xtoph

xtoph

Lives in United States seattle, WA, United States
Works as a anthropologist
Has a website at www.phloiterer.tumblr.com
Joined on Sep 22, 2004

Comments

Total: 86, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Focal length may be the least interesting aspect of a great photographer's work, but i can't help but find it funny that kim aparently can't tell that the photo he used to illustrate the point about the importance if wide angle lenses--the second shot in the essay--is not made with a wide angle lens.

If you want real insight into klein's work, google his name + 'contact sheet' on youtube and watch the short vid of klein himself talking candidly through some of his contact sheets. It is well worth your time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-V_F_MDfB2g

Direct link | Posted on May 3, 2013 at 07:28 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: Ehhhhhh ,,,,, in what way are they achromatic?

Roland, you're thinking of 'apochromatic' not achromatic.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 4, 2013 at 22:01 UTC
In reply to:

gl2k: Why does the headline explicitly state "iPhone" instead of smartphone ?
Wouldn't any other modern smarthphone with a decent camera work as well ? Even more since the iPhone camera is average at best.
That smacks so much like "WOW, look what an iPhone can do !!".
Using a decent Nokia gives a lot more headroom to play with.

well, yes, of course you 'could' use something different; but apparently he used an iphone. the headline is perfectly correct; so why does it bother you?

arguing that something else has an incrementally better sensor kind of completely misses the point; if he needed a better sensor, he'd have used his dslr. part of the appeal of 'iphoneography' is that it uses nothing special, just the most common, default device of its kind. and it is pretty hard to argue that this whole technology segment--both the hardware and the software ends of it--the didn't start with the iphone. the point isn't to say 'look what an iphone can do that nothing else can', it is more like 'look what even just an iphone can do'. the essence of the statement isn't aggrandizing the device, it's emphasizing the lack of reliance on exotic devices.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2013 at 13:52 UTC
In reply to:

maxnimo: Since my Canon 50mm prime lens died I'm done with Canon. A $380 prime lens should not die before the camera dies. Never again will I buy Canon camera equipment, and I most certainly won't spend $5000 for a prime.

The ef50/1.4 is notorious for its micromotor af breaking down, and it is a shame. But, optically it is an excellent lens well worth the money, and canon have fixed the af on mine (twice) for just over $100. Considering the use i gave it, not so bad.
Really has no bearing whatsoever on these new lenses, and we may even see a replacement to the venerable old 50 announced any day--i will be curious to see if they introduce something as useful as the new 35/2is in this focal lenght.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 10, 2013 at 22:51 UTC
On New image viewing options for forums article (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

xtoph: i have not given anyone permission to 'download original' files of my photographs. dpr's inclusion of a dedicated button for this is bizarre, and suggests that i somehow do give such permission.

i am aware that people can copy my photos, but there's a difference between that being technically possible and it being actively encouraged and tacitly approved.

please change this. and shame on dpr, after facebook's photographer unfriendly changes (including a 'download original' button we have no control over) and the backlash against them, you would think that a photographer-centered site would have handled this differently.

@simon--
Thank you for clarifying that you will change the label on the 'download original' button. It was far from clear previously that you agreed this should change, especially after your responses to my comments above.

I put a great deal of effort into dpr and have contributed a fair bit over the years to making it a better place, so i appreciate the responsiveness of dpr to fixing this misstep.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2013 at 08:32 UTC
On New image viewing options for forums article (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

xtoph: i have not given anyone permission to 'download original' files of my photographs. dpr's inclusion of a dedicated button for this is bizarre, and suggests that i somehow do give such permission.

i am aware that people can copy my photos, but there's a difference between that being technically possible and it being actively encouraged and tacitly approved.

please change this. and shame on dpr, after facebook's photographer unfriendly changes (including a 'download original' button we have no control over) and the backlash against them, you would think that a photographer-centered site would have handled this differently.

simon: i don't need the operation of the browser explained to me. if you think it is 'no big deal', then it should be no big deal for dpr to change the misleading invitation to download the original file. as i said, most people who read that are not thinking 'oh, that just means to view the picture in my browswer'. they are already doing that, at 100% if they desire. if they click 'download original file', that clearly connotes taking possession of that picture file. and there's a difference between condoning that, and it being possible.

why would you not change this so as to cease to encourage people to steal photos--even if it was not dpr's intention to so encourage people?

i realize that it can be exhausting dealing with criticism of your every move that comes in from the web no matter what you do, it probably seems like. but this is a simple issue; you made a mistake. if you acknowledge that, change it, then we'll all move on and everyone will be happy for ever after, right?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 7, 2013 at 01:56 UTC
On New image viewing options for forums article (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jimmy jang Boo: Nice! This is a great improvement and it is much appreciated.

As for those who are so concerned about their images being downloaded, if they want to use your website to promote and protect their business interests, they should pay for special privileges. And in addition to that, if they actually sell anything, charge them a royalty.

@ jimmy
I don't know why you would think that this is a matter of 'promoting my business interests'. The point is dpr explicitly suggesting to every viewer of my photos here that it is okay not only to view those pictures, but to download the original file. 'download original' connotes ownership to most people, regardless whether it is the camera original file or a smaller, edited version.

In the world of pinterest, tumblr, "curatorship", etc., it is misleading to suggest that any viewer is welcome to take the original file for their own use, without a link to original context. Facebook made this exact same error (created 'download original' button out of control of the photographer) a year ago. Given photographers' reactions to that, it is simply inexcusable that dpr has made the same mistake, and taken the choice of approving downloads out of the hands of the photographer.

It is very simple: a photographer's site should facilitate viewing, not appropriation of, photographs.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2013 at 21:15 UTC
On New image viewing options for forums article (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

xtoph: i have not given anyone permission to 'download original' files of my photographs. dpr's inclusion of a dedicated button for this is bizarre, and suggests that i somehow do give such permission.

i am aware that people can copy my photos, but there's a difference between that being technically possible and it being actively encouraged and tacitly approved.

please change this. and shame on dpr, after facebook's photographer unfriendly changes (including a 'download original' button we have no control over) and the backlash against them, you would think that a photographer-centered site would have handled this differently.

It is bizarre to me to hear people tell me i should not be concerned whether people steal my image files. Surely it should be up to me if that's something i am concerned with?

Once again, i understand that it is always possible for people to copy an image presented on the internet. My objection is to dpr effectively telling one and all that it is perfectly okay if they want to steal that file. It is not okay, and dpr should not be facilitating it.

To those sagely opining that i shouldnt upload 'original' size files, my gallery photos are generally about 1100 px on the long dimension. Dpr still offers a button to viewers to 'download original', i this case the 1100 px file. No one should be downloading that file; it is for viewing, not offered to people to keep, use, or alter.

Some of you think it is witty to denigrate your pictures. Your choice. My photos are good enoth to care about. And i respect my subjects enough not to condone giving away photos of them.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2013 at 20:50 UTC
On New image viewing options for forums article (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

xtoph: i have not given anyone permission to 'download original' files of my photographs. dpr's inclusion of a dedicated button for this is bizarre, and suggests that i somehow do give such permission.

i am aware that people can copy my photos, but there's a difference between that being technically possible and it being actively encouraged and tacitly approved.

please change this. and shame on dpr, after facebook's photographer unfriendly changes (including a 'download original' button we have no control over) and the backlash against them, you would think that a photographer-centered site would have handled this differently.

@russel-
If you don't care whether people download or steal your photos, that's you choice. My whole point is that it should be MY CHOICE whether my image posts are offered up as public downloads. As it stands with the latest iteration, dpr has usurped that choice.

Whether i sell my photos or not has no bearing on this discussion.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2013 at 12:06 UTC
On New image viewing options for forums article (162 comments in total)
In reply to:

xtoph: i have not given anyone permission to 'download original' files of my photographs. dpr's inclusion of a dedicated button for this is bizarre, and suggests that i somehow do give such permission.

i am aware that people can copy my photos, but there's a difference between that being technically possible and it being actively encouraged and tacitly approved.

please change this. and shame on dpr, after facebook's photographer unfriendly changes (including a 'download original' button we have no control over) and the backlash against them, you would think that a photographer-centered site would have handled this differently.

Simon--
I cannot tell if you are being facetious or just thick. Do you honestly not understand that a button labelled 'download original' implicitly condones stealing the image and doing with it whatever the person desires?
Of course this has always been technically feasible, but few people have to have it explained to them that the primary purpose of posting an image for viewing is viewing, while the word 'download' connotes possession.
It seems to me that a photographer-centered approach would enhance viewing and discourage stealing.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2013 at 09:04 UTC
On New image viewing options for forums article (162 comments in total)

i have not given anyone permission to 'download original' files of my photographs. dpr's inclusion of a dedicated button for this is bizarre, and suggests that i somehow do give such permission.

i am aware that people can copy my photos, but there's a difference between that being technically possible and it being actively encouraged and tacitly approved.

please change this. and shame on dpr, after facebook's photographer unfriendly changes (including a 'download original' button we have no control over) and the backlash against them, you would think that a photographer-centered site would have handled this differently.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 6, 2013 at 04:14 UTC as 30th comment | 17 replies
On Just posted: Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM lens review article (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

xtoph: It is really great that dpr is working on presenting lens comparisons. But while the optical performance potential is obviously central, in practical application it is more likely things like autofocus performance and precision which are likely to have a greater direct impact on results. So, will dpr attempt to provide some evaluation of these factors? Autofocus speed and consistency are difficult to test objectively, but there has to be something you can tell us. And objective information such as the number of discrete focus points a lens can stop at is exactly the sort of rare data that dpr may have the clout to twist out of the various brands. (eg, the greater precision afforded by the superior number of focus distances available on the ef 50/1.2 compared with the ef 50/1.4 is a major factor in real-world performance variation between these lenses, which never shows up in sharpness-obsesses lens reviews which are specifically designed to eliminate focus performance from the test.)

there's a subjective side and an objective one to your decision, luke1.

subjectively, i would always choose a fast af lens over a slow af lens given the choice--i probably shoot different things than you, and it's logical that people might have different preferences.

but there's a deeper issue you don't seem to appreciate in your comment. first, consistency is in fact a major real-world issue. just try to af, defocus, and af again the same lens a dozen times and see how close the results are. second (and not unrelated), af lenses are programed with a set number of stop distances. it will focus at 2.5 meters, then the next stop might be 2.6, etc. different lenses have different numbers of possible focus distances, producing different rates of precision in focus. eg, a lens with 1000 focus distances will generally outperform one with 500.

you can take the sharpest lens made, but if you aren't standing at the one of the exact preset focus distances, it won't be sharp.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 30, 2012 at 09:31 UTC
On Just posted: Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG HSM lens review article (182 comments in total)

It is really great that dpr is working on presenting lens comparisons. But while the optical performance potential is obviously central, in practical application it is more likely things like autofocus performance and precision which are likely to have a greater direct impact on results. So, will dpr attempt to provide some evaluation of these factors? Autofocus speed and consistency are difficult to test objectively, but there has to be something you can tell us. And objective information such as the number of discrete focus points a lens can stop at is exactly the sort of rare data that dpr may have the clout to twist out of the various brands. (eg, the greater precision afforded by the superior number of focus distances available on the ef 50/1.2 compared with the ef 50/1.4 is a major factor in real-world performance variation between these lenses, which never shows up in sharpness-obsesses lens reviews which are specifically designed to eliminate focus performance from the test.)

Direct link | Posted on Dec 23, 2012 at 08:21 UTC as 18th comment | 2 replies
On Dpreview Users' Poll: Best Camera of 2012? article (1514 comments in total)

The leica m monochrom deserves consideration. It is easily the most innovative camera released in the last year.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 22, 2012 at 07:03 UTC as 212th comment | 4 replies
On Canon EOS 6D preview (1044 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roseone: Thanks for your input. I checked out his site, especially the 2012 DSLR Comparison. That was very informative. My Nikon D300 has the DX Sensor. I want to upgrade to the FX / Full Frame camera. I will take your advice and see how the D600 and the 6D fair. It may be worth investing in the 5D3 or D3X or D4. For sharp landscapes, 5D3 looks the best so far from all the info I have read.

any of those are seriously good cameras, but if you are interested in landscapes, there's really no contest, you should just get a d800. superb sensor. and the rest of the camera is pretty darn good, if maybe not quite as good as the 5d3 for all-round action photography.
plus at least some of your current nikon glass is likely useful on the d800.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 16, 2012 at 12:24 UTC
On Canon EOS 6D preview (1044 comments in total)

i don't really get a lot of the kvetching. this is an even smaller ff camera than the nikon d600, spec'ed to af at minus 3 ev (2 full stops better than the nikon), with a new sensor that may or may not be as good as the state of the art, but certainly won't be worse than canon's other ff sensors. pair it with the new 35/2is lens and you have an all-around camera that would be hard to beat at the price.

sure, i'd love weathersealing and etc, but we really will have to wait and see how this one performs before slamming the door in its face. it may turn out to outperform the nikon in the real-world handling areas which make the difference between actually getting the image or not, just as the af on the 5d3 is more reliable than that on the d800, for example.

now, personally i couldn't care less about brand, but i would like to see canon get its game back on sensor development, and nikon improve its af. and both need to offer a decent fast crop prime already.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 16, 2012 at 12:08 UTC as 107th comment
In reply to:

Madaboutpix: What strikes me - and relieves me a bit in the light of the comparisons on ImagingResource - is that the K-5 IIs RAW output does look a tat better than that of the K-30. And while I'm not going to start another outcry by claiming that the K-5 IIs can match the Canon 5D Mk. II/III, from what I see in the test image, I find it hard to convince myself that the Canons are that much better as to justify the premium over a K-5 IIs. If you want to do fairly serious photography on a budget (like I do), and know what you're doing with regard to moiré, the K-5 IIs seems like an excellent value proposition ...

I am very impressed by the qualities and relatively low price of the k5--definitely offers some advantages over my 5d2.
If pentax would offer a couple of decently fast standard wide primes (35/2 and 28/2 equivalents), i might buy one as a backup.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2012 at 08:25 UTC
On Breaking the Rules article (142 comments in total)

I think the article is well written and helpful, though the title might be a bit provocative. That is, nothing could be more conventional than the gnomic admonishment to 'break the rules!' Just try googling that or something similar and see the hundreds of articles that come up; even nat geo has articles on its photo technique site walking you through the process of breaking the rules. Try to find an essay on what the rules are you're supposed to break, and it is actually harder.
But the actual article here doesnt get too lost in the romance of being a 'rebel', and gives some practical examples, so well done. Helpfully, it also seems to avoid the trap of demonizing the rules in the first place, which always seems rather silly, and to encourage some thoughtfulness about how to see your photos. That seems more productive than insisting there are no and never were any visual logics circulating out there to break in the first place.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 11, 2012 at 08:10 UTC as 66th comment
On Accessory Review: Manfrotto 294 Carbon Fiber Tripod article (50 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photo Pete: I'm with other posters re the review format. No disrespect but this didn't tell me anything other than carbon fibre is lighter and less prone to vibration than aluminium and that the reviewer doesn't like ballheads. The manufacturer's weight rating means nothing.... It may be able to support 11kg, but vibrate like a jelly when it does so.

More critical information would be a guide as to what focal length lens can be used without vibration blur for a mid weight dSLR kit, or did the head exhibit lockdown creep or jerk when making fine positional adjustments. What is the range of support positions possible (max height, min height, angle to vertical etc).

Unlike one poster above, I think a degree of lab testing is something to be expected from DPReview. The forums are the place for opinions, the reviews should be the place for quantifiable and impartial assessment.

The idea of a vibration test by measuring the number of pixels blurred is a good idea. You could use a standard dSLR kit with 300mm lens focused on a test chart. Take one shot at 1/1000 second and one at 1 second (critical vibration from shutter and mirror movement is usually most visible between about 1second and 1/20 second) and measure the extra number of pixels of blur in the longer exposure. NOT using mirror up or exposure delay mode would allow the shutter vibration and mirror slap to expose any instability. Provided you use the same dSLR and lens for each test this would be a good and relatively quick way to compare stability of an overall leg / head kit.

For the heavier duty kits it would be possible to use a longer focal length lens as a more stringent test.

If you wanted to test just the legs then you could use a heavy duty Arca Swiss head in the test. If you wanted to test just the head then you could mount it directly onto studio legs or directly onto a test bench.

If you really wanted to be thorough you could additionally test with centre column up, down or horizontal ( if the option is available). If nothing else that would let people know that a manufacturer's maximum height figure that relies on extending the centre column should be taken with a pinch of salt!

I really haven't seen many good tripod and head tests and DPReview could really set the standard here.

Photo pete makes excellent suggestions, in line with the overallgist of many commenters: that this "review" adds little if anything to the info on the spec sheet, other than a relatively context-less opinion from the reviewer that its a good quality product. It is hard to see how this differs from an advertisement or catalogue blurb.
I can understand wanting to keep tripod reviews manageable, but what's the point if the entire review adds no extra information?
I suggest you offer the writer a chance to re-write this, incorporating at least some of the suggestions in the feedback.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 3, 2012 at 11:21 UTC
On Nikon announces development of three 1 Nikkor lenses article (76 comments in total)

If they produced a fast and small 12mm lens for this system i would buy in--at this point it offers some impressive capabilities. F/1.4 or even 1.8 would be enough, though it would be really impressive to make something faster.

A 50-equivalent would also be nice of course, but then you would also need something like a 28 equivalent. Simpler to split the difference... Or just go all-in and make the three. Okay, that isnt likely.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 24, 2012 at 21:26 UTC as 10th comment | 4 replies
Total: 86, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »