Lives in United States Carlsbad, CA, United States
Works as a Photo Editor
Has a website at http://www.jphotog.com
Joined on Apr 6, 2003
About me:

Photo Editor for the Gemological Institute of America. If you shoot gems - why haven't
you called me? (Or mines and factories, and other stuff related to gem/jewelry industry.)
I use a 1Ds Mark II at work, but thinking about getting a D200 or D2X for myself.


Total: 97, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

StephaneB: Could it be that Lightroom is intended to evolve more towards the mass public and Bridge becoming a more full-featured DAM for advanced users?

Not even close. As a user of two different DAMs, (Open Text and Extensis Portfolio), there's no DAM feature to Bridge. It's a browser of files. It does not act as a database in any sense of the term.

But that is its strength. I work in an environment, where the one-man-show nature of Lightroom is worse than useless. Why work around that "feature" when you can have all the benefits of Adobe Camera RAW without all the bells and whistles that get in the way of collaborative work?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2016 at 17:33 UTC
In reply to:

inorogNL: why would anyone use bridge over acdsee (on pc)?

Because it's integrated into other Adobe products. I've tried to like ACDSEE and just can't. I've been using Bridge (and Adobe actually integrated one of my ideas into Bridge when I was a beta tester years ago). I'm not happy with CC, but this is the only tool that I can use for what I do.

One thing Adobe does better than anyone else is support for Applescript. Even better than Apple in some of their applications. On the PC? I suspect other than Applescript it's nearly identical. I just never wanted to deal with the issues PCs present to photo/graphics folks like me.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 10, 2016 at 17:28 UTC
On article Design, looks and desire: Olympus does it again (396 comments in total)
In reply to:

Banhmi: 10 years from now this whole 'retro' camera fad will be long gone and we will look back at DPR articles like this one, waxing poetically about silver knobs, and think reviewers must have had some similar bits logged in their prefrontal cortex.

DSLRs are dead once the last few advantage are accommodated. Five years ago I would have never believed it. As for chrome costing more than black? That's a fact of life. Some materials cost more to produce in the form you want. You expect Fuji (or anyone else - even Leica charged more for chrome, and even more for Safari Green!) to be a charity or non-profit? Please. Use a modicum of logic.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2016 at 14:49 UTC
On article Design, looks and desire: Olympus does it again (396 comments in total)
In reply to:

Giacomo Sardi: another "small sensor-object of desire" camera........ dear Olympus listen to me: is a very, very ,very nice piece of metal, but the advantages of big sensors against m4/3 are obvious... this body (and my pocket) , for that price needs a bigger sensor...

All sensor, and non sense.

Bigger sensor, bigger camera, bigger lenses, bigger bag, more weight, more money.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2016 at 14:45 UTC
On article Design, looks and desire: Olympus does it again (396 comments in total)

The O product is an abomination in my estimation. Design with no sense. Just to be different.

This camera is so compelling, I'm getting one for those times when it's not raining and I want to go even lighter. This and a few Panasonic/Leica lenses are going to be my always with me outfit.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2016 at 14:42 UTC as 19th comment
On article Corbis Images content to be distributed by Getty (29 comments in total)
In reply to:

MyReality: Wow! Look at all the whining and crying happen in these posts. Where are the violins?
Photographers have to be invited to join Getty. Getty does not force anyone to sign a contract. Their contract is available to read online.
They are like any large company that wants to consolidate. They are not breaking any laws.
If you don't like their contract, don't sign. I have heard these kinds of comments before on this forum. Does anyone here believe in free will?
If you don't like the amount of your commission, sell thru a different outlet
Have a nice day?.

The problem with your tone deaf libertarian rant is that there is no competition now. Getty is it. All the rest are minor agencies that in no way can possibly compete with Getty. It was bad enough that Corbis and Getty had been buying up any viable competition for years.

As a photo editor whose $100,000 budget for licensing photos this year, I'm worried now that it won't be enough. Getty can now say, "Who you gonna go to?"

iStockphoto? Right. That amateur hour agency isn't going to cut the mustard. And it's owned by Getty! Superstock? Same photos essentially. Dreamstime? Even worse. The quality photos are all now behind the paywall at Getty.

Take your libertarian ideology and buy something with it. Unfortunately, it's not worth the hot air that rendered it in the first place.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2016 at 16:39 UTC
On article Corbis Images content to be distributed by Getty (29 comments in total)

Well, there go prices with that loss of competition.

Not to mention the ownership of Ansel Adams' archive is now in China. I knew selling out to Corbis was a bad idea. I ranted about this on Compuserve and Corbis promised they would treat that archive with respect. So much for the legacy of one of America's greatest photographers.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2016 at 16:32 UTC as 3rd comment

Back on my must-buy list. Along with Olympus' 300 f/4 (if the price is right).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 5, 2016 at 21:34 UTC as 24th comment

The still equivalent of 8K video.

Who's got the storage space to justify this?

Oh, I know. People who can afford a $50,000 camera and "normal" lens.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 4, 2016 at 15:44 UTC as 38th comment | 3 replies
On article Canon 35mm F1.4L II: a photojournalist's perspective (86 comments in total)

I remember my conversation with Chuck Westfall in 1985 when I told him Canon needed a 35mm 1.4. He said the brass said that lens was only interesting to photojournalists (implying not enough of a market to justify the development of such a lens). That's cool. I understand. But don't forget, photojournalists tend to influence other photographers. And sure enough, Canon did come out with this lens. And it's been a great success. (See how many 35mm 1.4s Leica has done over the years? There's a reason.)

I"m so happy this lens survived the budget cuts. My order will go in on Feb. 2nd.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 7, 2015 at 23:03 UTC as 15th comment
On article Canon EF 35mm F1.4L II USM real-world sample gallery (128 comments in total)

Just saw next year's budget. I'm scheduled to buy it in February! Yes!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 24, 2015 at 21:20 UTC as 39th comment
In reply to:

happypoppeye: There is very little benefit shooting in RAW these days and its easier for a company to handle jpegs. Plus, jpegs are almost just as editable.

Maybe you can't get better photos out of RAW. A class or two can fix that. Try photography as a living and you'd see things differently. I've literally been around the world multiple times shooting photos. When you go to exotic places and shoot in situations you can never repeat, you do not want to make a mistake that can't be fixed. If you can't do a better job than the algorithms built into the image processor in your camera, you shouldn't be paid to shoot. (And I don't mean just you.)

Try shooting available light 12 levels down in the oldest emerald mine in the world near Muzo, Colombia. JPEG will not cut it.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2015 at 16:39 UTC
In reply to:

instamatic: You really don't need RAW most of the time - if speed of delivery is important - like stated here. Proper photography discipline and understanding of lighting will produce excellent JPGs out of camera probably like 95% of the time.

What struck me here, is that the size needs to be limited at 3500 px longest edge, which is about 8 megapixels. This goes contrary to some of the stuff one could read in the past, which stated, that stuff under 11 megapixels is not accepted, etc., etc. But then that probably applied to stock images.

All-in-all I think it's a wise decision, and allows the use of a smartphone alone to download and transfer images to the news agency.

Tell that to the guy whose once in a lifetime million dollar photo was compromised be being in that 5 percent.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2015 at 16:33 UTC
In reply to:

migus: This may be about content, trackable edits, archival mgnt. and practical speed (of 'processes').

However unpopular Reuters' decision might be, it's IMHO positive. Because we got lazy:

1) Some camera makers don't feel any real pressure to improve their image processors and OOC JPG, when their most discerning users couldn't care less (since they're hooked on a RAW/LR workflow anyway). And the consumer segment can't tell the difference between great and mediocre OOC JPGs, given their cheaper screens and other practical factors.

2) We as RAW shooters got lazy as well, knowing well that today's sensors DR and noise characteristics + post-tools can fix nearly any exposure time issues. Those 13-14 steps of DR + the LR magic can literally salvage most botched shots and still produce spectacular results.

Perhaps Reuters wants less 'magic' and 'spectacular' RAW results, in favor of a simpler to produce, store and audit JPG (with much less tolerance for error at shoot time)?

It better not look like the original RAW file. That would be gross incompetence. Cameras apply some serious processing to the RAW data to generate jpegs that look acceptable.

As and editor (who still shoots), I would never shoot jpeg-only. I never do in-camera jpegs. They have clipped highlights and allow for inadequate corrections of difficult subjects that can't be undone in post. Why hobble yourself out of the gate? Competent photographers I know shoot RAW. Because it's more flexible, archival, and technically superior.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2015 at 16:31 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: Since they clearly limit adjusting the overall look of a scene to the minimum, they must be somewhat concerned about preserving the integrity of the "look" of the original scene.

However this goes against the long tradition of photojournalism where photographers exaggerated and emphasized a mood by removing all of the colors from a scene using various techniques with filters, dodging and burning, etc. This is to the point of abstraction in many cases. E.g. would Lange's photo of the migrant mother with kids and others from the dust bowl have the same drama and feeling of sadness in color?

So is Black and White photography also prohibited?

I worked for newspapers in the 80s that used black and white on all but section fronts. Such abstraction is not an issue. Does the photo reflect the reality of the scene?

Dorthea Lange worked in an era before photojournalism standards had evolved. I despised the "hand of God" technique many used, into the 1990s! (Burning excessive darkness into corners, now known as vignetting by holding one's hand in the center of the light path of the enlarger.) Photoshop now can reverse the natural vignetting from lenses. How things change!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2015 at 16:22 UTC
In reply to:

Rick Knepper: As a consumer of news and news photography/video, I welcome any change that will help maintain the integrity of the facts and truth. As an experienced photographer, I'm scratching my head as to how this policy will facilitate this goal over any other method.

As a long time self employed person, I understand the need to get the product to customer quickly although I do not understand how this will help. There must be much about Reuters' workflow that has gone unsaid in the article.

I knew the guy who wrote the rules. Cliff Edom, who started the first photojournalism program in the world at the University of Missouri. His mantra was "show truth with a camera." He knew the limitations of that phrase. But it makes the point. It's not the tools that make your honest or not. A point Reuters seems to miss. Not to mention many here. It's how you do your job. And it's hiring people you trust.

Ironic Reuters can be sticklers on their photos (It's a very good thing!). But not so strict on the content of so many of their stories.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2015 at 16:13 UTC
In reply to:

madeinlisboa: Time to separate good photographers from Photoshopers...

Time to set aside the competent ones who use the right tools, and the tools who couldn't use Photoshop correctly, and rely on camera algorithms to make acceptable images. Ha!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2015 at 16:04 UTC
In reply to:

Ross Murphy: Editing RAW is no different than editing film in the dark room, if your not shooting RAW your throwing away the equivalent of the negative. Reuters will change their mind on this one eventually.

If there is a need for speed the photographer will shoot RAW+JPG and send the JPG, no need for speed then they should be able to process the RAW. Each camera type processes RAW based on the manufacturers specs, not Reuters specs, how will that be consistent?

Yes, but as a photo editor who sometimes licenses photos from Reuters, I want the best possible quality. So they should say shoot RAW + JPEG, and if we need something special, we'll call you for a better quality image as needed. Computers make such processes a no-brainier if you know what you are doing.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2015 at 16:03 UTC
In reply to:

chj: Translation: checking these raw files is just taking too much damn time and money, let's just use the honor system.


RAW files have the same kind of metadata. They can be reset to being fresh out of the camera. And, Reuters allows adjustments. And Photoshop can be set to embed info about every single edit made to the file in metadata.

If someone is going to edit EXIF metadata, there's nothing the editor can do about it. Hiring professional photojournalists has to be one of the easiest things these days. There are so many of them unemployed. The editors would do better to warn photographers that cheating will be dealt with swiftly and they will be blackballed at all agencies if caught.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2015 at 15:49 UTC
In reply to:

DesmondD: People taking photos for a living should be able to get their settings close enough for decent jpegs anyway. Too many people [not all who shoot RAW but still many] use RAW as a crutch for bad technique.
It has its benefits but if your settings are so bad you can't salvage a jpeg for a newspaper then you're in the wrong job.

The problem with your argument is that a photojournalist doesn't have the luxury many times to wait for the right light and can be dealing with quite a chaotic environment. I've been a photojournalist for 30 years. There are plenty of times my photos required lots of adjustments to make them appear in the photos as the scenes appeared to one's eye. The question is whether the photo reflects reality - with due consideration to how photography is an abstraction from the scene to begin with. The camera never lies. It shows what you point it at. The problem is photographers sometimes do lie.

Reuters is making a dumb, but typically naive policy here. Some bozo who thinks he/she knows better than photographers. It's like the IT department blocking Dropbox, which has 256 bit AES encryption, while allowing unfettered access to any foreign language website because their systems only block bad English websites. It does no good, any only hinders the competent people in doing their jobs.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 21, 2015 at 15:45 UTC
Total: 97, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »