WayneHuangPhoto

Joined on Dec 24, 2011

Comments

Total: 71, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »

Reading white text on dark has always been an eye sore/strainer. I understand from a design standpoint that what was trending in the development of the digital darkroom (gray/dark background), was a natural aesthetic for photography websites where photos are the primary showcase.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 17:57 UTC as 202nd comment
In reply to:

electrophoto: I guess I will never understand why anyone would buy any of those smartphone add-on lenses, then shoot usually rather mediocre IQ images, with odd distortions to them, always carry the lenses, the specific cases etc...
I use a smartphone, I use it a lot... I take photos with it too ... but when I approach that kind of photography, where I need different lenses, I take any of the other cameras along, depending on my need...
It's about the right tool for the right job... and adding & carrying these mostly silly lenses for a smartphone kind of defies the purpose of the smartphone.

Also at 140$ I can buy something like a used Fuji X10 or so... or find a RX100MK1 for under 280$ (used)... easily enough.

Not everyone can afford nor wants an additional SLR, mirrorless camera, or point-and-shoot. Products like these have a market and that market has only shown growth.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2016 at 21:11 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: Is this the level of innovation Adobe thinks is acceptable to CC users?

It saves to click 4 corners with the mask tool and then use content-aware fill which was inroduced with CS5, I believe. Actually, it just makes a script a built-in feature.

Where is the real innovation? A new tool like content-aware fill as such?

You're premising Adobe's lack of innovation on a single new feature announcement. Okay.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 22:52 UTC

As cruddy as this software may be, the makers are brilliant entrepreneurs for recognizing there is a large market of 'guy-or-gal-with-a-camera', the weekend photographers, the old-timer photo hobbyists, who don't have the technical know-how to do this stuff in Photoshop, nor the aesthetic sensibilities to see how crude the effects are, and whose clientele (if they're doing hired gigs) also lack these sensibilities, and only care about having a pretty picture of themselves to hang on the wall or share on social media, and see $80 or $120 as a fair trade for something that promises content-enhancing features, rather than your typical surface adjustments.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2016 at 16:53 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

Mister Roboto: That pathetic IQ though. I can't believe some people will invest on a crappy phone to do something it is not intender for.

Yet, there are plenty of people who use their smartphones as their "workhorse" camera for whatever purposes they use them for. Admittedly, these product developers are making a risky bet that could either go really well or crash/burn.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2016 at 00:11 UTC
In reply to:

Mister Roboto: That pathetic IQ though. I can't believe some people will invest on a crappy phone to do something it is not intender for.

So who are you to say what a phone equipped with a good-enough video/still camera is intended for?

From my observation and experience, reporters, photojournalists (except for the older, white-haired guys sporting their photo vests), independent web publishers, all use their phone to capture media while shooting with their SLR. And don't forget YouTube personalities, people and organizations that live Tweet or live-post to Facebook pages, Instagram.

The video IQ from an iphone 6/6s, in most cases, is acceptable for web publishing. The typical media consumer aren't pixel-peeping and no one is claiming phones are appropriate for making feature films.

This and similar products are a validation of the good-enough IQ and wide applicability of phone cameras, and a realization that there is a market of users who want better audio quality and better video lighting.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2016 at 17:52 UTC

I see rotoscope artists losing their jobs once this thing goes mainstream. Price of progress.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2016 at 18:17 UTC as 19th comment

Tamrac spelled backwards is Carmat.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2016 at 22:24 UTC as 14th comment | 2 replies
On article Accessory Review: Tenba Cooper Messenger bag (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sugarsnapphotos: Does it come with a moustache?

No, but I hear it comes with an old, smelly plaid button-up and a pair of suspenders.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2016 at 23:03 UTC

Why didn't Fuji just go all out and put a 36mp sensor in there?

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2016 at 23:39 UTC as 36th comment | 4 replies
On article Field Test: Brad Puet and the Fujifilm X-T10 (120 comments in total)

This was shot on the X-E2: http://www.gigapan.com/gigapans/146795
Zoom in 100% and see the details

They got it right in this video - the 16mp X-Trans sensor is a great sensor, with enough resolution, and has legendary glass to go with it. Would 24mp be better? Of course. Is it necessary? Not at all.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2015 at 22:10 UTC as 15th comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

keepreal: Load of cobblers. (UK expression.)

I agree with mailman88, but not Michael Ma, both some way below.

Clyde Butcher's work is similar in style, comparable in standard to Ansel Adams and I sent CB a message on his website in case he'd like to know about it.

I doubt it though. Why would one with that kind of ability want to be on another's payroll? Its a bit like Groucho Marx's comment in reverse, where he said he'd like to join a gentleman's club but any worth joining would not have him.

Such a talent is bound to think any post on offer to him is not worth having. Had it been a long term assignment, concurrent with his other work rather than a full time job, that would be another matter.

I am sure Mr Butcher and others of similar ability are happier and more successful without being told what equipment they have to use, etc.

This vacancy will not be filled by anyone who aspires to be the next Ansel Adams, only someone that the US National Park Service, at worst, kid themselves is.

Damn, Santa Claus can take some nice photos!

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2015 at 23:08 UTC

Make a fashion statement, while taking crappy photos!

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2015 at 18:44 UTC as 25th comment

Animal leather is so overrated.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2015 at 18:43 UTC as 26th comment
In reply to:

Nilangsu: The Fuji system is wonderful. Despite having been a RAW shooter (with both Canon and Nikon APS-C) all my life, I just love their JPEGs. But I am deterred from dipping my toe into this wonderful system because of the prices. Think about this. I can get a classic like the Canon EOS 6D and get into a full-frame system with very high value from most lenses. The 85 1.8 is just £ 200 (with cash-back) at Amazon UK, the 50 1.8 STM around £ 100 and the 28 2.8 IS USM around £ 350. The overall weight is not a lot more.

Fuji is a great system, but the prices make me cringe.

Don Sata, need to call you out on your false (or misinformed) comments about the 6D.

I actually use a 6D professionally, and also own a Fuji X-E2, both of which do well in their own respect. The 6D is known to have excellent DR and noise performance. The RAW noise performance is better than what the X-trans sensor produces. The DR on the 6D is also better than the 5D mkIII. This isn't opinion.

As with most SLRs, the auto focus speed and accuracy has a big advantage over any mirrorless. This is especially true for fast-moving subjects and low light. And, no, shooting long lenses isn't the 'only real advantage' of the camera over a Fuji X. That's just a nonsensical statement.

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2015 at 21:41 UTC

How good is it at taking selfies?

Link | Posted on Oct 20, 2015 at 22:06 UTC as 48th comment | 4 replies
On article Second time lucky? A closer look at Sony's new RX1R II (543 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sdaniella: Fast 24mm, Please! (FF)
Enough of the pedestrian hardly wide longish primes = 35mm (nor longish hardly wide 28mm, no thx)

Agreed. With a 42mp sensor, it makes sense to go wider. There's plenty of resolution to crop and still have a usable photo.

Link | Posted on Oct 14, 2015 at 23:27 UTC
On article Vantage Point: The aviation photography of Jon Pece (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul Farace: So I see these images in the same positive light I see WWII Allied planes, defenders of freedom. And they sadly killed thousands of women and children. But my brain is able to comprehend complexities and nuances that some of your leftist brains cannot. All of the recent drone strikes have not killed more than one WWII bombing mission and at the same time have killed many monsters who would behead the dumazzez commenting below.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2015/06/08/a-stirring-video-presentation-of-world-war-ii-and-the-deaths-it-caused/

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2015 at 19:58 UTC
Total: 71, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »