored procs, views, a bit of PowerBI, a bit of admin, a bit of performance tweaking, small reporting database populated by complex transformations, constantly using SQL to diagnose software bugs.

I enjoy this role but I feel like I have better potential- DBA roles probably want more up to date and extensive experience, I worry BI reporting's days are numbered...

Can I ask if anyone has any advice for where I can go with my skillset? I love working on SQL for the problem solving, it gives me an immense sense of satisfaction.

I'm in a bit of a photography lull at the moment - life has taken over and I've not had time to shoot much but that's alright because I think I burnt out regardless.

I think I've realised that my work lacks a certain human quality to it. I've been thinking a lot about making my artistic output into the world more than just nonsense doodles of static compositions.

I enjoy minimalism and abstract shapes, I've done a lot of "mundanity" around my local area which has been nice but I want to start being better. I realise I'm not very good at illustrating a story - whether that story is something that has happened, evidence of human activity or just "the photographer took some time to make something slightly different and it's nice".

I want to make clear I'm not trying to do documentary photography, I'm more aiming for a bit of a fine art on the streets approach. I think my first step would be to study the works of some photographers who inspire me - could anyone recommend any photographers that may hit that brief? Think minimalist that triggers the imagination

Did this type of story telling just click one day for you? Any exercises you can recommend that help train the eye to spot these things?

Right boffins, it's time to decide once and for all where the line lies.

One King Down's Bloodlust Revenge is one of the greatest albums of all time and it straddles that line between a traditional hardcore sound and thrash influence. It's like Biohazard without the white man rapping about crack.

I've sometimes heard it referred to as a metalcore record but the more I think about it, I wonder if it's in the same camp as Biohazard?

TALK TO ME.

And miss me with the "it doesn't fucking matter, just listen to what you like" shitz we're here to SPLIT HAIRS whilst I'm bored at work. This is a genre-sceptic free zone.

It wasn't advertised as such, right? I'm not going mad?

We'd planned to be there at 12 for a 1 stage show but now it starts at half 4? What's going on?

It's occurred to me that height might be and element I'm missing from car photography so I've ordered a 13 inch footstool stool off of amazon.

However, I'm struggling a bit for inspiration - as much as there's a lot of car photography out there, a lot of it is awful and it can be quite difficult to find good source material to emulate.

I'm wanting to play around with two things: focal length and flash. Flash can come later once I've worked out composition and I think I'm going to just bash out an 18-90mm old kit lens to see what works the best for drama.

Any tips on composition and location? I think the advantage of a wider lens in this context would be that I can involve a bit of background separate from the car itself but I always find locations to be the trickiest part of car photography.

Maybe I've just been unfortunate to catch Killing Me Softly and Long Goodbye at academy shows but I can't help but feel my experience of these bands has been pretty... underwhelming?

​

It feels like the energy is off when they play, too much focus on uninteresting breakdowns and not enough grooves. It's odd because I love them on record.

​

Just wondering if anyone else has had similar experience?

​

If you know me, you know I live for this shit but maybe they're best enjoyed in tiny venues?

Ok. As promised here are the issues I take with the “photographic triangle” as coined by Bryan Peterson or the “exposure triangle” as you keep referring to it as.

There seems to be no discernible reason to apply these three things into a geometric representation other than there are three elements of exposure being discussed (there are other issues & elements that can effect exposure) & a triangle having three sides.

Further more, there seems to be no continuity on what elements of the triangle are important when looking at the multitude of info graphics. Some seem to emphasize the sides & have them representing one elements in one image or article & something else in another. Then there are those that seem to make the points of the triangle the focal point of the shape.

More over when the sides are used they seem to have no designed or assigned values or correlations. Some have “light” ends attaching to “dark” ends, in others the ISO is attached to two light or inversely two dark ends. Then in others the shutter & the aperture come together in dark or a light point. Make it make sense, with no official designations or attributions it can cause confusion amounts the new shooter.

Additionally, with triangles by nature are typically represented had having a base (flat side on the bottom) & by nature of thought (think Gestalt principles), that base is the key “foundational” element if the sides are what’s used. Or, if the corners are used then the peak of the triangle is the most important as it is the terminus of the other points at the top (the top being the most important).

Additionally, & maybe if greatest concern, is the fallacy of labeling this triangle as “Exposure Triangle”. Exposure in the lexicon of photography by definition is the illuminance (luminance flux per unit area) recorded at the image plane, which is controlled by the luminance at the scene of what is being recorded. Which is controlled by only the aperature or shutter. In this the ISO has no effect on exposure, it sets the metering at which you expose. Moreover, in regards to ISO the ISO are technically different things in regards to film vs digital. So attributing the same effects light has & the control of changing the ISO has in film vs digital is incorrect.

These are just the basic simple reasons that trying to refer to or depict exposure as a triangle in photography is flawed. As this doesn’t even start to go into the use of metering methods (matrix, center-weighted, spot) & light transmittance of various lenses.

Just out of sheer curiosity, can anyone describe different eras of dinky neck profiles relative to what I know?

I have a 2000 PS-4 and a 2013 DK2QMHT. The former has what I assume is a standard Japanese dinky neck from the 90s and the latter a "speed neck". I much prefer the PS-4's neck as it is slightly flatter and d-shaped with shoulders as opposed to the more c-profiled speed neck.

How do these profiles compare against American dinkys over time? Custom shop jobs? JS series etc?

My other points of comparison when it comes to shreddy necks are an 86 Charvel Model 4 (favourite shred neck so far), an original wizard on a 93 RG470 (amazing feel, bit too thin for me), wizard 2 on an RG465M (horrible neck), I have also played a friend's LTD MH250