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: 95, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous2345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Najinsky: I browse more and more on the iPad, and visit sites that are not iPad friendly less and less. At the moment, using DPR on the iPad is a half experience. I can't load photos to my galleries, and more importantly I can't use various widgets, like the test scene comparison.

The iPad is not like a mobile phone, the new one has a higher quality and higher resolution screen than most laptops and a fair number of desktops. It's a great device for enjoying photography and I'd really like if you supported it better.

I absolutely agree that ipad usability should be a high priority. Hovering fxns fail. Currently it is impossible to view expanded dpr gallery pictures on ipad--if they expand wider than the active frame, they just get cut off, and you cannot scroll.

The ipad is our best shot at a viewing standard in todays world, dont waste the opportunity.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2012 at 19:30 UTC
On article Photokina 2012 Roundup (102 comments in total)

Especially after the dissapointment following the realization that dpr's announcement of a fast 10mm lens for nikon one system was in fact not a brilliant new wide angle, it seems doubly cruel to inform us here about panasonics new "14.2mm F1.2" lens for m43--a lens which, if it actually existed, would cause me to instantly order a m43 camera system to use with it.

Which begs the question--why /don't/ they offer a really top-notch fast lens in this focal length? Its about equivalent to a 35mm angle of view if you prefer shooting 2:3, and makes the most of the compact camera designs to provide something to compete with the rx1 when it arrives...

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2012 at 08:30 UTC as 18th comment | 1 reply
On Article:8040898852 (7 comments in total)

it seems to me that you are confusing an analysis about techniques and styles in photography with an intentional or deliberate school of artistic expression, in large part. viz, it is bizarre to claim that walker evans was a part of the 'deadpan' movement or style; the term didn't exist as a genre at the time of those sharecropping photos, and at any rate, if his subjects' expressions could be described today as deadpan, it isn't because evans had a mission to create deadpan photos, it is because he was on a mission to create naturalistic, un-dramatized photos. likewise, if photojournalists are deadpan (i assume you mean they make photos which appear deadpan, regardless of whatever their mood was when taking them), it is probably very rarely down to any concern for the latest fads in the art world. they take staid photos of staid subjects, and dramatic photos of dramatic subjects; striving for representational fidelity isn't 'deadpan' in the genre sense, it's simply objective.

Posted on Sep 25, 2012 at 07:54 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

xtoph: There is a lot we do not know yet about the m10 (we don't have to follow thier silly naming gambit). For example, does it use the same shutter as the m9, or is it a new one? When using live view or evf, does the shutter have to close again first before opening for exposure, and if so what is the impact on shutter lag? Does the shutter sound the same (sealed/new body could affect sound of even the same shutter)? Does the new sensor incorporate an aa filter, or not? Is the sensor genuinely a unique design, or is it a relative of the new sony sensor (okay, fat chance answering that one)? Are the weather seals up to the same standard as the s2, or not quite? Are the led illuminated framelines dim-able?video codec and rate? Oh, sure, i could go on, but the gist of it is: please finish the camera and let us lay with it.

"play with it", that should have read. My, how embarrassing... : p

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2012 at 07:05 UTC
In reply to:

Superka: This camera has the best controls: very simple and effective. Others manufactures cannot match its simplicity.No, I don't want Leica, because I hace Fuji TX-1, which is better for me. But I want DSLR manufacturer to make such simple and effective controls. Film SLR from all manufacturer had them (Olympus OM, Nikon FM.., for example). And why not to make true rangefinder camera, only rangefinder-style?

@jtan163:

Pointing and shooting with a dslr may be easier than with a leica, but actually *controlling* a dslr is not.

If you expect your camera controls to actually control your camera, there is (unfortunately) no other option that even comes close to the simple, direct and positive contols of the m cameras.

It /was/ disingenuous of you to suggest that resorting to full auto was simpler, though.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2012 at 06:48 UTC

There is a lot we do not know yet about the m10 (we don't have to follow thier silly naming gambit). For example, does it use the same shutter as the m9, or is it a new one? When using live view or evf, does the shutter have to close again first before opening for exposure, and if so what is the impact on shutter lag? Does the shutter sound the same (sealed/new body could affect sound of even the same shutter)? Does the new sensor incorporate an aa filter, or not? Is the sensor genuinely a unique design, or is it a relative of the new sony sensor (okay, fat chance answering that one)? Are the weather seals up to the same standard as the s2, or not quite? Are the led illuminated framelines dim-able?video codec and rate? Oh, sure, i could go on, but the gist of it is: please finish the camera and let us lay with it.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2012 at 11:02 UTC as 26th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

alexpaynter: Apple are patting themselves on the back for all this new technology and yet they have not been able to invent the lens cap yet. No camera without protection for the lens is serious.

I guess that means my leica m6 isnt a serious camera, as i have never used a lens cap with it.

What a ridiculous comment.

Link | Posted on Sep 14, 2012 at 09:14 UTC
On article Editing on the road (114 comments in total)

this seems like excellent advice to me. i think it is especially useful to review shots every day in order simply to improve, technically and aesthetically, as the author suggests.

my travel is often in 2 month or more chunks, so i have to plan for storing and backing up very large sets of photos. i bring a good laptop, and three hard drives, one of which is always with me. i also have started carrying a very large sd card, which is useful for backing up just the real selects as the trip goes on, and can be carried in the waistband of my trousers. i should look into the newer ruggedized models, but really, the basic sd card is unbelievably durable.

i don't disagree about deleting really bad mistakes, but personally i just keep most of the misses. they aren't starred, and most i'll never look at again, but every once in a while it has been invaluable to be able to go back and check some detail of sequence or background. and storage is basically very cheap at this point.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2012 at 23:48 UTC as 39th comment
In reply to:

waxwaine: Go Pentax!

Yes, go pentax--go on and produce a ff camera... or an f/2, 27mm pancake....

I am extremely impressed by pentax's cameras, but criticizing canon on this point is silly. Just as is brand jingoism generally.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2012 at 22:20 UTC
In reply to:

xtoph: i am sympathetic to the plight of the photographer. poor information (let's stipulate that wasn't his fault), piled on top of very difficult circumstances (too many people, not enough time).

but:

these are inexcusably poor quality photos. not because they are insufficiently 'patriotic' (irrelevant) or because they follow a unique artistic vision (please). it isn't really a subjective or even aesthetic matter. the problem is bad technique: wildly oof shots, unbelievably badly framed shots (body parts arbitrarily cut off), and extremely badly exposed shots (blown skin on the face, or insufficient exposure). even without preparation, a photographer should be able to get consistent results, at a minimum.

if pictures are worth 1000 words, then a pro photog should be fluent in the language. what we see isn't a personal dialect or style, it's poor grammar, to the point where there is no way to tell what the pics are supposed to say.

so of course it is photo news. it's embarrassing.

ppastoris:

first of all, many of the worst examples which caused the initial reactions to this episode have been removed, and many of the remainder seem to have been re-edited. [also, many action shots by different photos have been added--notably without as many amputations in spite of shooting active competitions.]

second of all, even from the remaining set linked in the dpr article above: really, "only" one? how about #32?
http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-33747_162-10012296-32.html?tag=img
or #40?
http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-33747_162-10012296-40.html?tag=img
or #42?
http://www.cbsnews.com/2300-33747_162-10012296-42.html?tag=img
there are others. even if we don't count shots like 48 and 49 and assume it was intentional, merely bad composition, i can only assume you didn't bother to actually watch the slideshow before you replied. [or, cbs changed the selection again--#19 isn't even by klamar.]

on focus: i am talking about wildly oof shots, not poor sharpening. i know the difference.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2012 at 08:25 UTC
In reply to:

Lng0004: DPR chooses to post what's probably the worst shot of the bunch. If people only take a look at this one shot before commenting, then yes, it's absolutely crap.

But take a look at the entire collection. It's not that bad.

alfred (and Lng0004):

yes, much, /much/ worse than this. the original sets of photos which caused the initial reaction have been redacted and/or replaced.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2012 at 08:08 UTC

i am sympathetic to the plight of the photographer. poor information (let's stipulate that wasn't his fault), piled on top of very difficult circumstances (too many people, not enough time).

but:

these are inexcusably poor quality photos. not because they are insufficiently 'patriotic' (irrelevant) or because they follow a unique artistic vision (please). it isn't really a subjective or even aesthetic matter. the problem is bad technique: wildly oof shots, unbelievably badly framed shots (body parts arbitrarily cut off), and extremely badly exposed shots (blown skin on the face, or insufficient exposure). even without preparation, a photographer should be able to get consistent results, at a minimum.

if pictures are worth 1000 words, then a pro photog should be fluent in the language. what we see isn't a personal dialect or style, it's poor grammar, to the point where there is no way to tell what the pics are supposed to say.

so of course it is photo news. it's embarrassing.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2012 at 22:42 UTC as 75th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Zdenek Janda: I think that the photographs clearly show that olympic athletes, although at top in their sport discipline, are just people as you and me, and not "superhumans".

I am sure, that photographed athletes are not embarrassed by these photographs. As athletes have enough confidence in themselves, they don't need, and in most cases don't want, be photographed same way as fashion models.

olympic-class athletes at the top of their game are *not* 'just people like you and me'. get over yourself. superhuman is precisely what they are.

the bulk of the photos in question are inexcusably bad, although i am sympathetic with the predicament of the photographer.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2012 at 22:27 UTC
On article Scientists demonstrate 'paint-on' batteries (108 comments in total)
In reply to:

qwertyasdf: I never had problems with electronics that have replaceable batteries.
The validity of non-replaceable batteries is only justified in Job's reality distortion field. But then Apple products is heavily biased towards design.
I don't see why so many phones / tablets now have non-replaceable batteries. I do not appreciate the fact that companies are copying Apple for the sake of copying.

YES, unibody designs give better structural integrity. Yet I NEVER saw a device with replaceable battery break into half. The structure simply will never be the weak point. If a phone / tablet breaks, 99% of them time it's the screen that is broken, regardless of it's structure.

And No, this is useless to camera makers, cameras are meant to be kind of blocky, and batteries are meant to be replaced.

This is a great technology, I'm waiting to see it being used in iPaper, or better yet, the iWallpaper

glad you've never had problems, but i've personally had two phones i have to tape together because the battery won't stay in, and one laptop with a similar problem (battery drops out). i've seen dozens of other people's phones with the same problem. the problem isn't marketing bs, it is real.

and peiasdf's comment isn't a 'what if', it applies to current apple devices. the battery tech is one of the major innovations of the air and ipad.

if you need additional power, there are plenty of external battery slabs for your laptop or phone in whatever size and charge capacity you desire. no different from carrying spare batteries around.

i suspect the current innovation it will not be useless to camera makers, either.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2012 at 09:37 UTC
In reply to:

REDred Photo: My favorite street lens has always been the 35mm. I really would love to see a 17mm f1.4 in a fairly small form factor for micro 4/3.

this (14mm) on m4/3 is actually pretty close (closer than anything else) to a classic 35mm view, assuming you crop the frame to the classic 35mm frame.

it looks a little bit large, but f/2 should be a sweet spot, and this could potentially be a major factor for me to consider m4/3. (the pany 14/2.5 is a bit underwhelming, though i know people who do stellar work with it.)

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2012 at 11:46 UTC
In reply to:

amangupta: For portraits in sufficient light, it is best to consider it as a 75mm f/1.8 rather than the cropped sensor equivalent focal length. Portrait lenses are supposed to "flatten the perspective" and 75mm lens will show the perspective in exactly the same way no matter what the size of the sensor behind it is. And DOF will also be according to 75mm f/1.8, which is plenty shallow I believe (I have a 60mm f/2 for Nikon DX and usually have to stop down to prevent half the face from becoming blurred). Only thing the FOV equivalence with 150mm changes is the distance between subject and photographer (which incidentally, increases DOF further).

amangupta is absolutely wrong about this. i really don't know why this myth of 'absolute focal length' persists, but it has no basis in reality.

in general terms, the 'equivalent focal length' (real number times focal length multiplier) gives a good approximation of the characteristics of a given lens. it is true that for smaller formats, the equivalent focal length will produce more dof at the same f stop and framing--but this is rarely the most salient factor in 'equivalence'.

a 50mm lens on a dx format sensor makes an excellent head-and-shoulders portrait lens. so does oly's 45/1.8 on micro 4/3. this new oly lens will produce a dramatically compressed perspective in close-cropped portraits, which most people will find flattering and graphically powerful (although personally i prefer to use a shorter telephoto or normal lens for portraits; i like my characters rounded, not flat).

Link | Posted on May 24, 2012 at 09:31 UTC

Wow. There's no way I can afford this, but boy would I like to try one. People who haven't used apo lenses may not appreciate the effects across the field, esp in oof areas, that come with a lack of color aberrations. this will be pretty much the first time we have the option to use an apo normal lens for 35mm format.

I think that, besides suddenly making the old 50/2 much more valuable, this is also going to provoke a reevaluation of the 50 summarit. Up til now, it has generally not been appreciated as much as the excellent 35/2.5, but this is going to put new pressure on it.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2012 at 23:26 UTC as 56th comment
On article Shooting with the Leica M9-P (629 comments in total)
In reply to:

xtoph: just a drop in the ocean...

as a leica user, i do understand the skepticism surrounding the m cameras. there are aspects of them which are very frustrating, as has been hashed over ad nauseum in the leica forum here and elsewhere. yes, we wish it had a better lcd and displayed critical focus; yes, we wish the buffer cleared with a bit more alacrity. the list goes on.

but, the m9 is still (more than 2 years after introduction) the smallest ff camera available by far; easily exceeds the output of nearly any current camera at base iso (i've tested the d4 against it, haven't yet gotten my mitts on a d800, which will probably surpass it); and, what is really the only factor that matters, the only digital rangefinder available new.

not everyone has to prefer or even like using a rf, but it is a unique way of shooting which offers unique strengths. it is *not* slower than shooting a dslr (exept for frame rate). it offers more control, and it rewards skill. it's good to have the option.

@ john

that's silly.

@ kodachrome200

as i explained, unless you only shoot your dslr at f/4, no, your vf does *not* let you see the dof of the photo.

look, you obviously aren't interested in understanding why someone might make a different choice than you, so this may be pointless. you are right--the rf does not show any dof; it shows you the scene as your eye sees it, something other cameras don't. an m camera lets you look straight at reality and lets you be the medium to visualize how you want to photograph it; an slr forces you to look at a flat focusing screen about a virtual meter from your nose, showing a poor approximation of how the /camera/ will see the scene (and in the process hiding reality in oof swaths and outside the framelines).

the rf system works better for me, and some of the best photographers ever. others of the best photographers in the world prefer slrs. i don't think nachtwey is stupid for using an slr; why do you insist that i am for using an m9?

Link | Posted on May 10, 2012 at 11:27 UTC
On article Shooting with the Leica M9-P (629 comments in total)
In reply to:

xtoph: just a drop in the ocean...

as a leica user, i do understand the skepticism surrounding the m cameras. there are aspects of them which are very frustrating, as has been hashed over ad nauseum in the leica forum here and elsewhere. yes, we wish it had a better lcd and displayed critical focus; yes, we wish the buffer cleared with a bit more alacrity. the list goes on.

but, the m9 is still (more than 2 years after introduction) the smallest ff camera available by far; easily exceeds the output of nearly any current camera at base iso (i've tested the d4 against it, haven't yet gotten my mitts on a d800, which will probably surpass it); and, what is really the only factor that matters, the only digital rangefinder available new.

not everyone has to prefer or even like using a rf, but it is a unique way of shooting which offers unique strengths. it is *not* slower than shooting a dslr (exept for frame rate). it offers more control, and it rewards skill. it's good to have the option.

@kodachrome200

read it again--i did not say nor imply that 'slr users are less skilled'.

"also, how dare i"? well, first off, you misunderstand the word 'visualize,' evidently mistaking it for a synonym of 'see'. never mind; slr vfs *do not* give you very good control over what you are seeing through them. in general, they present the scene as it would appear with dof at ~f/4. sure, you could stop down manually to see the real dof at, say, f/8 if you wanted to (or you can just visualize it...), but that's impractical. if otoh you are shooting wide, there is *no way* the reflex vf can show you the true appearance of the photo--it can't display wider than the equivalent aperture of the fresnel lenses in the focusing screen (usually about f/4, sometimes a bit wider). so, want to see in the vf how your lens looks shooting at f/2? sorry, you can't. and this all assumes you are using a flagship camera--otherwise you're stuck with only 95% of the scene, seen through a tiny tunnel.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2012 at 08:29 UTC
On article Shooting with the Leica M9-P (629 comments in total)
In reply to:

xtoph: just a drop in the ocean...

as a leica user, i do understand the skepticism surrounding the m cameras. there are aspects of them which are very frustrating, as has been hashed over ad nauseum in the leica forum here and elsewhere. yes, we wish it had a better lcd and displayed critical focus; yes, we wish the buffer cleared with a bit more alacrity. the list goes on.

but, the m9 is still (more than 2 years after introduction) the smallest ff camera available by far; easily exceeds the output of nearly any current camera at base iso (i've tested the d4 against it, haven't yet gotten my mitts on a d800, which will probably surpass it); and, what is really the only factor that matters, the only digital rangefinder available new.

not everyone has to prefer or even like using a rf, but it is a unique way of shooting which offers unique strengths. it is *not* slower than shooting a dslr (exept for frame rate). it offers more control, and it rewards skill. it's good to have the option.

@kodachrome2000:
an slr-style vf doesn't offer more control, it it just an aid to visualizing the effects of the camera on the scene. (not a very good one at that.) an actual rf--which the xpro1 is not, btw--assumes you are skilled enough to understand how your camera sees, and concentrates on letting you see a clear and true view of the actual scene, which no other type of camera does. rather than altering the scene and making you try to imagine what reality looked like, it shows you reality and trusts you to imagine what you want your camera to do to it. that enhances control. and no, a film leica doesn't 'make more sense' than an m9; i use one too, but i shoot enough that the m9 began saving me money (on film and dev) in under a year, to say nothing of the quality advantages.

i agree that it is a whole lotta money for a camera. it is still cheaper than film, and the only way to shoot a classic rf digitally. that, plus size to quality ratio, makes it eminently rational for some.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2012 at 23:29 UTC
Total: 95, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous2345Next ›Last »