Paul Farace

Paul Farace

Lives in United States Cleveland, United States
Works as a photographer/writer
Joined on May 21, 2007
About me:

Camera collector/scrounger facing the horrors of the digital
evolution -- the nullification of all his film cameras! Now, two
years into digital and loving it... still, all these film cameras do
not make good door stops or paperweights.
Other work: curator of a WW II submarine, USS COD,
www.usscod.org

Comments

Total: 174, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »

I am visiting Singapore and their art/science museum has a NG special exhibit of 50 best photos. The original image of Ms Gula and her image taken 17 years later are presented in a darkened galley all to themselves... the effect is absolutely stunning and heartbreaking considering the context of the image and the treatment of women by this faction of Islam. I will post an image of this part of the exhibit in Forum/Open Talk. When I first saw the cover in 1985 I fell in love with the raw, simple beauty of the young girl. When discovered later, all that the Taliban had done to Afghanistan was mirrored in her face. I left with a lump in my throat and a pain in my heart. BTW: the photog knew in an instant it was the girl. The photo sparked an immense amount of donations to refugee relief in the region. That should be enough compensation. Twits who think that news images should be considered the same as fashion photos are way off base.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 3, 2013 at 03:20 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply
On First Impressions Review: Using the Canon PowerShot G16 article (351 comments in total)

I wanted a RF type Canon for so long... G7, G9, G11... they always seemed to fall short of what I wanted and those tiny plasticky peephole viewfinders... YECH! Then came Fuji with the X100 and XPro1 ... ahhhh

Sorry Canon... your SLRs are first rate and I have many, but I can't see any point in your G series.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2013 at 04:53 UTC as 65th comment | 2 replies

No eye-level viewfinder? Me no interested! Holding a camera out, away from your body, especially with a large zoom lens, is just not as stable as holding it to your eye... Long live the X100, Xpro1 and XE1!!!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 11, 2013 at 15:47 UTC as 9th comment

Stylish and fashion-forward consumers? There is a line I don't want to see in a press release... I never saw a IIIg or M3 in the hands of anyone I'd call stylish and fashion-forward! In fact, most of the shooters with these cameras smelled of hypo, cigarettes and body odor!

How about marketing this to noobs with more money than brains?
Give me a Fuji any day!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2013 at 02:56 UTC as 26th comment
On Ten one-of-a-kind cameras from the 21st century article (248 comments in total)

I wish someone (FUJI or Canon) would build a modern version of the OLY C211 Camedia... a non-Polaroid printer mated to an even better digital camera, maybe a bit smaller with prints a bit bigger? WOW that would be a fantastic machine! I enjoyed the original and was amazed by its capabilities. Time for version 2.0~!

Direct link | Posted on Sep 4, 2013 at 01:27 UTC as 42nd comment
On Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX1 Review preview (29 comments in total)

This is the Erminox of the 21st century! Someday tyros will handle one in a camera show and wonder how a few folks could spend that kind of money for a bauble.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 21:34 UTC as 9th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

fpapp: I think the Olympus C-211 deserves mention.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2000/7/25/c211zoom

A friend had one back in the day, and I remember thinking it was such a cool camera to have the ability to print instant photos from the digital files!

I agree!!! I purchased one of these landmark marvels at a thriftstore about five years ago for $15 ... used it (digital file only) for about a dozen shots (Polaroid was gone)... pulled it out a few months ago, shot a few more pics then tossed it into the trash... a great camera but I need to clean out my gear drawers. My friends purchased these marvels for $600 back in 2000!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 02:54 UTC

I remember seeing these things in the trade publications, in some camera stores, and even in the hands of some early adopters. I knew this was the wave of the future and that film would be left in the weeds sooner or later (just didn't think it would happen as fast as it did!). I remember tuning them out for two reasons: they were so damn expensive for what you got, and they didn't have a flash hotshoe or PC contact so I couldn't use them in my studio... what I really wanted was instant feedback during shoots without the use of Polaroids. I remember having a deep sense of joy and anticipation when the early digitals began sporting hotshoes and maybe a PC contact... Like the Canon Sureshot G1 and G2 and Kodak 280 (I think). The price was still prohibitive. Then Canon with it's landmark D30, D60, 10D and finally 20D brought digital down to earth!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 02:50 UTC as 36th comment
On Gorgeous color photos of America in the 1930's and 40's article (110 comments in total)
In reply to:

Benarm: Interesting, but many of them look staged.

ASA 10? Who are you kidding? Kodachrome movie film in 1945 was ASA 6 !!! Not that super-fast stuff at ASA 10! Makes you think twice when you switch to ISO 3200, doesn't it? We've come a long way baby!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 18, 2013 at 23:24 UTC

any industrial recycling process can strip a PLASTIC shell from the unit in a fraction of a second... and recycle it! The metal rail and chasis will melt down to recyclable steel and aluminum too... sounds like someone is drinking the SUSTAINABILITY COOLAID again! This is fine for the Birkenstock wearing greenies who don't shave their armpits and don't flush their toilets until the neighbors call the health officials... but not for me!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 12, 2013 at 21:53 UTC as 19th comment
On Just Posted: Panasonic Lumix DMC-TS5 Review preview (70 comments in total)

My TS4, purchased last August is sitting in a mailing box to be shipped to the Panasonic repair facility in Texas. On its second trip under water since it was purchased (and never more than six feet deep) it began to flash its rear panel display. Not a total flooding of the interior, but apparently a short in one of the control circuits. It didn't totally stop working but you couldn't do much with it ... I didn't pay $265 for this. Let's see what Panasonic says. I've used underwater cameras since my Nikon Action Touch 35mm in 1998 and I think I know something about maintaining O-ring seals... (I am skipper of a WW II submarine memorial!) All the Wi-Fi bells and whistles are fine, but if the camera fails at its primary mission, you have an expensive paperweight.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 14, 2013 at 04:11 UTC as 30th comment
In reply to:

Paul Farace: My name is Paul... I am a camera gear addict... (Hello, Paul!!! is the response from the audience, amid various coughs and the random shuffles of feet among the metal folding chairs...)

Yes, I am hooked and the wonderful thing about this addiction is simply, we support a legit industry and when we go overboard, we go broke and can always sell our "addiction" for 85% of what we paid for it. Anyone every tried to sell "used" booze (in its various forms) or drugs?

We see other addicts on the street... and make fun of them... they're hauling L-glass zooms out at toddler play events, using multi-flash lighting rigs at high school plays, etc.

But we are still humans!

All these years later, yea... but if you decided within a short time, say a few months, you could get the 85% ... but yea, time robs us all! And as for only buying pro top-shelf stuff, you haven't seen my equipment drawers, have you? :o)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2013 at 18:41 UTC

OK I read the article... yea this guy was hardcore. Yes, I too have purchased a 4x5 view camera (but for me at a bargain) took a few shots (still have yet to process the Tri-X holders!!!!) and then sold it. Yea, that is not good. But hell, it can be chalked up to the rapid progression of the technology. I sold the bargain 4x5 system for about 50% of what I paid for it... the loss was rent for the fun I had owning it... since I didn't really use it all that much. But I kept the RollsRoyce quality focusing cloth my wife made for me and my Ansel Adams kit. I will sometimes use it for viewing my digital camera backs outdoors at shoots or the laptop outdoors!

You have to have a business sense at some level... otherwise you hurt yourself like any obsessive compulsion.

Pass me that X100s dude... don't bogart it!!!!!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2013 at 00:21 UTC as 40th comment

My name is Paul... I am a camera gear addict... (Hello, Paul!!! is the response from the audience, amid various coughs and the random shuffles of feet among the metal folding chairs...)

Yes, I am hooked and the wonderful thing about this addiction is simply, we support a legit industry and when we go overboard, we go broke and can always sell our "addiction" for 85% of what we paid for it. Anyone every tried to sell "used" booze (in its various forms) or drugs?

We see other addicts on the street... and make fun of them... they're hauling L-glass zooms out at toddler play events, using multi-flash lighting rigs at high school plays, etc.

But we are still humans!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2013 at 23:53 UTC as 41st comment | 2 replies

Reimagine me puking... I buy $16 jeans (Wrangler)... and have the best cameras in the world around my neck (they're just not Leicas) ... I find the quick jump cuts and ultra close-ups on jeans seams to be silly and pointless. My God the emperor has NO CLOTHES and they still insist on talking about how hip and cool he looks!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2013 at 03:10 UTC as 113th comment
On Leica teases 'Mini M' for 11th June release article (304 comments in total)

Saw a preview of this new Leica on another site... a fixed zoom and only an the back viewing screen for a viewfinder? Puleeeze, give me a break - AND AN OPTICAL VIEWFINDER! Oh, and it's three times the price of an XPro1 and many times more than an X100S!!! Panasonic will have a non-red dot version too for far less. Just when I thought Fuji had pushed Leica in the right direction, they show that Teutonic resolve to dig their heels into the dirt and stay in the bunker!

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2013 at 14:47 UTC as 12th comment

I prefer SKIPPY creamy! With Welche's grape jelly on soft white bread and a glass of milk.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2013 at 03:34 UTC as 41st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Scott Wilson: Canon must be smoking crack. I mean really 11K for a 200-400 F4 lens even with a built in 1.4x extender is crazy. You can buy a 200-400 for a lot less and just put on a much cheaper 1.4x extender when you need it.

Come on are we getting so lazy that we can't do this ourselves. Plus if we keep bowing to the big camera companies and paying crazy money for all of these new lens they will just keep going up and up.

A lens is not a car and they don't cost anywhere nears as much to manufacture. Nikon fell and hit their heads when they increased the 200-400 they make and charged almost 2K more for adding VRII. Heck there was nothing wrong with VRI so I didn't see the big upgrade to this lens so I still have mine VRI lens. Before long even us pros won't be able to justify buying new gear. Even Nikon's new 80-400 4.5-5.6 is 2.5K. Are they serious. No 4.5-5.6 variable aperture lens is worth that. Come on Nikon and Canon get real in your pricing before we all have to switch to Sigma/Tamron

Please, at these prices Canon certainly isnt smoking crack you common street hooligan! They are mainlining pure Burmese blond heroin. Ican see these being purchased by NatGeo and one or two big image houses... maybe a Washington lawyer and a Arab prince or two. You and me? F-NO! But maybe some tech will filter down to those of us whoonly sniff glue on holidays

Direct link | Posted on May 16, 2013 at 00:38 UTC

Probably the only funny SNL skit in years!

Direct link | Posted on May 7, 2013 at 21:46 UTC as 20th comment
On Preview:nikon-coolpix-a (442 comments in total)
In reply to:

photo perzon: I bought it at Best Buy for $899
HEre's how:
Walk in and speak with a manager. Ask him to match the Best Buy sale for $899 on Feb 19. Tell him managers have been matching it.
I got it.
Now I have two A's. One I got at JR, one at Best Buy. I'm comparing the two for differences. So far none.
One advantage of f2.8 is a lot is in focus. The 1.8 cameras are great but a lot if not in focus.
I find the IQ same as X100S, at half the volume! Pocketable, and when you use it at parties or dinners, it looks like "a normal camera." You don't look like the enthusiast.

and looking like an enthusiast at a party is bad? Would you rather look like a drunk dooshbag with a lampshade on your head, or the creepy guy hitting on the married women, or the boring, non-interesting guy? I have met more interesting folks (and yes women!) as the "photo enthusiast" than as the nudnik at a party!

Posted on Apr 9, 2013 at 18:44 UTC
Total: 174, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »