AbrasiveReducer

Lives in United States United States
Joined on May 27, 2010

Comments

Total: 2854, showing: 521 – 540
« First‹ Previous2526272829Next ›Last »
On article War Rigs: The tech used to shoot Mad Max: Fury Road (54 comments in total)
In reply to:

String: OMG, they used Adobe LR! How on earth did they ever fit a CC subscription into the budget? Why wouldn't they use Gimp??? (sarcasm off)

Sorry, just a little sarcasm considering the incredible amount of posts on this site calling Adobe the ultimate evil for going to a subscription based model.

Maybe, after the movie was completed, they cancelled their subscription.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2015 at 20:22 UTC
On article Gitzo introduces three new Center Ball Heads (41 comments in total)
In reply to:

nathantw: Love the Gitzo I purchased in 1984. Still using it today as my main tripod.

Same here. China is cheaper, but while the Nikons and Canons come and go, your tripod is still current.

Link | Posted on Aug 14, 2015 at 16:43 UTC
In reply to:

straylightrun: First they have conquered Mirrorless, and now the enthusiast digital camera market. What's next for Sony?

Refrigerators in colors. Also a small one with Hello Kitty. Abd bring back Elcassette!

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2015 at 16:21 UTC
In reply to:

steelhead3: More "X" names...please Korea, don't copy the Japanese.

These must impress somebody because they keep doing it.

I refuse to buy anything that doesn't say "Pro."

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2015 at 19:08 UTC
In reply to:

Horshack: "X" went out a year years ago. The new hip letter is "Z". I'm personally waiting for "K" to have its day in the sun.

Seems appropriate for K to be in the sun.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2015 at 18:58 UTC
On article The travel photography of HDR guru Trey Ratcliff (235 comments in total)
In reply to:

JCFan1979: Looking at all the negative comments all I can conclude is that many photographers (or wannabe photographers) are all a bunch of childish snobs. There's no right form of photography, there's no right way of painting, there's no right way of dancing. Art is art and you don't have to talk about how it ruins the picture for you if it's HDR. When you take a perfect photo with absolutely no modifications in Lr or some other software and no technical flaws period you let me know.....and also sell me your magic camera.

Mark Twain said "Wagner's music is not as bad as it sounds" and I think it's the same with HDR; it's not as bad as it looks. The rest is just H8-terz who resent Trey's gift for self-promotion which is, frankly, astounding. Guys like Scott Kelby and Gary Fong could learn a lot from Trey about marketing.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2015 at 17:42 UTC
On article Picture this: Our revamped galleries system is now live (115 comments in total)

Very nice, thank you. I'm sure it was a ton of work.

Link | Posted on Aug 11, 2015 at 16:37 UTC as 17th comment
On article The travel photography of HDR guru Trey Ratcliff (235 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): Hates are just pure of hate. Trey is one of the most successful photographers in the world. To each his own. I like his style of photography. He switched from Nikon to Sony few years ago. ‘To take an interesting photo, some may choose to carry around a lot of metal and glass and mirrors and silicon. I choose to carry around less metal and glass and silicon. Oh, and no mirrors.’ – Me, quoting myself.” – Trey Ratcliff"

Whatever else you want to say abut Trey, he is a nice guy, free with information and self-taught. He is a master of self-promotion and I'd like to hear more about that.

There's probably some resentment of his success but he brings in enough money to not worry about endorsing a particular brand of camera, which makes his advice on this quite useful, even if you don't care for his images.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 18:53 UTC
In reply to:

Anastigmat: When a camera maker is selling a small number of cameras, it is easy to have a 25% increase in sales volume. A profit of $8.8 million is way better than a loss of even $1, but it is nothing to write home about. Companies that make nothing, such as internet web sites, earn a lot more profit in some cases. Bad news for Olympus is that the world is moving towards full frame cameras. Affordable ff cameras will be the next hot market segment, but Olympus won't be part of it. I wonder how many cameras with 4/3 sensors Olympus can sell if a FF DSLR costs about the same or even less than Olympus cameras.

Ironic that Olympus started out with a 35mm camera, the Pen F, that was beautifully made but shot half-frame (1/2 the size of what we now call full frame.) It was a lovely system but the image quality suffered because the film area was too small.

But they learned. They shrunk a "full frame" camera into a small, light body. It was a win-win; no loss of image quality at all, and those great, small Olympus lenses. No one ever beat the size/weight/quality of the OM cameras; it was the lack of autofocus that did them in.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 04:49 UTC
On article The travel photography of HDR guru Trey Ratcliff (235 comments in total)

Hey DPR, now that we have an article from an HDR guru, how about an article from a non-guru who uses HDR and does all the steps necessary to hide the artifacts?

Opening the images and hitting the button that says "process" isn't all that hard, but fixing the contrast in the shadows, removing the halos, choosing portions of individual images, this takes time and some skill. There's an HDR site from a guy in Chicago who does amazing night shots that look like perfect long exposures but they're acutally carefully worked HDRs.

I don't mean to say Trey doesn't work on his images - only that it is possible to use HDR for more realistic, less garish results.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2015 at 18:36 UTC as 72nd comment | 1 reply
On article The travel photography of HDR guru Trey Ratcliff (235 comments in total)

People who were trained in traditional photography (no computers, no software, no instant gratification, no fixing it later) have inflexible opinions on how a photograph should look.

If HDR worked as it should, it would be possible to compress a huge brightness range overall, without reducing the contrast of things that are already flat. But it doesn't. HDR is not "smart" or selective. The result is (usually) an odd look where some parts of the image are fine while others are smoky and hazy and stuff that moved, like clouds, become a sort of gravy or soup.

As for why many people don't like it, it's not resistance to change. It's that unless HDR is done really well, it looks a bit off, like food that's probably ok but doesn't really taste right.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2015 at 17:55 UTC as 78th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Jetranger_Pilot: I have never once been in a position where I have wished my 24-70 had VR. LOL Which is why it doesn't have it. It would serve no purpose. This lens is a staple for wedding photographers.

As others have stated, if you need VR on this lens, you have bigger issues.

Because of the magnification of long lenses, VR became an important addition. Some people don't understand that it is not even needed in mid to wide lenses. Even long lenses without VR can be compensated for with proper technique. You want to spend more money for no benefit? There are lots of places waiting to take your money.

The glut of people demanding useless features will keep the manufacturers busy and rich.

Those complaining about the weight of pro lenses - take a course on the importance of light. Then hit the gym, or buy the slow glass made just for people like you. Better still, get a little camera with tiny buttons that will fit in your pocket. Or use your phone. That should be light enough.

Since this new 24-70 is a "pro" lens and people have been asking and asking for VR, it would seem that professionals are the ones who see the need.

Years ago, it was "pros" (meaning anybody with an expensive camera) bragging about hand-holding an M camera for 4 seconds. Tall tales, but with a lightweight camera, cloth shutter and no mirror, every once in a while you might do it. These days, high ISOs and stabilization make all that laughable.

But even if this was a valid point and everybody should just go to the gym, the manufacturers desperately need to come up with new features to move inventory.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2015 at 07:08 UTC
In reply to:

Sean65: Good cameras sell.

Not always and even when they do, good cameras don't need to be replaced every other year.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2015 at 19:33 UTC

Good for them. They've been down so long, it looks like up.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2015 at 16:28 UTC as 40th comment | 1 reply

At $249 and 14 ounces its difficult to argue image stabilization adds significant cost and weight. All that's left is image quality and while this lens probably isn't great, there are lots of sharp lenses that do have stabilization.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2015 at 00:54 UTC as 25th comment
In reply to:

Tim Gander: The antithesis of a prime lens. 'Tis the devil's work.

Only in performance.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2015 at 00:47 UTC
In reply to:

Jim Evidon: Until you technical experts have the opportunity to read the patent application to see what Olympus is doing exactly, your comments need to be restrained.
You may very well be ultimately correct, but the article does not present enough information for you to say it won't work, will lose half the light, etc. Crystal balls are fine in their place, but are highly suspect.

Until we hear from Olympus or Ken Rockwell there's not enough information to reach any conclusion.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2015 at 18:21 UTC
In reply to:

str8pipe: I hope this means a new 70-200 f2.8 is on the way :)

What's wrong with the 14-24?

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2015 at 18:15 UTC
On article Fujifilm X-T10 Review (514 comments in total)
In reply to:

timo: I don't think I would ever make a camera-buying decision on the basis that 16MP is inadequate for my needs. Scarcely more than ten years ago most people thought 6MP was adequate, and they were mostly right.

6 megapixels wasn't good for anything, except claiming it was better than 4 megapixels. 16 is adequate for many things. I still use a D700 on a regular basis for photographs of groups that are printed on 11x17. You need to resolve a lot of detail for all those faces.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2015 at 14:39 UTC

I'd love to have the 24-70, especially since it has VR (which "real" photographers don't need, but I do.) I just wish it wasn't such a brick for a lens with a relatively short range.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2015 at 06:08 UTC as 22nd comment
Total: 2854, showing: 521 – 540
« First‹ Previous2526272829Next ›Last »