fmian

fmian

Lives in Australia Sydney, Australia
Works as a Photographer/Re-toucher/Consultant
Has a website at www.primephotography.com.au
Joined on Mar 28, 2010
About me:

If you're reading this it's probably because I wrote something that confounded or intrigued you. You should know that much of what I say is uncomfortable truth laced with straight faced sarcasm. Don't take it to heart. If it helps you may think of me as just some guy on the internet.

Comments

Total: 628, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On article Ricoh teases spring 2016 full-frame Pentax DSLR debut (528 comments in total)

'The first news of a full-frame K-mount camera came in February of this year,'
Correction:
'The first news of a full-frame K-mount camera came in 2001'

Direct link | Posted on Sep 18, 2015 at 21:52 UTC as 121st comment
In reply to:

ProfessorLarry: As a professional, I am concerned not just with the time it takes to switch lenses, but with the consequences. Every time you switch lenses in the field, you inevitable add dust to the sensor and to rear elements of lenses; it's a fact of life. If I can go through a day of shooting (as I did recently at the Writers' Police Academy at Fox River Technical College ) without having to change lenses , that's huge. The Tamron is a perfect choice for these situations.

--Larry Constantine (pen name, Lior Samson)

Sounds like an ultrazoom compact would be better suited..

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2015 at 23:21 UTC
In reply to:

ProfessorLarry: As a professional, I am concerned not just with the time it takes to switch lenses, but with the consequences. Every time you switch lenses in the field, you inevitable add dust to the sensor and to rear elements of lenses; it's a fact of life. If I can go through a day of shooting (as I did recently at the Writers' Police Academy at Fox River Technical College ) without having to change lenses , that's huge. The Tamron is a perfect choice for these situations.

--Larry Constantine (pen name, Lior Samson)

Wouldn't a professional usually carry multiple cameras?
One with a wide-short tele lens, another with a longer lens?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 17, 2015 at 03:20 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: Credits to 'Digital' Camera watch on an 'analog' camera news piece shared by 'Digital' Photography Review...

I'm hoping we'll start seeing reviews on different emulsions, manual cameras and alternative processes soon...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2015 at 06:50 UTC

Credits to 'Digital' Camera watch on an 'analog' camera news piece shared by 'Digital' Photography Review...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2015 at 06:29 UTC as 13th comment | 5 replies

Yeah but is is mirrorless or SLR?
And most importantly, what's the DR?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2015 at 23:03 UTC as 163rd comment
On article Kodak PixPro SP360-4K 360-degree camera unveiled (74 comments in total)
In reply to:

otto k: That's some pretty creative use of 4k term, not that I blame them, it has around the same number of pixels, it just feels weird to call something 4k that's shorter than 3k on either side...

Just like how most digital medium format sensors aren't aren't the same size as a 645 frame.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2015 at 00:04 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Anytime we showcase our work, it's open for critique, and we may even put our photography reputation on the line.
That's a fair game.

The problem is that after reading ALL the comments so far, there was not one single critique. I mean true technical critique, as taught at universities by the photo/art colleges.
I bet not many know what a "critique" is in the art of photography.
Plenty of blind and foolish criticism, though.

Before making a fool of yourself, go back to image #1 and read the 4 short paragraphs below it so you can at least imagine the success of this photographer.

As the good old saying goes: "If ya can't run with the big dogs, stay on your porch!!!".

Now my turn to complain: David .... next time include a few swimsuit images, will you? :-)

'The problem is that after reading ALL the comments so far, there was not one single critique. I mean true technical critique, as taught at universities by the photo/art colleges.
I bet not many know what a "critique" is in the art of photography.'

That's because the photos are technically competent. Most people are saying the images lack soul and unique vision. They are cookie cutter commercial images. Nothing wrong with that if you're a commercial photographer. Give the client what they want and make your work blend in with the crowd.
The next step is to make your work stand out from everyone elses. For people to look at it and say 'wow... you don't see that often...' and do that enough times within a niche so people know it's your photo just by the style and theme, as opposed to checking the copyright/watermark/exif.

'Plenty of blind and foolish criticism, though.'

It seems you don't understand that what makes an image good isn't just in the technicalities.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 8, 2015 at 01:12 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Caesar,
Compliments aside, which you obviously don't need them, I have a question that I hope you'll find the time to answer it:

Image # 10: I see the wonderful lighting all over except the left side of the bracelet, which is covered by a strip of shadow (and the shadow extends to the model's arm).

The shadow clearly obscures the detail in that portion of the bracelet.

Was this shadow intentional (or simply overlooked), and, if intentional, why?

Best wishes for more success, and thanks for sharing your experience.

He's put rim lighting on the shoulder and arm to separate it from the background and give it tone + volume. It's a nice little touch to stop the subject from looking flat.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 8, 2015 at 01:00 UTC
In reply to:

ZJ24: Very interesting, thanks for featuring this photographer. I wonder how many of those who have written disparaging comments below have

- sold a photo
- been paid for their work

Or perhaps I'm mistaken and you're all shooting for Sony, Pioneer and Disney right now ...

ZJ24: I've never sold a meal but I can, without a doubt, cook better food than fast food places. Does the fact that McDonalds sells to millions of people make the quality of my cooking irrelevant?
Hell... even if I couldn't cook, I would just need a pallet to say that most fast food doesn't taste good.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 7, 2015 at 03:28 UTC

Would look better if they were shot on film.
Otherwise, it's competent work but I don't see any sort of trademark/signature look. I guess that's commercial photography though.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 7, 2015 at 00:09 UTC as 21st comment
In reply to:

fmian: Have they made the resolution 1080 yet as well?

And about a year behind updating my apps. Lol.
Thanks for the link :)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 03:15 UTC

[troll mode]
Sure, but what's the dynamic range?
[/troll mode]

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 23:22 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply

Have they made the resolution 1080 yet as well?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2015 at 23:05 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies

What if I have an object that is made up of multiple colours and I just want a reading from a part of it?
Hardware/Paint stores have had handheld scanners for ages that can do that.
Also, can it give me the colour reading from a light source?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2015 at 23:05 UTC as 11th comment
On article Readers' Showcase: Zhi Yuen Yap (60 comments in total)

Some majestic images here. Well done!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 23, 2015 at 23:13 UTC as 19th comment
In reply to:

fmian: Manual focus in the right hands with the right viewfinder is still quicker.
That's where it's at.

@ttran88
'Anyway How would you know you got focus if it's on film and you can only see the results days later?'
Practice + intuition. Learning from mistakes.
Having a mostly mechanical camera also helps. Less electronic processing and delays and huge bright viewfinders designed for manual focus with distance scales on the lens, so you can feel, hear and see when the image was taken, rather than look at it all after taking it.
Have to adopt a different mindset.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2015 at 02:42 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: Manual focus in the right hands with the right viewfinder is still quicker.
That's where it's at.

It's a humans vs machines debate.
One day we will also let our cameras figure out the lighting and composition and also let it instruct the model, so you won't have to worry about that stuff either.
It might sound like an outrageous idea, but so was autofocus 30 years ago. So was smile/face detection 10 years ago etc etc.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2015 at 02:12 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: Manual focus in the right hands with the right viewfinder is still quicker.
That's where it's at.

Rishi, in the right hands and with the right eye, yes.
Once you stop thinking that technology will do everything for you, you begin to realise that practical methods work as well.
ie. Focus pullers in the cinema industry can do it. Consider that many of them don't even look through the lens/camera.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2015 at 01:27 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: Manual focus in the right hands with the right viewfinder is still quicker.
That's where it's at.

OM10 is full frame 135 format.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2015 at 01:22 UTC
Total: 628, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »