1972 snr

1972 snr

Works as a Electrician
Joined on Aug 29, 2011

Comments

Total: 12, showing: 1 – 12
On Canon EOS-1D X overview article (364 comments in total)

I think they are hiding something, that this is the best D=@^#& camera in 35mm format on the #^@ market, lol.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2013 at 21:28 UTC as 31st comment
On Photoshop CS6 Beta: New Features for Photographers article (176 comments in total)

I feel messed over. I wish these folks give the market a shot at learning what is out there now. These school won't be able to manage with the upkeep of charge so fast.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 26, 2012 at 13:00 UTC as 25th comment
On King Alfred's recipe in the Cooking gone bad...kitchen disasters challenge (2 comments in total)

I would of use a micro lens on this one.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 24, 2012 at 12:55 UTC as 1st comment
On ISO 6400_nf-off photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (11 comments in total)

yeah, i think so too.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 9, 2012 at 20:09 UTC as 5th comment
On Canon EOS 5D Mark III preview (923 comments in total)
In reply to:

Frederik Paul: All in all, IMO, quite a disappointment. It's neither fish nor fowl if you ask me. Neither a bigger 7D (lacking flash, 8fps) nor a high res portrait SLR. And why Canon went for 22MP while the 1DX has 18MP no one knows; Canon could have made 18MP for all, incl. APS-C and give the 5D 36MP in a high MP variant to match the D800, so this would have been the split often rumored before.
It's surely a good camera, but nothing really special, just a evolution based on most current Canon technology.
And the Canon pricing seems to continue to be excessive; if you think of the 2.8/24mm costing approx. 60% of the 1.4 L version, wow! The old one costs 200€, now the new version is min. 700€. Where is this leading to?

I agree, canon has done very little to wow us for our bucks.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2012 at 11:16 UTC
On Nikon D4 overview article (860 comments in total)
In reply to:

photophill: If have a question I have been wondering about for a while?
I have a D7000 DX body. And the D4 FX body has practically the same specs in regards to sensor resolution and sensor megapixel size. Yet the D4 has a larger sensor that leaves me with the question, "What is the real advantage with the larger sensor size?" For me a larger and heavier body and compatible lenses is no real advantage. Regards PhotoPhill

p.s x15. I couldn't agree with you more! ;-)

In addition, all digital photography should know and understand that sensor size does matter. The larger the sensor, the more light that is able to hit the sensor, thus ending with a better quality image in most cases. This is why compact camera systems will never match the quality of a DSLR, and to take it a step further try a medium format system and your mind will be blown.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2012 at 05:38 UTC
In reply to:

1972 snr: I don't like the cover, because it pushes a lifestyle of people that is too subjective, gay. If it walks like a duck, then it's a duck. This is a forum, that's my comment about the way the book is being advertised. What about the photography, where are the shooters or this is what we have come to now, fashion what-to-be photographer who want to push their lifestyle on the art.

I don't like how the gay community are so darn pushy with people. If they can have a voice, so can I. I am a nice looking man, be while in art school, most gay photographers always have to go out the way to push their gayness as a reason for anything. I'm sick of it. If you can understand my point, if you don't oh well.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2011 at 13:40 UTC

I don't like the cover, because it pushes a lifestyle of people that is too subjective, gay. If it walks like a duck, then it's a duck. This is a forum, that's my comment about the way the book is being advertised. What about the photography, where are the shooters or this is what we have come to now, fashion what-to-be photographer who want to push their lifestyle on the art.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 23, 2011 at 11:43 UTC as 6th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Mssimo: Whoever wrote this "article/review" has no forums post, no gallery images, no comments, nothing on this site. Basically a ad agencies/promoter for the publisher.

Dpreview staff, you will never win the hearts of one-way thinkers. One-way thinkers, open up your minds and see what is being said first, it's not about you its about the art of photography as a whole. No more blood on what is art and photography, please. It's been this way since 1827, the first known photograph.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 23, 2011 at 11:36 UTC
On Article: Editorial Lighting - The Minimalist Way article (16 comments in total)

I have a editorial shoot that I will post up later for you and this bunch.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2011 at 00:05 UTC as 9th comment
On Article: Editorial Lighting - The Minimalist Way article (16 comments in total)

I think you done a good job with the use of light. One key thing to remember, keep a sharp focus on the eyes(both eyes) when you are doing photography this close on your subject. (fashion or not, nice work) Art Institute drop out, which is starting his own business rental medium format and full-frame gear. Coming soon.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 11, 2011 at 00:02 UTC as 10th comment
On Book review: 500 Poses for Photographing Women article (43 comments in total)
In reply to:

SamChua: I have the book. It is awful! It should be entitled "pictures to avoid because they've been done a zillion times already."

But that may be true for you, but the world still haven't made its trip back to regular folks, lol.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2011 at 21:35 UTC
Total: 12, showing: 1 – 12