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: 387, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On 2014 iPhone Photography Awards winners announced article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonrobertp: Phones as photography....let's be serious.

I didn't realize that a CAMERA was capable of lightening up.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 19, 2014 at 16:35 UTC
On 2014 iPhone Photography Awards winners announced article (102 comments in total)
In reply to:

jonrobertp: Phones as photography....let's be serious.

The scary and pathetic thing is they ARE serious. I guess I should head over to a golfing site and in the forums discuss using broomsticks or a mop instead of clubs, because "they're always with you" and "the tool doesn't matter."

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2014 at 16:09 UTC
On 2014 iPhone Photography Awards winners announced article (102 comments in total)

(Manah) is right. I think it is extremely lazy to be of the frame of mind that "lugging" a camera where you go is too much work. Gee whiz, you have models like the Olympus E-PM2 and Sony RX100 to choose from, models that are very small yet do well, certainly way better than a smartphone. In the case of the E-PM2, it practically matches a Nikon D7000 and newer models like the Sony A6000 do even better.

I'm sorry, but if "lugging" an Olympus E-PM2 or Sony RX100 is more than a person can "bear," that's just pathetic and to me such people just don't rate. No one's saying you have to lug 4x6 film plates or a Nikon D4s, but come on already. Enough of this "the best tool is the one you have with you." My child has a Fisher Price camera with a pop-bottle lens, it's always around--I suppose Nikon, Canon and Sony E-mount gear just isn't necessary anymore? Yeah, right.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 16, 2014 at 15:58 UTC as 10th comment
On Sony a6000 Review preview (748 comments in total)

Having shot with the NEX-6 before I would miss the level gauge. I can't shoot a level landscape without one if my life depended on it. There's always a Joby aftermarket spirit level, but then you can't see it if you're using the EVF. Why in the WORLD was this left off from the NEX-6?

However, I love what they'e done with having so many AF points covering so much of the frame. This is something that DSLR makers still don't seem to get--we don't want to have to "focus center and recompose," we want to compose as-is and then be able to place an AF point pretty much wherever on the screen with our current composition already accounted for. Even models like the D7100 don't provide enough coverage, to say nothing of the D3000 and D5000 series. Whenever you say "I want about 150 AF points covering the WHOLE screen" they look at you like you're asking for the moon or something. Sony proves that in fact you're not asking that at all.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 3, 2014 at 17:37 UTC as 131st comment | 4 replies
On Never forget a Photoshop or Lightroom shortcut again article (70 comments in total)

I like the idea, very much, but I could hardly read anything on it. The ones I can remember in Photoshop CS2 (yes, CS2)--M turns on the normal cursor that it opens with, making it a quick way to exit out of the cloning or healing brush. CTRL-0 returns the image to its normal "fit to screen" size, CTRL + zooms in CTRL - zooms out. I am sure I would benefit from many others.

Also, I would LOVE a way to "lock" the adjustments palette on the right-hand side in Lightroom 4. I am CONSTANTLY accidentally clicking that "collapse" section on it while trying to make an adjustment (exposure compensation, white balance etc). I don't want that palette to EVER go away, EVER.

Direct link | Posted on May 19, 2014 at 14:42 UTC as 20th comment
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: The existence of quality "always with you" options like this, the 3rd version of the RX 100 III, is why there's no excuse for EVER using your freaking PHONE for photography pursuits because "the best camera is the one that's with you." As small & potent as this is, using the smartphone's camera is so lame. (As for price--you can now get the 1st RX100 for a relative song.)

I stand by my assertion, even if 30 award-winning "photographers" disagree, they are STILL wrong. If it were up to me, that photographer would have been MADE to use a real camera or not be allowed to practice professional photography again, and if he did so anyway, be jailed for practicing photography without a license. I am absolutely serious. Quit mocking the art form by being a stupid retarded buffoon.

Direct link | Posted on May 18, 2014 at 20:37 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: The existence of quality "always with you" options like this, the 3rd version of the RX 100 III, is why there's no excuse for EVER using your freaking PHONE for photography pursuits because "the best camera is the one that's with you." As small & potent as this is, using the smartphone's camera is so lame. (As for price--you can now get the 1st RX100 for a relative song.)

The integrity of the art should be respected, and when violated in this manner, protected. To wit--I think pro photography, that which one is paid for as an advertised public service thing, should be licensed by a governing body, and one should have to pass an exam given by this governing body to be able to practice pro photography, much as lawyers/accountants do.

Among the requirements--knowledge of composition, white balance, f-stops etc, and yes--no phone photography allowed. I'm absolutely serious--for your pro work, any usage of a phone as a camera would be completely banned 100%. Get caught doing it, NO MATTER the results you achieved, and your license to practice pro photography is revoked. Just as your license to practice law or be a doctor can be revoked for behaviors the governing body doesn't agree with, and how basketball for a period didn't allow any dunking, same thing.

If that is what is takes to MAKE people stop this phone camera nonsense, so be it. I would LOVE it.

Direct link | Posted on May 17, 2014 at 12:02 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: The existence of quality "always with you" options like this, the 3rd version of the RX 100 III, is why there's no excuse for EVER using your freaking PHONE for photography pursuits because "the best camera is the one that's with you." As small & potent as this is, using the smartphone's camera is so lame. (As for price--you can now get the 1st RX100 for a relative song.)

"Dropped as a child," sure, that's an intelligent rebuttal. I'm not the one advocating using a "fruit phone" for photography.

There's nothing wrong with having a strong opinion about something in this way. Heck John Wooden in college basketball disliked dunking, Dean Smith didn't think freshmen should be able to play on the varsity. Not that I'm in their league of greatness, heck no, but sometimes there will be strong opinions about what's right/wrong for a given endeavor.

There's no excuse for using a toy camera, the type the soccer moms use for "kiddy clicks" & college frat boys use for "strip bar selfies," in your PHOTOGRAPHY pursuits, especially with options like this readily available. That's just tasteless. It's an insult to the art form, so much so, that I think something should be done about it. Continued....

Direct link | Posted on May 17, 2014 at 11:55 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: The existence of quality "always with you" options like this, the 3rd version of the RX 100 III, is why there's no excuse for EVER using your freaking PHONE for photography pursuits because "the best camera is the one that's with you." As small & potent as this is, using the smartphone's camera is so lame. (As for price--you can now get the 1st RX100 for a relative song.)

Ha ha, don't make me laugh. A phone? Heh heh heh. The only people who use phones for pictures aren't photographers, but college frat boys taking selfies at strip clubs. If you have talent, you don't use a toy for attempting to product it, especially when there are so many vastly better options like this.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 22:16 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: The existence of quality "always with you" options like this, the 3rd version of the RX 100 III, is why there's no excuse for EVER using your freaking PHONE for photography pursuits because "the best camera is the one that's with you." As small & potent as this is, using the smartphone's camera is so lame. (As for price--you can now get the 1st RX100 for a relative song.)

I like landscape photography too, and starting 2 years ago transitioned to mirrorless. First it was the Olympus E-PL1, then ultimately the NEX-C3 as its image quality was the same as the D5100 I had. Now it's the NEX-3N and NEX-6.

So I understand about portability, else why would I've used the Olympus E-PL1 instead of the D5100 that had higher image quality? Then again, when a situation transpired that the E-PL1 couldn't handle but the D5100 could, I went Sony NEX so I'd have the size advantage but the same image quality. Thus, I understand portability, yet the pursuit of higher image quality is a GOOD thing.

Regardless, I never DREAMED of using a phone for any of that, nor would I now. I take my Sony 3N practically EVERYWHERE I go, ALWAYS, even if it's just the grocery store. Given their small size and capabilities, why would I mess around with a phone?

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 17:38 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: The existence of quality "always with you" options like this, the 3rd version of the RX 100 III, is why there's no excuse for EVER using your freaking PHONE for photography pursuits because "the best camera is the one that's with you." As small & potent as this is, using the smartphone's camera is so lame. (As for price--you can now get the 1st RX100 for a relative song.)

(petermod) If that person is skilled as you say, that's not the camera's doing, you are right. However, they will then acquire gear that helps them make it happen. Face it--if you want a portrait shot with a blurry background, a phone will not produce that for you the way an SLR and a quality prime shot at f/2 will.

"When was the last time you checked a photo's sharpness"--ALL the time, because it matters, to someone with a brain anyway. Even where it regards my own kids, if I capture a great face but it's a blurry mess, I trash it. The blurriness means it's junk, no matter how cute the pose is. It must have a cute pose AND be sharp, else it's worthless. If you keep blurry shots and can't bring yourself to strive for excellence in that sort of way, then this craft is not for you.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 16:09 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: The existence of quality "always with you" options like this, the 3rd version of the RX 100 III, is why there's no excuse for EVER using your freaking PHONE for photography pursuits because "the best camera is the one that's with you." As small & potent as this is, using the smartphone's camera is so lame. (As for price--you can now get the 1st RX100 for a relative song.)

Ansel Adams doubtless would've shunned a smartphone. Someone once pointed out how his 1st camera was a Kodak Brownie, apparently trying to prove their theorem that the tool doesn't matter. I got to reading and discovered that in fact it was his 1st camera because it what his father gave him as a youngster, and his father probably wasn't one to know what a "good" camera was.

It goes on to say that Ansel used that Brownie on a trip to Yosemite but the very next year returned with different higher-grade gear he had since acquired after having been bitten by the "photo bug."

Case closed.

"Social sharing and immediacy"--phooey. That's fast-food photography. I've talked to those in the trade, and they hear this all the time from their clients, only to reply "you're not going to get it the same day, high quality requires TIME" (editing in Lightroom etc). I'm talking quality, if I wanted fast-food, I'd zap a Hot Pocket. I'm not into Hot Pocket photography, that's for the teens.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 16:03 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: The existence of quality "always with you" options like this, the 3rd version of the RX 100 III, is why there's no excuse for EVER using your freaking PHONE for photography pursuits because "the best camera is the one that's with you." As small & potent as this is, using the smartphone's camera is so lame. (As for price--you can now get the 1st RX100 for a relative song.)

You have to draw the line somewhere, else you might as well use a Kodak disposable paper thingie from WalGreens and voila you're a "photographer." I would say even a budget DSLR like a Nikon D3100 or D3300 would qualify, as would a mirrorless or even this. Portability vs ultimate quality has always been a quandary, hence the 35mm SLRs we had. Still in those days no one would've DARED suggest a Kodak Instamatic was something that one who aspired to quality photography pursuits should be using. That's really my point--given how small this is, yet how capable, if you aspire to quality, why in the WORLD would you use a PHONE?

"Anal" simply means defining excellence, those hipsters using a phone & not even learning anything about f-stops, white balance etc & thinking they're the same as those who do, it's an insult & a slap in the face to those who try. It's like the guy at work who's funny and thinks he's every bit as much of a stand-up comedian as those who actually do it for a living.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 15:16 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: The existence of quality "always with you" options like this, the 3rd version of the RX 100 III, is why there's no excuse for EVER using your freaking PHONE for photography pursuits because "the best camera is the one that's with you." As small & potent as this is, using the smartphone's camera is so lame. (As for price--you can now get the 1st RX100 for a relative song.)

The device matters, because people who care about excellence will use tools commensurate with the aspiration. People who use a phone for "photography" are making a mockery of the art form and people who actually try, acting like some snapshooting toy is a capable "photography" machine. The existence of models like this, to say nothing of the mirrorless options and myriad DSLRs, strongly argue otherwise.

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 15:05 UTC
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 III First Impressions Review preview (2970 comments in total)

The existence of quality "always with you" options like this, the 3rd version of the RX 100 III, is why there's no excuse for EVER using your freaking PHONE for photography pursuits because "the best camera is the one that's with you." As small & potent as this is, using the smartphone's camera is so lame. (As for price--you can now get the 1st RX100 for a relative song.)

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2014 at 14:33 UTC as 620th comment | 28 replies
On Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent article (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

REDred Photo: It seems to me this law attempts to address an ever growing concern about some people exploiting unsuspecting bystanders for financial or social gain. The spirit of this law is sound... if I were present in a public place, I would not appreciate a photographer "stealing" an image of me, and/or my interactions with others, and then profiting from the use of that image without my consent. In the current era, "profits" can be other than monetary, such as Facebook likes or YouTube views.

Whether the image is sold for cash or used to drive web traffic, if the person did not give consent to use their likeness for that purpose, it is an exploitation. In cases of public protest, parades, political rallies, etc. the "exploitation" is mitigated by free speech rights when the image is used to inform the public of events that occurred.

I would not delete an image someone protested, because their protests are ridiculous. At the least, I would delete but then immediately use another memory card knowing I could recover the image with image recovery software.

I'm not trying to stalk anybody, but to me pretty much every protest is ridiculous and I'm simply not apt to abide by it. It's high time that people who are too touchy about silly things be told that they are, rather than always tip-toeing around their exaggerated sensitivities.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 03:03 UTC
On Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent article (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: If I were rich, I'd travel to Hungary, break this law, then DARE them to do a thing about it, and sic as many lawyers on the resulting case as there are grains of sand on the beach.

That declaration aside, in a way I'm not surprised. I don't know about the rest of the USA, but in eastern TX, I swear you can't take a picture of ANYTHING without people flipping out, especially if you're a male. Dumb idiots swear every man with a camera is a pervert out to feed the pedophile pond, as if someone pleasuring themselves to a photo, as sick as that may be, is really harming anyone to start with. (I'm referring to "street photography" or "incidental" candid/tourist photos, not something where kids are forced to undress against their will.) Regardless, even stopping and taking a photo of an old barn risks raising the tempers of neighbors who think you're stalking the landscape trying to abduct somebody. Paranoia has really taken over--but I click away anyway, as should every photographer.

Suspicion of terrorism? To be sure people aren't THAT stupid. Then again....

So people carry guns--so what? So what, the rest of us are just supposed to not do things that are completely legal because of fanatics? One would think that they aren't stupid enough to sign themselves to a 30 year jail sentence shooting someone for doing a perfectly legal act. In public, I take pictures all I want to, people don't like it--TOUGH. That they would be so illogical only makes me want to take even more just on the principle of how stupid their paranoia is. If taking a photo outside of a restaurant you're eating at so that you remember those small days many years later frightens someone that much, tough on them--there are many fine mental health facilities they're free to sign themselves into. Me: their illogical stupidity isn't going to dictate my actions.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 01:20 UTC
On Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent article (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

REDred Photo: It seems to me this law attempts to address an ever growing concern about some people exploiting unsuspecting bystanders for financial or social gain. The spirit of this law is sound... if I were present in a public place, I would not appreciate a photographer "stealing" an image of me, and/or my interactions with others, and then profiting from the use of that image without my consent. In the current era, "profits" can be other than monetary, such as Facebook likes or YouTube views.

Whether the image is sold for cash or used to drive web traffic, if the person did not give consent to use their likeness for that purpose, it is an exploitation. In cases of public protest, parades, political rallies, etc. the "exploitation" is mitigated by free speech rights when the image is used to inform the public of events that occurred.

Oh please, don't be ignorant. It has nothing to do with "exploitation," especially if the photographer isn't following you around jumping out of bushes like the paparazzi, and I'd expect readers at a hobbyist/enthusiast site like this to be the LAST people to think this, and to first to realize what it really is. It is about, at the least, chronicling the everyday events of your life as memories for recollection later, and potentially even about artistically expressing the world we live in, and doing so in a genuine "non-posed" manner that can rarely be obtained with posing. Can we say "Henri Cartier-Bresson?"

People who get upset about something as innocent as this simply have their panties up in a wad and are paranoid over nothing. Frankly, to heck with them. There is nothing to fear, and paranoia is no excuse for photographers to be told to put their cameras away except for plastic posed smartphone Instamatic-grade shots at Disneyland.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 01:13 UTC
On Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent article (321 comments in total)

If I were rich, I'd travel to Hungary, break this law, then DARE them to do a thing about it, and sic as many lawyers on the resulting case as there are grains of sand on the beach.

That declaration aside, in a way I'm not surprised. I don't know about the rest of the USA, but in eastern TX, I swear you can't take a picture of ANYTHING without people flipping out, especially if you're a male. Dumb idiots swear every man with a camera is a pervert out to feed the pedophile pond, as if someone pleasuring themselves to a photo, as sick as that may be, is really harming anyone to start with. (I'm referring to "street photography" or "incidental" candid/tourist photos, not something where kids are forced to undress against their will.) Regardless, even stopping and taking a photo of an old barn risks raising the tempers of neighbors who think you're stalking the landscape trying to abduct somebody. Paranoia has really taken over--but I click away anyway, as should every photographer.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 00:41 UTC as 65th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

larrytusaz: I suppose I'm getting old, but a smartphone camera holds about as much appeal to me as canned spaghetti does to a 5-star restaurant chef. If you can't be bothered to tote a real camera with you when we have such small marvels like a Sony RX100, and any of them will absolutely smoke even the best smartphone camera, then you have zero credibility as a photographer as far as I'm concerned.

I'm not a snapshooter, I'm a hobbyist photographer, I could give 2 turds less what the Polaroid and Kodak Instamatic crowd like. They're beneath me and any other hobbyist or professional as far as any relevance beyond just being the mass consumer that makes prints at WalMart.

I stand by what I said. Even if 30 professionals say it, they're wrong, I'm right, period.

It's simple--you are a professional, endowed not only with good photo-taking skills (unquestionably the most important thing) but also knowledge of all the more advanced camera gear out there and how to operate it and thus utilize its advantages. With the advent of mirrorless & other refinements you can now get great image quality from even something very small like a Sony NEX-3N or Panasonic GM1, and "lugging" something like that is too big of a bother for you? Even "lugging" a Sony RX100 is too much of a bother? Are you kidding me?

No one is saying you have to lug a Canon 6D or Nikon D610 everywhere, but come on--if "lugging" a Sony RX100 or Panasonic GM1 is too much of a bother for you, I can't take you seriously, REGARDLESS of the "quality" of your fruit-phone images. Phone cameras are for college kids going to Hooter's and taking rabbit-ears selfies.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2014 at 20:11 UTC
Total: 387, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »