Colin Franks

Colin Franks

Lives in Canada Victoria, BC, Canada
Works as a Sign designer & maker / Logo Design
Joined on May 18, 2011

Comments

Total: 54, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

Part 2:

I do however find the engagement level much better than Facebook, and that is due largely to the limitations that FB intentionally places on business pages. It used to be that everyone who liked a page would see what's posted, but FB stole that "organic reach", and now only about 5-10% of my followers see my posts. But, out of the goodness of their hearts (insert sarcasm here) FB gives me the opportunity to "boost" my posts (for a hefty fee) in order to reach those people who would & should normally see my posts anyway! Greed defined.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 17:03 UTC as 3rd comment

I was a late-comer to IG (1 year ago), and have come to understand that those with huge numbers of followers simply cannot reply/respond to all of the comments, there simply isn't enough time given the tedious requirement of typing in @username every time on a miniscule smartphone keypad. There needs to be a quicker way to comment directly to an individual, and they should possibly add a way to simply "like" or appreciate a comment.

One thing that drives me bonkers though is when you're going through your long list of people who have liked or commented, you get catapulted to the top of the list every time someone new likes or comments. You then have to scroll down to bottom of the list again to find where you were, and if someone likes or comments while you're doing this, you're hurled back to the top again! Gah!

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 17:03 UTC as 4th comment
On article Beta: try out our new 'light' color scheme (722 comments in total)

Yes, please change it. Bodies of white text on a black field are avoided by design professionals, as it is hard on the eyes and difficult to read.

Link | Posted on May 22, 2016 at 20:39 UTC as 57th comment
In reply to:

Colin Franks: I wish them all the best in their efforts, and it'll be interesting to see what they come up with, but I just ordered a pair of "Heat 3 Smart Gloves" (Google that) which seem to presently be the best option.

Yes, you are free to stay at home and watch TV.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2015 at 14:56 UTC
In reply to:

Colin Franks: I wish them all the best in their efforts, and it'll be interesting to see what they come up with, but I just ordered a pair of "Heat 3 Smart Gloves" (Google that) which seem to presently be the best option.

A little pricey, yes, but from all reports, they work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW5WYxGv7jg

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2015 at 05:54 UTC

I wish them all the best in their efforts, and it'll be interesting to see what they come up with, but I just ordered a pair of "Heat 3 Smart Gloves" (Google that) which seem to presently be the best option.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2015 at 03:04 UTC as 50th comment | 4 replies
On article Corel releases ParticleShop brush plugin for Photoshop (83 comments in total)

I sent Michaela a private message on this, but never heard back.

I just learned of the ParticleShop software, but am unclear on something. If I was to buy Painter 2016, would I still need to buy the various brush packs, or are they all included in Painter?

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2015 at 21:31 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

QuarryCat: The Tamron should start at 100 mm or even better at 50 mm – to match perfect.
The Tamron always tends to overexposure my animal pictures, I have to correct at least -½ EV and -1 EV – what gives me shorter exposure times then any other super-tele-zoom in this range.
I have the Canon 4.0/200-400 mm x1,4x L IS too and worked a lot with Nikon 4,0/200-400 mm and extenders – both are very heavy and not made for free hand shooting – 1 year ago I got my Tamron, it is so light, that I can shoot with 1/1000 and 1/500 second handheld with best possible image quality.

The Side-by-Side testing with the 4,0/200-400 mm sounds a bit unfair to me – with the Tamron you get an overexposed f:5,6 at 410 mm,
but if I need 600 mm it is overexposed f:6,3 – which leads to a shorter time at 600 mm against f:5,6 at 560 mm – and the Tamron makes a clear point.

Quote: "The Tamron should start at 100 mm or even better at 50 mm – to match perfect."

From my understanding, the greater the range in a zoom lens, the more IQ is sacrificed. I wish that they would have made the Tamron something like a 300-600.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2015 at 14:31 UTC

To anyone considering this lens, just know that it does not accept filters. A deal-breaker for me.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2015 at 15:47 UTC as 4th comment

June?! I thought it was going to be available a lot sooner than that.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2015 at 04:41 UTC as 61st comment
In reply to:

Alphoid: I don't quite get the concept of buying off-brands for >$1000. Most Tamron lenses I've owned only lasted a few years (three out of three have developed issues of some sort), while only one of my other lenses has ever had an issue (one Sony-Zeiss had an AF motor issue). Tamron is well-known to have no useful support. I view Tamrons as basically a consumable/disposable product, and that really suggests maybe $500 as an upper bound; perhaps $750 for an f/2.8 zoom.

If I've got $1200 to spend, I'd rather get an f/4, or a little less zoom, or whatever, but get something that I don't have to worry about breaking. Canon. Nikon. New Sigma. Tokina. Sony. Pentax. Leica, Zeiss, Panasonic. Etc. Not Tamron, Opteka, Vivitar, etc.

As they say in science: "Plural of anecdote is not evidence."

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2015 at 01:28 UTC
In reply to:

Alphoid: I don't quite get the concept of buying off-brands for >$1000. Most Tamron lenses I've owned only lasted a few years (three out of three have developed issues of some sort), while only one of my other lenses has ever had an issue (one Sony-Zeiss had an AF motor issue). Tamron is well-known to have no useful support. I view Tamrons as basically a consumable/disposable product, and that really suggests maybe $500 as an upper bound; perhaps $750 for an f/2.8 zoom.

If I've got $1200 to spend, I'd rather get an f/4, or a little less zoom, or whatever, but get something that I don't have to worry about breaking. Canon. Nikon. New Sigma. Tokina. Sony. Pentax. Leica, Zeiss, Panasonic. Etc. Not Tamron, Opteka, Vivitar, etc.

Quote:
"As far as I know, they're still cheap, disposable lenses that break after a few years of use."

Is it possible that you don't take good care of your gear? Just throwing it out there as a possibility, as I've never heard of such reports as yours.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmzbkcgWrIs

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2015 at 03:07 UTC
In reply to:

Alphoid: I don't quite get the concept of buying off-brands for >$1000. Most Tamron lenses I've owned only lasted a few years (three out of three have developed issues of some sort), while only one of my other lenses has ever had an issue (one Sony-Zeiss had an AF motor issue). Tamron is well-known to have no useful support. I view Tamrons as basically a consumable/disposable product, and that really suggests maybe $500 as an upper bound; perhaps $750 for an f/2.8 zoom.

If I've got $1200 to spend, I'd rather get an f/4, or a little less zoom, or whatever, but get something that I don't have to worry about breaking. Canon. Nikon. New Sigma. Tokina. Sony. Pentax. Leica, Zeiss, Panasonic. Etc. Not Tamron, Opteka, Vivitar, etc.

That may have been somewhat true years ago, but not any more. Tamron has really stepped up their game.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2015 at 07:21 UTC

I was recently considering a new wide angle, and my interest was piqued whenI heard of this new offering from Tamron, but the moment I learned that it doesn't accept filters, I went out and bought the Canon 16-35 f/4.
It seems strange to make a lens like this that will not accept filters. They're losing a lot of potential buyers.

Link | Posted on Jan 24, 2015 at 04:46 UTC as 25th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Colin Franks: I'm often perplexed at what wins in photo contests.

Perhaps using the word horrible was a bit off side; I guess I'm just weary of these sorts of images winning contests.

Onwards & upwards....

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2014 at 05:41 UTC
In reply to:

Colin Franks: I'm often perplexed at what wins in photo contests.

Again, based on the awesomeness I see on the internet (like 500px), I just don't feel that most of the images from this contest are anything special. The owl is killer though.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2014 at 03:40 UTC
In reply to:

Colin Franks: I'm often perplexed at what wins in photo contests.

Then I feel that you still really don't understand. After I said that I'm regularly humbled by the work of others, you still accuse me of "arrogance". This manufactured, hair-trigger reaction is understandable in our world of political correctness gone mad, so let me put it to you this way:

If you had come across these images whilst surfing the 'net (let's say on various Flickr pages or wherever), I respectfully suggest that you would certainly have not given them more than a nano-second of interest. In fact, I suggest that you would have deemed them as the epitome of "meh".

But, place them as winners or honourable mentions in a "National Geographic" contest, and suddenly you're hypnotized by them as somehow being great! And why? Well, after all, there have been some "serious" "expert" photography people who - complete with a wrinkled brow and chin in their hand while viewing said images - somehow see something that the masses cannot, and they simply must be correct.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2014 at 03:38 UTC
In reply to:

Colin Franks: I'm often perplexed at what wins in photo contests.

Then we agree to disagree. Take the third photo in the "people" category for example. To suggest that this image (with a crooked horizon) has some deep, photographic greatness that is apparent only to "qualified" judges, smacks of the logical fallacy known as "the appeal to authority".

Historically, this is the same tactic used by religious "authorities". Don't dare question; don't dare doubt; just accept & believe like good little sheep.

If you feel that this image in particular is worthy of one of the final selections in a world-wide photo contest, that's fine, some people like the taste of liver too. Perhaps you feel that it must contain some worthiness simply because it was selected by some "judges". I do not.

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2014 at 20:23 UTC
In reply to:

Colin Franks: I'm often perplexed at what wins in photo contests.

Apparently Jeff didn't bother to read my last post.

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2014 at 16:13 UTC
In reply to:

Colin Franks: I'm often perplexed at what wins in photo contests.

Being snide is easy when you can hide in anonymity. My opinion is valid whether I have never taken a picture before, or am the best in the world. What I'm saying is: compared to the number of jaw-dropping, top-shelf images I see every day on the internet which make me feel like I'm a hack, these "winners" and most of the honourable mentions are just not that great.

Link | Posted on Dec 22, 2014 at 15:44 UTC
Total: 54, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »