Wye Photography

Wye Photography

Lives in United Kingdom Chepstow, United Kingdom
Works as a Photographer Designer
Has a website at www.wyephotography.com
Joined on Feb 16, 2009

Comments

Total: 417, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

groucher: All this floccinaucinihilipilification. I consider that you oiks are just plain jealous. My friend Rupert has one of these and I have a Brikk Df. They are absolutely spiffing and take lovely jps (whatever they are). Much better than your average camera and they go with our iphone 6 thingies.

I say groucher old bean. This Gentleman uses the Leica camera. Actually a 1958 Leica M2 with a 5cm 2.8 Elmar. Top hole what!

Such a shame the chaps down at Hasselblad couldn't put on a good show and actually pull it orf.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 17:02 UTC
On Portrait Salon 'rejects' exhibition opens in London article (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

PPierre: I think the 7th one is amazingly well thought: good atmosphere, good story, and a topic we never talk about/feel ashamed to talk about though it exists and is quite common. I like this kind of photos !

and there's me thinking picture seven is an old bloke and an old bird looking out of the window commenting on the weather before they get into bed with a hot chocolate to aid a good night's sleep.

I am obviously reading the wrong thing into it unless you lot are complete pervs.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 6, 2014 at 13:05 UTC
On First Hasselblad in space goes to auction next month article (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

papa natas: A camera that NEVER went to the moon as well as the crew.

Hey Photoman.

I SHOT JFK.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 31, 2014 at 19:09 UTC
On First Hasselblad in space goes to auction next month article (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

papa natas: A camera that NEVER went to the moon as well as the crew.

Some men and some Hasselblad's went to the moon. This one didn't.

How could any sane person not believe men went to the moon? Oh! That's because they are not exactly sane.

Amazing piece of history.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2014 at 18:49 UTC
In reply to:

ogl: This zoom is pure commercial product, firstly. And only then - it's photo tool.

You are so right! Pentax, Canon, Nikon, Sony, Olympus etc are not in existence for the purpose of bringing us great gear.

They exist only to make a profit.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2014 at 09:00 UTC
In reply to:

jreihsen: I have no likes/dislikes between MS, Apple and Adobe. But, I am looking at cutting my subscription costs. I have a 365 account and the unlimited storage with it. When Apple goes to their new Photo app, I will have to pay $4/m. So I am considering a migration from Aperture to MS.

I now have ~10,000 images in Aperture which occupies > 120 gb.

I guess Elements (Lightroom has gotten too expensive) would be the way to go, if I could put my photos in Onedrive, but the question is: How do I make the transition?

I seems like I would loose so much work. I have copied my faces to tags, but wouldn't I loose all of my edits?

I would love any suggestions.

@ jreihsen

Sorry, but I have to mention, it's lose not loose. Aspergers, can't help it.

I was going to say use Lightroom because it is only £100. Then I had the foresight to check the Adobe UK and US site and from the brief look am I right in saying that now it is only available on subscription?

No! Just had another look to check. Tucked away in the menu you can buy the full version of Lightroom as a standalone for $149

$149 too expensive?

I think that is very good value.

Sorry you did ask.

Besides copying 120Gb to the cloud will take quite some time. OK, here in the UK it will take an ice age. You have a fast connection?

Also, I would wait until Apple release their new Photo app, you may be able to retain some degree, if not all, of your Aperture edits. Have to look into that.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 29, 2014 at 22:04 UTC
On A look back at the week: October 25, 2014 article (13 comments in total)

Definitely NOT a Manic Monday.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 27, 2014 at 17:00 UTC as 2nd comment
On Pentax launches K-S1 Sweets Collection article (231 comments in total)

Perhaps they should have put an H after the S and a T after the 1.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2014 at 07:50 UTC as 25th comment
On Pentax launches K-S1 Sweets Collection article (231 comments in total)
In reply to:

Thoughts: remind me of first generation IMac

But it doesn't make you wanna lick 'em.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2014 at 07:48 UTC
On Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup article (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artistico: Easy to do with digital. But I guess the appeal(?) of lomography must be using terrible cameras with horrible film and get expensive, soft, colour-shifted photos - just so they can call it art because it's not digital. I find the phenomenon fascinating but not for me.

Everything is easy to do with digital. Some digital fanbois are right up their own backsides thinking digital is the best and only way. If you have and enjoy a 100% digital workflow that's fine by me.

I shoot more digital than film. I love both for different reasons. But some of us like to get our hands dirty. I get more enjoyment from using a camera with no electronics, no computer and no plastic. I enjoy exposing my own film, oft bereft of meter, then developing it. When required I do a wet print, more than often I scan it.

I don't view it as defeating the purpose. The purpose is in the whole experience and making the negative. You can't get a fine print from a coarse negative. I enjoy it, it's my bag.

Electronic reproduction (web, books, prints) is an effective way of demonstrating your work (good or bad) to the world.

There are many ways in photography, art and craft.

You have your way and I have mine. I don't criticise you. You don't criticise me.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 08:45 UTC
On Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup article (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

Felix E Klee: To get closer to that vintage look, how about a Lomo branded fungus-spray?

I'm surprised they haven't launched a lens that has a sand blasted front element and charged £500 for the privilege.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 08:24 UTC
On Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup article (90 comments in total)
In reply to:

Tom_A: More interesting is the recently introduced Lomo with 120 film. In itself a rather cool entry to medium format cameras, and portable as well, but it is as expensive as a 2nd hand MF Fuji rangefinder...

I recently bought a Fujifilm GA645Zi medium format camera. The lens is amazing. Cost £250. So I wouldn't want to spend £339 on the Lomo 120.

I have more sense than money, erm, I think.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 22, 2014 at 08:22 UTC

Coming to an Android in the very near future.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 10:26 UTC as 25th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Sharp Enough: I think the arguments for or against using polarizers may be missing the point here.

This is a British company making a tinted filter mostly to warm up cold, gray, misty, dreary, sodden, and foreboding landscapes.

Makes perfect sense to me.

Lee is owned by Panavision, an american company.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2014 at 19:07 UTC
In reply to:

Wye Photography: £174 for ONE filter. Are you taking the P!$$?

Well chaps,

Feel free to hand over your hard earned dosh.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 20, 2014 at 17:02 UTC
In reply to:

goodgeorge: So I voluntarily reduce the the contrast by adding color filter.

In the time of computers is almost any filter (besides polarisers, gray and (strong) graduated filters) better added in computer.

And if you shoot JPG - sell your SLR and buy a superzoom.

@StevenE

I wasn't actually being serious.

Hmmm, well, actually I think you can. Someone somewhere (perhaps even after reading this lol) may develop a Fauxtoshop plug-in that just fakes it. I mean, who actually cares! lol.

The success of throwing $$$ I suppose depends on the direction of the wind.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 21:19 UTC
In reply to:

goodgeorge: So I voluntarily reduce the the contrast by adding color filter.

In the time of computers is almost any filter (besides polarisers, gray and (strong) graduated filters) better added in computer.

And if you shoot JPG - sell your SLR and buy a superzoom.

@ProfHankD and StevenE

Ooops Forgot about the reflections thing. Sorry.

That's because I don't use a Pol filter for reflections. I rarely shoot near water so reflections are out of sight and out of mind. Sorry.

The reflections lark is a definite no no. But, it would be interesting to have a go at developing the software that could perhaps do this.

That's your homework ProfHankD. Get to it man! lol.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 19:37 UTC

£174 for ONE filter. Are you taking the P!$$?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 15:04 UTC as 19th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

goodgeorge: So I voluntarily reduce the the contrast by adding color filter.

In the time of computers is almost any filter (besides polarisers, gray and (strong) graduated filters) better added in computer.

And if you shoot JPG - sell your SLR and buy a superzoom.

@ ProfHankD

If film can be faked in post as many claim, faking a polariser should be a simple job.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 15:03 UTC
In reply to:

audijam: All i want to say is I cherish every moment I press the shutter and hear the motor advances my film to the next I don't need to be reminded that film is DEAD (well it is not completely dead yet) and digital DSLR is much better blah blah blah. I use 5D3 for work and family and believe me I love it because it's perfect for what I need it to serve. HOWEVER, it doesn't eliminate or replace my love for film SLR.

I took my EOS 3 out last night just to look at it. It's so beautiful. Too bad I let go of my AE1 years ago to a teen who wants to learn photography. I hope he hasn't given up yet.

@nerd2

My Olympus E1 (5mp) is sharper and out resolves my 35mm negs (Carl Zeiss T* lenses). My development process and v700 scanner MAY have something to do with that - but not much. I still use film.

Why?

Because film gives me a distinct feel and character digital can't. It's the way film responds to light and colour. I love my images dirty and love shooting half-frame as well as MF. Nothing quite has that look of Delta in Rodinal.

That's why I use film.

One of my friends loves his 1940's Lea Frances (a classic car). A modern car out performs it in every way except one. The most important one and that is the experience of driving it. The same with film and classic cameras, it's just not the results, it's the experience of using a classic camera, the film advance, the dark slide, the smell, the feel, the weight, no plastic, no electronics (if applicable).

It's the unique distinct character and experience of the whole package. Its something you appreciate or don't, and that's OK.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2014 at 09:42 UTC
Total: 417, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »