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: 273, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »

Looking at the sample images on imaging-resource from both the G1X and G1X MKII at default jpg setting for BOTH cameras The G1X MKII images are actually more noisy than the MKI. The MKII is fractionally sharper and a little more vibrant.

I have the G1X MKI myself and won't be upgrading. The slightly faster 24-120mm lens is attractive tho, but not worth an upgrade.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2014 at 14:25 UTC as 1st comment
On Ricoh to offer limited edition Pentax Q7 Premium Kit article (89 comments in total)
In reply to:

samhain: Glad Pentax/Ricoh are focused on important releases like limited edition 1/1.7" sensor camera kits & purses, rather than wasting time on gimmicky products like FF cameras, fast lenses, and other tools for professionals...

I just LOVE that handbag!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2014 at 08:57 UTC

Producing photos like these the photographer should be inside, it's criminal! He's obviously stir crazy and uses an Olympus Penitentiary.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2014 at 19:26 UTC as 32nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

photofan1986: "Tidbits"? Anyone else speaking French here? :D

It's TITBIT in the UK. As in Blue tit, Coal tit and Great tit. We love our tits in the UK.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2014 at 10:39 UTC
On Nikon D4s First Impressions Review preview (1047 comments in total)

I'll buy one of these in seven years time when I then can afford it.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2014 at 10:23 UTC as 229th comment

If you enter this competition would you be shooting for the stars?

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2014 at 11:51 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Personal view to which I am entitled - don't bite my head off.

I find it mildly amusing that thousands upon thousands of people abandoned film in their absolute droves and "made the switch to digital", spent $1000's (the $ is there for the benefit of my American brothers) on the new gear, computers, software only then to mimic film. If I could understand irony, I think that could be ironic.

I use digital, I also use film (B&W, just started to self process colour), I can tell you those "film packs" are just a waste of money esp BW. I can process Tri-X in D76, HC-110, Prescysol and Perceptol and have four different results.

With colour, I get a slightly different colour and rendition from my old Canon kit as I do from my RTS (and those sublime Carl Zeiss T* lenses) kit.

Personally, I think all these film sim profiles, albeit free from Adobe, are a gimmick. Quality film kit is cheap as chips thanks to digital. Buy some, have a go, do if for real. You'll enjoy it!

BaldCol,

Nothing random about it at all. A good worker will get consistent results ALL the time.

Only the inept get unexpected or unwanted results be they film or digital.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 24, 2014 at 11:49 UTC
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Personal view to which I am entitled - don't bite my head off.

I find it mildly amusing that thousands upon thousands of people abandoned film in their absolute droves and "made the switch to digital", spent $1000's (the $ is there for the benefit of my American brothers) on the new gear, computers, software only then to mimic film. If I could understand irony, I think that could be ironic.

I use digital, I also use film (B&W, just started to self process colour), I can tell you those "film packs" are just a waste of money esp BW. I can process Tri-X in D76, HC-110, Prescysol and Perceptol and have four different results.

With colour, I get a slightly different colour and rendition from my old Canon kit as I do from my RTS (and those sublime Carl Zeiss T* lenses) kit.

Personally, I think all these film sim profiles, albeit free from Adobe, are a gimmick. Quality film kit is cheap as chips thanks to digital. Buy some, have a go, do if for real. You'll enjoy it!

Plasnu,

Excellently put.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 23, 2014 at 15:55 UTC
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Personal view to which I am entitled - don't bite my head off.

I find it mildly amusing that thousands upon thousands of people abandoned film in their absolute droves and "made the switch to digital", spent $1000's (the $ is there for the benefit of my American brothers) on the new gear, computers, software only then to mimic film. If I could understand irony, I think that could be ironic.

I use digital, I also use film (B&W, just started to self process colour), I can tell you those "film packs" are just a waste of money esp BW. I can process Tri-X in D76, HC-110, Prescysol and Perceptol and have four different results.

With colour, I get a slightly different colour and rendition from my old Canon kit as I do from my RTS (and those sublime Carl Zeiss T* lenses) kit.

Personally, I think all these film sim profiles, albeit free from Adobe, are a gimmick. Quality film kit is cheap as chips thanks to digital. Buy some, have a go, do if for real. You'll enjoy it!

Just to clarify when I said...

"No, I don't think digital should mimic film, it is inferior." as above, I meant the digital mimic of film is inferior to film.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 22, 2014 at 18:11 UTC
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Personal view to which I am entitled - don't bite my head off.

I find it mildly amusing that thousands upon thousands of people abandoned film in their absolute droves and "made the switch to digital", spent $1000's (the $ is there for the benefit of my American brothers) on the new gear, computers, software only then to mimic film. If I could understand irony, I think that could be ironic.

I use digital, I also use film (B&W, just started to self process colour), I can tell you those "film packs" are just a waste of money esp BW. I can process Tri-X in D76, HC-110, Prescysol and Perceptol and have four different results.

With colour, I get a slightly different colour and rendition from my old Canon kit as I do from my RTS (and those sublime Carl Zeiss T* lenses) kit.

Personally, I think all these film sim profiles, albeit free from Adobe, are a gimmick. Quality film kit is cheap as chips thanks to digital. Buy some, have a go, do if for real. You'll enjoy it!

JakeB,

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong!

I never mentioned the film vs digital debate. I'm not interested in that and I don't care either.

Film is film and is MUCH better than a digital simulation. End of! My digital work is separate, different and equal to my film work. I am often happier with my colour digital than my colour film work.

I view film and digital as different and complementary and work with film and digital on equal footing.

I think it is you who has the problem. Your old comments sound terribly prejudiced as if all things new are better than all things old. They are not! As you will one day find out. I think you are young(ish), don't you realise that one day people will say the same to you as you have to me!

No, I don't think digital should mimic film, it is inferior. Digital has its own nature - glory in it. Have you shot film? Developed it yourself? Made your own prints? Hmm?

At least you are a Mac user and that means I love you and Napoleon was a good guy.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 22, 2014 at 17:31 UTC
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Personal view to which I am entitled - don't bite my head off.

I find it mildly amusing that thousands upon thousands of people abandoned film in their absolute droves and "made the switch to digital", spent $1000's (the $ is there for the benefit of my American brothers) on the new gear, computers, software only then to mimic film. If I could understand irony, I think that could be ironic.

I use digital, I also use film (B&W, just started to self process colour), I can tell you those "film packs" are just a waste of money esp BW. I can process Tri-X in D76, HC-110, Prescysol and Perceptol and have four different results.

With colour, I get a slightly different colour and rendition from my old Canon kit as I do from my RTS (and those sublime Carl Zeiss T* lenses) kit.

Personally, I think all these film sim profiles, albeit free from Adobe, are a gimmick. Quality film kit is cheap as chips thanks to digital. Buy some, have a go, do if for real. You'll enjoy it!

HowaboutRAW:

I absolutely concur with your sentiments.

For example, on a trip to Pen Y Fan (a Welsh mountain) I made 78 digital exposure to six on film. Two weeks before and another Welsh mountain, 238 digital to 12 on film. I shoot more digital because I can and I like to experiment with exposures etc.

I am much more conscious of the cost of shooting film so I am much, much more selective about what I shoot.

In truth, I love both film and digital for very different reasons, www.wyephotography.com is my BW film site, www.themountainphotographer.co.uk is my digital hiking over mountains with digital camera site.

As the great Ansel Adams once said "No man has the right to dictate what other men should perceive, create or produce, but all should be encouraged to reveal themselves, their perceptions and emotions, and to build confidence in the creative spirit".

I have views, sure, who doesn't, but, ultimately what other people do is up to them.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 22, 2014 at 16:12 UTC
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Personal view to which I am entitled - don't bite my head off.

I find it mildly amusing that thousands upon thousands of people abandoned film in their absolute droves and "made the switch to digital", spent $1000's (the $ is there for the benefit of my American brothers) on the new gear, computers, software only then to mimic film. If I could understand irony, I think that could be ironic.

I use digital, I also use film (B&W, just started to self process colour), I can tell you those "film packs" are just a waste of money esp BW. I can process Tri-X in D76, HC-110, Prescysol and Perceptol and have four different results.

With colour, I get a slightly different colour and rendition from my old Canon kit as I do from my RTS (and those sublime Carl Zeiss T* lenses) kit.

Personally, I think all these film sim profiles, albeit free from Adobe, are a gimmick. Quality film kit is cheap as chips thanks to digital. Buy some, have a go, do if for real. You'll enjoy it!

Grumpyrocker, I'm not confusing anything. I am very well aware of digital workflow (having used photoshop from version 3, and I don't mean CS3 either). Neither was I scoffing at anything. If people want to digitally simulate film then that's fine by me (it may even encourage a few to try the real thing). I was saying that there is an irony of digital mimicking film. Then there is a danger of people thinking that the sometimes unconvincing result is genuine. As I process my own film I am perhaps more keenly aware than you of the convenience of digital as well as its cons.

I do apologise for sounding like a fictitious Tory MP, but, one is awfully well read, albeit without the politics, greed and laziness. I won't take umbrage and demand satisfaction.

JakeB, I think you missed the bit where I said "I use digital". I do have a open mind and a foot firmly planted in BOTH camps as one of my completely digital photography sites www.themountainphotographer.co.uk demonstrates.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 22, 2014 at 15:53 UTC

Personal view to which I am entitled - don't bite my head off.

I find it mildly amusing that thousands upon thousands of people abandoned film in their absolute droves and "made the switch to digital", spent $1000's (the $ is there for the benefit of my American brothers) on the new gear, computers, software only then to mimic film. If I could understand irony, I think that could be ironic.

I use digital, I also use film (B&W, just started to self process colour), I can tell you those "film packs" are just a waste of money esp BW. I can process Tri-X in D76, HC-110, Prescysol and Perceptol and have four different results.

With colour, I get a slightly different colour and rendition from my old Canon kit as I do from my RTS (and those sublime Carl Zeiss T* lenses) kit.

Personally, I think all these film sim profiles, albeit free from Adobe, are a gimmick. Quality film kit is cheap as chips thanks to digital. Buy some, have a go, do if for real. You'll enjoy it!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 22, 2014 at 12:10 UTC as 7th comment | 16 replies

I once had a Kowa Super 66. The lenses were almost as good, if not as good as the ones on my Hasselblad. They were very, very good lenses. Unlike the Hasselblad, the Kowa's mirror slap was like a bomb going off in your hands. I expect these lenses to be likewise excellent.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 18, 2014 at 10:49 UTC as 16th comment
On CP+ 2014: Selected highlights of the show article (33 comments in total)

I really do like the design of that Hasselblad, just not the price :-(

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2014 at 17:32 UTC as 11th comment
On CP+ 2014: Hands-on with Sigma DP2 Quattro article (256 comments in total)

Obviously, the person holding the camera is still trying to figure out the correct way to hold it!

:-)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 13, 2014 at 11:26 UTC as 59th comment

I have a real Hasselblad, a 500CM, for considerably less money.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2014 at 21:32 UTC as 63rd comment | 2 replies
On Iconic photographer Don McCullin on war and landscapes article (75 comments in total)
In reply to:

peevee1: War photography is more useful than landscape photography will ever be. And yes, it DOES help to stop the freaking politicians' adventures.

Respectfully, I will also take McCullin's view on this over yours.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 31, 2014 at 18:52 UTC

When I read the into "Sons on farm in rural Russia" etc, I was expecting some nice photos done the old way on a FED. Noooooope!

If a mother in rural Russian can afford a Canon 5D mkII they must be doing pretty damned well coz I sure as Hell can't afford one!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2014 at 13:27 UTC as 240th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

SeeRoy: Furry domestic pets, tiny children, enormous dogs, lotsa bokeh-liciousness, a preposterously fictitious context, 5h!tloads of PP. The word "contrived" doesn't even begin to do these pictures justice.

That's modern "photography" for you, or should it be Fauxtography using Fauxtoshop!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2014 at 13:20 UTC
Total: 273, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »