Lives in United States United States
Works as a Digital Imaging Techician
Joined on Jun 6, 2006
About me:

Specializing in Fine Art reproduction, color management, retouching, printing, and
digital asset management.

Other jobs I've held in past lives, in no particular order:

Studio and Location Shoot Photo Assistant
Digital Tech
Equipment Rental
Photo Lab Technician (Dip & Dunk Film processing)
Durst Lambda and wide format inkjet operator
Inkjet Printing R&D


Total: 67, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article Hands on with the Pentax 645Z (686 comments in total)
In reply to:

Donnie G: Now this is the kick ass Pentax that I've been waiting for. Not some wannabe medium format pretender dressed in FF 35mm clothes, but the real deal at an enthusiast accessible price point. Ricoh! You done good baby!

But this is a medium format want to be. 43.8x32.8 is hardly full frame and noticeably smaller than real 645. It's a good step, and I'm glad they're mocking Hasselblad and Phase with their ludicrous prices for the same sensor, but true medium format, this is not.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 15, 2014 at 04:39 UTC
In reply to:

KAllen: You will not need to go a D800 to ask that question.
I don't own MF digital but I would if I could despite all the comparisons people make with the D800 etc. It's not all about the number of blades of grass you can record But I can't justify it.
I wouldn't go the Hassy route all the same, the 1/800th of a second top speed kills it for my needs.

Different cameras for different needs. Our H4D-50MS is great in the studio for reproducing artwork, and blows away the D800. However if I'm going to a show in a dimly lit club, the D800 is going to blow away the Hasselblad. Different tools for different jobs.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2014 at 20:23 UTC
In reply to:

stratplaya: Who manufactures the sensor? I didn't find that in the release.

Do you have a source saying with certainty it is Sony. There have been a lot of rumors saying so, but I would like to know for certain. All other sensor that Hasselblad sources for MFD are from Kodak or Dalsa. Phase One seems to be using the same sensor in their new 50MP CMOS and they only source from Dalsa. I can see Sony stepping in, but I'd like to see documentation before I start repeating rumors.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2014 at 20:21 UTC
In reply to:

Ben O Connor: Finally not a "brand sticker" , but a CAMERA from Hasselbad

Hate to break it to you. The Hasselblad H line was partly made by Fuji. Look up the Fuji GX545AF.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2014 at 20:18 UTC
In reply to:

dynaxx: I am confused ; I thought CMOS used a rolling shutter unlike the CCD sensor that exposes the entire 44mm X 33m frame simultaneously.

How can the H system lenses with their central ( global ? ) shutters work with both CCD and CMOS ?

CCD colours have always been better ( like the Fuji X-Pro 1, the last DSLR with CCD ) so this seems to be the trade-off versus practicality.

Rolling shutter only occurs during video. In the case of still photos (even for cmos) the shutter it turned on before the shutter opens and turned off and read after the shutter closes… no roll there.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2014 at 20:15 UTC

"No price premium" except the sensor is physically smaller (on par with the H5D-40 which costs $10,000 less). That's a 1.3x crop vs a 1.1x crop (from 645)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2014 at 20:11 UTC as 8th comment
On Nikon D4s First Impressions Review (1043 comments in total)
In reply to:

RichRMA: Isn't time for USB-3 to make it at least to the pro camera ranks?

My D800 has USB 3. And Nikon's site claims "High-speed USB" maybe it does.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2014 at 06:04 UTC
On Nikon D4s First Impressions Review (1043 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aaron801: I know this is a really ignorant question, but I know nothing about this class of cameras... I'm wondering why a camera so bulky and so expensive is only 16mp?

Different cameras are made for different needs. Not all cameras need high MP. What this camera delivers above all else is speed... fast focusing, lots of buttons that give you direct access to a bunch of different settings without having to dig into the menu (it is quite a bit more complex to learn but once you know how to use it, you can change settings very very fast), very high ISO settings with low noise let you shoot at faster shutter speeds in lower light, high speed burst lets you shoot 11 photos in 1 second, letting you get several shots of something moving fast and choosing the best one, the 1080 60p setting records video twice as fast as most TV plays back, letting you do a little slow-mo or playback at normal speeds it at the higher 60fps
for very smooth motion.

I shoot with a $30,000 medium format digital camera that is bigger than this... it's wonderful in the studio and has 50MP but it's horrible in low light and is much slower. Different strokes for different folks.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2014 at 06:02 UTC
On article Adobe expands Photoshop and Lightroom offer (628 comments in total)

Ok here's an actual issue I've had, I've talked to Adobe and they have no solution:

I work on the side for a small nonprofit community arts school. We are not an officially accredited school, we just teach classes mostly for hobbyists or artists wishing to expand their range. We only need Lightroom and Photoshop. We are a small program and have 6 computers.

Because we are not an accredited school and because multiple students will be using the software. The only option they offer that we are allowed to use is a Groups option which requires us to purchase the full suite (we do not teach Illustrator or Dreamweaver or Premier) and requires us to have an administrator (which we do not have or can afford to hire) switch the log ins between classes. This is ridiculous.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 25, 2013 at 13:46 UTC as 25th comment
On Preview:canon-eos-70d (1311 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jambsi: Just to prove we're paying attention -

In the Low light image quality section the 2 pictures of the girl in the black dress have all the same values except ISO6400 vs ISO25,600? Huh?

The 25,600 was shot at 1/100th of a second according to the Exif... looks like it's just a typo in the caption.

Posted on Aug 15, 2013 at 21:21 UTC
On article First Impressions: Metabones Speed Booster (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

Timmbits: hmmm... a $60 tele-converter on backwards and selling for $600.

Worth pointing out Metabones makes 2 Canon lens to NEX adaptors: the Smart Adaptor that has no optic but just has the electronics to allow the NEX body to control the aperture, provide power to the IS system, and allow autofocus (though very slow)... that with no optic costs $400.

This adaptor does all that and then adds the anti-teleconverter optics (which is not the same as putting a teleconvert on backwards). Also where are you getting teleconverters for $60? Canons are $450 and even the cheap Kenko's are $150.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 5, 2013 at 14:02 UTC

My first concern would be that it might lead to color reproduction problems. Foveon has poor color reproduction with certain colors as it makes a hard delineation between where red stops and where green starts and where green stops and where blue starts. The human eye over-laps these colors so there's some green in many reds and some blue in many greens, bayer filters mimic this overlap and have fewer problems with color reproductions. Without seeing specifics I can't say for certain that this technology will have problems, but I have a feeling that it is quite a possible concern.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2013 at 18:14 UTC as 37th comment | 4 replies
On article Adobe releases Lightroom 4.3 and Adobe Camera Raw 7.3 (69 comments in total)
In reply to:

SigmaChrome: I find it truly amazing that Adobe still insists on NOT supporting current Foveon technology. Sigma maintains that it has made the all necessary information available - Adobe (for reasons best know to themselves) simply refuses to take it on board. Why? There is a tremendous rise in the number of people taking up the use of Sigma cameras like the DP2M and DP1M - and there would probably be a higher uptake of SD1M users if Adobe took up the challenge. What's stopping them?

It isn't just Foveon. Hasselblad multi-shot uninterpolated images are completely not supported.

They view RAW processing as only applying to demosaicing bayer CFA images. They need to make the system more robust to handle Fuji's more complex layouts (they currently accept the files but handle them poorly) and Foveon and Hasselblad's uninterpolated layouts.

Sigma could also improve things by allowing the camera to shoot uncompressed 16bit TIFF files or DNGs.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 13, 2012 at 18:01 UTC
In reply to:

NeilJones: And who would actually shoot video at 15fps?

1) Someone who was actually shooting for stills... at 4K that's 8.2 megapixels at 15 frames per second
2) Someone who's shooting video but plans on speeding it up anyway
3) Someone who plans on using something like twixtor to interpolate the frames
4) Security camera style usage
5) Someone who wants to play around with 4K but doesn't want to shell out for a much more expensive camera and set up.
Edit: keep in mind you can shoot 2.7K (a bit over 4MP images) at 30fps, or normal 1080p HD (over 2MP) even faster.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2012 at 20:52 UTC
In reply to:

wkay: is dpreview ever going to stop its obsession on toys and social networking? serious photography obviously does not fit into their business model.

I know several people who are making money with GoPros and similar cameras. Not their primary source of income, but offering time laps and "behind the scenes" videos of their main shoots has brought them a little extra cash.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2012 at 20:45 UTC
In reply to:

magneto shot: my heart stopped at "4k camera" but then i realized...whats the point of a 4k video that have no shallow DOF. next...

Smaller sensors do not mean they cannot have shallow DOF, you just need wider apertures, which can be made. You could make a f/0.75 lens which would make very shallow DOF (Maybe too shallow). Which is going to be more expensive. If you're dealing with shallow DOF, you want to have a lens that allows for a follow focus device and most of those lenses are expensive anyway because they're small market. I could see it happening. I think most people would be happy with f/1.4 lenses because any more shallow and AF will jump around too much and be distracting.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 12, 2012 at 13:54 UTC
On article A sneak peek at our forthcoming camera test scene (323 comments in total)
In reply to:

M Jesper: I like it. Should do well with the increasing resolutions ...
But what else does it do ?

A few suggestions:
- More shiny object like glass, metal and plastic.
- Everything is dull colored, any camera can handle that. Please add some bright vivid colors, or even better, something led illuminated. If there is another sensor blooming / fuji orbs debacle i want to know about it.
- A smooth dark grey (almost black) surface for shadow noise comparison. The one in the middle has too much texture which masks any real noise. ( in the old scene i always use that black bottle, when it was not too dusty )
- A stepless gradient to check banding. One grey to black, one blue to dark blue. As you can see the blue feather is already causing trouble.

Bottom line. Give those sensors something challenging already !

Bonus suggestion: Take the same picture simulating warm indoor lighting.

I agree there should be specular highlights to see how the camera deals with them.
Lights in the chart are also an interesting idea, unfortunately they also can cause problems with the lens, so if you're trying to separate the sensor problems from the lens problems, it is not the best test.
As far as a smooth dark area, the MacBeth Chart has you covered. Another option is to cut a hole in the table and have a receding box filled with black velvet to create a "black hole" if you want a pure black.
Gradients may have issues in the production that may appear problematic in reproduction. The feather and such are good "natural" tests.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 10, 2012 at 13:56 UTC
In reply to:

Petrogel: Unfortunately iPhone's, Samsung's S III or Nokia's PureView image quality CAN NOT justify the HIGH PRICES these products are sold, of course a photo is up to the photographers perspective, but i would agree with madeinlisboa these are toys, expensive toys for what they offer !!!!

You do not buy any of these just to have a camera. You buy these to be a Phone, a portable Web browser, a music player that can hold thousands of songs and play internet radio stations from around the world, a video player, an email/text messaging device, a video conferencing tool, a journal/notebook, a calenadar/reminder, a GPS/map, calculator, a price checker/comparer, gaming device, restaurant locator, etc... if you use if for some of those, then adding on the camera is a nice bonus. And if you're interested in photography and do need to upgrade your phone, it's not unreasonable to concider getting one with a decent camera. It's rediculous to buy a $200 (plus 2 year cellphone contract) camera with this quality, but if you already need a smartphone and will be paying for the contract, the nicer camera may be nice. Keep in mind the free (with contract) iPhone 4 had a decent camera, and the $99 (with contract) 4s has an almost-as-good as an iPhone 5 camera for $100 less.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2012 at 15:19 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: "To put these differences into perspective, before the release of the iPhone 5, we asked 50 non-photographers to compare 15" prints of a similar image from each of these cameras, to work out which were the cheap ones and which the expensive ones and which was the iPhone 4s. 15" prints aren't a stringent photographic test, but they're bigger than most iPhone photos will ever be printed. Over half of people placed the iPhone 4s above the Nikon D3. The picture quality from the iPhones is 'good enough' for most people."

This is the important finding. When light is good and your subject is not moving fast, don't fool yourself that you need an expensive equipment.

The iPhone is expensive if you're buying it just for a camera. And if you're buying it just for the camera, I think it's foolish. If however you need a smart phone for your cell, email, web browsing, and apps, a music player, having the camera is a nice bonus. I don't think the iPhone is the best camera in a cell phone (the PureView 808 I think has that title) but apple has been pretty good at making a well rounded phone that does everything well and seamlessly. If you want more controls though you're probably going to want to go to an Android base phone.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2012 at 14:57 UTC
In reply to:

AnHund: It is possible to take very nice images with camera phones in good light and in the right hands, not doubt about it. But unlike the iPhone there is a lot of camera control options in some Nokia phones like Lumia 800 etc., but don't expect miracles except maybe from the the new Nokia 808 PureView which seems to be a lot better than the rest.

Personally I would never be satisfied with a camera phone alone, due to bad ergonomics and limited use except in good light. But then again a lot of people are satisfied with phone images - probably the same type of people that were perfectly happy with a Kodak Instamatic in the 60s.

I don't think most photographers would be satisfied with just an iPhone, but there are several things to consider. Yes, for someone who was happy with Instamatics, Polaroids, cheap P&S 110 film cameras, and disposable 35mm cameras, it's a great thing, but for the photographer is can be a nice thing in that it's a camera that you always have with you (assuming you're the type of person who always carries their cell). I don't expect a phone to ever be as good as my Hasselblad H4D or Canon 5D, but if it can take decent shots, if I'm out somewhere and I see something, great. I remember my first cell phone that had a camera, it was a 0.3 or 1.3 MP motorola that took the noisiest pictures you've ever seen, even in decent lighting. Technology has come a long way in a short time.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 25, 2012 at 14:54 UTC
Total: 67, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »