 |
Dan Tong
Lives in
Chicago, United States
Works as a
Computer Consultant, Photographer
Joined on
Jan 3, 2003
About me:
View
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
Another excellent thoughtful article that should be a "must read" for everyone involved in photography.
Thanks,
Dan
Octane: Why is it that we simply can not accept ourselves the way we are and look?
Good point. However, simple blemish removal is like very good makeup and lighting. Does not everyone choose their clothes carefully for a portrait shot, or an interview?
As for actually changing a permanent part of our looks such as the shape of a face (jaw, nose, eyes, forehead etc.) that's an altogether different story and perhaps that is what you meant.
jimi00: Terrible stuff. Totally freaks me out. Makes your best shots look like robotic faces from a Twilight Zone episode. I can't fathom why anyone would want their model, wife or neighbor to look like this.
My guess is that you are not using it right.
This program is surprisingly very good. I use Portrait Prof so I'm comparing it with the best (in this genre). The free version limits save file size to 600 pixels, the paid version saves same res as original. You have to tweak the adjustments, unless face is perfectly orthogonal, nevertheless the autofit is surprisingly good. For $30 this is an incredible deal even if you disable all except blemish removal.
I intensely dislike the oversoftened "plastic" skin look -pores belong on skin, otherwise it's something other than "skin". You can avoid that with this software just as with Portrait Professional (esp. with PProf vs Noise reduction software).
Search for discount codes -I found one (Halloween) which brought my cost down to $20.99. Perfect365 is a very worthwhile purchase in my opinion.
Dan
AlanG: I'd like to see DPReview compare this and the new Canon to the iPhone in a video shootout.
You got that right. You can't make phone call with these video cameras, nor are they of any help when you are lost :)
Why do I have to go follow the link to find the max aperture (2.8) and the sensor size (1 / 2.3 "). You would think when posting specs to a serious photography site they would include this information along with other specs.
http://gopro.com/cameras/hd-hero2-outdoor-edition/
Your macro photos are stunning and clearly show that you really know what you are talking about. All of your articles are very well written and a pleasure to read. I'm looking forward to your discussion of lenses and DOF.
Thanks very much,
Dan
This article is the most intelligent and useful article ever to appear about photographic equipment on dpreview or possibly anywhere else. Instead of presenting uninformed opinion as fact, Roger Cicala, has done some systematic testing of lens and camera body variabillity, individually and in combination. Here's someone who is worth listening to, a person with a very fine scientific mind. He presents his data so you draw you own interpretations. Also note that he does not go beyond his data, and when he speculates he says so.
With this short article he has raised the average IQ of dpreview posters by at least 30 points. We desperately need more articles of this caliber.
Wonderful and amazing photos!
Excellent and well written article. Clear, straightforward, and done with a heart.
Great job!
Thanks,
Dan
MrRoger: Some wonderful popular science theories here. Lets put some counter arguments.
1) The way images are recreated suggests to be that it would be quite possible to populate the sensor plane with multiple smaller chips, the microlens arrangement can ensure there are no gaps in the captured information.
2) 1024x768 is a popular computer display size, but it's only 0.75MP.
3) Each point in a Plenoptic camera draws information from multiple sensor points,that in itself reduces noise, why do we think these cameras are going to be noisy?
4) I am overjoyed by the fact the first product is going to be a consumer product. So I can afford to buy one and try it out. And I hope, I really hope, it is going to work.
It's a pleasure to hear an opinion from someone who actually reads the information fully and actually understands the basic facts.
StephenSPhotog: What happened to learning a craft and mastering it? I heard someone down in this tread say "Haven't you ever missed focus and wanted to correct it?" Well, yes I actually have. But you know what I had to do? Learn. All I could do was learn to pay closer attention to focus next time and nail it. If I missed a shot a missed a shot. It's my fault.
I never shot film. I've only been into photography in the digital age. But even so, I miss film. I would love a film SLR to take around and better teach myself to pay more attention to composition, focus, and lighting.
I don't mean to sound like someone who is afraid of new technology. I love new tech. I eagerly await the next Nikon and Canon cameras. But I can't help but see this as photography being taken over by laziness. Don't be lazy people.
Take a shot and correct focus later? Do they even hear themselves when they say that?
Don't be lazy, learn to draw and stop using a camera as a crutch to capture images that you wish to share with others :)
StephenSPhotog: What happened to learning a craft and mastering it? I heard someone down in this tread say "Haven't you ever missed focus and wanted to correct it?" Well, yes I actually have. But you know what I had to do? Learn. All I could do was learn to pay closer attention to focus next time and nail it. If I missed a shot a missed a shot. It's my fault.
I never shot film. I've only been into photography in the digital age. But even so, I miss film. I would love a film SLR to take around and better teach myself to pay more attention to composition, focus, and lighting.
I don't mean to sound like someone who is afraid of new technology. I love new tech. I eagerly await the next Nikon and Canon cameras. But I can't help but see this as photography being taken over by laziness. Don't be lazy people.
Take a shot and correct focus later? Do they even hear themselves when they say that?
Don't be lazy, learn to draw and stop using a camera as a crutch to capture images that you wish to share with others :)
falconeyes: I am still fascinated about the ignorance of Ng wrt facts of optical physics.
Photons are elementary particles with a wave nature and obeying the Heisenberg uncertainty relationship. Speaking about rays and hundreds of millions of pixels at the same time is close to spreading false information: E.g., to capture 170 MP on a APSC sensor (not exactly a P&S specification btw) you need 1.5µm pixels (ok if you ignore the Bayer matrix for a second) and a f/2.0 - f/2.2 lens which resolves 800 lp/mm across the entire field (otherwise, you won't be able to refocus outside the image center). The best system camera lenses on earth resolve about 400 lp/mm (primes from Leica or Zeiss) and they only do so in the center and at about f/4. Lenses with a smaller image circle can do better but this wouldn't solve the light field capture problem.
I guess, it is all ok because US investors typically didn't exactly study physics ;)
I'm fascinated by the arrogance of some people who think they understand something and appear to say that what has already been done is impossible.
This is exciting stuff and I wish Ng and his company the greatest success in this brand new venture. I'm looking forward to getting my hand on one of these cameras as soon as it is shipping.
This is exciting stuff and I wish Ng and his company the greatest success in this brand new venture. I'm looking forward to getting my hand on one of these cameras as soon as it is shipping.
I would very much like a test of the CD/DVD media printing with respect to speed, quality, etc. Too many reviews fail to test this function and therefore the purchaser has no reliable information upon which to base a purchase which includes the need to print on C/DVD media.
Hi Art,
Hope to see you sometime in the future. Your classes are the best.
Dan Tong
Chicago, IL
fredrbis: I can't get focus except front and back extremes. I.e., nothing in the middle range. Is this an intrinsic short-coming or is the image just a simulation?
I'm pretty sure it is a limitation only of the the demo image. On some examples I have been able to get at least 3 different areas that you can bring into focus.
KenOC: So...can software process the image so that all planes are in focus? Infinite depth of field?
Of course, at the very least you can do is combine all the planes that you bring into focus with the capability already built into Photoshop CS5.