masterofdeception

masterofdeception

Joined on Mar 6, 2012

Comments

Total: 23, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Rage Joe: To be true, this doesn't seem like much. Not even for that time. Just being honest here. Poor job. But I guess the competition wasn't so hard back then.

Rage Joe

"stiff and unnatural"

Yeah, like those useless Greek guys - and didn't they produce some terrible, clumsy, stuff? Horst was very into classical art, which even with your vast knowledge of art history you would never be able to appreciate for its beauty of line and form.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2014 at 08:31 UTC
On 900MP portraits show human face in extreme detail article (285 comments in total)
In reply to:

Dheorl: Would have been interested to see it done to a proper model, just to show how "imperfect" they actually are.

Have a look at this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17j5QzF3kqE

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2014 at 00:20 UTC
On 900MP portraits show human face in extreme detail article (285 comments in total)
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: That's the great thing about technology. It always provides a solution, even when there's no problem.

It's called art. You probably haven't heard of it.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2014 at 00:09 UTC
On 900MP portraits show human face in extreme detail article (285 comments in total)
In reply to:

brycesteiner: Portrait and wedding pictures back with the 5 and 8 MP cameras sold very well and were good quality. More detail does not make shots better, just bigger file sizes and unflattering details! The ceiling for more megapixels has already been hit. Now we just need better megapixels.

Making an photo Renoir style is no longer interesting, at least not in artistic terms - the pictorialists exhausted that ground in the early 20th century. Not to say you can't use the same techniques today, as several well known photographers have proved into the 1970s - maybe a revival is due? But for a lot of people that type of photography is no longer "new" and therefore, in these days on instant gratification, no longer "interesting". We must have the new, but who these days is really "new"?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2014 at 00:08 UTC
On 900MP portraits show human face in extreme detail article (285 comments in total)
In reply to:

wwelti: Awesome! FINALLY we have stitching artifacts in portraits! :-)

Yea like that's all you care about. Ever looked at a Degas or a Velasquez?

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 23:52 UTC
On 900MP portraits show human face in extreme detail article (285 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ayoh: The point being?

Look at the exhibition. The point is that he is showing the absolute, fine, details of the human face without the emotion. It's derived from the Dusseldorf School of Photography with a nod to Richard Avedon's In The American West - so it's not a new artistic breakthrough and therefore not really particularly interesting apart from the technology involved and the degree of detail that is achieved via a relatively simple (Canon 5D MkII) camera. Nonetheless, the results are impressive. I like it.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 23:46 UTC
On 900MP portraits show human face in extreme detail article (285 comments in total)
In reply to:

brycesteiner: Portrait and wedding pictures back with the 5 and 8 MP cameras sold very well and were good quality. More detail does not make shots better, just bigger file sizes and unflattering details! The ceiling for more megapixels has already been hit. Now we just need better megapixels.

I agree that more detail doesn't make shots better - though it can, depending on what the photographer is trying to portray. Some people do need more or better megapixels, but that doesn't necessarily lead to better photographs, just more detailed ones. What we really need is better photographers but those days are now behind us - some photographers will use megapixels to get their point across, other will use more subtle means, but basically I think everything has been done before, so photography can now only go over old ground. I suppose the photographer who uses 1 zillion mp will be the winner, until someone else beats him. But what's the point? You might as well leave it to a robot.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 23:26 UTC
On 900MP portraits show human face in extreme detail article (285 comments in total)

Wow actually amazing so I'm surprised the usual DPR pixel peepers aren't all over this. Surely this is your holy grail! I like it myself - gives me a sense of what Avedon would have done if he was a robot ...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 21:27 UTC as 110th comment
On Fujifilm announces XF 10-24mm F4 R OIS wideangle zoom article (172 comments in total)
In reply to:

rhlpetrus: I held an X-Pro today in a store. What an ugly and chunky piece of hardware, can't understand the excessive laudatory remarks around these forums.

You're in the Fuji forum. The X-Pro is a great camera. I love it. I've loved other cameras, mostly Canon, but also Minolta and Pentax. What can't you understand?

Direct link | Posted on Dec 18, 2013 at 19:18 UTC

Wow amazing photos like nothing I've seen before I must invest all my money in this new amazing camera system!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 30, 2013 at 00:04 UTC as 64th comment
In reply to:

masterofdeception: Believe it or not a large majority of the British people (including myself) support the Royal Family. Queen Liz does a fantastic job and ok there are some hanger- ons but aren't there in any country? Berlusconi and Hollande anyone?

You people who don't like the Royal Family should just go back to the good old USA or Australia or Russia or wherever (North Korea?) and enjoy yourselves with your perfect lives free of any tyranny. Leave us true Brits alone!

OK then so i shouldn't pay any tax at all? Because if i had a choice, I would prefer to pay it to our Queen than to you. You only care about yourself and your own family, which is a sad indictment of where our country has gone in recent years. The Queen dedicated her life to this country and no one can say she hasn't lived up to that promise made 60 years ago. What have you done for your country then, enlighten me?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2013 at 21:36 UTC
In reply to:

JEROME NOLAS: No more babies please....royal or with lots of power, that stuff is good for tabloids. Anyway what am I suppose to think about the nation that goes wild because of one "royal baby..."

What's your problem with it? We're enjoying ourselves. Are you having a good time?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2013 at 21:00 UTC
In reply to:

mckracken88: this baby is super important, as are royals.
who cares about syria or egypt or iraq?

I suggest Wye goes to North Korea, where he'll be truly happy!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2013 at 20:51 UTC

Believe it or not a large majority of the British people (including myself) support the Royal Family. Queen Liz does a fantastic job and ok there are some hanger- ons but aren't there in any country? Berlusconi and Hollande anyone?

You people who don't like the Royal Family should just go back to the good old USA or Australia or Russia or wherever (North Korea?) and enjoy yourselves with your perfect lives free of any tyranny. Leave us true Brits alone!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2013 at 20:30 UTC as 21st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

justinwonnacott: How can you figure out the right diopter lens BEFORE mail ordering one?

You should talk to your optician. He or she will know.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2013 at 22:20 UTC

Keep those updates coming. Why would I want to splurge a lot of money on an X-pro2? PDAF maybe, but it won't make me a better photographer, just more a slave to my camera and it's quirks, then I'll be waiting for the X-Pro3 to sort those out. I'd rather master my camera as it is. I'll keep my X-Pro1 thank you and concentrate on my own faults rather than than the faults of the tool I use!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2013 at 22:15 UTC as 14th comment
In reply to:

masterofdeception: I try to avoid Dpreview, for the simple reason that the people here seem to know (or care) very little about photography, but seem to enjoy positing on the next great thing in terms of technology. This thread is a perfect example of why I feel this way. I posted a long time ago about why I loved the Jpegs from my X-Pro 1, and nothing has changed for me. I don't claim anything special for my pictures, but you lot can keep on bickering about your pixels in your RAW files and it won't matter a damn to me. You're still all wondering why your camera didn't make you a great photographer, and why the latest C1, LR, Silkypix, DXO, ACR .1.1.1.1 update didn't make any difference to your terrible (soft/over sharpened/ "slightly milky") pictures of your cat? Well, I guess you'll never get the point!

@micahmedia

Ansel Adams was a genius. Walker Evans was too and didn't make much of him. Guess which camp I'm in. The fact is, unless you're up to Ansel Adams' standards, all this pixel peeping is a load of nonsense.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 10, 2013 at 20:42 UTC

I try to avoid Dpreview, for the simple reason that the people here seem to know (or care) very little about photography, but seem to enjoy positing on the next great thing in terms of technology. This thread is a perfect example of why I feel this way. I posted a long time ago about why I loved the Jpegs from my X-Pro 1, and nothing has changed for me. I don't claim anything special for my pictures, but you lot can keep on bickering about your pixels in your RAW files and it won't matter a damn to me. You're still all wondering why your camera didn't make you a great photographer, and why the latest C1, LR, Silkypix, DXO, ACR .1.1.1.1 update didn't make any difference to your terrible (soft/over sharpened/ "slightly milky") pictures of your cat? Well, I guess you'll never get the point!

Direct link | Posted on Apr 5, 2013 at 23:54 UTC as 15th comment | 10 replies
On Landscape photography: tips for your smartphone post (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

Big Tom: "Landscape tips for smartphones" - but only talks to iPhone shooters recommending iPhone apps...can we headline the articles a little more accurately so us Android users don't waste too much time? Thanks!

Not against smartphone photography: it demonstrates, up to a point, that the true power of photography belongs to the photographer not the camera itself. But if photographers are worried by this re-advent of "you press the button and we do the rest", they need look no further than the f/64 group's reaction to the pictorialist style. The detail achievable by a good camera, coupled with the intention of the photographer, properly expressed through an art object that is A PHOTOGRAPH rather than an imitation of painting, will put the latest fad into perspective before long. I don't find any of the photographs in the article at all "stunning" I'm afraid. They're all passe, done before a million times, and bore me to death.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 30, 2012 at 20:43 UTC
On Just Posted: Fujifilm X-E1 hands-on preview article (277 comments in total)

UK buyers, stand by to be ripped off...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 6, 2012 at 14:18 UTC as 44th comment
Total: 23, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »