Dan Tong

Dan Tong

Lives in United States Chicago, United States
Works as a Computer Consultant, Photographer
Joined on Jan 3, 2003
About me:

Olympus 2100UZ
Minolta Dimage 7i
Canon S400
Canon EOS 300D

Comments

Total: 157, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On ACDSee Pro 8 and ACDSee 18 announced article (44 comments in total)

I had used an earlier version of the basic ACDSee image managers but got sufficiently annoyed because they would not update their RAW converters database once a newer version became available, making the one I purchased useless for working with newer cameras.

The RAW converter updates were freely available to download but would not work with the no longer freshest version. It was not a technical compatibility issue, but a business decision.

Sure I probably could have used the free Adobe DNG but that would have involved a lot more time.

It turns out that programs such as the excellent free FastStone Image Viewer/Manager (or XNView) continuously upgrade their RAW converters so you can always view RAW images from the newest cameras.

FastStone is extremely fast, with a great interface and does some very good basic image editing. I would rather donate money to these programs than to keep having to purchase ACDSee annually or purchase a subscription.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 21:03 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

DonnaRead54: While the law may be on Wikipedia's side, the goodwill certainly isn't. The photographer made the trip to Indonesia, took his gear, found the monkey and almost lost the camera. Without the photographer, Wiki wouldn't have jack. How rude! And l_d_allan has an excellent point! Do photos taken using a motion trap not count as copyrighted material either? After all, the photographer didn't 'really' take the shot. And to cite NG as an example is dead on! I'm surprised at the lack of integrity that Wiki showed us here.

Not Wikipedia!!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 05:56 UTC
In reply to:

audiobomber: The photographer should have explained perspective to the apes when he handed over the camera. The wide angle closeups make them look silly.

Wikipedia should not hide behind the law. They are not subject to any one country's laws, so they should be guided by ethics. The photographer owns the photos. It was his camera, he brought the photos to the world, he owns them.

It's Wikimedia, not Wikipedia -you might want to correct your comment.

"The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) is an American non-profit and charitable organization headquartered in San Francisco, California, that operates many wikis. The foundation is mostly known for hosting Wikipedia, an Internet encyclopedia which ranks in the top-ten most-visited websites worldwide;[5] as well as Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikimedia Commons, Wikispecies, Wikinews, Wikiversity, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, Wikimedia Incubator, and Meta-Wiki. It also owned the now-defunct Nupedia."

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 05:55 UTC

Wikimedia is just another greedy bunch of &*()#$E#$.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 05:50 UTC as 220th comment | 2 replies
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 Review preview (668 comments in total)
In reply to:

forpetessake: If you want a superzoom, just get any lightweight Nikon/Canon DSLR and attach an 18-200 zoom to it and it will be ahead of this Panasonic in every way. Or if you want a mirrorless camera, get a Sony A6000 with 18-200 zoom, or Samsung with 18-200, or Olympus with 14-150.
Only those who are interested in half baked 4k video may find this camera interesting.

First of all the video may not be as good with the DSLR's

and

Second a really good 18-200 will be very expensive and certainly slower and probably of lower quality.

However, for still pictures I would have to agree with you, the APS-C stills will be much better quality and low light sensitivity will be incomparably better.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 21:35 UTC
On Travel tripods: Comparing 5 aluminum kits article (110 comments in total)

A quick query about small, high quality video heads, that would fit these lighter travel tripods.

Has anyone had any experience with such video heads for a camera such as the Panasonic GH3 or GH4 which weighs under 0.68 kg (1.5 lbs) with a zoom lens ?

Thanks

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 21:26 UTC as 8th comment
On Travel tripods: Comparing 5 aluminum kits article (110 comments in total)

An excellent review far more detailed and professional than the usual DPreview job.

I had purchased a heavy duty aluminum Gitzo tripod and the concentric leg locks took more time and effort to set than the lever locks that I kept seeing.

I envied the Manfrotto lever leg locks, until the plastic leg locks on a cheaper Manfrotto tripod broke and the tripod became totally useless and pretty much un-repairable. It got very little use and I'm guessing age was the primary cause. I had another cheap no name tripod fail the same way, although it lasted a much much longer than the Manfrotto. Now I understand why the concentric locking mechanism (almost always metal) is far superior even though, without fast screwing feature, it takes longer to tighten and loosen.

I would personally always stay away from any lever locking tripods and I now fully appreciate the Gitzo concentric metal leg locking mechanism.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 21:20 UTC as 9th comment | 2 replies
On Travel tripods: Comparing 5 aluminum kits article (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artak Hambarian: Very welcome review, since it tries to make a measurable comparison, finally. I have read also a German article on a similar comparison of Feisol, Manfrotto and Gitzo Tripods through a laser pointer mounted on the tripod. I would like to suggest to share more details, so that anyone could make a similar comparison:
1. Shape of the aluminum block and the way it and the ipad are mounted.
2. data on solenoid hammer - power rating, core weight, voltage, etc.
3. Where exactly the vibration is applied - mm-s from the ground.
4. Name the seismometer app used.
5. Try spikes, extend column, etc. A photograph of the setup is very very welcome.
In fact DPReview can end the "endless" and meaningless increase of the weight rating by manufacturers by setting standards for tests!

Your review is excellent, very detailed and very much appreciated. I only have one suggestion that would make it even better.

It would be EXTREMELY useful to have a single graph summarizing the vibration tests. It's very difficult to make the comparison otherwise (one would have to flip back and forth between each graph). For example you could normalize the some of the values (perhaps averaged over a standard time period) and then present it all in a bar graph with different colors for each brand of tripod. Because these measurements are very unfamiliar to just about everyone, the values do not have much meaning to most photographers, hence the need for RELATIVE comparisons.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2014 at 21:09 UTC
On CreativeLive to host one-day event with Art Wolfe article (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

jaykumarr: I am not able to see this live video.. will it be of great quality when i try after payment?

Absolutely fantastic HD quality streaming and you can download it.
The content is superb and pedagogically far better than just about any video seminar I have watched.

Don't listen to the naysayers, who talk big and when you look at their images, you realize they have never learned much about anything except being negative.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2014 at 00:45 UTC
On CreativeLive to host one-day event with Art Wolfe article (33 comments in total)

It's excellent and here's a photographer who isn't limited to landscapes only, but follows his inspiration to any place it takes him.

Because Art Wolfe always views photos from the point of view of the general purpose graphic artist, and far less about technical details I found these tutorials far more helpful than other's I have viewed.

I also thought that the critiques of student work was especially good, even if some have commented that it is somewhat repetitious. It is repetitious because students keep making the same goofy things (lack of dominant subject leadingto too many competing objects and areas, poor framing etc.)

I highly recommend this incredibly great video seminar! Absolutely worth $49 to purchase or $59 without the special discount. I purchased it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2014 at 00:42 UTC as 3rd comment
On A GoPro Hero's journey into a dishwasher article (168 comments in total)

Bito,

Wow, fantastic!
Great job, perfect exposure, framing, casting etc.

I never knew how these things worked.
Congratulations to you. Inquiring minds work in creative ways.

Hope this does not invalidate your GoPro warranty. Maybe they would like to license it from you and use it for promotional work.

Perhaps you could use a more catchy title like:

COMING CLEAN - The Inside Story

Thanks it's wonderful!

Dan

Direct link | Posted on Jun 5, 2014 at 19:51 UTC as 32nd comment

Great stuff and the video is very pretty too!

Direct link | Posted on May 24, 2014 at 19:25 UTC as 14th comment
On Light Field Cameras - Focusing on the Future article (134 comments in total)

Interesting as usual, especially the idea of light field microscopy to compute three dimensional volumes of tiny transparent things, as well as use in video in the future.

iBut beware of the always negative, thoughtless..let's be honest, the stupidly unimaginative, commentary -almost always from people who don't understand the idea of lightfield imaging in the first place.

It wasn't that long ago that a hot shot engineer on dpreview said that based on his calculations sensor based stabilization would never work with larger sensors (APS C or Full frame), or the shortsighted people who thought that adding video to a still camera was a total waste of time and nobody would be much interested in it.

Why is it that if people are not interested in something, or some feature of a new camera, then they think that no one else could possibly be interested?

Perhaps others can add some additional technology that was believed to be just another useless waste of time...

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 05:44 UTC as 33rd comment
On Light Field Cameras - Focusing on the Future article (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lan: The question is, is it an intestine to use? ;)

Yes, it definitely takes intestinal fortitude to use :)

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 05:34 UTC
On Is it true? New service detects processed photos article (88 comments in total)
In reply to:

disraeli demon: The problem with this is the inability to distinguish between the sort of processing that has no effect on authenticity (white balance, colour profile, levels/curves) and significant modifications such as compositing.

For the verification to really be of use, you'd ideally need checkboxes that let you declare what changes you've made before evaluation (colour/contrast as above, conversion to black & white, JPEG conversion from RAW), and have the site confirm that nothing ELSE was done.

Yours is the most concise and rational comment on this topic other than BobOrama's excellent comment on why authentication is important in some cases.

Direct link | Posted on May 9, 2014 at 22:21 UTC

BlackMagic is certainly innovative. They're potentially doing what RED has done.

A modular camera which allows replacing/upgrading the sensor, and the lens mount. This is really good and only RED has done it before at prices lower than the then available competition.

Of course, this BlackMagic video camera is far cheaper than any of RED's offerings.

Having a 10" display is Wonderful. Now you can really see what you're looking at. Totally different than a 3" or 3.5" monitor.

BlackMagic is paying attention to independent filmmakers working on a small budget, so pricing below $6k is very impressive, yet this is a tool for serious video production. I expect this camera to be very, very popular.

Congratulations Black Magic !

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2014 at 22:59 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

brycesteiner: I don't get this:
"Introducing the world’s first digital film camera ..."

What does "digital film" mean? Oh sure, it's for the cinema, but there is no film anymore in the theatres. Right?

It would be cool to have a camera that could record to digital and film at same time!!!

Do you have any idea how much film stock costs?

Direct link | Posted on Apr 8, 2014 at 22:47 UTC

HDR is an attempt to properly expose various parts of a photographic shot. Of course our eyes do this without our awareness because sensitivity is controlled locally in the retina as well as the fact that the eye scans a scene and does not necessary stay locked in position, so that the eye can adjust to local variation in brightness.

We also need to keep in mind, that the eye's highest acuity region (the fovea) is always brought to bear on areas of interest in the visual field.

Surprisingly, the eye has a built-in constant, micro-tremor,, which when eliminated (stabilized images in laboratory experiments done with people) leads to the disappearance of the image altogether.

Hence Olympus's idea once again gets us a bit closer to the "perfection" of biological visual performance -extremely fast, focusing, rapid auto exposure.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 15, 2014 at 18:06 UTC as 25th comment | 5 replies
On Engineering a Difference: Ben Von Wong Part 2 article (38 comments in total)
In reply to:

Eric Calabros: Looks more CGI Art than Photography

Partly it is because you can see major Photoshop touch ups with increased local contrast stuff.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 15, 2014 at 17:49 UTC
On Engineering a Difference: Ben Von Wong Part 2 article (38 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lee Jay: To me, a carefully preplanned setup shot is just as bad as CGI. Neither one is real or spontaneous and they look equally fake.

Lee Jay,

"Just as bad as CGI" Why is CGI bad?
Nothing wrong with CGI, perhaps you have never done any CGI. It takes a lot more work and talent than a lot of "photographic art".

Also, your assumption that real or spontaneous is what makes great Art is also questionable. Many paintings are not "real" and most painting are not spontaneous".
Much art is preplanned. Great films are pre-planned.
I suggest you think a bit before you post such nonsense.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 15, 2014 at 17:47 UTC
Total: 157, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »