Lee Jay: This is what happens when you put marketing people together with legalized pot.
LOL! I do agree, but would like to add that the marketing guys don't really need external chemical encouragement; they just listen to themselves and seek peer-support for their dolt ideas in emancipating meetings, held in rooms full of remarkably expensive distractions (stuff feeding their imagination they would claim).
And this is the result, cerebral agony to those who actually understand something...
ThatCamFan: Or just use a polorizer, mit is wasting time.
The reflection is most and practically entirely polarized when the angle of incidence is at so called Brewster's angle:
In other angles the polarization is weak and no polarizer regardless of quality could effectively remove reflections, unless the light is for some reason polarized to begin with (like coming from LCD monitor or such).
These are very good. Intriguing property of #1 is that at first I thought the horizontal angle of dominant object, the shelter wall, was slightly off; but forgive me for suspecting such sloppiness... I was wrong.
Great collection, thank you for sharing!
Neez: Tamron version has stabilization.
Indeed, and with excellent optical performance. Even though competition is welcome, after the Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD, I see little to no reason to launch a new lens into this category without stabilization. Tamron is that good.
I'm sure the Tokina is built impeccably though.
Marty4650: If these were branded by Hassleblad, they could sell for $62,000!
You boys have dirty mindsets... or is it just me with my skewed imagination?
As a patriotic Finn I am proud of both, our beautiful country and about Janne Voutilainen on how majestically he represents Finland in his art. Outstanding work, gallery class no question!
Virvatulet: Many seem to support the idea that one could arbitrarily dictate what others can do in public places. Using a public space inherently conveys an accord on limited privacy; the very prospect to be heard, seen and remembered by others.
As long as no physical change is forced on one's personal proximity, there really is nothing what one should do about other's freedom to choose how they use the immediate free space of theirs.
Passively collecting stray photons with a camera can not be objectively seen as excessive behaviour. It's also vital to remember to separate photographing from publishing (legislation variant). What can be legally seen shall be legally photographed (a priori), regardless of the circumstances affecting lawful publishing.
The ladies in the picture exercised their right to choose how they want to be seen and remembered when they use public space. Not willing to give even a split-second moment of their day to the memories of a gentleman randomly crossing their path.
Considering all the 24/7 surveillance videography, both government agency and private security firms arranged, it certainly shall be interesting to see how lawmakers will manage to retain any logic behind such bans. They won't if the ban targets solely photography; they might to some degree if the target is publishing.
In any case this is very troublesome development in the larger view of freedom of speech and expression. Photography is still seen as a threat in many societies, because of its perceived documentary and testimonial properties, making it therefore a convenient restriction target whenever a new excuse arises.
By the way, I follow pretty much the same "code of conduct" as you do. However, it is simply not even possible to ask people in many occasions, so I don't usually bother when I don't have to, given the circumstances.
rallyfan: Why harass the three elderly women in Spain?
@ Roland KarlssonI also have been demanded money for such a casual vacation photo. That was somewhat tainted spirited coming from people I was not specifically portraiture photographing.
Very nice set of various subjects and an appetizing treatment of such photography. Picture number two is my favourite, has a touch of Leni Riefenstahl's style approach in it. Thank you for sharing!
Many seem to support the idea that one could arbitrarily dictate what others can do in public places. Using a public space inherently conveys an accord on limited privacy; the very prospect to be heard, seen and remembered by others.
AstroStan: here is a well timed shot:http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html(APOD)
That is not exactly a fair comparison, but then again, moderation is a fatal thing.
Virvatulet: A dangerous hobby for rectless addrenaline junkies...Enjoying the cenery though!
Whatever floats your boat... bro.
About appropriate terminology, hedonistic is used in scientific literature.
"Who Takes Risks in High-Risk Sports? A Typological Personality Approach"http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02701367.2010.10599709
"Epidemiology of Injury in Adventure and Extreme Sports"http://www.karger.com/Article/Abstract/338558
You wouldn't care to make a guess how many incidents USCG handles in relation to port departures? The point is that not all risks are equal.
About the hedonistic aspect, systemic adrenaline rush if anything is a personal thing, regardless the source of such experience.
"I just don't care if some individual wants to climb a mountain--as long as he/she isn't trashing the place, and has some comprehension of the risks."
I think we largely share common view here; of course, there is the question about accountability if and when something goes quite not as pre planned and outside help is sought for. For the record, no, I do not wish to deny mountain climbing exploration.
One could greatly expand the list you started. But as long as you don't differentiate activities with useful outcome or purpose, like the ones you mentioned, from recreational more or less hedonistic pursuits; that would be merely waste of bits.
PS. Sorry about the typos in my original post.
A dangerous hobby for rectless addrenaline junkies...Enjoying the cenery though!
Thorgrem: So politics win a photo contest. Such a shame. (not that I have anything against homosexuality)
Deductive reasoning would be a good starting point since we are not talking about matters of taste. Conclusion then comes thru logic with universal premises like all people are to be seen and treated equal.
ptox: The assertion by some here that even passive depictions of LGBTQ orientations are part of some devious agenda or propaganda is breathakingly disingenuous.
A minority, persecuted everywhere throughout history and still today in far too many societies, represented in this case in a gentle example of a medium whose participation by the viewer is about as optional as it gets - harming nobody, making the least aggressive statement possible - "we exist, here we are" - and yet here subject to scorn, ridicule, base degredation and outright hatred from members of the relatively safe, powerful, enfranchised majority.
How pathetically false are these cries of fear; nothing more noble than veiled hatred of The Other - other humans, trying like each of us to carve out a bit of peace and happiness in in lives that often (and for the subjects of this photo, in that country, far too often) seem to be nothing but anything else.
LGBT rights by country or territory
You pick your appropriate country for reference from the charts.
It will become neutral and invisible when there is equality. This verbal turmoil just proves the need for the active measures protecting fairness.
Raist3d: So sad to see Russia doing this. I hope the rest of the world can serve as a living example of why this is ridiculous.
When prejudice serves a social expressive function it can be deemed to be transferred thru cognitive processes, and therefore called as a manmade model.
If you really are interested in learning more on the subject, you could refer to the works of Ph.D. Gregory M. Herek, a Professor of Psychology at the UCD (University of California at Davis) and to psychologist and author Dr. Jim Cole. Of course, there are other notable authors too.