keepreal

keepreal

Lives in United Kingdom Enfield, United Kingdom
Works as a Retired, was Information Technology Manager
Joined on Mar 24, 2007
About me:

Amateur with a passion for pictorial photography of more than fifty years.

Comments

Total: 173, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Load of cobblers. (UK expression.)

I agree with mailman88, but not Michael Ma, both some way below.

Clyde Butcher's work is similar in style, comparable in standard to Ansel Adams and I sent CB a message on his website in case he'd like to know about it.

I doubt it though. Why would one with that kind of ability want to be on another's payroll? Its a bit like Groucho Marx's comment in reverse, where he said he'd like to join a gentleman's club but any worth joining would not have him.

Such a talent is bound to think any post on offer to him is not worth having. Had it been a long term assignment, concurrent with his other work rather than a full time job, that would be another matter.

I am sure Mr Butcher and others of similar ability are happier and more successful without being told what equipment they have to use, etc.

This vacancy will not be filled by anyone who aspires to be the next Ansel Adams, only someone that the US National Park Service, at worst, kid themselves is.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 18:26 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Rob Bernhard: I immediately thought of the wonderful work QT Luong has done already in all the US National Parks, with a large format camera no less.

http://www.terragalleria.com/parks/

Some quite good but a mixed bag. Not on par with AA by a long way. Have a look at mailman88's message below, then visit Clyde Butcher's web site. That's a completely different kettle o fish.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 18:06 UTC
In reply to:

mrgooch2008: Why would large format be a necessary requirement in this day and age?

And, shigzeo, there are so many creative things you can EASILY do with digital, like enhance or change a sky or remove a lamppost growing out of someone's head. It can be done with film but is slow, difficult and a real pain.

The one thing I did like with film, especially larger formats, was that there was no temptation to press the shutter release like you were using a machine gun. Even with digital, I still take very few shots and know exactly what I have in mind in the result when I shoot. But I am sure the majority of photographers these days take a different approach.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 17:51 UTC
In reply to:

backayonder: By stipulating the carrying of large format equipment into rugged areas it ensures that users of mirrorless cameras will not apply.

AEndrs "I would say that ALL large format cameras are mirrorless."

Not so, I saw some wonderful, top quality air to air photographs of combat aircraft from WW2 take with a single lens reflex quarter plate camera.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 17:39 UTC

As an amateur my speciality is landscapes and, while I admire the work of Ansel Adams, my successes are not as good as his, but have a look at my gallery or web site and disagree if you like.

This vacancy led me to contemplate applying for American citizenship. No doubt all that would be needed to get that done fast enough for the deadline would be a call to Donald Trump. After all, he seems to think anything is possible for him, including the presidency. Just have a look at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/114003 to see what us Brits think of him, so far 444,014 in two days declaring their views there and the number continuing to rise very fast.

However, I am put off by having to use large format and film. Surely the end results are what count, not how you make them? I only gave up film because scarce supplies of the chemicals I wanted in amateur sized kits became unobtainable here and professional processing of my film was increasingly poor quality. So no going back.

Link | Posted on Dec 10, 2015 at 17:21 UTC as 13th comment | 2 replies
On article 2015 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras around $500 (275 comments in total)

I was considering the Sony Alpha a6000 rather than the a5100, as I want a smaller, lighter alternative to my DSLR outfit but one with a viewfinder and not too expensive. My idea was to have that to use with something like the Samyang 12mm or 14mm to take landscapes on long walks where I wanted to avoid being overly laden.

I came across the fact that in the UK until 5th December you can get £100 cashback on the a6000, so thought I had better quickly look more closely into it. I do not like an EVF instead of an OVF but would be prepared to consider it, provided the rather low pixel count on this camera had no obvious adverse consequences. But I also want to be able to bracket exposures conveniently, so I thought the place to start was with the user manual, two versions of which I downloaded.

All I found was 38 pages of motherhood, no detail whatsoever. What a load of rubbish. If that had been a Quick Start Guide, fair enough, but that is all I found. So much for Sony and their support.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2015 at 11:40 UTC as 7th comment
On article What's missing? Ming Thein on the state of mirrorless (751 comments in total)
In reply to:

plasnu: The worst disappointment about mirrorless cameras having been evolved last 5 years is the LENS SIZE. The lenses ended to be so much larger than what I expected.

Even without this new technology, there is no good reason why so many lenses are so big and heavy. I hope you are right, riman and that a big step forward is around the corner. Even if it happens, no doubt it will not be for a while. And, even so, lens and cameras today rely upon software so much that I suspect they will continue to cut corners and that the new technology will not be allowed to reach its full potential.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2015 at 22:15 UTC
On article What's missing? Ming Thein on the state of mirrorless (751 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: "No compromises in optical quality." Now there is a joke. Almost all mirrorless lenses rely upon software to correct distortion. That obstructs use of my chosen RAW developer for HDR.

For me the main issue with mirrorless is the viewfinder. An LCD is hopeless in bright light, not that good in any light. Also, it is much easier to hold a camera steady against your forehead. I would be happy with an Albalda optical viewfinder of Leica M quality especially if covered 21mm or wider on full frame or 14mm on APS-C.

My first camera is an APS-C DSLR and the second Olympus Micro Four Thirds. The VF-4 EVF for the latter is not bad but does not compare with an optical viewfinder. Against the light if the sun is nearby is a problem. The Fuji X is a nice camera but the EVF on it is dreadful, flat and I find very distracting. I have not bothered to look at anything else but initial comments on the Leica SL suggest it might be better. But look at the weight of it, let alone the price. Crazy.

I suppose that some people prefer LCDs; heavens knows why when the image is too small to see more than a general indication of the contents. Can you, for example, take a picture of people and see if their eyes are momentarily closed or if they are frowning or looking away from the camera? Definitely not, unless you look at them directly and do not worry about accurate framing.

The camera owners may have no difficulty holding the camera still while away from their body if rigor mortis already has set in, but otherwise it is not that easy.

Seeing an LCD sharply is not a problem because of one's vision. If you need glasses to see up close, most people wear them (unless they are vain) all the time as I do so they do not need to keep taking them off and on again, not just for using LCDs. This is not an issue and suggesting it is is complete nonsense.

Also, no LCD coating is ever going to be sufficient to prevent the glare of the sun making them unusable in bright lighting conditions.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2015 at 08:21 UTC
On article What's missing? Ming Thein on the state of mirrorless (751 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Some need to debate features for mirrorless, much need to challenge manufacturers for a DSLR the size of an Olympus OM and it still be full frame.

Maybe at the outset of digital this was not possible but it is now. If DSLRs and lenses were designed how they used to be, the majority of serious photographers would still want that. And lens design has gone back to the dark ages. Even with a focus motor and auto diaphragm, a lens need be nowhere as big and heavy as most now are and could still be made to be distortion free without software correction.

It is only because of the limitations of the DSLR as foist on us today that most people turn to mirrorless. No viewfinder compares with an OVF, except the Leica M albeit with a parallax issue and less precision in the coverage.

So either you settle on full frame or APS-C with a decent OVF or mirrorless if you want to save bulk and weight at the expense of a paltry image on LCD or through an EVF that at best is second best, a compromise.

T3 and Perl, you are clutching at straws. Unless you are trying to capture a black cat at night when there is no moon, the low light ability of an EVF is not needed and the full tonal range of an OVF is preferable, Yes, with my VF-4 there is the advantage that it can tilt up for when I am looking down and for clos-ups that is useful for those into macro.

As far as the size of the viewfinder image one sees, this is a choice the manufacturer makes and not limited to one or the other type of format or whether EVF or OVF. Whether it is 0.7x or x1.0 or whatever does not affect their usability in the slightest and is hardly more important than whether the camera body is black or silver.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2015 at 07:57 UTC
On article What's missing? Ming Thein on the state of mirrorless (751 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Some need to debate features for mirrorless, much need to challenge manufacturers for a DSLR the size of an Olympus OM and it still be full frame.

Maybe at the outset of digital this was not possible but it is now. If DSLRs and lenses were designed how they used to be, the majority of serious photographers would still want that. And lens design has gone back to the dark ages. Even with a focus motor and auto diaphragm, a lens need be nowhere as big and heavy as most now are and could still be made to be distortion free without software correction.

It is only because of the limitations of the DSLR as foist on us today that most people turn to mirrorless. No viewfinder compares with an OVF, except the Leica M albeit with a parallax issue and less precision in the coverage.

So either you settle on full frame or APS-C with a decent OVF or mirrorless if you want to save bulk and weight at the expense of a paltry image on LCD or through an EVF that at best is second best, a compromise.

T3, I agree that often a decent EVF is fine. I have the Olympus VF-4 on my second camera, but I mostly like to shoot landscapes into the sun and then they are seriously challenged. Do you not agree with that?

I found the Fuji X EVF especially poor in that situation, otherwise I might have bought one to have a small top quality camera with primes that generally are like they used to be.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2015 at 18:40 UTC
On article What's missing? Ming Thein on the state of mirrorless (751 comments in total)

Some need to debate features for mirrorless, much need to challenge manufacturers for a DSLR the size of an Olympus OM and it still be full frame.

Maybe at the outset of digital this was not possible but it is now. If DSLRs and lenses were designed how they used to be, the majority of serious photographers would still want that. And lens design has gone back to the dark ages. Even with a focus motor and auto diaphragm, a lens need be nowhere as big and heavy as most now are and could still be made to be distortion free without software correction.

It is only because of the limitations of the DSLR as foist on us today that most people turn to mirrorless. No viewfinder compares with an OVF, except the Leica M albeit with a parallax issue and less precision in the coverage.

So either you settle on full frame or APS-C with a decent OVF or mirrorless if you want to save bulk and weight at the expense of a paltry image on LCD or through an EVF that at best is second best, a compromise.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2015 at 17:51 UTC as 42nd comment | 8 replies
On article What's missing? Ming Thein on the state of mirrorless (751 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike99999: It is difficult to take Ming Thein seriously. His photos are terrible and his opinions a joke. A bit like Ken Rockwell but without the humor.

I do not think much of Ming Thein's gallery. His idea of fine art is appalling. I see no benefit from his opinions on equipment either. Ken Rockwell is not that reliable but sometimes does raise a point that others have overlooked. So, if his name comes up, I give his comments the once over.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2015 at 17:23 UTC
On article What's missing? Ming Thein on the state of mirrorless (751 comments in total)
In reply to:

plasnu: The worst disappointment about mirrorless cameras having been evolved last 5 years is the LENS SIZE. The lenses ended to be so much larger than what I expected.

Yes. On all digital cameras the majority of zoom lenses and some primes are a bad joke as are DSLR bodies or anything that weighs as much as a Leica SL (847g). We did not have this absurdity with film. Take an Olympus PEN with their 7-14mm F2.8 Pro on it. If I could avoid it, I wouild not have a lens that big and heavy on a full frame or ASPS-C DSLR, let alone on mirrorless.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2015 at 17:16 UTC
On article What's missing? Ming Thein on the state of mirrorless (751 comments in total)

"No compromises in optical quality." Now there is a joke. Almost all mirrorless lenses rely upon software to correct distortion. That obstructs use of my chosen RAW developer for HDR.

For me the main issue with mirrorless is the viewfinder. An LCD is hopeless in bright light, not that good in any light. Also, it is much easier to hold a camera steady against your forehead. I would be happy with an Albalda optical viewfinder of Leica M quality especially if covered 21mm or wider on full frame or 14mm on APS-C.

My first camera is an APS-C DSLR and the second Olympus Micro Four Thirds. The VF-4 EVF for the latter is not bad but does not compare with an optical viewfinder. Against the light if the sun is nearby is a problem. The Fuji X is a nice camera but the EVF on it is dreadful, flat and I find very distracting. I have not bothered to look at anything else but initial comments on the Leica SL suggest it might be better. But look at the weight of it, let alone the price. Crazy.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2015 at 16:57 UTC as 44th comment | 4 replies
On article Sony Europe introduces a68 SLT with 79-point AF module (305 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: For a while I was considering a Sony but the ultra wide angle lenses I would have wanted are awful. What is the point of a superb camera such as the A7 II with such a mediocre and limited choice of lenses, also less ambitious models? I know you can use an adapter for quality lenses such as from Leica, but then you lose the automation.

abortabort - I am unwilling to finance the cost of FF. In any case, not happy with any UWA on Sony FF or APS-C. Do understand 12mm --> 18mm on FF.

I'm happy with my Sigma 12-24 but only on DX, not on FF when I used film. Mine is much better than decent but I know not all samples are. Yes, one can do better today when the need arises but for me it doesn't.

There are no UWAs near 12mm available for Sony APSC that interest me or would have near 18mm on FF. Only some of the lenses you mention are significantly lighter, The Zeiss 21mm is superb but even heavier and very expensive, no doubt. The Voigtlanders are made by Cosina, the same as in other mounts. The 12mm is awful and, unless the others are considerably better, you can keep them all. See photozone.de.

The Samyang 14mm has too much distortion if you wish to use a RAW developer of your own choosing for HDR, as I do. It is rather heavy but the resolution is superb. With Sony Zeiss 16-35mm, the resolution is awful off centre.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2015 at 22:43 UTC
On article Sony Europe introduces a68 SLT with 79-point AF module (305 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: For a while I was considering a Sony but the ultra wide angle lenses I would have wanted are awful. What is the point of a superb camera such as the A7 II with such a mediocre and limited choice of lenses, also less ambitious models? I know you can use an adapter for quality lenses such as from Leica, but then you lose the automation.

True TFD but the Sigma 8-16mm weighs 555g. Too big and heavy. As I have said elsewhere before now, we need small cameras and small lenses, not the monsters that mostly prevail.

Had Olympus produced a 7-14mm of similar quality to their new f2.8 PRO without pronounced barrel distortion that does not force you into one or two RAW developers, but nearer the size of their 9-18 f4.0-5.6 (but better IQ), I would have been interested with an E-M10 or E-M5 II. However, I might as well stick to my Nikon D300 and the Sigma 12-24mm that I already have. I find 12mp quite enough though more would be better, when I want to make 48" prints LOL. My outfit is heavier but not enough to warrant the change.

There is nothing that appeals to me in mirrorless, though Fuji X is very good except for the EVF which I think is awful and I would have liked a bigger range for exposure bracketing as I am heavily into HDR usually in against the light shots.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2015 at 10:23 UTC
On article Sony Europe introduces a68 SLT with 79-point AF module (305 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: For a while I was considering a Sony but the ultra wide angle lenses I would have wanted are awful. What is the point of a superb camera such as the A7 II with such a mediocre and limited choice of lenses, also less ambitious models? I know you can use an adapter for quality lenses such as from Leica, but then you lose the automation.

12-15mm

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2015 at 08:45 UTC
On article Sony Europe introduces a68 SLT with 79-point AF module (305 comments in total)

For a while I was considering a Sony but the ultra wide angle lenses I would have wanted are awful. What is the point of a superb camera such as the A7 II with such a mediocre and limited choice of lenses, also less ambitious models? I know you can use an adapter for quality lenses such as from Leica, but then you lose the automation.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2015 at 08:16 UTC as 30th comment | 13 replies
On article Adobe Camera Raw 9.2 adds local dehaze (60 comments in total)

Partly thanks to HowaboutRAW, where he commented on my entry five messages below, I discovered a solution to a problem which DNG 1.1 solved. However a later version of it probably also would have done so.

At high magnification, 400X, I noticed a grid like pattern on my images out of an ORF file, which disappeared when I used the DNG Converter 9.2 before my usual RAW developer.

If you are interested, have a look at PC Talk where I have posted "Beware mesh pattern after RAW conversion" at http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56613641 and give a visual example.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2015 at 16:30 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Adobe Camera Raw 9.2 adds local dehaze (60 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: If you have a recent camera or lens, you might need the latest version of Camera Raw or the DNG Converter. Otherwise, it's about time more people were sensible and learned proper skills on less than the latest without falling prey to every new release of photo imaging software and indeed newer digital equipment.

Apart from professionals or serious amateurs who need to make prints ten feet wide, just learn to make the most of what you've got before you think of moving on.

I have a Nikon D300 and the lens I choose to use almost exclusively is the Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG. Neither is near the best you can get today but I am not interested in looking at my 59.4 cm prints with a magnifying glass. Without it they are perfectly sharp enough. Not only that, I use Photoshop CS2 without the latest bells and whistles and now have a lot of skill with it. I won it in a competition because of what I could do with Elements 2. I would not have been prepared to pay for it out of my own pocket.

HowaboutRAW (9 min ago):

Good point, so I am glad you raised it. I always save the latest version of the DNG converter just in case I decide to upgrade my equipment and Adobe stop issuing it. But I had not realised that it probably is better to use the latest version anyway.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2015 at 12:30 UTC
Total: 173, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »