jeans

jeans

Lives in Israel Israel
Works as a Computers
Has a website at http://www.photoprospect.com
Joined on Sep 5, 2004
About me:

Nikon D700
Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 AF-S VR
Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VRII
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-S
Nikon SB800
Gitzo 3530S + Markins M20 + RRS clamp + RRS L-plate

Comments

Total: 15, showing: 1 – 15
In reply to:

raducdz: I read the comments around here and realize more and more that there aren't many artists around,but too many "photographers",and many of them rather ignorant with no aesthetic sense.I see Andreas Gursky's image is making some noise...can't imagine why.I finished an art college and majored in art photography,and he was given to us as example of a great artist with an original great style and technique I have to say Gursky's image is impecable. Supeb geometry, superb minimalistic scene, and probably a huge and superb print! I think people call it boring because there's no kitschy bird flying, dog running or kid playing, or something you "great photographers in your spare time" like to see. Every image speaks to a person, and while some of your images only speak to you, their images speak to people who are willing to pay huge amounts of money for them.They ARE better than us,that is why they do better than us in photography.What we can do,is analyze,learn and respect.

I'm sorry?
Allow me to disagree with the stated opinion. Since when 'better' translates into 'commands higher price'? I do respect the guy - I'm sure he's a great businessman and a pro in marketing, but calling this a great photograph? Blah... no, let me rephrase - it's pace is in a trash bin as far as art goes. And don't trust your professors - they will brainwash you into thinking this is art... oh, I'm sorry, I'm afraid they already did ;-)

Analyze, learn, and respect?
Analyze - sure!
Learn - absolutely! Go learn the marketing side. As far as photography/art goes - god forbid, go make your own art.
Respect - of course! You can't argue with success. Just realize it's not the pure art that gets you these amounts of money.

By the way - if art makes you experience some emotion, then Gursky's image IS art. It's just the kind of emotion I personally don't want to experience.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2013 at 20:36 UTC
In reply to:

toomanycanons: OK, I checked out his pics. OK snapshots with the equivalent of a decent point and shoot. Made possible only because his employer told him "we're going to experiment here. Use your iPhone and let's see what happens", not "and make sure you get the shot". Great work if you can get it.

Guess how many photographers used their best equipment, got superior images and no one ever hears about them? Sometimes PR is as important as the actual results - if not more so. Both the agency and the photographer got mentioned a lot, so their goal was achieved. Being better known means more future jobs / higher price taken for the same assignments. In the business sense - a job well done! As far as photography goes - meeeh...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2012 at 07:44 UTC
On Photoshop CS6 Beta: New Features for Photographers article (176 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kampbyll Photography: PS is ok , but my view point is very simple , PS to me is an excuse not to buy better equipment , i personally would rather have the best equipment than there is no need to waste my time in PS , i have no need to go to Photo Shop , my pictures look great like they are , and those who waste time there should just upgrade there camera , better yet take better pictures!

No lens is perfect and no sensor can capture the scene as *you* see it, thus...

There are also so-called purists that reject the use of software for the sake of authenticity - this is a topic worthy of another discussion and IMO this approach is too simplistic as these "purists" don't realize what's going on onside the camera anyway. If you're one of them, this discussion is pointless as this is similar to religion.

If you're not one of thew "purists", I hope you do some local image adjustments. Of course, there's other software besides PS - but none of it combines the power, convenience and output quality of PS.

If you don't use *any* image editing software and not one of the "purists", then you're missing about half the image creation possibilities. As simple as that.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 14, 2012 at 10:07 UTC
On Canon EOS 5D Mark III preview (923 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tape5: Canon's act reminds me of a joke.
A boxer inside a ring suddenly starts yelling at his opponent '' stop!, right now!, stop it!, I have to ask you something.'' His opponent stops '' what? what is it?'' he asks. '' why are you trying to hurt me?'' says the guy.
'' Why go higher with megapixels I ask you?'', Canon says. They must be thinking ''We got lucky with all this high ISO and Video craze.''
Canon have hit a technological wall. They would have loved to pull a 36.5 one on Nikon. They just cannot right now. It is sad because I heard many of their top guys saying ''40 mp? no problems at Canon.'' I knew that was a bad sign. And Ah..Canon, thanks for worrying about my processing times and storage with larger files that Nikon delivers. I just bought myself another six terabytes with one tenth the cost of your camera.

I'm a Nikon guy, but what about the 7D pixel density in a FF sensor? Canon IS capable of producing high MP sensor - they just decided not to.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2012 at 11:57 UTC
On Canon EOS 5D Mark III preview (923 comments in total)
In reply to:

Henry M. Hertz: i can´t hear the "too expensiv" crap anymore.
when your are too poor to afford it don´t blame canon.

it´s supposed to be 500$ more then the D800.... but the 5D MK3 is the better camera.... so big deal!!

and 500 dollar.... that is nothing compared to what i pay for gear in a year.
i will use this camera for 3 years.. so it makes a difference of 166$ a year.

I don't think anyone willing to pay $3K won't be able to afford $3.5K - the problem is with perceived value. If you feel that 5D mkIII is a better camera than D800 - the price feels right. If you don't feel that way or even deem it an inferior camera, this $500 may feel like a rip-off.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2012 at 11:36 UTC
On Canon EOS 5D Mark III preview (923 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProPixels: I'm profoundly unimpressed by this camera. I switched to Canon from Nikon when the 5D Mark II came out. Canon had been ahead of Nikon on resolution and value for a while. But now it seems that Nikon is out in front again. I want 36MP! I want to be able to crop an image square and still have a respectable size; or crop to a distant flying bald eagle and still get a usable image. This is basically the same camera I purchased a few years ago. What the hell is Canon thinking? Sad.

Just don't jump the brand again - what you describe happens all the time. About a year and a half ago I was in the same situation as you wanting as many megapixels as possible for landscapes. Upgrading from Nikon D200 (cropped) allowed me to jump ships to Canon as I had to replace all of my lenses as even the 70-200 VR I didn't cut it. I waited for over 6 months for Nikon to release a D700x/D800, but it never came. Still went with D700 despite its lower pixel count due to it having proper bracketing and other considerations, like keeping the flashes and remotes. Now there's D800, but I'm quite happy with what I have. Just stay with the brand you're more familiar with - your wish will be granted, probably in a couple of years - and your images will be better as you don't miss shots due to unfamiliar camera system...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2012 at 11:21 UTC
On Canon EOS 5D Mark III preview (923 comments in total)
In reply to:

frankenshots: What would be your best guess on the meaning of "improved" weather sealing? This is one of the drawbacks of the 5DII for landscape photography (which is my primary interest). I worry that "improved" means "not really weather-sealed". Which makes the camera, as great as it sounds, too expensive to take out in dicey weather for someone on my budget.

Consider one of rain jackets - there are plenty of those. Even with Nikon D700 I felt so much more secure using one. My main problem with landscape photography in the rain is getting rain drops on your lens' front element/filter, which simply ruins your shot :-(

Direct link | Posted on Mar 3, 2012 at 11:12 UTC
In reply to:

Mandeno Moments: It's good that Nokia is thinking outside the box and the sensor size is stunning, but what about the dynamic range of a 1.4 micron pixel? If they kept the sensor size and put 10 megapixels on it the pixel size would be ~5.6 microns, which is the same size as those found in the Nikon D300s and Fuji X100. This would give a much greater dynamic range, albeit the price would be the loss of the digital zoom. Digital zoom with noise is little gain for me.

I speak as a photographer. Happy-snappers will probably love Nokia's approach if it's simple to operate.

The Nokia post shows a bare lens, and all the technology in the world is useless if the lens is covered in fingerprints and scratches. If I'm buying a high end photography-focused phone I want a sliding lens cover, with the option of cover-opening switching the phone to camera mode.

I believe we forget about signal/noise ratio that gets worse with smaller pixels. Also, modern phones are probably to weak to process the images in 12-24bit.

BTW, I'm not trying to diminish the achievement - I'm duly impressed with the sample images!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 28, 2012 at 00:25 UTC
In reply to:

M1963: The madness has gone too far. Phones are for phoning (and texting, OK), cameras are for photographing. The sample image on flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/nokiaofficial/6788333052/sizes/o/in/photostream/) is appalling: it's unsharp and noisy. I don't even care if it's far better than any other cell phone at shooting. It's a bad image, that's all there is to it. If you want to make photos, buy a camera, not a phone.
And no, I'm not 108 years old...

Vlad, you're a good photographer and can use the phone's capabilities and PP to the fullest. But... wouldn't the same images made with a proper camera look and - especially - print way better?

I'm sure you realize that the phones
- provide significantly inferior image quality
- only work acceptably in good light
- have awful dynamic range
- allow you almost no control over DOF
- can't be tripod mounted (unless you invent some weird contraption)
- are inconvenient to shoot with
- don't take filters (unless you hand-hold them)
- are unresponsive
- don't let you use high ISO without huge penalty etc.

BTW, I don't underestimate the phones as my most successful image was made with a small-sensor camera. It was a while ago and modern phones may provide comparable IQ, though not comparable optics.

UPDATE: Despite what I just wrote, this new camera's samples look extremely promising

Regards,
Jean

Direct link | Posted on Feb 28, 2012 at 00:03 UTC
On First Impressions: Using the Nikon V1 article (131 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ponxo: Nikon must put this sensor and features in a P7100 body, call it P8000 And have an awesome compact camera. They will do it in 3 year, when they finish milking this cameras. Hope isn't late.

That's what Canon G1X is :-)

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 21:55 UTC
On Preview:canong1x (1044 comments in total)
In reply to:

Deleted1929: So a large sensor, but not significantly larger than an m43 system.

Body and lens about the same size ( perhaps a little larger ) than an m43 compact.

And no way to add a fast prime.
And no provision for an EVF ( it seems ).

Why does anyone want this instead of an m43 system or an NEX ?

...continued from the previous post...

You may also suggest getting a body with a prime pancake lens - but I like to have some zooming option even if it's a puny 2x as in my 16-35mm.

A bit about myself as an example profile of who might like this camera:
I mainly shoot landscapes (95% from a tripod), which means:
- Lens speed isn't overly important to me
- My main focus is IQ - contrast, dynamic range, color, sharpness (this camera may very well be the thing that marks these checkboxes - remains to be seen).

Downsides are:
- Off-center tripod socket (bad for panos)
- Apparent lack of convenient way to mount a polarizer
- A bit wider lens would've been great (I'd love 16-60 equivalent)
Naturally, you have to accept some compromises in order to get small body/big sensor/nice zoom combination. If I'm going to need interchangeable lenses, I may as well bring the big guns.

Regards,
Jean

Posted on Jan 10, 2012 at 23:22 UTC
On Preview:canong1x (1044 comments in total)
In reply to:

Deleted1929: So a large sensor, but not significantly larger than an m43 system.

Body and lens about the same size ( perhaps a little larger ) than an m43 compact.

And no way to add a fast prime.
And no provision for an EVF ( it seems ).

Why does anyone want this instead of an m43 system or an NEX ?

<QUOTE>Why does anyone want this instead of an m43 system or an NEX ?</QUOTE>

You have one example right here:
m4/3 and NEX cameras are great, but I already have a bag full of high-end FF gear and don't want to invest in another system as it's just too expensive. It's of like having two cars for yourself - a roadster and a 4x4 - while fun, it can be quite expensive.

You may say, just get a body with a kit lens - but this lens has higher potential than your average kit lens for my purpose (we'll know soon enough whether this assumption is true) and is probably a bit smaller than anything decent.

...to be continued...

Posted on Jan 10, 2012 at 23:22 UTC
On Preview:canong1x (1044 comments in total)
In reply to:

Big Willy: It never ceases to amaze me how so many people can give a negative opinion on something that they have yet to put their hands on......regardless of which manufacturer or model of camera it is. Perhaps one day the ultimate camera will be manufactured for you that will have absolutely everything in/on it to satisfy.....without the need for any type of upgrade and/or replacement.....then maybe we'll see less bitchin' and such..... maybe.

No camera is perfect, so the complaints will never stop :-)
On one hand, I like what I see in the spec enough that - if the IQ is good enough - G1X may become a great addition to my D700. On the other hand, some models make me go "Huh? Are you serious?" - for example, Sigma SD1 with its cropped sensor and totally weird price...

Jean

Posted on Jan 10, 2012 at 22:22 UTC
On Preview:canong1x (1044 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheEyeOfTheOracle: This camera has a lot of good features. However, six months from now the first thing that people will mention about this camera is that it has a MANUAL, POP-UP FLASH. To put a manual, pop-up flash on a camera that purports to not only be a Pro-Am camera, but to redefine the category is beyond an oversight -- it is a monumental miscalculation for which someone at Canon should be fired.

The pop-up flash is intended to put the light source as far from the lens as possible in order to give some depth to the image and reduce red-eye effect. Built-in flashes will never be far enough anyway, but the pop-up ones are a tiny bit better than the built-in ones. As it's an enthusiasts' camera the decision to use a pop-up flash is totally logical.

Just my $0.02

Jean

Posted on Jan 10, 2012 at 22:14 UTC
In reply to:

HiRez: HDR brings everything towards a flat grey mess. Pictures need definition and HDR tends to remove it. Yes, you can see more detail in the shadow and/or highlight areas, but it just never looks natural, no matter how good the software or how skilled the artist/photographer.

Sorry, but I still prefer a more natural looking picture with some clipped highlights or shadows.

I strongly disagree.
HDR is a two-step process - first, you get all the data in a single file that holds more data tan can be displayed anywhere, be it display or paper. If you would compress the dynamic range linearly, you would get a really flat-looking image with most of the details, but totally without punch. This first step is mostly automatic. The second step is to map tonal values so that your image looks natural and has local contrast. This is the step where lots of images get ruined. Just as when cooking a meal, you can't leave it totally uncooked or overcooked - both results would be bad. The uncooked one is just flat-looking image (bland taste). The overcooked result can have some burnt parts and the food would be too hard to eat and not even look tasty - it means "grunge" look in HDR - too much local contrast and very unnatural looking results. HDR done right though - cooked just right and with some added spice - can look amazing!

Regards,
Jean

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2011 at 10:56 UTC
Total: 15, showing: 1 – 15