tigrebleu

tigrebleu

Lives in Canada Canada
Works as a Photographer / photo teacher / store manager.
Joined on Dec 13, 2006
About me:

Fields of photography I specialize in:
- Stage performance
- Editorial
- Advertising photography

My gear:
- Two DSLRs, one flash and five lenses
- One Elinchrom Ranger RX Quadra kit with two "A" heads and lots of accessoires
- MacBook Pro with Capture One Pro 7, Photoshop CS2, Photomatix Pro, Final Cut Studio 2 and Quicktime Pro

My motto:
- A good photo is 95% photographer's skills and creativity, 4% light quality and 1% camera quality (and in fact, Adams, Cartier-Bresson and others made masterpieces using film cameras with no AF, no AE, no IS, no ISO 6400 and no instant playback)

Comments

Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On Pentax O-FC1 FluCard: The wireless details article (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

select: this is useless, why don't you put a built in wifi? In this way you can transfer only files which are in the Flucard, but you can't browse and transfer those in the other standard SD card... and also the Flucard 16gb costs $100 or more... this is crazy...

Built-in wifi would induce extra cost as well. Just check the price difference between a Canon SX270HS and its wifi enabled big brother, the SX280HS. Same camera, but one has wifi and costs more.

Also, when compared to Nikon and Canon's solutions for non-tethered remote control of the camera and file transfer, the FluCard remains quite affordable.

The WR-T10 for Nikon D7100 sells at roughly the same price but with much less remote controls options, while Canon's WFT-E5A (for 7D) is much more complete and offers an astounding range, but costs about 650$. (The K-3 being a weather sealed camera, I compared with products offering the same level of protection so apples can be compared with apples, not oranges — so the 30$ Nikon wifi adapter for DX000 series was left out).

All-in-all, Pentax offer is quite sound and very competitive.

My biggest concern is the lack of RAW file transfer (I always shoot RAW, even family pictures), so I'd still go for the Eye-Fi for now.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 10, 2014 at 21:28 UTC
On Pentax O-FC1 FluCard: The wireless details article (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

gerard boulanger: Pentax K3 accessories review done before the K3 camera announced 5 months ago and awarded as camera of the year 2103 in this very forum...

Honestly, it's not that I need a full review, a high percentage and a gold medal to appreciate the very good value of the K3, but being so late let some of us think that DPR has priorities.

Reviewing a semi-pro DSLR takes longer than reviewing a wifi-remote control memory card. Give the DPReview some time to do it properly. With hundreds of cameras coming out of the mfg. plants of Canon, Nikon, Olympus, Panasonic, etc., no wonder why it takes a bit of time to review just a fraction of them.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 10, 2014 at 21:11 UTC
On Pentax O-FC1 FluCard: The wireless details article (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

Polytropia: "FluCard" ... really? What's next, the "AIDScard" ...?

Someone in the Pentax marketing department needs to find another job.

Agreed, Tosic, most people can make the difference between the (bad) choice of name of a product and what the products actually delivers (whichever place they're from).

Still, it wouldn't hurt try finding names that are catchy for other reasons than how close to a disease or human body part they sound. ;)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 10, 2014 at 21:07 UTC
On Pentax O-FC1 FluCard: The wireless details article (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

Polytropia: "FluCard" ... really? What's next, the "AIDScard" ...?

Someone in the Pentax marketing department needs to find another job.

Yeah, Pentax (and now Ricoh) marketing department could learn a few bits of foreign language here and there before naming their products.

The Pentax Q is one example, with the letter "Q" sounding exactly like the word "butt" in French. I'm talking about the one that sounds pretty much like the synonym of donkey.

The K-7 also poses a similar problem, being pronounced like "cassette" in French as well.

And now, we have the FluCard. Think it sounds bad in English? Well, it's even worst in French Canadian slang. In this case, "flu" means having diarrhea. O.o

Direct link | Posted on Mar 7, 2014 at 21:30 UTC

The reason I stopped posting pictures on FB a long time ago. Facebook's Terms and Rules basically allow them to do whatever they want with the content you post on the social media pages. I didn't put a single picture on FB since over a year, and judging from this latest modification to their rules, I'm not likely to change my mind about this anytime soon.

I understand that FB needs the user's approval to reproduce his/her contents on third party pages and apps. and that making specific rules each use and its limits wouldn't be manageable.

I could be possible to come up with a new Terms of service agreement that prevents the sharing of the content posted by user to be used for commercial purposes, except for those in direct relation with the marketing and promotion of FB services and its contents, or something of this sort. This would allow FB to use the users' contents without fear of constant legal issues, while preventing abuse at the same time.

But FB wants to make profits, so...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2013 at 00:45 UTC as 24th comment
In reply to:

ptox: It's facile to cry exploitation and shame: the same argument could be made for conflict photographers across the globe. We recognize the value in bluntly documenting the reality of war; why not the reality of domestic violence?

(I also wonder if the moralists here disagree with the police's advice that intervening would have been the wrong decision.)

I totally agree. People are so quick to condemn the photojournalist, and yet I'd guess most of them never faced such a situation and would probably have done just the same.

Intervening, really? If so, what about the possible consequences? Maybe that man would've hurt her or worse. Maybe this could just have made a bad situation go worse, with that man's anger being sent through the roof because of the photojournalist's intervention.

Second, photojournalists aren't suppose to intervene in such situations, for then they become actors to the story, which can lead to too much subjectivity, instead of just being reporters.

A friend of mine used to work as a cameraman for a local network. After a few years witnessing local events, his urge to play a role in such events lead him to quit his job and go back to college to become a cop. He's since very happy to serve his community as a cop instead of reporting about its events.

So let that photojournalist do her job, and the cops do theirs.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 2, 2013 at 00:28 UTC
On Nikon D7100 Hands-on Preview preview (493 comments in total)
In reply to:

CrazyPipo: I like it, in fact, I can see this as my back up camera :)

but when will Nikon learn to put ISO button somewhere on the right hand side? It's a pain to adjust ISO while shooting especially when I use a long heavy lens like 70-200 f/2.8 :(

While the "Easy ISO" option is a nice feature, it's of a limited use in manual metering mode. There's also the (slight) risk of accidentally changing the ISO without immediately noticing in aperture- or shutter speed-priority mode.

Having some properly placed hard button would be much nicer. I'd move the metering button at the back of the camera and put in the ISO button instead. But then, it's my personal preference, and anyone could argue they prefer another place, with good reason. We all have different needs. Being a stage performance shooter, AF and metering mode aren't as important as ISO to me. But to a sports or landscape photographer, that's another matter.

In the future, maybe we'll see 100% assignable buttons, with individual LED display so that you can put your ISO button wherever you like, and yet it will still read "ISO", and not "Fn" or the like.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2013 at 00:47 UTC
On Nikon D7100 Hands-on Preview preview (493 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dr Ram: Waiting, waiting and waiting announced, disappointed and again one more time. What it means to be a nature and wildlife photographers and hold D7100? Nikon just added another between 7000 & 300s. There are quality additions in terms of 24mp, ISO, AF sensitivity, 51 focus points, expeed 3 processor and removal of low pass filter (?). But the bigger disappointment is frame speed, extremely low buffer, no CF card slot and no tenpin slot for remote trigger. It does not make sense for sports and wildlife because of 24mp coupled with good ISO range producing big RAW files with mediocre buffer having to content with slow SD cards. How to cope with action shooting when the buffer is full and you miss most of the action? Shoot 6 images in one second, the camera buffers and you wait for 30-40 seconds for the file transfer. Just see that you miss 30x6=180 images (approximate) of intense action and then experience the frustration. I think Nikon is playing with customers.
Still waiting for D400!

Actually, while the buffer is limited by the camera's internal memory, it can be improved a bit through a firmware, as often, not all that memory is used by the buffer. How much depends on how much "remaining" memory there is and/or how much of the used memory can be "reassigned" to the buffer, so to say.

Pentax has already done it once with its K-5 (if I remember correctly), increasing its buffer size by a very good margin. But that doesn't mean it's possible with the D7100, since it might already be at its limits on that aspect.

Still, that's proof that adding more pixels is not always a positive point. Sure, it's great for larger prints, and the noise at higher ISO will be less noticeable on most prints and PC viewing, thanks to the additional pixels making the noise look "finer". But it fills up memory cards and hard drives more rapidly, and, most important, it fills up the buffer more rapidly as well.

Yes, Nikon should've made the D7100 with a much bigger buffer. :(

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2013 at 00:36 UTC
On Photo contest: Enter for a chance to win $5,000 article (130 comments in total)
In reply to:

stern: Just curious: whats going on in Quebec? "The Contest and these Official Rules are void in Quebec ."
Cheers
Stern

Indeed, Québec has different laws regarding games, contests, etc. For these reasons, most contests held in the whole country or in the U.S. / Canada prefer to void the contest in Québec than to adapt it entirely to abide to the different laws, as it is much, much easier. Quite unfortunate for us, les Québécois. :(

Direct link | Posted on Sep 29, 2012 at 03:16 UTC
In reply to:

Barb Matheson: OK you learned Pentaxians, I welcome some advice. I have a K10D and am ready to upgrade. I am really looking forward to a better AF and would love a higher ISO than 1600.
I was interested in the K30, but do you think the K-5 11 is worth the extra cash? I can't find much comparison to the K10!
Video is not a big deal for me.
Thanking you in anticipation.

Had both a K10D and a K-7 (which is similar to the K-5, except for the sensor and IQ). The K-7 has MUCH better ergonomics over the K10D, is smaller and has better AF (although still not great).

The biggest differences between the K-30 and K-5 II is the body built and the improved AF. If you shoot sports/action and/or need a very sturdy camera, go for the K-5 II. If you don't, save some money by going to for the K-30, and buy lenses with the extra cash.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 18, 2012 at 02:46 UTC
In reply to:

micahmedia: The conceptual problem is that "-shopping" an element from one image into another image has traditionally been considered the line between an objective representation and a dishonest manipulation. HDR is done mechanically by computer, yet it is still performing the function of adding together two different images.

If we accept that adding together two images or even just two exposures from different moments is a way to present reality, we're opening up a conceptual can of worms.

That's it! It's about time. A photograph represents a discreet moment. You are manipulating TIME to present HDR images. Most other manipulations, alter the result of that discreet moment. You violate the uniqueness of the moment to in the application of multi-image HDR.

Good point.

But then, recovering details in shadows and in highlights in post-processing (using some fill light adjustment, for instance) can easily result in a look similar to that of HDR. According to PJ rules, that could be considered as "cheating" (as could be the use of a graduated ND filter) , and as such, would be inappropriate, as it is still a manipulation of the original image to transform this image into one different from the original. The only difference with HDR is that HDR is more effective and that more than one photo was used to produce the final image. Time manipulation, as you said. And yet, the intent was the same: to produce a more realistic looking image.

I think that's what the debate should be about: intent. The truthfulness of the intent is the key, IMHO, not the means used to reach thos truthfulness. Because in the very end, it's about if PJ is showing reality or fiction.

As long as it's mentioned HDR is being used, HDR can be appropriate PJ use, IMHO.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2012 at 18:45 UTC
In reply to:

Dave Oddie: Most HDR I see look unnatural whereas I rarely get that feeling from looking at a photo-journalistic shot even if it is shot on in black and white.

I think this is because the HDR shots tend to lack any deep shadows at all. They tend to appear grey and dark shadows play an important part in making a photograph appear realistic in my opinion.

I am not talking about the poster paint results that can result from HDR which are horrible anyway but when it is applied more subtly to try and just enhance DR. Most times it doesn't need enhancing at all.

Good point!

I sometimes do HDR imaging for clients when faced with harsh illumination and when fill flash can't be used (when I need to photograph a building on an overcast day, for instance).

But when I show other photographers the final results, none was ever able to tell HDR was involved, because the way I had done the tone mapping was meant to reflect reality, and as such, the HDR process was used in a subtle way that was hardly noticeable to even the expert eye.

Most HDR we see on the web today is meant to be dramatic and breath taking, not realistic. These images look like the art work fantasy artists, not like reality. Like or don't like, it's a matter of taste.

When HDR stops being realistic enough to be "proper" for photojournalism use is where it starts to be "creative". If the photojournalists of this world can agree on the difference, then HDR could have a chance of becoming an acceptable technique used to better reflect the reality of a scene that's being photographed.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2012 at 18:25 UTC

The fear is that a Pandora box will be opened if HDR processing is allowed in photojournalism. I believe this fear is not justified.

HDR is not retouching as in using Photoshop to remove visually intrusive power lines from a landscape photograph or to remove skin imperfections on a person's face.

As long as the of HDR is use to best reproduce what the photographer saw in REALITY when he or she pressed the shutter release, I don't see any reason to ban HDR from good photojournalism practices. It would be like saying the use of a certain film developper "was cheating" because it provided better details in the shadows or in the highlights.

We're far from the awful examples of very bad (both in the technical and ethical sense) photo retouching that are often seen in a UK newspaper I won't dare to name for this piece of crap is so unethical it's not worth being used as anything but bathroom tissue (those among you who read PhotoshopDisasters will know which newspapers I'm talking about).

Direct link | Posted on Feb 6, 2012 at 18:11 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

Fredrik strm: 20 weddings with 33 hours of work (which sounds alot) is just 660 hours in a year.
Normal people work 2000 hours in a year, so of course you are going to have to charge 3 times as much as it is worth when you only want to work 1/3 of the time.

Do more weddings, then you can be cheaper and still make the same money.
You charge more because you can, just like she says.

/F

And also, that photographer will not get all of these wedding assignements, no matter how good he or she is. Because some of these to-be-married people will ask their uncle John, their friend Linda to do the pictures for free or very cheap, or they will hire the photographer that made the photos at the bride's sister wedding.

And most brides want their photos to be unique. A wedding photographer doing 60 weddings a year usually ends up producing the exact same photos from one wedding to another. And yet the brides have no issues spending 2K or 3K on a wedding dress and another 2K on a reception and 5-course dinner in the chic ballroom of a beautiful hotel, but they refuse to spend a similar amount on a photographer that can bring back home magnificient memories of this important event.

If a bride finds wedding photographers prices too high, she can always convince a freshly out-of-school photography student or an amateur to work for much less. With the risks it involves.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 11:05 UTC
In reply to:

Fredrik strm: 20 weddings with 33 hours of work (which sounds alot) is just 660 hours in a year.
Normal people work 2000 hours in a year, so of course you are going to have to charge 3 times as much as it is worth when you only want to work 1/3 of the time.

Do more weddings, then you can be cheaper and still make the same money.
You charge more because you can, just like she says.

/F

Charging less doesn't means the photographer will automatically get more weddings.

In the wedding market, not a lot of photographers are doing more than 30 per year. Why? Simply because people usually marry on weekends (which means only 104 wedding days per year available to a single photographer) and between April and September (unless you live in Florida or another sub-tropical place where it's warm all year long), which is about 6-7 months a year, for a total of 48-56 weekends days. I don't know a lot of people who would marry on mondays or in the middle of winter, as brides want this day to be special, which usuallly includes being sunny and warm.

And a photographer shooting a wedding on a Friday is unlikely to shoot another wedding on saturday, because many brides expects the photos to be delivered on sunday or monday at worse. So we're now down to 24-28 weddings a year for a given photographer.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 11:01 UTC
On Private Views by Barbara Crane article (3 comments in total)

Agreed Wayne B. Using such equipement can be intimidating to the people being photographed. People's photography is hard work in terms of getting up close and personal to your subject, but the results can be outstanding if one photographer's got good people skills!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 8, 2012 at 05:25 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

tigrebleu: Note to Canon... I care about video as much as I do about stills, so keep up the good work. (Just make sure that upcoming DSLR hasn't a crippled AF system, like with the 5DII.)

Today, DSLR manufacturers can't ignore video users. I don't know many pro photographers who don't shoot video too. And good video cameras with large sensors and the resulting DOF control are way more expensive than DSLRs doing all that almost as well as vidcams (just think of Red cameras, for instance).

In three ot four pro DSLR generations from now, all DSLRs will become still/video hybrids, equally versatile in both areas. Because the price of desiging, developping and marketing two DSLR cameras, one for stills and one for video, is now higher than doing the same for one DSLR capable of both still and video capture.

It's called evolution. Those who can't adapt may just disappear. In terms of DSLR video, Nikon and Pentax have a lot of work ahead of them to keep up with Canon (and even with Pana and Sony).

My apologies for my sarcastic reply, Jim. It was inappropriate and I shouldn't have posted this.

And while I don't agree on focusing only on stills, as video is now part of DSLRs as much as still image, I do agree with your "$1,000" comment: at such price, a DSLR should include basic weather seals, metal body and good sensor.

Darn, the Pentax K200D used to be available for less than $600, and although it wasn't full metal (chassis only, plastic outer shell), it had full weather seals.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 10, 2011 at 08:41 UTC
In reply to:

tigrebleu: Note to Canon... I care about video as much as I do about stills, so keep up the good work. (Just make sure that upcoming DSLR hasn't a crippled AF system, like with the 5DII.)

Today, DSLR manufacturers can't ignore video users. I don't know many pro photographers who don't shoot video too. And good video cameras with large sensors and the resulting DOF control are way more expensive than DSLRs doing all that almost as well as vidcams (just think of Red cameras, for instance).

In three ot four pro DSLR generations from now, all DSLRs will become still/video hybrids, equally versatile in both areas. Because the price of desiging, developping and marketing two DSLR cameras, one for stills and one for video, is now higher than doing the same for one DSLR capable of both still and video capture.

It's called evolution. Those who can't adapt may just disappear. In terms of DSLR video, Nikon and Pentax have a lot of work ahead of them to keep up with Canon (and even with Pana and Sony).

Fixed and inalterable? Unchanged since Flood? Sorry, but I'm not into myths... I'm into science. Measurable data only.

That said, I don't think the 5DIII will be mirrorless yet, and especially not with EVF. IMHO, EVF is not ready to replace OVF in advanced and pro DSLR. Not yet. Most likely, I think we'll see some hybrid OVF with EVF data overlay in the future.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 10, 2011 at 05:43 UTC
In reply to:

AG Photo Inc: Canon please note, give us a good auto focus system for the video mode too in this new D-SLR.

Ditto.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 10, 2011 at 05:32 UTC
In reply to:

Josh152: A DLSR is supposed to be a dedicated stills camera. It seems canon is trying to turn them into video cams. Considering they already have a full line of video cameras, I don't understand it. At the end of the day a DSLR is always going to be a mediocre video camera anyway. By focusing on the video feature they are just going to make a camera that is mediocre at both stills and video. Unwanted by both serious photographers who will feel abandoned by canon and serious cinematographers who will want an inevitably better dedicated solution.

What most people are really waiting for from canon is the 5D Mark III. Why can't they just focus on getting that done?

I agree 100%. Some people don't seem to understand that a camera maker has to satisfy different kinds of customers. Putting efforts in DSLR video performance will not result in DSLR still performance being left behind. Just consider it a bonus that you can take advantage of or not ...

There is a huge DSLR video market for grabs, and right now, the only photo business that really understands that is Canon (although Canon is not just a photo business anymore). Nikon is making efforts (D7000) but is still missing on a few things.

Sony is second best but is desperately trying to save its video department from Canon's vDSLR success by keeping video and still separated (NEX VG-10). Pana is doing the same mistake.

Only Canon seems to understand it can develop both its video DSLR and its vidcam business at the same time, for both serve either similar or different purposes depending on the users' needs.

I don't have money to afford both a DSLR and C300. A video DSLR is the answer for me.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2011 at 03:59 UTC
Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »