Martin_Kay

Martin_Kay

Lives in United Kingdom Kineton, United Kingdom
Works as a Photographer_Graphic Design_3D
Joined on Aug 16, 2005
About me:

Commercial photographic printing, b/w and color upto giant exhibition sizes. Photography, from weddings, press to studio and PR work. Computer graphics since 91, including DTP, multimedia with sound and 3D illustration. Used Photoshop since version 1.7. Now retired and do it for fun only.

Comments

Total: 19, showing: 1 – 19

Well... an ape could have taken these exposures- almost. These exposures don't even rate pretentious. My guess is that maybe something sinister lies behind these shots- they are some sort of statement- maybe contempt.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2012 at 17:17 UTC as 94th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Jack Simpson: Hi Barney,

Your last paragraph, pretty much, says it all :) I've been there-done that, myself. I think the worst(most interesting) disclaimer I signed over was for, if memory serves, Guns&Roses or Metallica, and it stated that I was required to mail 8x10 images, of ALL images taken, to the bands management somewhere in California ............ at my own cost, of course :o And, of course, it never happened :D. As for the Stoned Roses .... just another bunch of lager louts w/ musical intstruments trying to toss their weight :)

Yes, its the fat slugs that are the problem.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2012 at 08:46 UTC

Who the f**k are the stone roses anyway? Why would anyone want to take photos free of charge? Sod em!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2012 at 08:43 UTC as 22nd comment

Hmmm, how does a lens cause 'banding'- surely its a sensor problem. I've never seen any problems with my 20mm on the GX1.

I see this question has been answered- almost, further down the list.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2012 at 20:00 UTC as 52nd comment | 1 reply
On Sony DSC-RX100 preview (544 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alien from Mars: Of course, 20MP is a joke, the lens cannot resolve it (as you can see from the full size samples). 10-12MP would be enough.
What with the AF speed?

20MP is a marketing ploy. Lets be brutely honest most of us could get away with 6MP- easily.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2012 at 09:43 UTC
On Sony DSC-RX100 preview (544 comments in total)

As has been said/inferred, the average potential buyer won't need the extra resolution. I personally welcome these compact cameras with higher IQ but to be honest unless you are printing your work what's the point?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2012 at 09:40 UTC as 174th comment
On DSCF1230 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (5 comments in total)

I've looked at X1 images and comparisons with the X100 and yes there is a difference, mostly I think in micro image contrast- the X1 having the edge, but You can simulate this difference to a certain extent by careful sharpening- or a two stage sharpening- the first stage by using a much higher pixel count like say 20 to 30 or maybe up to 40 on larger images and give an 'amount' of between 10 and 30. This ups the overall 'micro' contrast of the image-you need to use your judgement and preview on and off to see the effect. I then do the standard sharpening, often just using local sharpening in PS. I know Leica lenses have a high inherent IQ but frankly if a file is post processed properly you won't know where it originated by looking on the computer at sizes of 1200 x 900 pixels.

Direct link | Posted on May 27, 2012 at 09:13 UTC as 1st comment
On DSCF1230 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (5 comments in total)

That's very good indeed...when you think about the price of this camera, I think its very reasonable compared to the other 'big things' at the moment...

Direct link | Posted on May 27, 2012 at 09:03 UTC as 2nd comment
On DSCF1278 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (5 comments in total)

I wouldn't have used the EXR mode for this- its looking a bit gritty, but ok for what it is. I'd buy the camera. Incidentally I like the EXR thing, using it on a Fuji EXR550 and snow photography is very good, much better than some lower end Nikons

Direct link | Posted on May 27, 2012 at 08:57 UTC as 1st comment
On DSCF8351 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

It looks very useable.

Direct link | Posted on May 27, 2012 at 08:49 UTC as 1st comment
On DSCF8385 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

Amusingly there seems to be more right about this 'budget' priced camera than the other Fujis (X100 and X Pro) and the potentially wonderful X2. I might buy one...!

Direct link | Posted on May 27, 2012 at 08:47 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

keepreal: SIMPLY STUNNING: THE NEW NIKON D3200

No, what is stunning is what camera manufacturers now expect people to spend, probably quite rightly, to enter their profit merry go round. Why would I want 24.2 mp to eat up space on my memory cards when with my D300 12.3 mp is perfectly good enough to produce quality prints up to A2?

Consumerism is out of control and nobody needs this ludicrous pixel count for routine photos or to spend anything like this kind of money for the privilege.

Well I really doubt that many Nikon owners ever do much home printing. Admittedly 24 mg would make nice sharp prints assuming you had the printing skills in the first place.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 19, 2012 at 14:59 UTC
In reply to:

thethirdcoast: The ISO range is pretty interesting to me. The standard range is 100-6400, with 12800 listed as the boost. That seems to indicate this 24 MP sensor may not be quite the high ISO monster that the 16 MP unit in the D5100 and D7000 is.

Personally, I have no idea what I'd do with 24 MP at this point. 12-16 are plenty for me to feel comfortable cropping if necessary. The size of the 24 MP RAWs is also likely to start taxing my laptop's ability to process them, and that's one item I'm not looking to upgrade at present.

It would be nice if we could get reasonably priced and RELIABLE printing to utilize all these pixels.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 19, 2012 at 14:51 UTC
In reply to:

Klay: Nice little camera.

Er, how many Mg pixels? Who needs that and who is going to actually leverage that file size? The problem is getting a decent printer that doesn't clog up with ink if you aren't using it constantly. I currently own a 3100, but never use it at full resolution as most times your images end up on a computer and you don't need 14 Mg px for that.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 19, 2012 at 14:48 UTC
In reply to:

TomServoCA: 'Non-connected devices will be meaningless'

What utter nonsense.

The 'connectivity' of computers is something that has very craftily crept up on us. Not so long ago one was not constantly connected to the web- you had to make a conscious decision to connect- now connection is automatic. Goodness knows what is going on behind our backs as unknown entities crawl around our systems.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 18, 2012 at 11:15 UTC
In reply to:

TomServoCA: 'Non-connected devices will be meaningless'

What utter nonsense.

I think there are inherent dangers of being 'over' connected in the sense that one is gradually losing control of privacy etc. I know things are pretty dire already...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 18, 2012 at 11:11 UTC
In reply to:

TomServoCA: 'Non-connected devices will be meaningless'

What utter nonsense.

Yeah, that's my reaction- what tripe! I think we are approaching over saturation of being 'connected'.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 16, 2012 at 16:17 UTC

Yes, I agree with this guy. Photographs can lack context by the possibility of exclusion and by selectivity in framing- being selective when you release the shutter. Obviously scenes can be set up and obviously digitally manipulated. In any case one photograph is a tiny slice of a perception which, could change, in a split second or two.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 30, 2011 at 16:28 UTC as 16th comment
On Adobe faces criticism for change of upgrade policy article (398 comments in total)

I'm not totally sure of the necessity to even keep upgrading. I have the CS5 creative suite, but I actually prefer to still use my old CS2 version especially Illustrator. There are many changes made to these latest versions I don't like- I don't actually feel at home with the new interfaces. I don't like having to go to the bother of learning some new and unecessary interface change.
I never upgraded to CS3 or CS4, but went from CS2 to CS5, but really for most work a photographer would do its just not necessary to keep upgrading and Adobe know this.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 25, 2011 at 19:47 UTC as 44th comment
Total: 19, showing: 1 – 19