"Worlds" Convention [NF56K]

[The Grim Squeaker]

Easter/Passover has come and gone and with it the "Worlds" ("Olamot") convention, Israel's second biggest con. I worked the con as a photographer/documentation, and thought I'd upload a few nice shots to here as well while I was at it .

This is how we say hello in Israel:

Sure beats the Russian way .
IMG_2122

Olamot 2-25

IMG_1324

Neil Gaiman's "Stardust" - The Play:

Stardust-61


How the Russian's say hello:


IMG_1418

IMG_2119


IMG_2294


Olamot 2-32

Rarely had I met so obliging a photographic subject. Waaaay too many people took their clothes off when I told them to .
IMG_2299

IMG_1915

Show-58

IMG_1956

IMG_2098


IMG_1349

IMG_1201


IMG_2149


a quickr pickr post

As a sidenote, Canon EF L 28-300 3.5-5.6 Lenses are divine to shoot with, focus with and use. Except for the fact that they were evidently designed for a race of 7 foot tall heavily muscled giants with arms like metal planks. (That sucker was fucking HEAVY).
Girls sure as hell admire them though. (Quite a few guys too...). Evolutionary biology being deceived .

[Simplicius]

I thought three of these were good enough to require comment.

IMG_1324

This one has good colors and good arrangement. If you were shooting this from a close range I would say that you should have rotated your perspective and her head so you could free up more space in the left side of the frame while keeping the background dark and empty. Someone looking off to the side (or moving that way) wants some space to look or move into, but the character of this photo demands that the space be dark and empty.

IMG_2294

This is definitely the right idea. A lot of these photos just show people hamming it up as if by request, which isn't nearly as interesting as when someone forgets for a moment that they are in front of a camera and their personality unselfconsciously shines through. That's why it helps to shoot continuously when you are photographing a model or working candidly, so the camera is an accustomed presence and you don't miss those fleeting moments. This one is good because it appears totally sincere and unposed, which makes it especially humorous - this is getting at Eliot Erwitt's style. Arrangement and colors are a little wonky, but that's secondary in this case.

Show-58

You chose a good angle here; I'm sure you can see how effective the lighting and black background ended up working together. I think most of his hat can be cropped, say down to the point of the brim, and his eye's a little weird, but the effect of him being disengaged from the world - i.e. us, the viewers - because of concentration was a good approach for this shot.

IMG_1201

The lighting for this one is flat, the reflections in his glasses are undesirable, and he's got no mood or emotion to hold the viewer's attention to his face. Could have worked, though.

As a sidenote, Canon EF L 28-300 3.5-5.6 Lenses are divine to shoot with, focus with and use. Except for the fact that they were evidently designed for a race of 7 foot tall heavily muscled giants with arms like metal planks. (That sucker was fucking HEAVY).

Those long lenses are bitches to carry around, but that's because they're really meant to be tripod lenses - my 300mm has the tripod lug on the lens itself, and I don't think that's unusual by any means. Without image stabilization, trying to handhold a lens like that would be an exercise in futility.

[The Grim Squeaker]

I thought three of these were good enough to require comment.

IMG_1324

This one has good colors and good arrangement.

And an unusually ugly woman.
If you were shooting this from a close range I would say that you should have rotated your perspective and her head so you could free up more space in the left side of the frame while keeping the background dark and empty. Someone looking off to the side (or moving that way) wants some space to look or move into, but the character of this photo demands that the space be dark and empty.

Yes, unfortunately she was in the middle of a very crowded auditorium and surrounded by people. The only way to "clear up some negative space" would have been to get up right next to her and to shoot up her nose. (Which would have required asking and whatnot).
Also, taken at 300mm.

IMG_2294

This is definitely the right idea. A lot of these photos just show people hamming it up as if by request, which isn't nearly as interesting as when someone forgets for a moment that they are in front of a camera and their personality unselfconsciously shines through. That's why it helps to shoot continuously when you are photographing a model or working candidly, so the camera is an accustomed presence and you don't miss those fleeting moments. This one is good because it appears totally sincere and unposed, which makes it especially humorous - this is getting at Eliot Erwitt's style.

Yeah. I was unsure about the composition in this shot, I have a second version that moves up and to the left a bit, leaving neck dude sliced at the neck. It's tighter, but the man in the bottom right (neck dude) is really what makes this shot. Is it better this way, do you think?

Arrangement and colors are a little wonky, but that's secondary in this case.

The place was waaay too crowded. Crowds everywhere, it was almost impossible to get a body shot without a mass of bodies in the background. Nevermind the very weak, bright yellow light that it enjoyed (it makes WB adjustments futile, the skin colour is naturally "anemic lemon yellow") .
I used my external flash, but frankly, i'm rather bad with it and dislike it (give me available light shooting anyday), and the limits of my manipulations were angling the bounce and stopping the flash's strength down. Didn't help much.

Show-58

You chose a good angle here; I'm sure you can see how effective the lighting and black background ended up working together. I think most of his hat can be cropped, say down to the point of the brim, and his eye's a little weird, but the effect of him being disengaged from the world - i.e. us, the viewers - because of concentration was a good approach for this shot.

I have, oh, a dozen versions of this shot. (The other players had worse lighting and clutter in the background. This guy was also just naturally photogenic).
I'll upload one of the closer versions later one with just the face, less hat. Tell me what you think?

IMG_1201

The lighting for this one is flat, the reflections in his glasses are undesirable, and he's got no mood or emotion to hold the viewer's attention to his face. Could have worked, though.

I don't know why I even uploaded that, it wasn't even my first shot with the L lens. (First shots were the owner of the lens and a nearby hot chick. then another hot girl in a brainiac costume. Then another pair of girls who started to make out when they saw me with the lens and told me to take photos).
Most of the better portraits are people I know and while their pics are up on facebook with the rest of the batch, I'd rather not put them up on the BBS .

As a sidenote, Canon EF L 28-300 3.5-5.6 Lenses are divine to shoot with, focus with and use. Except for the fact that they were evidently designed for a race of 7 foot tall heavily muscled giants with arms like metal planks. (That sucker was fucking HEAVY).

Those long lenses are bitches to carry around, but that's because they're really meant to be tripod lenses - my 300mm has the tripod lug on the lens itself, and I don't think that's unusual by any means. Without image stabilization, trying to handhold a lens like that would be an exercise in futility.

I did carry it around by hand actually. For 2 days straight. My hands were amazingly sore from that. (Stupid weight! Stupid flash! Accursed push/pull zoom!).
It is Image stabilized though, for 4,000$ worth of lense it has just about everything you could want. (Except for carryability). The performance and zoom were just amazing though, especially for someone used to a whirry Sigma with focus issues. Not worth the price, or the weight but that's just me.

Do you have any good books on crowd photos? Almost all the shots I took of groups were crap, though that might be due to the clutter in the backgrounds. It worked better when I focused on individuals, but there has to be more to it than that, no?

Also, thanks for the comments!

[Simplicius]

And an unusually ugly woman.

If ugliness is good enough for da Vinci or Rembrandt, there's no reason for you to shun it. Your pursuit is of the interesting. Frankly, had the woman been attractive the photo would have been dull; as-is, the effect is of an aging and decadent queen of an ancient kingdom. Much more interesting.

Yes, unfortunately she was in the middle of a very crowded auditorium and surrounded by people. The only way to "clear up some negative space" would have been to get up right next to her and to shoot up her nose. (Which would have required asking and whatnot).
Also, taken at 300mm.

As I figured. Still, considering you are shooting at maximum range in the middle of a crowd it is good work to get studio-like photos.

I'm curious as to what Israel's laws on the matter are. It seems odd that privacy would be so stringently protected in a public place, as opposed simply to ownership of one's likeness restricting publication. In that case, you could shoot first and ask permission to publish after.

Yeah. I was unsure about the composition in this shot, I have a second version that moves up and to the left a bit, leaving neck dude sliced at the neck. It's tighter, but the man in the bottom right (neck dude) is really what makes this shot. Is it better this way, do you think?

No, I don't think the second version would be an improvement. Not only is the bug-eyed guy the punchline of the photo, he's also the visual anchor because he is in the foreground and in focus. You shouldn't cut any of the crowd either because the sea of bored faces in the background is the set-up to the joke. It's the space at the bottom that does it, I think; the content of the photo is basically diagonal from upper left to lower right, but when you reach the guy's face you've hit the edge of the frame - the end of the photo - even though there's still about a third hanging down below with nothing in it. You might be able to crop up to the guy's T-shirt sleeve without lessening the effect.

The place was waaay too crowded. Crowds everywhere, it was almost impossible to get a body shot without a mass of bodies in the background. Nevermind the very weak, bright yellow light that it enjoyed (it makes WB adjustments futile, the skin colour is naturally "anemic lemon yellow") .
I used my external flash, but frankly, i'm rather bad with it and dislike it (give me available light shooting anyday), and the limits of my manipulations were angling the bounce and stopping the flash's strength down. Didn't help much.

A diffuser might be helpful, then. If you've got plastic milk jugs or any other kind of white semi-opaque plastic you could cut a hood for your flash out of it.

I have, oh, a dozen versions of this shot. (The other players had worse lighting and clutter in the background. This guy was also just naturally photogenic).
I'll upload one of the closer versions later one with just the face, less hat. Tell me what you think?

Sure, but I'm not certain I'd like it as much. Having just a little of his cello playing in the frame gives some context and justifies his concentration; makes the picture tell a story which is always good. I tried the crop I suggested plus a little shave off the side to preserve the proportions and I think it looks all right:


It doesn't change the picture; just trims it up a little bit.

I did carry it around by hand actually. For 2 days straight. My hands were amazingly sore from that. (Stupid weight! Stupid flash! Accursed push/pull zoom!).
It is Image stabilized though, for 4,000$ worth of lense it has just about everything you could want. (Except for carryability). The performance and zoom were just amazing though, especially for someone used to a whirry Sigma with focus issues. Not worth the price, or the weight but that's just me.

If it doesn't suit your shooting style, then no, it's not worth it. If you shot wildlife or airshows, you'd definitely need that much lens, though. Also - a throw zoom over that focal length? Heh, that is nuts.

Do you have any good books on crowd photos? Almost all the shots I took of groups were crap, though that might be due to the clutter in the backgrounds. It worked better when I focused on individuals, but there has to be more to it than that, no?

I don't, as it's not a style of photography I have tried yet. But street photography is popular and you can find people talking about it on the Internet without much trouble at all. There's a photojournalistic aspect to it that makes it easy to find acclaimed photographers to emulate as well.

My opinion as a viewer of photographs is that to shoot an actual crowd as opposed to an individual in it, you really have to treat a crowd as a jumbled mass of things and then look for some sort of movement or pattern within it to make a photo around. Singling out individuals is easier because the viewer can relate to a portrait of a person. A crowd has none of that intimacy, so without the human connection helping you out you have to find other sources of visual and emotional appeal.

[The Grim Squeaker]

And an unusually ugly woman.

If ugliness is good enough for da Vinci or Rembrandt, there's no reason for you to shun it. Your pursuit is of the interesting.

Exactly. Hence my taking the photo of the immensely fat, chalk white woman. .

Frankly, had the woman been attractive the photo would have been dull; as-is, the effect is of an aging and decadent queen of an ancient kingdom. Much more interesting.

No matter how much you sweet talk me, i'm still not going to let you into my underwater fortress when peak oil hits .

Yes, unfortunately she was in the middle of a very crowded auditorium and surrounded by people. The only way to "clear up some negative space" would have been to get up right next to her and to shoot up her nose. (Which would have required asking and whatnot).
Also, taken at 300mm.

As I figured. Still, considering you are shooting at maximum range in the middle of a crowd it is good work to get studio-like photos.

I'm curious as to what Israel's laws on the matter are. It seems odd that privacy would be so stringently protected in a public place, as opposed simply to ownership of one's likeness restricting publication. In that case, you could shoot first and ask permission to publish after.

Israel allows photos for non commercial uses of people, etc' in public places or areas in which "it does not violate an unreasonable level of privacy".
This was irrelevant here, since it's a private area, and I was working for the conventioneers renting out the upper floor of the place. (So I shot first, asked later. Usually, in the cases of babies or hot chicks I asked first ).

Yeah. I was unsure about the composition in this shot, I have a second version that moves up and to the left a bit, leaving neck dude sliced at the neck. It's tighter, but the man in the bottom right (neck dude) is really what makes this shot. Is it better this way, do you think?

No, I don't think the second version would be an improvement. Not only is the bug-eyed guy the punchline of the photo, he's also the visual anchor because he is in the foreground and in focus. You shouldn't cut any of the crowd either because the sea of bored faces in the background is the set-up to the joke. It's the space at the bottom that does it, I think; the content of the photo is basically diagonal from upper left to lower right, but when you reach the guy's face you've hit the edge of the frame - the end of the photo - even though there's still about a third hanging down below with nothing in it. You might be able to crop up to the guy's T-shirt sleeve without lessening the effect.

Mmmm. Yeah, it's odd how the composition (diagonal line) worked out well there without any planning or framing. Just luck I guess.

The place was waaay too crowded. Crowds everywhere, it was almost impossible to get a body shot without a mass of bodies in the background. Nevermind the very weak, bright yellow light that it enjoyed (it makes WB adjustments futile, the skin colour is naturally "anemic lemon yellow") .
I used my external flash, but frankly, i'm rather bad with it and dislike it (give me available light shooting anyday), and the limits of my manipulations were angling the bounce and stopping the flash's strength down. Didn't help much.

A diffuser might be helpful, then. If you've got plastic milk jugs or any other kind of white semi-opaque plastic you could cut a hood for your flash out of it.

Yeah, I keep meaning to try to make one, maybe out of some white carton, as well as wanting to build a sealed black box for taking potential item photos. Curse my lack of mechanical/arts and crafts skills! (Well, that and my being a horrible procrastinator).
I will try a sock though, or a pantyhose next time, if I can find one that's fine and thin. (We don't have plastic milk cartons, biodegradable carton here in Jewland ), that might work well (And would be more stable than a cut-out).

I did carry it around by hand actually. For 2 days straight. My hands were amazingly sore from that. (Stupid weight! Stupid flash! Accursed push/pull zoom!).
It is Image stabilized though, for 4,000$ worth of lense it has just about everything you could want. (Except for carryability). The performance and zoom were just amazing though, especially for someone used to a whirry Sigma with focus issues. Not worth the price, or the weight but that's just me.

If it doesn't suit your shooting style, then no, it's not worth it. If you shot wildlife or airshows, you'd definitely need that much lens, though.

Nah, 70/75-300 would work, a 100-400 or 70-200 with a teleconverter if really serious for a "Serious" zoom. The 18-200 is nice, but the more I actually use other lenses, the more I realize just how crap it is (and how bad F 6.3 is for action at a distance).
As a "do anything" lens, it's amazing, but not worth the price/weight in my opinion. Better to get a digital only lens that's cheaper, has a similiar focal length and a fraction of the price. (Not to mention waaaaay less weight).

Also - a throw zoom over that focal length? Heh, that is nuts.

Yup. It's a nice idea in theory "Zoom closer by moving your hands closer! What could be more natural????", but a bitch in something that heavy. I know Canon's other "superzoom" (100-400L) is also a push/pull, but i've never touched one.

Do you have any good books on crowd photos? Almost all the shots I took of groups were crap, though that might be due to the clutter in the backgrounds. It worked better when I focused on individuals, but there has to be more to it than that, no?

I don't, as it's not a style of photography I have tried yet. But street photography is popular and you can find people talking about it on the Internet without much trouble at all. There's a photojournalistic aspect to it that makes it easy to find acclaimed photographers to emulate as well.

Yeah, I've tried street photography a lot back when I wandered Tel-Aviv often, but it's tricky. You need good people skills and a lot of gusto to do anything interesting with it without getting into trouble, and i'm rather more cautious than most people give me credit for. (So, no award winning documentaries on junky dens or beggars for me).
Beggars are remarkably photogenic though, with all that hair .

My opinion as a viewer of photographs is that to shoot an actual crowd as opposed to an individual in it, you really have to treat a crowd as a jumbled mass of things and then look for some sort of movement or pattern within it to make a photo around. Singling out individuals is easier because the viewer can relate to a portrait of a person. A crowd has none of that intimacy, so without the human connection helping you out you have to find other sources of visual and emotional appeal.

So, the essence remains "find something small to focus on". Small DoF really is a favoured tool for photographers, huh? . (I mean it's based from the same school of thought).

Also, 5 more photos:
More of a closeup (300 mm FTW) - The DoF was too lacking for my tastes here.
IMG_1948


This one smacked of dead space to me, hence my uplaoding a version where more of the body (of the player and the violin) is shown.
Show-50



IMG_1950

See what I meant about the light? .


Show-20


Stardust-132

Devil!
I deliberately left the "Red Eye" in. Suits it, no?

[The Grim Squeaker]

Oh, the reason for the photos of the violin trio (+a pianoist) is that they appeared in this convention (and at the previous one), they play rock or metal music with classical instruments. (Apocalyptica light)
They didn't do their rendition of the Imperial march this time though .

[Simplicius]

No matter how much you sweet talk me, i'm still not going to let you into my underwater fortress when peak oil hits .

Dude, I live on the coast. I'll have all the underwater I could ever want once sea level rises catastrophically.

Yeah, I keep meaning to try to make one, maybe out of some white carton, as well as wanting to build a sealed black box for taking potential item photos. Curse my lack of mechanical/arts and crafts skills! (Well, that and my being a horrible procrastinator).

I posted a picture of a mini-studio setup (not mine) in the Photo-A-Day thread; you might care to check it out. It's just a cardboard box, old white T-shirts, and tape, with desk lamps for lighting sources. Strobist has DIY instructions for making basically the same thing.

Nah, 70/75-300 would work, a 100-400 or 70-200 with a teleconverter if really serious for a "Serious" zoom. The 18-200 is nice, but the more I actually use other lenses, the more I realize just how crap it is (and how bad F 6.3 is for action at a distance).

By "that much lens" I was specifically referring to 300+mm focal lengths. I've found that 135mm is sufficiently long for general purpose, so I usually leave my long lenses at home because they are inconvenient to carry (especially when I've been letting my old Zeiss folder ride along.) But at airshows, you really need 300mm or more to shoot anything that's actually airborne, even on low passes. The photos I posted from Andrews AFB were significantly cropped because I didn't have anything longer than my 135 at the time, and it shows.

I don't think you'll find yourself using really long focal lengths if you got a lens that had them; you seem to prefer to shoot things that are close or in the middle distance, and being physically close to the scene will give you more compositional flexibility and make it easier to build a connection with the subject. You'd want to avoid falling into the photosniper trap where you stand really far away from everything you shoot just because you can.

f/6.3 does seem really slow, especially since my 300mm gets f/4.5 and my 85-205mm is a constant f/3.8.

Yeah, I've tried street photography a lot back when I wandered Tel-Aviv often, but it's tricky. You need good people skills and a lot of gusto to do anything interesting with it without getting into trouble, and i'm rather more cautious than most people give me credit for. (So, no award winning documentaries on junky dens or beggars for me).

There's a certain amount of courage required, yes, but that doesn't prevent you from using stealth techniques (wide or normal prime, middling aperture, hyperfocus, shoot from the hip) and thinking less about the fact that you are taking candid pictures and more about the pictures you are looking to find. SLR's are not necessarily the stealthiest of cameras (noise, body & lens size) and people who don't know much tend to be wary of them because they look "serious" or "pro," but the camera you use is only a small part of whether or not you draw attention to yourself. As for people skills, if your subjects aren't ruffians you don't need to be an incredible smooth-talker; just be forthright and don't act like you are doing something sleazy or wrong if you aren't.

You have an advantage in using a digital camera too, in that if someone says "Hey, did you just take my picture?" you can review it on the spot, make a snap judgment about its merit, and then respond "Yes, but I'm afraid it didn't come out very well," or "Yes, and I think it looks rather good. Would you like me to send you a copy?" You have then managed to reassure them or stroke their ego a bit and make them a party to the picture-taking, and with people who aren't hooligans that should be enough to keep you out of trouble as long as you are within the law.

No need to look for dangerous or disreputable situations, either. It's rather cliché, and there's plenty of material in normal-day-to-day life as well. You just need to have a sense of humanity, besides a keen eye and quick reflexes.

So, the essence remains "find something small to focus on". Small DoF really is a favoured tool for photographers, huh? . (I mean it's based from the same school of thought).

Well, you've got two approaches - look for something the photo is "about" and single it out, or look for some kind of abstract appeal and arrange it accordingly. The former's certainly easier and requires less aesthetic or artistic sense to do, if not do really well.

The new photos don't do much for me; all the winners were in the first batch.

I deliberately left the "Red Eye" in. Suits it, no?

Not especially, for two reasons. First, nothing about the photo really establishes an evil or sinister mood, and red eyes on a not-evil person doesn't really work - especially not when the eyes are a tiny bit of the photo rather than its most important element. Second, given that everyone who has ever taken a flash portrait knows what red-eye looks like, everyone who looks at this photo will see it as what it is, rather than what it might be. There's no illusion, in other words.

[The Grim Squeaker]

Yeah, I keep meaning to try to make one, maybe out of some white carton, as well as wanting to build a sealed black box for taking potential item photos. Curse my lack of mechanical/arts and crafts skills! (Well, that and my being a horrible procrastinator).

I posted a picture of a mini-studio setup (not mine) in the Photo-A-Day thread; you might care to check it out. It's just a cardboard box, old white T-shirts, and tape, with desk lamps for lighting sources. Strobist has DIY instructions for making basically the same thing.

That's exactly what I keep meaning to make. (I've seen the guide). Thanks though.

Nah, 70/75-300 would work, a 100-400 or 70-200 with a teleconverter if really serious for a "Serious" zoom. The 18-200 is nice, but the more I actually use other lenses, the more I realize just how crap it is (and how bad F 6.3 is for action at a distance).

By "that much lens" I was specifically referring to 300+mm focal lengths. I've found that 135mm is sufficiently long for general purpose, so I usually leave my long lenses at home because they are inconvenient to carry (especially when I've been letting my old Zeiss folder ride along.) But at airshows, you really need 300mm or more to shoot anything that's actually airborne, even on low passes. The photos I posted from Andrews AFB were significantly cropped because I didn't have anything longer than my 135 at the time, and it shows.

135mm on film no less . (I'm talking film lengths before the 1.6 crop factor )

I don't think you'll find yourself using really long focal lengths if you got a lens that had them; you seem to prefer to shoot things that are close or in the middle distance,

I do, but that's because I zoom into them .

You'd want to avoid falling into the photosniper trap where you stand really far away from everything you shoot just because you can.

That's a nice way to put it, usually I hear the term "Paparazzi!" (Though that's before I show/send them the shots )

f/6.3 does seem really slow, especially since my 300mm gets f/4.5 and my 85-205mm is a constant f/3.8.

It's a cheap superzoom lens made by a cheap 3d party manufacturer, and was one of the first copies made of the Nikon superzoom.
What were you expecting, a fixed aperture? .
(Also, that 85-205 sounds nifty. What mount is it for?)

Yeah, I've tried street photography a lot back when I wandered Tel-Aviv often, but it's tricky. You need good people skills and a lot of gusto to do anything interesting with it without getting into trouble, and i'm rather more cautious than most people give me credit for. (So, no award winning documentaries on junky dens or beggars for me).

As for people skills, if your subjects aren't ruffians you don't need to be an incredible smooth-talker; just be forthright and don't act like you are doing something sleazy or wrong if you aren't.

You haven't been in downtown Tel-Aviv much, have you? . It's a matter of luck, but with crowds, luck gets crowded out by probability and large, fat sweating men yelling loudly . (Though, the last time that happened, I talked him into giving me some free drinks and a job offer as a photographer in his club. Pity I lost his number).
Also, taking pictures of people without asking them is legally right, but socially unaccepted, which means people think of it as unethical. (Damn you Faqa!).

You have an advantage in using a digital camera too, in that if someone says "Hey, did you just take my picture?" you can review it on the spot, make a snap judgment about its merit, and then respond "Yes, but I'm afraid it didn't come out very well," or "Yes, and I think it looks rather good. Would you like me to send you a copy?" You have then managed to reassure them or stroke their ego a bit and make them a party to the picture-taking, and with people who aren't hooligans that should be enough to keep you out of trouble as long as you are within the law.

I'm not worried about legal trouble, but thanks!

It's rather cliché, and there's plenty of material in normal-day-to-day life as well. You just need to have a sense of humanity, besides a keen eye and quick reflexes.

Humans? Those malodorous unrational things? (I'm autistic, hence my little joke on "sense of humanity").

I deliberately left the "Red Eye" in. Suits it, no?

Not especially, for two reasons. First, nothing about the photo really establishes an evil or sinister mood,

Ever read Stardust? Dude was a guy playing Ditchwater Sal/witch (and he has a witch's hat! and cloak!). But still, yeah, if something requires a lot of context to explain why it's "good/appropiate" and not "staid" then as you say, it's not a very good shot.

Thanks!

[Simplicius]

It's a cheap superzoom lens made by a cheap 3d party manufacturer, and was one of the first copies made of the Nikon superzoom.
What were you expecting, a fixed aperture? .
(Also, that 85-205 sounds nifty. What mount is it for?)

It's for the M42x1 ("Pentax," "universal," etc.) screw mount - old-school stuff from the '70s. I've heard some good things about it, but the photos I took with it haven't been developed yet.