jkrumm

Lives in United States Duluth, MN, United States
Works as a teacher
Joined on Oct 13, 2007

Comments

Total: 240, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On article Fujifilm X-T10 Review (514 comments in total)

That two-headed dog deserves a gold award.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 20:07 UTC as 92nd comment | 2 replies
On a photo in the Olympus TG-4 real-world sample gallery sample gallery (1 comment in total)

Surprisingly good for a small sensor swim cam. I would probably sharpen less.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 20:23 UTC as 1st comment
On photo P7180027.acr in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Surprisingly good for a small sensor swim cam. I would probably sharpen less.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 20:23 UTC as 1st comment
On SampleImage:2333493018 (1 comment in total)

Surprisingly good for a small sensor swim cam. I would probably sharpen less.

Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 20:23 UTC as 1st comment
On SampleImage:0190299293 (2 comments in total)

Not too bad. Shadows are pushed much more than I usually do so the noise on the bus is normal. Trees on the mountain look pretty good and the sky looks clean.

Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 20:21 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply
On photo P7180004.acr in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

Not too bad. Shadows are pushed much more than I usually do so the noise on the bus is normal. Trees on the mountain look pretty good and the sky looks clean.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 20:21 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply
On a photo in the Olympus TG-4 real-world sample gallery sample gallery (3 comments in total)

Not too bad. Shadows are pushed much more than I usually do so the noise on the bus is normal. Trees on the mountain look pretty good and the sky looks clean.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 20:21 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
On a photo in the Canon EOS 5DS Sample Gallery sample gallery (7 comments in total)

Usual noise in the distant haze, but the detail in the middle looks medium format level to me.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2015 at 17:48 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply
On photo 20150715Canon5DsTest_Stead_07 in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (7 comments in total)

Usual noise in the distant haze, but the detail in the middle looks medium format level to me.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2015 at 17:48 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply
On SampleImage:2254859004 (7 comments in total)

Usual noise in the distant haze, but the detail in the middle looks medium format level to me.

Posted on Jul 20, 2015 at 17:48 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply
On SampleImage:1479985612 (7 comments in total)

Usual noise in the distant haze, but the detail in the middle looks medium format level to me.

Posted on Jul 20, 2015 at 17:48 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply

I'm looking forward to the day we all wear copyrighted detection chips, surgically implanted (and linked to our bank accounts). Then when we look at or listen to copyrighted material we can be accurately charged for the priviledge. It's unfair that so many people gaze upon copyrighted material for free!

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 14:46 UTC as 182nd comment | 3 replies

Looks pretty much identical to version III so far.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 19:47 UTC as 93rd comment | 1 reply

I laughed. It was actually pretty funny. Yes, it was silly, but in a funny way. I didn't think it was snide, sarcastic or sneering. Not Hamlet, but not bad.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2015 at 20:36 UTC as 123rd comment
On photo 017A0745.acr in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (8 comments in total)

But why is Barney 13 mb, and Sam a whopping 18 mb? Is it just the beard, or is he really 30% larger?

Link | Posted on May 17, 2015 at 04:05 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply
On a photo in the Canon EOS 5DS R Real World Samples Gallery (beta) sample gallery (7 comments in total)

But why is Barney 13 mb, and Sam a whopping 18 mb? Is it just the beard, or is he really 30% larger?

Link | Posted on May 17, 2015 at 04:05 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
On article Sources of noise part two: Electronic Noise (237 comments in total)
In reply to:

DuncanDovovan: So in terms of real life photography, could we say this?

1) When the subject must remain low key, use longer exposures, lower ISO and position the histogram to the right, to make sure you have as little noise in the dark parts as possible.

2) If the dynamic range covers the histogram and in high dynamic range situations, expose normally at low ISO to prevent blown out highlights. Or use HDR through multiple exposures.

3) In dark situations, when you cannot lower your shutter speed anymore, because motion blur will become an issue and the available light prompts you to use high ISO values, you can under expose the (RAW) photo by dialling down the ISO multiple stops and adjust in post processing in order to gain dynamic range / keep highlight details that would be lost at high ISO values.

4) When you are a real noise ninja, larger sensors with bigger and more light sensitive lenses give you the opportunity to scale down your photos and thus reducing the noise levels that way.

OK?

On number three, if you have a high electronic noise camera you might be better off with shooting at a higher ISO, I think. It might not respond well to pushing much in post. But it varies, and you just have to experiment.

Link | Posted on May 14, 2015 at 13:40 UTC
On article Readers' Showcase: Sheila Murphy (64 comments in total)

Really good work, the kind that makes me envious.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2015 at 19:30 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply
On article Metz mecablitz 26 AF-1 Quick Review (74 comments in total)

Surprisingly thorough and useful report for a product like this. Thanks. Hope to see more.

Link | Posted on May 7, 2015 at 14:01 UTC as 34th comment
In reply to:

jkrumm: I've always exposed to the right, but no matter what people say, even with the blinkies on it's easy to blow some highlights, so my exposures have slowly moved a little left, and the modest increase in noise just does not matter. Digital sensors are much better at capturing shadow detail than retaining highlight detail.

Live histograms tend to be less accurate than the blinkies, at least on my camera. But it all depends on the subject. When I shoot faces, I usually want to expose for the face and let the highlights blow if needed. With nice side light into trees, I'll underexpose a little, knowing that the camera will not be right about the highlights in the raw file even in my EVF.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2015 at 20:07 UTC
Total: 240, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »