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: 168, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
On article Adobe announces Photoshop Elements 11 (68 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bangers and Mash: I think I will stay with Elements 10. It does fine for me so why change or upgrade, unless, of course, its absolutely necessary. I switched from 8 to 10 only because of the RAW editing feature for the Olympus E-P3, which was not available in version 8.

Perhaps I'm old school, but I don't understand why they incorporate an organizer. I'm sorry, but I like to take care of my own filing/organizing and not let a program take it over for me. That's just me I guess. Why, when loading the program, don't they provide the option for selecting or deselecting the organizer. Like I said, that's me.

Like inohuri I would not spend the price for PS. I have CS2 only because I won it in a photo competition judged by Martin Evening for what I showed I could do with PSE2.

I too dislike the PSE organizer but have one use for it in PSE8 which came free with my Wacom Bamboo tablet. For RAW conversion and tone mapping I usually rely upon Oloneo PhotoEngine but I want to view NEF thumbnails from my Nikon D300 and D5000 and PSD bigger than I can with FastStone Viewer. CS2 Bridge will not open my NEFs, so I use the PSE8 organiser merely to view thumbnails as large as I choose but there is no point for me in the editor when I can have 16 bit in CS2.

Adobe line their pockets selling upgrades to gullible customers mostly by adding bells and whistles. Forget them and learn ALL you can with what you already have. I have run trial versions of later PS/PSE but did not like any of them. The GUI has become too busy, less space for the image you want to edit where CS2 is streamlined, neat and tidy.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2012 at 02:05 UTC

The 10-18mm and 16-50mm are good news for NEX afficionados who like wide angles for landscapes and shoot JPEG.

But I also imagine they and the 35mm F1.8 will retain the absurd curvilinear distortion that I believe makes most Sony E lenses and many others for APSC and Four-Thirds a joke for serious work where you want to shoot RAW. I also insist upon a RAW developer of my own choosing, not SONY's because I am out for the best tone-mapping on the planet, IMO currently Oloneo PhotoEngine.

For that and want of a decent OVF since the NEX-7 EVF is also a bad joke, I will stick to my DSLR in spite of the size and weight which I admit is a serious nuisance.

By the time EVFs get up to 14 mb instead of the present 1.4 mb, maybe they will be able to distill electronically every last ounce of refinement and equal an optical viewfinder system. By if/when that ever happens, I will no longer be around, so who cares? Just get a caddy and keep to shooting through mirrors.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2012 at 11:34 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

keepreal: No way I would spend the huge price for Photoshop. Far too expensive, good though it is. I originally had Elements 2 and but won a copy of CS2 in a competition in a photo magazine where Martin Evening judged the entries. He said he could not see any evidence of where I had done extensive editing to remove several distracting elements from my picture even though I also sent him a copy of the original. That was what I could do with just PSE2.

I am still using CS2, would not dream of upgrading and paying out serious money. I have run later trial versions but saw no benefit except a complicated interface replacing the streamlined one with CS2 that screamed out "don't feel the quality, just the width" to borrow a phrase. I now use Oloneo PhotoEngine beforehand and that converts more recent RAW while giving superb tone mapping.

You can do a lot without lining Adobe's pockets with upgrades. Many people who do have their heads in the clouds, now it seems some rather more literally.

By ArmandN, you are totally right of course but I am talking about the amateurs who just have an urge to spend, spend, spend. That is probably one good reason why the manufacturers update their models every few nanoseconds.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2012 at 07:18 UTC

No way I would spend the huge price for Photoshop. Far too expensive, good though it is. I originally had Elements 2 and but won a copy of CS2 in a competition in a photo magazine where Martin Evening judged the entries. He said he could not see any evidence of where I had done extensive editing to remove several distracting elements from my picture even though I also sent him a copy of the original. That was what I could do with just PSE2.

I am still using CS2, would not dream of upgrading and paying out serious money. I have run later trial versions but saw no benefit except a complicated interface replacing the streamlined one with CS2 that screamed out "don't feel the quality, just the width" to borrow a phrase. I now use Oloneo PhotoEngine beforehand and that converts more recent RAW while giving superb tone mapping.

You can do a lot without lining Adobe's pockets with upgrades. Many people who do have their heads in the clouds, now it seems some rather more literally.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2012 at 23:25 UTC as 11th comment | 2 replies
On article Photokina 2012: Interview - Dirk Jasper of Nikon (216 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Quite interesting. Without a doubt, if I did not already have my D300 I would be very interested in the D600 especially as all I have are three FX lenses (12-300mm is quite enough) from when I used to use film, even though nearly £2000 is a lot of money. Now "entry" level DSLRs go for £700+. How absurd. They are not entry level at all. That's just marketing.

I cannot agree with Dirk Jasper on one thing. 12mm on DX is quite wide enough for landscape photographs in which I specialise. Before, when I used my Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG at its widest with my F80 and film, I had to be careful not get my feet or own shadow in the frame. If you are interested in freakery going that wide on DX may be useful but the landscapes I like to take are real and believable.

(BTW the Mk I version of that Sigma 12-24 is brilliant, at least mine is. Some say they vary. I now use it 95% of the time as the results in landscape shots with very near objects in them brings the perspective to life .)

Francis. It is very simple. I put the three lenses in a bag - Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG, Nikkor 24-85mm f2.8-4 D AF and Nikkor 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G AF-S VR IF-ED. Then I contrived a device to switch from one to the other and thereby achieved the 25x range. The device is an interchangeable lens mount. If you have a Nikon DSLR, you might have seen one.

Judging by your comment, you are a clever fellow so I am sure you could do this yourself or are you just some idiot who when he has nothing to say, still has to say it?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2012 at 23:09 UTC
On article Photokina 2012: Interview - Dirk Jasper of Nikon (216 comments in total)
In reply to:

Chris Donnet: Why these corporate guys dont' seem to understand that some of us DO need DX systems?

Since I can make fine quality A2 prints (ie. 60cm wide) from my D300, I am not in the market for any more pixels or even an FX camera. Many of those who trade up to the latest have more money than sense. You just do not need that kind of quality unless you are a professional and want A-5 size prints The "-" is a minus sign. Get the point?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2012 at 19:10 UTC
On article Photokina 2012: Interview - Dirk Jasper of Nikon (216 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jogger: Should have asked him about the Nikon 1 system and what he thinks of the RX100.

Are you joking or is it only Nikon with the 1 system who are? They should stick to serious cameras or just point and shoot. The 1 is a zero as far as I am concerned.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2012 at 19:06 UTC
On article Photokina 2012: Interview - Dirk Jasper of Nikon (216 comments in total)

Quite interesting. Without a doubt, if I did not already have my D300 I would be very interested in the D600 especially as all I have are three FX lenses (12-300mm is quite enough) from when I used to use film, even though nearly £2000 is a lot of money. Now "entry" level DSLRs go for £700+. How absurd. They are not entry level at all. That's just marketing.

I cannot agree with Dirk Jasper on one thing. 12mm on DX is quite wide enough for landscape photographs in which I specialise. Before, when I used my Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG at its widest with my F80 and film, I had to be careful not get my feet or own shadow in the frame. If you are interested in freakery going that wide on DX may be useful but the landscapes I like to take are real and believable.

(BTW the Mk I version of that Sigma 12-24 is brilliant, at least mine is. Some say they vary. I now use it 95% of the time as the results in landscape shots with very near objects in them brings the perspective to life .)

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2012 at 19:00 UTC as 50th comment | 3 replies
On article Sony NEX-5R Hands-on Preview (145 comments in total)

My comment pertains to NEX and the best of other mirrorless compacts using APS-C or similar. I write here because this is a recent thread.

I can get weary lugging around my Nikon D300 plus three heavy zoom lenses where a good mirrorless with 2 or 3 lenses would be far more compact and only weigh about 40%. But I do like an accurate viewfinder I can see through in all light and being able to steady the camera against my body.

So finally I had a look at the NEX-7 as I am sure that if lenses were
available for it equal to those I already have, the results would be as good. However, one serious concern is excessive barrel distortion which from RAW would not be corrected in SONY lenses when I use my chosen RAW developer which I insist upon because of the quality of its tone-mapping.

However, as I expected, the EVF on the NEX is quite dreadful compared to a DSLR and no viewfinder on other models just is not on. Finally, any interest I had in mirrorless or Four-Thirds is dead and buried.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 20, 2012 at 15:35 UTC as 13th comment
On article Shooting with the Leica M9-P (629 comments in total)

I would gladly replace my Nikon D300 and three zoom lenses for a M9-P with the 21mm, 35mm and a 90mm if I could afford it but I cannot.

Nevertheless I had a look at an M series Leica sometime in the 1960s. Even the first time I tried it, to focus just one turn of the focusing ring was sufficient to get the rangefinder images to coincide with no doubts about hitting the right spot, such is the precision. And here, of course, I am only talking of the viewfinder! What an absolute joy to use.

Nonetheless, I do find amusing the suggestion that a Leica makes you think about each shot carefully. For there is nothing to stop you doing that with any camera. I came home from a three week trip to the South Western USA with only about 100 shots plus extras for exposure bracketing on my D300. Most were a success and many were a great success.

Even if like me, you cannot afford a Leica, there is nothing to stop you shooting with the kind of care as if you did have one. I always have done.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2012 at 07:34 UTC as 30th comment | 2 replies
On article Just Posted: Fujifilm X-Pro1 review (271 comments in total)
In reply to:

calking: what *many* of you ding dong, pixel-peeping nerds need to do is check out what a REAL pro photographer can do with this camera that you can't, because you're too busy looking for something that doesn't exist on any level (aka the "perfect camera for every occasion at a price you love that's so small you can carry it in your pocket").

To: Digital Suicide -- if the "joy of photography is in the process and not the result", I'd say you're more of a gearhead than a photographer. Try selling that notion to someone like Ansel Adams or Galen Rowell, or any professional photographer for that matter. If you actually focused on results, people might be impressed with your photos instead of your gear.

Ryan Brenizer:
http://www.ryanbrenizer.com/2012/04/provisional-review-fuji-x-pro-1/

Mansurov: http://mansurovs.com/fuji-x-pro1-review

Steve Huff: http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/tag/x-pro-1/

It is very reassuring to see comments like yours. I do get tired of having to write them all myself.

I dare say if he were alive today, Ansel Adams would still be using a large format camera like a Linhof with a super lens like a Schneider Kreuznauch Symmar in it, one shot for every 100 most people take today, probably far, far less. He in landscape photography, Yousuf Karsh for portraits - noboby can touch them.

I have a few pictures at http://www.flickr.com/photos/contrajur/6791366809/in/set-72157627418118502. I am only interested in equipment as a means to an end. You and me that is.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2012 at 01:44 UTC
On article Just Posted: Fujifilm X-Pro1 review (271 comments in total)
In reply to:

calking: All of these awesome "smaller" APS-C and 4/3 camera systems are VERY expensive for those already vested in DX or FX full-sized systems. Cost increases even more when adding options like hand grips, flash units, niche lenses, etc. They're only compact when shooting small primes vs zooms. There's little justification in buying redundant systems just to save what amounts to mere ounces in weight and only slightly less bulk when the cost is this substantial (other than gear lust).

A nikon D3200 is only fractionally larger than these cameras, has a 24mp sensor, high-ISO, fast AF, video, EVF/LV, etc and yet costs only $700 WITH an 18-55 VR lens new. Samsung NX20 with 18-55 is $995, Oly EM-5 is $1100 body-only, and Fuji X-pro1 is $1699 body only.

I say a good P/S like the Fuji X10 or similar model is a "compact". Otherwise, shooting standard DX with a prime lens for most non-pro photography is so much easier and cost-effective for the vast majority of normal people.

Not only most of the comments but much of the contents of "serious" reviews too.

Nor should I be reading them but I do because I am no Luddite and occasionally there is real progress hidden among all this chaff. Not this time though!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2012 at 01:25 UTC
On article Just Posted: Fujifilm X-Pro1 review (271 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sergey Borachev: Fuji obviously rushed this, could not wait to show off its great sensor even though the AF and manual focusing designs were still half baked. This is cutting edge, i.e. way too rough and too niche.

However, you can see a X-Pro2 coming with the focusing problems solved, some new zooms and more primes, and yes some of them will have lens IS. The moaning and blasting will then stop, except from those still making expensive APS-C DSLRs.

Fuji needs to learn to do better than continually releasing cameras with significant problems in spite of their nice sensor features, e.g stuck shutters in X100, orbs in X10, and in X-S1, and this pro X-Pro1 camera with such poor focusing.

Brilliance in design and in the parts, but not really well put together as a whole product that we have come to expect from the "Made in Japan" label displayed in these cameras.

N.B. Price is not the real issue here, since there is a market for those who want higher quality and pay higher. Poor performance is.

I have raised a few comments of my own, taking a rather sarcastic tone because I am exasperated that the king again has appeared in his new clothes - for those who do not know the story, completely naked.

But for a neutral, balanced and appropriate summary of this beast, you could not have put it better.

Only thing missing is that there also is a market for those who want to spend lots of money, for whom quality is not the issue, nor price and probably most of them will never take a decent picture, just like to spend. The XPro-1 is just made for them.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2012 at 01:16 UTC
On article Just Posted: Fujifilm X-Pro1 review (271 comments in total)

"There is a school of thought that using software corrections counts as 'bad' design, and that all lenses should be fully optically-corrected for distortion in the traditional fashion. We simply don't agree. This approach was essential when shooting film simply because there was no other option; there's no sensible way of correcting distortion on slide film or when printing a negative. Likewise, SLRs ideally need fully-corrected lenses so that the viewfinder image allows accurate composition (distortion correction inevitably discards parts of the recorded image)."

"Because of this, it makes perfect sense for lens designers to leave a little distortion behind..." I think he meant excessive distortion, not a little.

I imagine the author of this review would be happy with a Ferrari even if he has to put Fuller's Earth in the gearbox.

On second thoughts, maybe he'd insist on it.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2012 at 00:23 UTC as 61st comment | 3 replies
On article Just Posted: Fujifilm X-Pro1 review (271 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: X-Prosumer1 at best, Fuji must be kidding

Just a little below I said that the X-Pro1 is full of idiosyncrasies and flaws, both viewfinders are somewhat substandard. What a travesty for such a princely sum.

Furthermore, I want lenses that do not distort so that I can develop RAW images in any software I choose. Currently I use Oloneo PhotoEngine whose tone mapping is superb even for single frames and Photomatix Pro which can merge handheld bracketed shots into a single image without ghosting. When I need to employ the latter, I output the merged but otherwise unprocessed result as a radiance .hdr file and input that to PhotoEngine for tonemapping. I insist on being able to do that sort of thing with any camera, any lens but I cannot.

To allow distortion and rely upon software correction is appalling, especially in so-called Pro equipment. Thank goodness I still have my three full frame Nikon lenses from my film days with the D300 and can avoid all the modern rubbish glass.

Gully Foyle - just look in a Leica M viewfinder. Clear and to the point for taking pictures. No superfluous information that distracts from that objective.

The standard is set by what's good for taking pictures, not by how it it designed and delivered, so the standard when it comes to hybrid viewfinders is the same as for any camera of any type and of any era. Good versus bad.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2012 at 00:14 UTC
On article Just Posted: Fujifilm X-Pro1 review (271 comments in total)

I'll calm down after this and my two other recent comments, but I was expecting the lenses for the X-Pro1 to be the cats whiskers like the lenses I understand they make for Hasselblad. But how wrong I was.

Just see the incredibly bad chromatic aberration of the 18mm lens. I have the Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG which is far from perfect but the definition edge to edge is usually pretty good for prints up to 24" long, it draws as near makes no difference without any visible distortion, has negligible vignetting on DX at least and only occasional slight chromatic aberration near the extreme corners, but generally sufficiently minor not even to need correction because when you can see it, that is only on extremely close scrutiny.

The basic, key design ideas of the X-Pro1 are brilliant but the execution undermines it completely, so much so I'd be suspicious of any "serious" Fuji camera after this and steer a wide berth. This camera's appeal is only for those with more money than sense.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2012 at 00:08 UTC as 62nd comment
On article Just Posted: Fujifilm X-Pro1 review (271 comments in total)

X-Prosumer1 at best, Fuji must be kidding

Just a little below I said that the X-Pro1 is full of idiosyncrasies and flaws, both viewfinders are somewhat substandard. What a travesty for such a princely sum.

Furthermore, I want lenses that do not distort so that I can develop RAW images in any software I choose. Currently I use Oloneo PhotoEngine whose tone mapping is superb even for single frames and Photomatix Pro which can merge handheld bracketed shots into a single image without ghosting. When I need to employ the latter, I output the merged but otherwise unprocessed result as a radiance .hdr file and input that to PhotoEngine for tonemapping. I insist on being able to do that sort of thing with any camera, any lens but I cannot.

To allow distortion and rely upon software correction is appalling, especially in so-called Pro equipment. Thank goodness I still have my three full frame Nikon lenses from my film days with the D300 and can avoid all the modern rubbish glass.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2012 at 23:39 UTC as 64th comment | 6 replies
On article Just Posted: Fujifilm X-Pro1 review (271 comments in total)

I am loathe to fork out a considerable sum when already I have done so once to buy a Nikon D300 and three expensive lenses even though I do not like the considerable weight of my Nikon outfit. That can be physically tiring out on foot for any length of time.

So, is the X-Pro1 able to equal or exceed the D300 in the quality of the output for a relatively lightweight outfit? That was the question I thought I should not ignore.

Well I need not have worried. Having only read the review here to page 16 so far and not even got to most important details of the resolution, dynamic range and alternative DR modes, any interest I had in the X-Pro1 is utterly dead.

I prefer a camera which is logical and intuitive. So I'll stick to the D300 and put up with the weight. The X-Pro1’s software is full of idiosyncrasies and flaws, both viewfinders are somewhat substandard. What a travesty for such a princely sum. I would not want one even at half the price!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 28, 2012 at 23:12 UTC as 70th comment
In reply to:

keepreal: The new 24-85 offers yet another lens in this range. This is strange as if Nikon have a problem coming up with an alternative to the relatively old f/2.8-4 as none of the newer ones has been around for nearly as long. Not only is the older lens superior optically, it has relatively little distortion.

I rely upon photozone.de for detailed lens reviews as I think it offers the best and most useful analysis and almost every Nikon DX lens reviewed there shows unacceptable distortion when using RAW. Mind you, when in the pursuit of lower weight I use the 18-55 VR, I find no problem in that regard except at near distances.

I am amazed not at the huge range of the new 18-300 which technically is interesting but at the stupidity of anyone who would want to buy this heavyweight and fork out a considerable amount of dosh to get it. Unless, of course, this is one draws with so little distortion it is a masterpiece. But I very much doubt it. I presume it comes with a caddy at no extra cost?

Yes Hynee, I am aware you can correct distortion in RAW and I do that in Photoshop manually when the need arises. However, I expect you mean automatically but to allow that limits you to which RAW developer you use.

I rely upon Oloneo PhotoEngine for tonemapping single frames and bracketed shots as it is fast, very easy to use and gives superb results. Occasionally I have to use Photomatix first but just to merge bracketed frames into an .hdr file because PhotoEngine is not too good at merging frames from handheld shots. The .hdr files can still be input to PhotoEngine for tonermapping. Nothing in the foreseeable future is going to have me change that.

That leaves my comment on the distortion in most DX lenses when using RAW as I originally put it. Totally unacceptable as far as I am concerned.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 15, 2012 at 06:08 UTC

The new 24-85 offers yet another lens in this range. This is strange as if Nikon have a problem coming up with an alternative to the relatively old f/2.8-4 as none of the newer ones has been around for nearly as long. Not only is the older lens superior optically, it has relatively little distortion.

I rely upon photozone.de for detailed lens reviews as I think it offers the best and most useful analysis and almost every Nikon DX lens reviewed there shows unacceptable distortion when using RAW. Mind you, when in the pursuit of lower weight I use the 18-55 VR, I find no problem in that regard except at near distances.

I am amazed not at the huge range of the new 18-300 which technically is interesting but at the stupidity of anyone who would want to buy this heavyweight and fork out a considerable amount of dosh to get it. Unless, of course, this is one draws with so little distortion it is a masterpiece. But I very much doubt it. I presume it comes with a caddy at no extra cost?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2012 at 08:15 UTC as 79th comment | 4 replies
Total: 168, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »