larrytusaz

larrytusaz

Lives in United States Tucson, AZ, United States
Works as a Database Design
Joined on Aug 20, 2005
About me:

Equipment:
Nikon D40 (6-2007), D200 (3-2009)
Nikon 18-55mm DX AF-S
Nikon 70-210 f/4-5.6 AF non D
Soligor pre-AI 135mm f/2.8 (11-2007)
52mm & 62mm Circular Polarizers (2004 & 2005)
72mm Polarizer (5-2008)
ML-L3 remote (11-2007)
WT(re)B: D40x

Comments

Total: 384, showing: 241 – 260
« First‹ Previous1112131415Next ›Last »
On Is Instagram 'debasing photography'? article (291 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 (291 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 (291 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 (291 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 (291 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 (291 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 (291 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
On Is Instagram 'debasing photography'? article (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

Maurizio Mancioli: If photography is viewed as art, the way you "get there" doesn't matter. It is the power of the work itself that will. Its capacity of "taking you places", of instigating you.
With the growing amount of available tools (Photoshop, Instagram), so grew possible "shortcuts" to reach interesting results is there. But in the wrong hands, all these possibilities will only be a tiring excess of effects.

The thing is, though, to me, once you reach a certain level of ability, why would you dumb it down by going the iPhone Photography route? That's just silly. Good grief, at least get a micro 4/3rds if size & portability is an issue. I don't see chefs using a microwave for heating up Chef-Boy-Ardee & claiming that as "real food." If that is "snobbery" as other people have said, so be it--maybe some snobbery is GOOD.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 14:46 UTC
On Is Instagram 'debasing photography'? article (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

rkny: I think Instagram is doing the exact opposite of debasing photography. I think it's championing it. It's widening the appeal of photography and getting people who otherwise may have never discovered photography to think about it as an expressive medium, and to get satisfying results without $5000 worth of equipment and hours spent in a darkroom or fiddling in Photoshop.

Instagram is also getting people to take pictures more creatively, For any given photo, there is often one Instagram filter that suits it best. Which filter looks best is a critical visual decision that the average person has never been faced with, and when they choose the right filter, they get satisfying results. This is because they're unconsciously mimicking the look of photos they've seen before. It's like casually humming along to a tune and discovering you can actually sing pretty well. Instagram can be rewarding, and that reward can fuel the pursuit of better photographic technique. Win win.

Instagram "champions" photography about as much as Chef-Boy-Ardee champions fine cuisine cooking.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 14:24 UTC
On Is Instagram 'debasing photography'? article (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

magnaman61: I know dozens of professional photographers using Instagram almost daily to post images on social media sites. What does that say?

It says they're lazy & I wouldn't hire them to photography my daughter's wedding based solely on the principal of it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 14:22 UTC
On Is Instagram 'debasing photography'? article (291 comments in total)

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.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 14:09 UTC as 67th comment | 2 replies
On Scientists demonstrate 'paint-on' batteries article (108 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sean Nelson: I'm quite opposed to anything that would limit the life of the products I buy, and this is why I never buy equipment without user-replaceable batteries.

IMHO, the biggest battery advance doesn't require any breakthrough at all - just get all the electronics manufacturers to agree on a few standard form factors for Li-Ion batteries so I don't have to buy new batteries and chargers for every last freaking thing I own. Being able to share batteries would go a long, long way toward reducing battery purchases and the attendant disposal issues down the line.

But of course it would rob the manufacturers of one of their most lucrative sources of income, so I don't suppose I'll live to see it...

(Sean Nelson) Here here. When I argued against the move to SD cards years ago (noting that certain cameras were the same size even after going from CF to SD), while others thought it was a good idea based on the usage of SD cards by many devices, my reply was "well why isn't there the same push for a more universal sort of battery & charger? There are WAY more types of those than memory cards & you can't buy replacement batteries in the store as easily as you can memory cards."

Heck, I've noticed that in the realm of phones with respect to battery charging & connectivity, the micro-USB form factor is becoming universal. Even cheap Tracphone flip-phones use it. It's great. My SanDisk Sansa Clip uses a standard 5-pin USB mini for charging & file uploading (yes I know it also has a sealed-up battery, shoot me, ha ha). The more universal such things can be, the better.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 1, 2012 at 01:59 UTC
On Scientists demonstrate 'paint-on' batteries article (108 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sonnik: Bottom line: If it falls short in performance AND causes us to throw away the product after the battery stops holding a chatge anymore, then it's a dud of an idea!

Exactly. Longer battery life definitely is a good thing & while I realize I'm not an electrical engineer, I fail to see how they come up with the notion that you MUST have an integrated design to have good battery life. From what I'm seeing the various camera batteries are lasting longer than ever even with larger displays & other demands being placed on them.

Look at how long the EN-EL15 on the D7000 lasts vs the similar-sized EN-EL3e on the D90. The EN-EL14 with my D5100 lasts longer than the EN-EL9 did on my D5000 yet is a bit smaller--and removeable. I'm sorry but I'm calling bull on the "you MUST have an integrated battery for decent life & size" notion.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2012 at 15:16 UTC
On Scientists demonstrate 'paint-on' batteries article (108 comments in total)

I'm sorry I don't buy it. You will *never* convince me that you MUST have non-replaceable batteries for a product to have decent battery life & structural integrity. Can you imagine cars being done this way?

It is unethical business-wise to design products to where customers can't replace the battery themselves. I agree with the one person, this is just blatant "sheep" following of everything Apple does only because they're Apple. God I'm so sick of it. What next, are we all going to start wearing turtleneck sweaters too?

If you the manufacturer can't figure out how to give your product structural integrity with replaceable batteries--tough. Figure it out.

In fact the US should do like I'm told Europe does, if I'm correct by law they REQUIRE user-replaceable batteries. It should be that way here too.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2012 at 12:58 UTC as 49th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Okay, not to grumble too much, but can someone PLEASE tell me what is wrong with "minors' being visible in the picture? Please don't propagate the silly myth that taking photos of kids at the park equals being a pervert.

(ConanFuji) Well when you put it that way, I can understand it. Most definitely. What you are describing is what you could call the "Full House Syndrome" (as in the TV show from the 80s-90s). My own wife just went through a phase of wanting to watch Full House DVDs every night for HOURS upon returning home from work, and it drove me crazy--anything a kid did was AUTOMATICALLY superior & of a higher priority than the adults' lives. Oh my goodness, I could hardly stand it.

If THAT is what you are trying to prevent, I couldn't agree with you more, and my apologies for not getting it the 1st time.

What I was talking about is the common scenario you see nowadays whereby if you are a male in the park with a camera snapping photos, people think you're a pervert. (Have they never heard of Henri Cartier-Bresson?) In one case (tinyurl.com/65qguv) a father was called that even when he was photographing his OWN kids. But that's another topic for another day.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2012 at 18:02 UTC

Okay, not to grumble too much, but can someone PLEASE tell me what is wrong with "minors' being visible in the picture? Please don't propagate the silly myth that taking photos of kids at the park equals being a pervert.

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2012 at 18:30 UTC as 3rd comment | 3 replies

So much for how locking out 3rd party batteries from their cameras prevents overheating/explosions and the like.

To wit: when oh when are the 3rd party manufacturers going to successfully clone the EN-EL15? It's been almost 2 years.

LRH
Motorola Triumph

Direct link | Posted on Apr 26, 2012 at 01:05 UTC as 24th comment
In reply to:

Jogger: but, does it do 1080p?

HA HA HA HA, thank you so VERY much for that. So, to the videographers who want to corrupt our stills-only cameras with your video concerns, I give you the Archie Bunker raspberry.

If I could afford it, I'd buy it just based on that principle alone, to "vote with my dollars" how much I so approve of this.

(But I've got to admit, it's a whole different league of camera, but I've got to admit, the Nikon D5100 I own, it is giving me KILLER photographs. As long as you can ignore that red-dot movie button, easy to do if you don't use live-view--and I usually don't--it continues to amaze me how great it does, especially at high ISOs.)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2012 at 15:33 UTC
In reply to:

PaulSnowcat: An now we'll have a new class of "professional" photographers.

- Hi, who are you?
- I am a photographer!
-What kind of photographer?
-A professional! I am using losless pics from my Iphone!

Ugh :/

Total agreement. Enough of these "it doesn't matter what your tool is." Maybe I should take my kitchen butter knives & call them my "tools" & call myself a home improvement professional. C'mon now--even if "artistic" photos have been taken with a phone, if you're even half-serious about photography, why would you dumb yourself down using an inferior tool like that?

Smartphone photos are fine for FUN, heck, I've used mine for times when I was trying to match up a hardware supply store part for an appliance I needed help with, I took a picture of the relevant area of my appliance so the store clerk could look at it & say "oh yes, you need so & so for that"--for such things--sure.

But for REAL photos of QUALITY, only a REAL camera will do. Heck you can pick up an Olympus E-PL1 kit for barely $200 anymore, it's not even the latest-greatest technology by any means, yet even it will still easily smoke camera phone photos to bits.

And it's small enough to have with you too, by the way.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2012 at 13:32 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: I don't question why Canon is doing 4K video -- all video is headed there.

I'm less clear on why DPReview is giving so much coverage to Canon video when it has a long tradition of barely mentioning video from other companies. Could it be because Canon isn't doing much with stills that's interesting...?

If I'm overposting, forgive me. To me, I think painting vs photography is a good analogy. I don't doubt there is much overlap there, yet at the same I have heard of & even met persons who are into painting who are not into photography one bit. If you go back in time enough, it was once the case photographs didn't exist at all, paintings were IT. Can you imagine how puzzled artists of the day were once photography came to be, & especially when the Kodak Brownie made everyone a "photographer?"

Yet, painting survived, and what's more, people who don't disparage photography but just aren't interested in it because painting is what they do, we're totally okay with that. There are sites you can go to that deal with painting ONLY. No one is calling those sites or their fans "luddites." They like what they like, no disrespect to anyone else's interests. It's GOOD that you can be into painting & have no interest in photography & not be called a "luddite."

The same thing should apply here.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2012 at 19:11 UTC
Total: 384, showing: 241 – 260
« First‹ Previous1112131415Next ›Last »