larrytusaz

larrytusaz

Lives in United States Tucson, United States
Works as a Database Design
Has a website at http://bit.ly/1DT7VSN
Joined on Aug 20, 2005
About me:

Equipment:
Sony NEX-6
16-50PZ
50mm 1.8 OSS

Nikon 1 J1, 10-30VR

Comments

Total: 397, showing: 241 – 260
« First‹ Previous1112131415Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Cincojoe: WOW this site amazes me. You call yourselfs photographers? Really? Shouldnt you be supporting a fellow photographer no matter what he used to take the photos? They are photos. Just that. Nothing more. A moment captured in time. You guys are nothing but gear heads that pixel peep and totally miss out on the big picture. I can only hope you're not like this in your everyday lives and I surely hope you don't act like this around your children if you have any. WOW.

Well, I would suggest that someone who calls himself a photographer, has front-row access to photographing the likes of Michael Phelps, LeBron James, and untold other top-notch athletes during a once-every-four-years event--and then proceeds to use a TOY camera for doing so despite having vastly better equipment readily as his disposal--I'm sorry, but that just seems silly to me, and like it or not, I'm calling them on it. It's nothing personal at all, but come on--if I were a chef & had the chance to prepare fine meals for important people at an event like this, I wouldn't heat up Chef-Boyardee in a pot on a hotplate & call myself a gourmet chef.

I am so serious about this, if I were to have a daughter getting married now (she's 5, way too soon) and I were to hire someone to photograph it vs doing so myself, I would interview them for their opinion on this topic, & if they disagree with me--I DON'T CARE how good they are, I won't hire them. I'm dead serious.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2012 at 04:34 UTC
In reply to:

Suntan: The title says it all. Bla, bla, Guy uses iphone at Olympics, bla, bla.

When was the last time a photographer wanted to be primarily known for the camera he uses? That's right, when he's going out of his way to make a hipster comment about technology.

I'd have a lot more appreciation for his effort if he used a higher quality camera, then transferred or uploaded the pics to his phone (or other mobile device) for posting in near real time. You know, like what the umpteen thousand other professional photographers are doing because they are taking their job seriously over there.

-Suntan

Exactly, exactly, EXACTLY!! I wish there were not just a "like" button but a "Yes! Yes! Yes!" button, I would so be clicking it.

LRH

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2012 at 04:28 UTC
In reply to:

JadedGamer: As has been said countless times, the best camera in the world is the one you have with you there and then.

Saying "what wonderful photos, you must have a really professional camera" is on the level with saying "wonderful food, you must have a really advanced food processor" or "you run really fast, you must have really great shoes"...

I do believe runners make a point to get shoes appropriate for marathon or sprint running, as opposed to buying them from "Payless." I doubt you see LeBron James running up & down the court in flip-flops yelling to Coack K "hey, a good basketball player can play wearing ANYTHING." I doubt the chefs at the 5-star restaurants in London are preparing their meals using Stouffer's "Meal in a Bag" cooked in a garage-sale skillet over a campfire. I don't see Michael Phelps swimming in a drainage ditch.

I'm not a professional, merely a "hobbyist," but when I went to the Ozark Mountains last week, knowing nice landscapes awaited me, I used an Olympus E-PL1 and Nikon D5100, NOT my phone's camera--not even for silly snaps of us eating in a cafe. Such is beneath decent photography if you ask me. Call me an "elitist" all you want, I don't care. And no, saying "if you really cared, you'd taken a D800 or medium format" is NOT saying the same thing.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2012 at 18:55 UTC
In reply to:

toomanycanons: OK, I checked out his pics. OK snapshots with the equivalent of a decent point and shoot. Made possible only because his employer told him "we're going to experiment here. Use your iPhone and let's see what happens", not "and make sure you get the shot". Great work if you can get it.

I would hate to have a boss like that. I'm probably being "all talk no action," but I dare say I would even REFUSE to do as he asked, I'd tell my boss "I'm not using some PHONE to take photos at the Olympics, I've got a Nikon/Canon so & so I'm using THAT. If you want iPhone pics so bad, take 'em yourself, or grab someone from the stands & have THEM do it."

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2012 at 18:49 UTC
In reply to:

alexzn: To the a...holes posting snide comments about this: when was the last time you took a picture with your expensive gear that was half as good as those posted by Dan Chung? When was the last time you got half as many good pictures as are in that blog? Probably not in your whole lifetime. Losers...

Dan- Congratulations with a great image stream, you proved that gear is not a limitation when it is in good hands. Of course that goes poorly on a gadget frak site like DPR.

Well I'm one of the "a-holes" & proud of it.

Just because I wasn't hired by the AP or whoever to cover the Olympics doesn't make my opinion or the others irrelevant. This notion you're applauding is hardly new, the adage "no photographer is as good as the simplest camera" goes back decades. Even so, it's also always been the case that when a person got their first "snapshot" camera, at some point they realized that they wanted to do more, to create something that would make one go "wow." They then IMMEDIATELY set their sights on a camera better than their current Polaroid etc so as to have a camera that really matches their aspirations, and they left the Kodak Instamatics in their rear-view-mirror **immediately**. It isn't about being "gear obsessed," it's about having gear that's commensurate with your aspirations, skill level, or both.

Why deliberately dumb yourself down just to make a silly point? You don't see Michael Phelps swimming at the Olympics in an Intex pool, do you?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2012 at 18:40 UTC
In reply to:

larrytusaz: I agree with (qwertyasdf) why would a PRO use the wrong tool for something like this? Gee whiz, I just came back from a vacation in the Ozark mountains, I took an Olympus E-PL1 and Nikon D5100. The camera in my phone never saw the light of day--and I know what I was doing was hardly as significant as this.

The gear doesn't matter, not one bit--okay, fine. I guess it's time for Nikon & Canon to close their doors? Maybe the chefs there who cook for the important people can bring their Stouffer's microwave "meals in a bag," since--you know, "if you're a good cook you should be able to make a great meal using a hot plate and a bag of dirt." Or--maybe the reporters can write their stories using a box of Crayons & coloring books. If these guys are such good swimmers, wouldn't a mud hole be good enough, why bother with a pool with specific dimensions--after all, "it's all in the swimmer's skill level?"

Ugh. Enough of this. Just change your name to "cameras-are-for-luddites.com" already.

But that's the thing--if you are a pro, why in the WORLD would you use such a thing? Obviously there is no LAW saying you MUST use at least x-such camera, but gee whiz--you're covering the OLYMPICS, you're in prime position not shooting from the stands like a tourist. Why would you limit yourself & not use an SLR?

As I've said before, I agree with "it's not the gear" when the point is made that you don't have to have the absolute top-of-the-line stuff (although, again, a typical pro in this situation would typically use top-of-the-line stuff). The Nikon D5100 has the same sensor as the D7000 & thus is capable of the same image quality, even if it has fewer features. Ditto the Canon T4i vs 7D--in ways like that, I agree--you don't have to have top-of-the-line to "rate."

But c'mon, this is just getting ridiculous. Using a point & shoot grade of camera for a high-profile pro job? You don't see LeBron James out there playing basketball using a 99c inflatable kids' ball, do you?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2012 at 07:45 UTC
In reply to:

Blaufeld: Now the "Pro Gear Police" will come in this thread and start beating everyone with their Canikon cameras... ;)

The police are correct.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2012 at 07:34 UTC

I agree with (qwertyasdf) why would a PRO use the wrong tool for something like this? Gee whiz, I just came back from a vacation in the Ozark mountains, I took an Olympus E-PL1 and Nikon D5100. The camera in my phone never saw the light of day--and I know what I was doing was hardly as significant as this.

The gear doesn't matter, not one bit--okay, fine. I guess it's time for Nikon & Canon to close their doors? Maybe the chefs there who cook for the important people can bring their Stouffer's microwave "meals in a bag," since--you know, "if you're a good cook you should be able to make a great meal using a hot plate and a bag of dirt." Or--maybe the reporters can write their stories using a box of Crayons & coloring books. If these guys are such good swimmers, wouldn't a mud hole be good enough, why bother with a pool with specific dimensions--after all, "it's all in the swimmer's skill level?"

Ugh. Enough of this. Just change your name to "cameras-are-for-luddites.com" already.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2012 at 04:35 UTC as 56th comment | 7 replies
On Facebook pushes photo prominence in timeline article (83 comments in total)

I just got back from a trip where I took TONS of photos, got some great landscapes out of it. Know where I parked them? On PBase. I have WAY more control over its presentation, I don't get people griping about photos I post of them that get "tagged," I was able to upload many at once via the use of ZIP files, and if I leave Facebook they're still all there. I've used their site since 2004, in fact.

Funny: it seems to me Facebook didn't event photo-sharing & that there are PLENTY of places to post your photos besides Facebook, although fewer & fewer people believe or realize it. If no one bothers to look at them, that's on them, they're there and easy to see. I don't need Facebook for that.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2012 at 07:23 UTC as 14th comment | 1 reply
On Just Posted: Nokia 808 PureView Review article (208 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marty4650: These convergence appliances leave me cold. I don't even use the video function on my cameras. I prefer something that does one thing exceptionally well, over things that can do a lot of things somewhat well.

I realize there are lots of people who love the camera phone concept, but I really think Dpreview is casting their net much too widely now.

If they decided to start reviewing security cameras or endoscopes then someone would probably be thrilled. Because after all... they are also cameras of a sort.

IMHO, there are still plenty of real cameras that need reviewing... and that should be the priority of this website.

However, it's not my website. I am just a non-paying guest. And even with all this newly added clutter, Dpreview is still a great website.

So my opinion is just that. My opinion.

{Marty4650) I agree 100%, and I have a smartphone. But I'm like you, I'm tired of all of this "convergence." Yes it is handy to have 3011 features in 1 item that's always with you, but such an item does not perform the functions as well as the "one thing only" devices it replaces, even if it does it "good enough."

Even things like the calculator app on a smartphone--compared to an all-touch device you have actual physical buttons with tactile feedback. Compared to something like a Blackberry, it's still better because you're not having to use the numbers in the reverse "telephone" format (with 7-8-9 on the bottom row as phones do it vs the top row as calculators do it). I use my phone's GPS but I still own a Garmin Nuvi so that I can do other things on the phone while the GPS handles driving directions (my wife typically drives while I'm riding "shotgun"). A phone that does nothing but phone calls (I'm thinking landline) will have multiple line capabilities & such. The list goes on.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2012 at 18:22 UTC

I like the Kate Bevan rant a LOT better. Dpreview is free to do as they please, but they seem to be going far beyond just ACKNOWLEDGING the Hipstomatic/Instagram trend and actually shoving it down our throats, when I've come here for years to read about Nikon DSLRs. Mirrorless is fine as well, I realize it's great to have something besides JUST the DSLRs (I have an Olympus E-PL1 myself), but come on now--is this site now iphonecameras.com?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2012 at 00:17 UTC as 25th comment | 4 replies
On Is Instagram 'debasing photography'? article (290 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dan Wagner: I'm a practitioner of real photography. At least that's what I call it. I eschew gimmicks, fancy lighting, Kubota, Fong, and of course Instagramization. I shoot with film and process it myself. I want to be more involved. I want craft. Otherwise where's the heart? As an analogy, cooking with a microwave is one way to prepare a meal, but it's not as satisfying for the cook or the eater as traditional methods. The sense of self-accomplishment is vastly weaker. When it comes to photography or cooking, I put my photos where my mouth is. My work is at danwagnerphotography.com and it's real. This IS photography.

I like it that Dan backs it up, but then, one doesn't need to. On the PRINCIPAL of it it's what I feel. I don't have to be a chef to state my opinion that real chefs don't cook Chef-Boyardee in a can or microwave Stouffer's lasagna from a pre-packaged box--same goes here. There is no "Dan bandwagon," I'm stating my very strongly-held opinion.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 23:51 UTC
On Is Instagram 'debasing photography'? article (290 comments in total)
In reply to:

jwil6902: 35mm killed 120. Digital killed 35. Mobile will kill the P&S/basic DSLR. Get used to it, it's called progress and we are powerless against it's relentless march into the future.

Goofy is fine by me. No I'm not the grammar police, but so what if I am? If a word is misspelled, it just is. It may be beside the point--but then, maybe it IS the point. It seems standards don't apply anymore, there are no boundaries. I say there SHOULD be boundaries--maybe it's not up to me to decide what those boundaries are, but there SHOULD be boundaries. If you disagree, try "thinking outside the box" by driving on the wrong side of the road & see where that gets you.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 23:48 UTC
On Is Instagram 'debasing photography'? article (290 comments in total)
In reply to:

wvanbeckum: I shoot with instagram daily, and it is valuable to me as a photographer because it allows me to capture a moment that I wouldn't be able to capture otherwise. We all see beautiful moments all around us every single day, so why not utilize our camera phones to capture a moment?

The use of instagram filters allows a photo to be shared quickly, and for it to have a finished quality to it... I'm not saying it's a fine piece of art necessarily, but I like to think that I have a good eye for composition, and some of these filters strengthen the photo and let me share it quickly. These photo's aren't leaning on their filters as a crutch... the filters are just enhancing the image, and instagram is allowing me to share the image with fellow photographers.

Look at the iPhone photography section of my website if you need examples of moments that I captured without my SLR... These photo's are not about the filter, they are about the image. http://www.williamvanbeckum.com/Series/iPhone/

Why should you even OWN an SLR if the tool doesn't matter and you're going to use your iPhone anyway? I stick with what Olympus says--camera phones are to photography what 3 minute noodles are to cooking.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 17:04 UTC
On Is Instagram 'debasing photography'? article (290 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dan Nikon: If you don't think that iPhone photos, Lomo film photos and now Instagram are photography, then you are truly caught up in the gear, not the image. It's just another tool, like Infrared film, a fisheye lens and at least it is done right away, you don't have to sit in front of a computer inventing talent you will never have in real life. A lot of well known pros use Instagram, David Kennerly, David Alan Harvey, etc. Their eye is what carries the image, not the tool. I did a show last year from my iPhone-4 in Hipstamatic. Most images were printed at 10" x 10" and two went as large as 30" x 30". We did very well opening night and sold out in three months, there were only editions of one each, a net profit of 3K. I shoot everything from 35mm / iPhone4 for editorial and fine art use to 4x5 for the same and advertising. I let the photos do the talking, not a list of gear that is supposed to impress someone.

I'm sorry, but I think gear DOES matter. It is not the ONLY thing, but it does matter. Come on, you expect me to believe that when we get into photography we have no aspirations to stepping up from our point & shoot or camera phone and getting something of actual quality? Get real. If the gear doesn't matter, then I guess Nikon & Canon and the rest should just stop making DSLRs at all and just work on making optics for the idiot iPhone photographers. Puh-leaze.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 17:01 UTC
On Is Instagram 'debasing photography'? article (290 comments in total)
In reply to:

bcalkins: I think critics miss the point of Instagram. It is a fast way to share photos! Most of the images people share these days are taken with phones, and lacking in much long term value as photographs - but they have high value among one's friends and family.

I have friends who don't use Instagram or other photo sharing sites and guess what, I never see their photos! I don't see applying filters as having much impact or the work of artists and professionals. If anything, the look of instagram images just identifies images as being shared on Instagram. I'm OK with that... What's the big deal?

See, part of the problem is the idea that people think Facebook & Instagram INVENTED photo sharing. Bull-spit. Have people not heard of Flickr, PBase, Picasa, & an entire HOST of photo hosting sites out there? If people are too ignorant to think outside the Facebook universe, phooey on them.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 16:59 UTC
On Is Instagram 'debasing photography'? article (290 comments in total)
In reply to:

ybizzle: This article is pointless. What is "real photography" anyways? Whether you take a picture with a Leica M9 or an iPhone, it's real photography in my books. You're capturing a moment in time either way.

By the way, you can say the same about any filter that changes the look of a picture that comes straight out of camera. People complain about anything these days. Just go out, shoot and have fun with your photography.

I go with Olympus states--camera phones are to photography what 3 minute noodles are to cooking.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 16:54 UTC
On Is Instagram 'debasing photography'? article (290 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dan Wagner: I'm a practitioner of real photography. At least that's what I call it. I eschew gimmicks, fancy lighting, Kubota, Fong, and of course Instagramization. I shoot with film and process it myself. I want to be more involved. I want craft. Otherwise where's the heart? As an analogy, cooking with a microwave is one way to prepare a meal, but it's not as satisfying for the cook or the eater as traditional methods. The sense of self-accomplishment is vastly weaker. When it comes to photography or cooking, I put my photos where my mouth is. My work is at danwagnerphotography.com and it's real. This IS photography.

See, I agree with Dan Wagner completely. To add my bits, when jdrx2012 asked about "laying judgment on them," gee whiz, what good is anything in life without SOME sense of standards? I mean, if I took a photo of a box of cow manure and called that art, are you "laying judgment" on me to suggest that such a photo maybe isn't one particularly of any artistic merit?

I get that art typically isn't as linear as 2+5=7 (although sometimes I wish it were in some ways) that art is open to a lot of interpretation & so forth--after all, Dan Wagner stated he didn't care for Ansel Adams' work, while of course he's very famous & highly regarded for his landscapes. I love John Mellencamp's work & he is in the Hall of Fame after all, but others don't like him--no problem.

Even so--come on, since when did it become the idea that we are not allowed to judge ANYTHING at ALL? No thanks to that notion.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 16:51 UTC
On Is Instagram 'debasing photography'? article (290 comments in total)
In reply to:

jwil6902: 35mm killed 120. Digital killed 35. Mobile will kill the P&S/basic DSLR. Get used to it, it's called progress and we are powerless against it's relentless march into the future.

If mobile phone photography is progress, especially vs a DSLR, then I'm Mickey Mouse.

See, the problem here is, people in art sometimes don't understand the need for standards & respect of boundaries. They matter you know--if not in art, then in many other things. To wit: your mis-usage of "it's." That mis-uage is a common one, but it's still wrong. (By contrast, the way I used it's there was correct.) You can argue all day long that you don't think the standard is right, but the standard remains. "The dogged wagged it's tail"--WRONG. "The dog wagged its tail"--CORRECT. That is FACT, it's not up for what you THINK, it is FACT.

I say this because, well, I think sometimes many of you take the "it's open to interpretation" thing too far. I mean, why don't I just take a photo of some cow manure with a empty bottle of beer laying around it, throw it way out of focus, and call that "art?" Gee freaking whiz.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 16:44 UTC
On Is Instagram 'debasing photography'? article (290 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Thank you Kate Bevan. Are you available? (Ha ha.)

I would go further & say "iPhone Photography" etc is most definitely debasing photography. I'm sorry, but if you have access to a Nikon D5100 or D3s etc, what in the WORLD are you doing practicing "photography" with a stinking camera phone? You expect me to take you seriously as a photographer when you're lazy enough to use a camera phone rather than a REAL camera? At least use something like a m4/3rds, something like an Olympus E-PM1 is VERY small but absolutely embarrasses any camera phone photo, & it's hardly the most up-to-date model (like a Sony NEX-C3 etc--imagine what THEY will do).

If you're just taking "fun snaps" of everyday goofy stuff without the pressure to get something "artistic" (heck we all do that), sure, by all means. But using a camera phone ON PURPOSE as a "photography" tool? Puh-leaze. If I were a chef, I sure as heck wouldn't claim Chef-Boy-Ardee was "real food." It's mediocrity in a can.

Obviously owning fancy cookware doesn't MAKE you a chef, but I would imagine someone who IS a real chef or aspires to be realizes that plopping a can of Chef-Boyardee in a pot or shoving Stouffer's lasagna in the microwave is NOT what a chef would aspire to. The same people who don't respect SOME sort of boundaries in this realm are the same nut+jobs who would probably argue that 2 goats living together on a farm is a legally-binding marriage.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 15:11 UTC
Total: 397, showing: 241 – 260
« First‹ Previous1112131415Next ›Last »