eyefuse

eyefuse

Lives in Finland Finland
Works as a Videographer, Photographer, Graphics Design
Joined on Aug 4, 2006

Comments

Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On Lytro announces Illum light field camera article (348 comments in total)

Lot's of potential for video work - making images come to life in presentations, demos and slideshows.The features make it easier to do things that usually take days in aftereffects. For traditional photography it doesn't really do much - but that's not the point, I guess. :)

Direct link | Posted on Apr 23, 2014 at 12:03 UTC as 21st comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Daniel Lauring: These are nice shots. I agree that there is a particular formula/technique, which emphasizes a separation of the subject and background, that includes Photoshop (not that that is a bad thing.)

You get a little of this effect when you use fill flash/off camera lighting, which looks to be used in some of these.

The other thing I'm seeing is a uniform blurring of the background...not linearly related to distance as you might expect or actually see with just the camera alone from shallow depth of field. In other words, you would expect details in the far background, like the treeline to be almost unrecognizable, given that things closer have so much blur. The weeds/flowers in the foreground have the same blur as the treeline. This suggests the background was masked and a uniform blur added. Possibly even a second picture was taken, at a smaller aperature, blurred and then added to the original.

If you can't spot this kind of basic photoshop cut & copy patching and blending - you have no right marvel about the skills of the photographer. There's people out there who think they can learn to take such images out of the camera...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 25, 2014 at 09:35 UTC
On Hands-on with the GoPro Hero 3+ Black Edition article (7 comments in total)

The 4K is a "joke" ... 12FPS isn't usable video - but at least they can put the 4K sticker on the package and keep marketing.

1080p 60fps, on the otherhand is excellent!

Unfortunately I just updated my hero2 to a hero3 last summer.. just before this 3+ version came out... so none of my battery/lcd/case parts will fit this new one.

Let's wait for the 4 - with 4K @ 25fps... :)

Direct link | Posted on Feb 20, 2014 at 08:58 UTC as 2nd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Daniel Lauring: These are nice shots. I agree that there is a particular formula/technique, which emphasizes a separation of the subject and background, that includes Photoshop (not that that is a bad thing.)

You get a little of this effect when you use fill flash/off camera lighting, which looks to be used in some of these.

The other thing I'm seeing is a uniform blurring of the background...not linearly related to distance as you might expect or actually see with just the camera alone from shallow depth of field. In other words, you would expect details in the far background, like the treeline to be almost unrecognizable, given that things closer have so much blur. The weeds/flowers in the foreground have the same blur as the treeline. This suggests the background was masked and a uniform blur added. Possibly even a second picture was taken, at a smaller aperature, blurred and then added to the original.

All of what you described is true - it's her style and a very skillfully used.

However, as you can see, the foregound (with leaves) is the same in #1 and #12, which means that she has added a layer of defocused ground to both images to emphasize the shallow DOF, that is not from the original image. Leaves are also cloned and mirrored in #1.

I'm all ok with the PP and tend do similar montage stuff myself (hence also spot it easily).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2014 at 15:34 UTC

Lovely images! I really like her style.

Not to be cynical or anything but image #1 and #12 have the same OOF foreground, slightly differently placed. #1 also has cloned and mirrored leaves to the right. It takes a photoshopper to spot a photoshopper. ;)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for PP! People just need to know that this kind of magnificent art doesn't come straight out of a camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2014 at 21:59 UTC as 166th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

eyefuse: Interesting photoshop paintings! I like the colors and feel - even if many are composed afterwards in photoshop, rather than real shots.

#12 for example is nice, albeit obvious that the road scene has been added to the foreground with the boy and dog. Lot's of cloning and smoothing going on.

It takes a photoshopper to spot a photoshopper...
If you look at the first image (boy touching dogs nose) and compare the foreground (with leaves), with the foreground in the 12th image (boy and dog looking away), you see they are the same - added afterwards to the photo. In the first you also see that its the same leaves twice, mirrored on the right hand side.. and so on.

I'm all for PP, so don't get me wrong - I just want people to understand that this kind of fantastic stuff isn't pure photography (beginners deserve to know that they can't get this kind of material out of their cameras).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2014 at 21:52 UTC

Interesting photoshop paintings! I like the colors and feel - even if many are composed afterwards in photoshop, rather than real shots.

#12 for example is nice, albeit obvious that the road scene has been added to the foreground with the boy and dog. Lot's of cloning and smoothing going on.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2014 at 12:50 UTC as 249th comment | 4 replies

The 5c is hardly aimed at competing with cheaper androids and WP.. it's only $100 less than the 5s.. !? Still premium price i'd say.

No idea why prices in US are told as operator deals? If I understood correctly the 5c costs $599 and the 5s $699, when you actually buy one.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 11, 2013 at 06:07 UTC as 69th comment

Any mention of when one could expect the Sony version?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2013 at 07:34 UTC as 104th comment
In reply to:

eyefuse: I think the price is more likely supposed to be $1799.. At least my local retailer here in Finland sells it for 1499,90 €...

799$ would have been crazy anyway! :)

If this is the case then it's superb! And I hope that the local resellers will update the prices here too!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2013 at 07:28 UTC

I think the price is more likely supposed to be $1799.. At least my local retailer here in Finland sells it for 1499,90 €...

799$ would have been crazy anyway! :)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 14, 2013 at 06:53 UTC as 114th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

eyefuse: Interesting deal.

But did you notice that it looks like a Sony CarlZeiss design. New style?

By "we", you mean the people who have time to read 110 comments and then write "wise" commets at other peoples first impressions?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2012 at 20:20 UTC

Interesting deal.

But did you notice that it looks like a Sony CarlZeiss design. New style?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 7, 2012 at 19:33 UTC as 29th comment | 3 replies
On Evolution of an image article (123 comments in total)
In reply to:

aardvark7: With regard to aesthetic merits, each to his own and one can't argue.
As to success, that goes hand in hand with individual taste too.

However, the essence of this article seems to have been missed by all but one who commented.

The author talks of perserverance and illustrates that by mentioning the number of visits to a site. To me, this is not perserverance, but rather making use of the opportunity.

99.9% of all photographers will not have the luxury to make such trips, even if they had the desire. It may be too expensive or they have other calls on their time. It is simply not an option and the only way they get 'the shot' is by lucky chance of being there at the appropriate time in the first place.

Any time the subject comes up as to the most important thing in photography, I always say 'Opportunity' and this article demonstrates exactly that.

Give most the opportunity and even a basic camera and there would be bucketloads of quality shots. Most simply don't get the chance.

You have a good point. But there are also different types of landscape photography. A good photographer can always seize the opportunity and utilize the situation as good as possible - especially a photojournalist or travel photographer. But there's also those who really want to paint that perfect image - who take their time - and who visit places again and again to look for that mental image they have envisioned and want to capture.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2012 at 12:12 UTC
On Evolution of an image article (123 comments in total)

Very good and interesting read. Especially the sense of time and effort comes across beautifully with the multiple shots with different lighting conditions. I posted the article to some beginning photographers, that I know love shooting landscapes, but who tend to grab shots here and there and then spend the time searching for that perfect look in PS instead.

That aside, I have to agree that the tonemapping is a bit rough to my liking. The images, especially the latter ones, are starting to look a bit like computer renderings - I guess it's the foreground that looks too flat. A little less tonemapping, or blending these with the original at 50% would look more natural to my eye.

I love the final composition though. Now you just need to wait for those flowers to bloom and some more dramatic lighting next year. :)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2012 at 11:12 UTC as 35th comment

You know you're completely out of the trends and current jargon, when the topic of this news makes absolutely no sense to you??! :D

Direct link | Posted on Mar 28, 2012 at 12:15 UTC as 6th comment
On Just Posted: Lytro Light Field Camera review and video article (309 comments in total)

This tech should be implemented for video use. So that you could easily make the perfectly smooth and exact spot on focus pulls - in the post process! That would be truly revolutionary. No need to worry about pumping auto focus, low light focusing problems and moving subjects in all kinds of action, low contrast and messy scenes. Whoa, that would rock!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 1, 2012 at 09:46 UTC as 46th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Boomz: Okay so everyone is looking at its camera feature, but it is primarily a phone, and unfortunately, Nokia's dying Symbian Belle OS will be blamed. You really won't want a Symbian OS phone once you've gone iOS or Android.

Last year, Nokia even announced that they were slowly killing the Symbian OS in favor for Windows 7's replacement.

"The price and features of the new phones combined with Symbian Belle will not turn things around for the platform, but will help slow down the loss of market share. Symbian's market share was 22.1 percent during the second quarter, compared to 40.9 percent during the same three months last year." - according to Carolina Milanesi, research vice president at Gartner.

But I guess some people do buy a car because it has a great home entertainment system in the back seat, hehe!

Nokia only ditched the Symbian from it's high end smart phones, replacing it with WP. Unfortunately WP7 doesn't support the DSP for such camera technology, so Nokia brought back symbian for a last run in the almost smart phone segment. Technically I believe the PW808 is more like a super camera-phone, not a competitor to the dominating iPhone or the dull and faceless androids. Symbian will still remain, develop and power the normal mobilephones for years to come, while WP8 will finally let Nokia upgrade it's LUMIA line with new and better hardware. Then there's their linux based Meltemi OS, a little brother to the MeeGo, that might stir up lower end smartphone markets in the near future.

Long post short. Nokia has great hardware, but still have multpile OS platforms to sort out. Symbian is just one angle.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 29, 2012 at 12:44 UTC

Hmm.. the question is.. whether to get married and arrange a nice wedding or to get this lens... hmm...

Direct link | Posted on Feb 9, 2012 at 15:53 UTC as 35th comment | 2 replies

So independent filmmakers and amateurs will still use their ~2000€ cameras for anything they do.. Nothing new here.. An expensive piece of equipment that other broadcast manufacturers have provided for years.. I don't see the point?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 4, 2011 at 17:04 UTC as 22nd comment | 3 replies
Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »