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: 371, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On 5 new must-have photo editing apps post (99 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Other than the occasional sepia effect, which itself can get very old & overdone, I'm just not feeling this "vintage" trend of making shots look like they were taken with a Fisher Price camera. What's wrong with a "straight up" shot with just a tinge of color added? This trend is just a silly fad, just like other ones like the family portrait shots of the family walking away from the camera holding hands at a railroad track, & the baby shots having 80,000 "props" in the photo. They're "click a preset" gimmicks for those who just too lazy to do things like getting the white balance correct and the eyelashes in focus etc, a "quickie" for making a so-called "boring" shot suddenly look new.

But I must give DPreview credit for one thing here--at least this article didn't have the usual "next, next, next, next, next" layout which I completely despise, they have everything on 1 single page once again, as they ought to. That's MUCH better.

Well to each his or her own, but if I owned a D600, I sure as heck wouldn't be using an iPhone or any other phone camera for anything other than the most mundane of shots, like to show the plumber what my current busted up pipe looks like if I cant' describe it to him, etc. I'd at least be taking a Sony RX100 or NEX-3 series around with me.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2013 at 20:23 UTC
On 5 new must-have photo editing apps post (99 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pentax_Prime: Posting articles like this on your main news page is destroying your credibility as an actual photography site. There is nothing 'must have' about any of this junk.

Well if resolution is irrelevant, then I guess I should ditch my Sony NEX-C3 and Nikon D3100 and go back to using the 2mp Nikon Coolpix 775 I purchased 10 years ago? I say "no," I say resolution & quality MATTER, and in fact they matter perhaps more than anything else. That's why pros who care about quality have always used tools that deliver it, because quality composition & subject matter by virtue demand it.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2013 at 12:19 UTC
On 5 new must-have photo editing apps post (99 comments in total)
In reply to:

TheDman: You know what we need? An app to make your photos look retro. Why doesn't anyone come out with that?

That's easy. It's a fad, and a silly one at that, which most fads tend to be.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2013 at 12:17 UTC
On 5 new must-have photo editing apps post (99 comments in total)
In reply to:

Purple House Photography: A whole lot of grumpiness on this thread... Filters are a fun way to jazz up casual snapshots, what's wrong with that?

Maybe because it's a silly trend many of us are sick of seeing. What's wrong with a "straight" shot, maybe with just a slight amount of color or such added to it? Instead anymore everyone is jacking saturation & such up to 70 and making everything look totally fake, taking away resolution & quality & calling it an "effect." No thank you.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2013 at 12:15 UTC
On 5 new must-have photo editing apps post (99 comments in total)

Other than the occasional sepia effect, which itself can get very old & overdone, I'm just not feeling this "vintage" trend of making shots look like they were taken with a Fisher Price camera. What's wrong with a "straight up" shot with just a tinge of color added? This trend is just a silly fad, just like other ones like the family portrait shots of the family walking away from the camera holding hands at a railroad track, & the baby shots having 80,000 "props" in the photo. They're "click a preset" gimmicks for those who just too lazy to do things like getting the white balance correct and the eyelashes in focus etc, a "quickie" for making a so-called "boring" shot suddenly look new.

But I must give DPreview credit for one thing here--at least this article didn't have the usual "next, next, next, next, next" layout which I completely despise, they have everything on 1 single page once again, as they ought to. That's MUCH better.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2013 at 12:11 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies
On Ten things we learned this week article (91 comments in total)

Again, not a fan of having to click "next" for every single item on the list. Hate that design, hate it, hate it, hate it, hate it. (By the way, I notice that the same ads remain, so what's the point?)

"Shutter shock" on the Olympus E-5--a lot of Olympus users have complained about that, and despite the great images the E-PL1 and E-PM1 were capable of, it, along with the fact that it took Olympus forever to improve their sensors, is why I moved to Sony NEX via C3. I've never noticed the shutter shock problem when using it, & its sensor was way ahead of the older m4/3rds models, the newer m4/3rds models cost much more since it took them so long to get the newer sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 12, 2013 at 00:48 UTC as 42nd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

larrytusaz: He could've taken a Sony NEX-3N with a Sigma 19mm f/2.8 & gotten far superior results, with image quality akin to a Nikon D7000, and it still would've been far less to tote around than a Nikon D-SLR.

But of course it wouldn't come from the Apple Kool-Aid jugs, so of course that makes it useless. Sigh.

Frankly, if you call yourself a professional and tote around a freaking PHONE camera for anything other than your mirror-posed selfies, you are a fraud and a cheat.

LRH

The difference is that even with a Sony NEX you're talking about a camera that has the same 16mp 1.5x sensor as the Nikon D5100 and D7000, which tested out fantastic in their image quality. You're also talking about a camera that has the PSAM modes, RAW, and interchangeable lenses. All of this is in a package way smaller than any DSLR.

The point is there's a minimum you shouldn't dip below. No one is saying you have to own a Nikon D800 & the most expensive glass made for it to "rate," even a D3100 meets a certain minimum, outperforming the IQ of the Nikon D2x which in its day was a PRO camera. But I'm sorry, when you dig down to the point of using a PHONE camera, that's just nuts.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2013 at 20:22 UTC
In reply to:

Cjar: More Apple product placement.

I take my smart phone on my shoots because it's a phone.
Sometimes I make calls and it's more useful for calling people than trying to dial on my camera.
The phone also geotags.

But if I want to use my experience and eye as a photographer, to get the best image possible, the phone stays in my pocket.

More burgers are eaten at McDonalds. That doesn't mean McBurgers are the best.

CJar is absolutely correct. The rationale we're always hearing as to why phone cameras are getting so much attention is that they're the #1 camera used on the #1 photo site (Flickr). I remember when Polaroids and Instamatics were huge sellers, but they were classified as SNAPSHOT cameras not lumped in the same group as Nikon 35mm SLRs etc. As I've said (similar to what Cjar said) McDonald's sells the most hamburgers but if I were at a culinary site, I want talk to center on that sort of thing, vs having a lot of talk about McDonald's & then it being justified based on their sales numbers, when clearly the words McDonald's & culinary don't belong in the same sentence.

If having that sort of taste is "snobbery," then maybe some snobbery is GOOD.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2013 at 20:17 UTC
In reply to:

larrytusaz: He could've taken a Sony NEX-3N with a Sigma 19mm f/2.8 & gotten far superior results, with image quality akin to a Nikon D7000, and it still would've been far less to tote around than a Nikon D-SLR.

But of course it wouldn't come from the Apple Kool-Aid jugs, so of course that makes it useless. Sigh.

Frankly, if you call yourself a professional and tote around a freaking PHONE camera for anything other than your mirror-posed selfies, you are a fraud and a cheat.

LRH

It's called having TASTE. I don't see LeBron James playing NBA basketball with a $1 vinyl dollar store ball & flip-flops. I don't see a NASCAR driver using a stock-engine equipped Chevrolet Aveo for racing. I don't see swimmers competing in a kiddie pool. I don't see football players playing with a NERF football.

In other words, the tool doesn't create skill in a person who doesn't possess it, but a person with skill would use a tool commensurate with their skill-set.

You have to draw the line somewhere. You don't have to own a Nikon D800 and 17-55mm f/2.8, even a D3100 and kit lens will work, but at some point, you have to save "oh come on now." Phone cameras are that point. They're fine for the average snapshooter, sure, that I agree with.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2013 at 01:10 UTC

He could've taken a Sony NEX-3N with a Sigma 19mm f/2.8 & gotten far superior results, with image quality akin to a Nikon D7000, and it still would've been far less to tote around than a Nikon D-SLR.

But of course it wouldn't come from the Apple Kool-Aid jugs, so of course that makes it useless. Sigh.

Frankly, if you call yourself a professional and tote around a freaking PHONE camera for anything other than your mirror-posed selfies, you are a fraud and a cheat.

LRH

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 23:58 UTC as 45th comment | 7 replies
On Ten items you should have in your camera bag article (288 comments in total)
In reply to:

GeorgeD200: I would add headphones and an ipod. Sometimes I don't even turn it on, but it stops people walking up and talking to me. "My uncle has a nice camera like that!" or "Getting any good pictures today?" Ugg.

If you are in the middle of a for-pay professional shoot, that's understandable. Otherwise, what's the big deal with people expressing a "chatty" type of interest in your hobby? It's called community & socializing. Heck I walk up to such people all the time, it's simply chit-chatting with others possessing the same sorts of interests. It's not a big deal, it's just being friendly.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2013 at 06:41 UTC
On Ten items you should have in your camera bag article (288 comments in total)
In reply to:

muhammad lal: If required, the landscape pictures I like (If you do not have a built-in camera, electronic horizon level) circular polarization, besides the obvious, you can also spirit / bubble level is required. Anyway, so - I am no one, to save my life, I swear you can not get the horizon level.

You hot shoe (my Sony NEX-C3, etc.) If you own the camera without hot shoe is easy to find one, you can not cheap to get one mounted on a tripod. I'm in the part number joby.com get JB00124-CEN. Part number does not come up in the search, it "GorillaPod tripod, camera and accessories," then appeared in the call for some reason "GorillaPod Hybrid / SLR-ZOOM Ball Head for additional bubble level clip." It costs like $ 3 and $ 5 after delivery.
http://www.technologyexplores.com

Did you see my post earlier? I said the same thing, how great someone else was thinking that.

Yes, I don't know what happened to me, for a long time my horizons were PERFECTLY level without the need for any tools. Somewhere along the line I started getting to where I couldn't take a level shot to save my life. This especially happens on hilly terrain where you yourself are not level & if you go by what feels level to you, you end up being way off.

That part number you mentioned is the exact same one I mentioned. I have 2--one in the camera bag, one in the closet so if I lose the 1st one there's no delay having one on-hand again (you don't exactly find them in "everyday" stores).

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2013 at 06:35 UTC
On Ten items you should have in your camera bag article (288 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Why do most articles have you click each picture to read each item on the list? Why not make it one long page so you can click it once & just read, not "next, next, next, next, next, next, nex....."

(Barney) With regards to REVIEWS, I am fine with that, I was "reaching for perfection" as it were. My MAIN point was this article & ones like it where you are barely getting started when suddenly you're nagged to click "next" already. The reviews, you actually get quite a bit of reading in before having to "next," so it's fine really.

The realities of how things are paid for notwithstanding, I don't visit sites to read the ads & don't like excellence tainted out of concessions made for advertising. I like things "pure" that way, such is why I also don't like watermarked images or when sports stadiums are named the "AT&T Comcast Center" or whatever & logos are all over everywhere on the playing floor. What next, superimposed ads on bald player's heads?

Regardless, as I said earlier I thought it would be NICE for the reviews to have single-page as an OPTION, I was just being overly ambitious, dreaming etc. It's ones like this where it's taken to an extreme that I'm talking about.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2013 at 06:24 UTC
On Ten items you should have in your camera bag article (288 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Why do most articles have you click each picture to read each item on the list? Why not make it one long page so you can click it once & just read, not "next, next, next, next, next, next, nex....."

I don't care about that. Ads may pay for the site to some extent, but I don't come to the site to read the ads, I come to read the CONTENT. Otherwise you might as well have nothing but the ads on the page period. Regardless of my not being the one to pay for it, I STILL think it should be done for what's best for the readers, not the ad companies. Otherwise, there will be no readers, and thus no one to read the stinking ads in the first place.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2013 at 05:52 UTC
On Ten items you should have in your camera bag article (288 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Why do most articles have you click each picture to read each item on the list? Why not make it one long page so you can click it once & just read, not "next, next, next, next, next, next, nex....."

I'm pleased that so many people agree with me. Heck call me crazy (I'm not complaining, just observing) I wouldn't even mind the option for the camera reviews being on 1 page, the whole 25-30 pages all of it, like how DcResource used to do it. (And everyone is going "what are you nuts," ha ha ha.)

Regardless, though, yes the main thing is that a LOT of articles I read do this multi-page layout, especially ones like "10 best ways to lose weight" etc, why do I have to click 10 photos? I just want to know the "top 10", just give it to me already. Quit with the "next, next, next, next" bunch of nonsense.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2013 at 03:57 UTC
On Ten items you should have in your camera bag article (288 comments in total)

An essential item if you do landscape photography as I do: besides the obvious circular polarizer, you also need a spirit/bubble level (unless the camera has a built-in electronic horizon level). I do, anyway--I swear that without one, I can't get the horizons level to save my life.

Hot shoe ones are easy to find, if you own a camera without a hot shoe (like my Sony NEX-C3), you get can a tripod-mounted one for cheap. I get part number JB00124-CEN from joby.com. For some reason that part number doesn't come up under a search, but it comes up under "GorillaPod Tripod Cameras, Accessories" and then it's called "Extra Bubble Level Clip for GorillaPod Hybrid/SLR-Zoom Ballhead." It costs like $5 and then $3 shipping.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2013 at 23:24 UTC as 117th comment
On Ten items you should have in your camera bag article (288 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Why do most articles have you click each picture to read each item on the list? Why not make it one long page so you can click it once & just read, not "next, next, next, next, next, next, nex....."

(Barney) I know, not trying to gripe at you guys personally, so much as that style is one I see a lot of places & I don't like it. I hate clicking next 8011 times like that. I would really like it if in such cases a "view all" option was available.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2013 at 22:51 UTC
On Ten items you should have in your camera bag article (288 comments in total)

Why do most articles have you click each picture to read each item on the list? Why not make it one long page so you can click it once & just read, not "next, next, next, next, next, next, nex....."

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2013 at 22:36 UTC as 121st comment | 16 replies
On Olympus PEN E-P5 Review preview (494 comments in total)

The shutter shock problem is one that people have been complaining about for a long time with Olympus models. The others without the 5-axis IBIS, on those IBIS sometimes can make images look WORSE if you don't turn it off. Others have complained of blurred images around the 1/100 second mark, which is a ridiculous thing to have happen, 1/100 second should be PLENTY fast enough to prevent hand-held blur unless you're shooting with longer lenses.

In fact I switched to Sony NEX largely for this very reason & in fact I never see this problem anymore since I did so.

If mirrorless is to be a viable SLR alternative, it's going to need to be able to work the same in such ways. If you can get away with 1/80 or 1/125 second hand-holding for portraits etc on an SLR, you should with mirrorless too, regardless of the differences in weight & how they're hold. Otherwise there's no point in having mirrorless at ALL.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2013 at 02:52 UTC as 164th comment | 1 reply
On Fashion photography with the 41MP Nokia Lumia 1020 article (123 comments in total)

Sigh. A-freaking-gain. Olympus got it right way long ago, "camera phones are to photography what 3 minute noodles are to cooking." And why again is this at the MAIN page? I thought the point of this site was I'd NEVER have to see such articles EVER again while at the "normal" site.

Yes, the skill of the photographer is the main thing, using a DSLR does not alone make you a real photographer, but the tool DOES matter too. If you were trying to be a pro golfer, would you buy REAL golf clubs or show up at the course with broomsticks & swear repeatedly how irrelevant the tool is? Care to become a pro basketball player using the $1 purple-colored vinyl (or whatever) balls you see at the aisle of your local Dollar General store? If you wanted to be a news reporter, would you submit articles written with a crayon?

Heck the Nikon D3100 kit I paid $250 for & gave to my snap-shooting wife would be a better tool. My Sony NEX-C3, same thing, & it's small, esp with the Sigma 30mm f/2.8 prime.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2013 at 12:15 UTC as 69th comment | 1 reply
Total: 371, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »