Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Nikonites
New Member Introductions
D5000
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="jaznjjj" data-source="post: 295104" data-attributes="member: 24217"><p>The main reason for wishing to upgrade is peer pressure - several other more serious photographers I have come across have shaken their heads and indicated that the lenses I have (other than the micro/macro I purchased later) are just run-of-the-mill lenses which come with the package. I am not experienced enough to know the difference and not in a position to do comparisons. That is why I asked about significant improvement and value for money. If the difference in quality is minute but extremely costly then I probably don't need to upgrade.</p><p></p><p>Flat work archival: This mostly involves copying documents at the State Records Office. Often these are fragile, have been folded for over one hundred years and cannot easily/safely be flattened, even with an assistant. They are often nested together and have to be carefully separated and returned to the same position for return to storage. They are mostly photographed for later study so legibility is of prime importance, bearing in mind the writing has often faded, and the paper deteriorated. </p><p></p><p>Flat work photographs: Copying old family photographs, some of which go back to the late 1800s. A number of family snaps from the 1920s and 1930s. Need to share these around to family and other researchers as insurance against losing them. Study detail to help identification of individuals, such as closeups of badges, brooches etc. I do use a photographic-level scanner to do much of this. </p><p></p><p>Architectural: for example, photographing Lennox Bridge (oldest mainland bridge in Australia). Convict built from local sandstone, the graffiti vandals have really messed it up (as high as the creeps can reach) and that means some extensive photo-shopping. The sad thing about that is that sandstone is relatively fragile, so restoring after graffiti is damaging. Point of interest: years ago when visiting the U.K. watched artists sketching the stones on a section of Hadrian's wall. Why? They told us that photography was not accurate. Headstones and monuments in cemeteries and graveyards - often difficult to read.</p><p></p><p>Context shots: For instance, you have located a particular grave in a large cemetery so you take location shots which include landmarks to enable you to correlate it to a map, and to be able to find it again. These do not necessarily need to be of high quality. </p><p></p><p>It looks like I have some reading to do so thank you for those links. Jennifer</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="jaznjjj, post: 295104, member: 24217"] The main reason for wishing to upgrade is peer pressure - several other more serious photographers I have come across have shaken their heads and indicated that the lenses I have (other than the micro/macro I purchased later) are just run-of-the-mill lenses which come with the package. I am not experienced enough to know the difference and not in a position to do comparisons. That is why I asked about significant improvement and value for money. If the difference in quality is minute but extremely costly then I probably don't need to upgrade. Flat work archival: This mostly involves copying documents at the State Records Office. Often these are fragile, have been folded for over one hundred years and cannot easily/safely be flattened, even with an assistant. They are often nested together and have to be carefully separated and returned to the same position for return to storage. They are mostly photographed for later study so legibility is of prime importance, bearing in mind the writing has often faded, and the paper deteriorated. Flat work photographs: Copying old family photographs, some of which go back to the late 1800s. A number of family snaps from the 1920s and 1930s. Need to share these around to family and other researchers as insurance against losing them. Study detail to help identification of individuals, such as closeups of badges, brooches etc. I do use a photographic-level scanner to do much of this. Architectural: for example, photographing Lennox Bridge (oldest mainland bridge in Australia). Convict built from local sandstone, the graffiti vandals have really messed it up (as high as the creeps can reach) and that means some extensive photo-shopping. The sad thing about that is that sandstone is relatively fragile, so restoring after graffiti is damaging. Point of interest: years ago when visiting the U.K. watched artists sketching the stones on a section of Hadrian's wall. Why? They told us that photography was not accurate. Headstones and monuments in cemeteries and graveyards - often difficult to read. Context shots: For instance, you have located a particular grave in a large cemetery so you take location shots which include landmarks to enable you to correlate it to a map, and to be able to find it again. These do not necessarily need to be of high quality. It looks like I have some reading to do so thank you for those links. Jennifer [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Nikonites
New Member Introductions
D5000
Top