carabas

carabas

Joined on Feb 2, 2012

Comments

Total: 37, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2034 comments in total)

Sorry, but that article means I'm removing DPr from my favorites...

Not because I'm a small format fan or whatever, but because I'm a photographer.

That article and for that matter Equivalence and Total Light make perfect sense from a Physics/Engineering point of view, but from a purely photographic perspective, which only relies on a simplified optics model (except of course for the actual design of the thing) it's utter nonsense, if only because it brings the sensitive surface noise characteristics into the equation.

So, between fairly useless (and usually very late) reviews and the fact that you made the last step from being a photography site to being a tech one, I no longer see any value in what DPr has to offer, there are thousands of other tech sites around, that wasn't what I came here for, I can read a spec sheet myself, thank you very much.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 10, 2014 at 10:38 UTC as 135th comment | 27 replies
On 900MP portraits show human face in extreme detail article (288 comments in total)
In reply to:

Mike Sandman: Many of the comments seem to miss the point. What's interesting is that it's possible to take such detailed images of an object that's the size of a human head, plus or minus an order of magnitude. The technique and the robotic tool will certainly be put to use for purposes other than making this mildly repulsive yet intriguing demonstration.

A challenge: What do you think the technique & tool could be used for, either for art or for science?

This kind of tool has been used for at least a decade by museums to scan painting or even statues, both for digital museums and as part of the restoration process... The only innovative thing is using such technique for a subject it's utterly inadequate for.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2014 at 08:21 UTC
On 900MP portraits show human face in extreme detail article (288 comments in total)

Or how to take lifeless and unflattering portraits using as much time and money as possible.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 20, 2014 at 08:19 UTC as 80th comment
On Sony a7R teardown! Roger Cicala gets his hands dirty article (135 comments in total)
In reply to:

ZorSy: In D7K teardown Cicala said: "I’m pretty comfortable saying there’s at least as much profit in the $700 mirrorless as in the $1200 SLR, probably more". Looking at this one (and having a7R pricing in mind), just tinkering how difficult it is to justify the price tag put on some new mirrorless cameras. Apart from the sensor and the shutter, not much more is left.... On the second thought, I may not be the only one expecting something substantial and 'more complicated' for the money, thus growing skepticism if this is supposed to last or will get discarded/abandoned by manufacturer like 2 years old smartphone...As a conclusion (apart from being nice shiny new thing that works nicely), if it is really that simpler to make (and maintain, adjust, calibrate etc) than the traditional DSLR, why does it bear the DSLR counterpart price? Oh, I think I know - because THEY can....

Yes, because price can only be justified by no longer technically justified Rube Goldberg-ian mechanical contraptions.

It's well known that integrated circuits R&D and production costs nothing at all, that software is free.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 30, 2014 at 14:32 UTC
In reply to:

Aeros: I have never been able to understand jealousy. Jealousy is the main reason I stopped exhibiting my paintings in galleried shows. Instead I sell my paintings and giclee prints directly to my clients without galleries or agents. I sell a lot less in quantity as a result, but the actual sale direct is far more satisfying for me.

The best endorsement of my work is for a collector to put cash in my hand and tell me how happy they are to own a work by me. I leave all the pettiness behind, all the squabbling and mean mouthing. I just paint and shoot for me! If someone likes my work and buys it, that’s all I need to know, all the rest is just noise.

Elena Shumilova’s work IMHO is at a genius level and it inspires me to do better at my own photography. The fact that I have been at this photography thing for more than forty five years, and Elena about two, is of no consequence to me, the fact is, I can learn from her as I can from anyone who produces such fine work.

Yes of course, any criticism only stems from jealousy or lack of understanding from petty and limited minds, all should obviously bow before your genius, there is no way your work can be anything else than perfect, that's a reasonable hypothesis...

Narcissistic nitwit...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 30, 2014 at 13:06 UTC
In reply to:

Marques Lamont: She'll make MORE MONEY on these photos if she licenses them for stock. More money than MANY on here have ever made from photography. Like it or not, her photos work.

Commercially, if she makes images of toddlers with barn animals and etc her niche, she wins. She WILL be in demand. NOT the critics who've made not a dime.

She can't please everyone. But she can probably make more money than you can with a camera, if that matters.

Everything is post processed today! It's a part of TODAY'S toolkit. This is DIGITAL photography! If you like shooting manual, winding your advance, and keeping rolls of film in the refrigerator, scanning slides and clearing dust bunnies in Photoshop, go ahead! Cheers to you.

Lisa, I looked at your site and I understand now that your rabid defense of Elena is due to the fact that you yourself produce the same kind of aesthetic abominations (I note with relief that even you shy away from wedding photography, you can't be entirely bad).
Now, how does that further the conversation intelligently, pray tell ?

Kidding aside, if your work is clearly not my cup of tea aesthetically, I certainly don't have any problem with your technique (I actually find your work more appealing than Elena's, the PP being more honest and providing an end result less reminiscent of Trans-Siberian Orchestra album covers), do you however consider yourself an artist and the pictures you chose for your site's portfolio as works of art ?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2014 at 09:34 UTC
In reply to:

aftab: Remarkable jealousy shown here by those who will never be able to produce anything remotely close.

Scott, not at all, what made you think that (oh because that would make a nice counter-argument, sorry) ?

The originality of the endeavour doesn't mean at all that the end result has to be original by itself.

How Madonna and child pictures are there in the history of painting ? How many of them are actual art ? And why do some actually qualify as art despite being superficially similar to the countless others ?

Likewise, the endeavour doesn't need to be new in itself.

When Van Gogh explores colour, he doesn't reach the same answer and doesn't use the same approach as Mondrian.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2014 at 09:07 UTC
In reply to:

Marques Lamont: She'll make MORE MONEY on these photos if she licenses them for stock. More money than MANY on here have ever made from photography. Like it or not, her photos work.

Commercially, if she makes images of toddlers with barn animals and etc her niche, she wins. She WILL be in demand. NOT the critics who've made not a dime.

She can't please everyone. But she can probably make more money than you can with a camera, if that matters.

Everything is post processed today! It's a part of TODAY'S toolkit. This is DIGITAL photography! If you like shooting manual, winding your advance, and keeping rolls of film in the refrigerator, scanning slides and clearing dust bunnies in Photoshop, go ahead! Cheers to you.

Lisa, how is that even relevant to the conversation ?
So that you can use an argument ad hominem by saying my pictures aren't art either ?
How does that even start to counter my arguments, are you that intellectually dishonest and limited ?

I'm not pretending I can do any better, on the contrary.
I'm not even pretending her technique is flawed, on the contrary.

I'm only saying that her work is neither a work of genius, nor qualifies as art... it doesn't change anything to the quality of the work or the efficiency of the emotional response to it (but inspired, really ? I hope you never set foot in a museum, the overload would kill you).

Is it so hard to admit that neither everything you like nor every fruit of great labour is art ?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 28, 2014 at 08:55 UTC
In reply to:

Marques Lamont: She'll make MORE MONEY on these photos if she licenses them for stock. More money than MANY on here have ever made from photography. Like it or not, her photos work.

Commercially, if she makes images of toddlers with barn animals and etc her niche, she wins. She WILL be in demand. NOT the critics who've made not a dime.

She can't please everyone. But she can probably make more money than you can with a camera, if that matters.

Everything is post processed today! It's a part of TODAY'S toolkit. This is DIGITAL photography! If you like shooting manual, winding your advance, and keeping rolls of film in the refrigerator, scanning slides and clearing dust bunnies in Photoshop, go ahead! Cheers to you.

Indeed, commercial success or failure is utterly irrelevant to determine the artistic or intrinsic value of anything.

Why then is it a recurring argument in defense of these pictures as works of art ?

Isn't there any other argument to defend them as art ? Other than "anything can be art", which is even more bull than the commercial one.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2014 at 21:56 UTC
In reply to:

aftab: Remarkable jealousy shown here by those who will never be able to produce anything remotely close.

You don't get the point, there are numerous questions here :

Is it photography still (due to heavy PP) ? My answer would be yes.

Is it good photography ? My answer would be yes, with reservations.

Is it good craftsmanship ? Hell yeah...

Is it tasteful ? To me the answer would be hell no, but YMMV.

Is it appealing to the masses ? Obviously (and irrelevant).

Is it an original aesthetic or intellectual endeavour ? That's a resounding no.

Seeing these pictures, have they met an expectation or have they left you with more questions and ideas ? In my case it is clearly the former, but I'd like hearing otherwise.

Is it "Art" ? In layman's terms, yes, quite probably, which is the source of the current polemic; To those of us with a narrower understanding of "Art", no, these pictures are only good craftsmanship (mostly because they failed the last two questions).

Now let's stop chasing strawmen; Can you honestly tell me that you consider these pictures as Art, and why ?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2014 at 21:35 UTC
In reply to:

Marques Lamont: She'll make MORE MONEY on these photos if she licenses them for stock. More money than MANY on here have ever made from photography. Like it or not, her photos work.

Commercially, if she makes images of toddlers with barn animals and etc her niche, she wins. She WILL be in demand. NOT the critics who've made not a dime.

She can't please everyone. But she can probably make more money than you can with a camera, if that matters.

Everything is post processed today! It's a part of TODAY'S toolkit. This is DIGITAL photography! If you like shooting manual, winding your advance, and keeping rolls of film in the refrigerator, scanning slides and clearing dust bunnies in Photoshop, go ahead! Cheers to you.

Why should it matter ?

McDonald's makes more money than any gourmet restaurant, does that mean McDonald's better ?

J.K. Rowling is the best selling author of all time (if you count units per time), does that mean she is the summum of literature ?

Lady GaGa and Katy Perry albums sell as hot cakes, does that mean they have are any better than some of the most revolutionary jazz albums that hardly sold a tenth of their number over decades ?

Kinkade has earned millions selling his tacky paintings, Van Gogh sold one painting, does that mean that Kinkade's "art" is superior to and more significant than Van Gogh's ?

These pictures are brilliant commercial exploitative sugar-coated derivative polished turds.
Does that mean I produce anything better in term of production quality ? Certainly not, she is better than me in all respects.
Does that mean I produce better art myself ? Certainly not, my production doesn't even pretend to be.
Does that mean her production is art ? Nope

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2014 at 21:05 UTC
In reply to:

aftab: Remarkable jealousy shown here by those who will never be able to produce anything remotely close.

You people fill me with contempt and disgust.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2014 at 13:37 UTC
In reply to:

aftab: Remarkable jealousy shown here by those who will never be able to produce anything remotely close.

Yeah yeah, and Lady Gaga is music, and Harry Potter is literature, whatever...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2014 at 12:41 UTC
In reply to:

aftab: Remarkable jealousy shown here by those who will never be able to produce anything remotely close.

Why would anyone WANT to ?

Do I try to pass a quarter-pounder with cheese or simple rural food for haute cuisine because I do happen to find it more appealing than most real haute cuisine ? No, I understand the hierarchy at play and am perfectly happy with favoring a level of mediocrity for my personal consumption, yet I am aware of that mediocrity and that there exist things that are, objectively, better, even though I don't like them.

There is nothing wrong with these pictures, but there is a world of wrong pretending they qualify as art.

The egalitarian dictatorship of pretending everything is art and equally valid must cease, it is ruining culture and dumbing down the public discourse not only on culture, but science, society and politics as well.

Pretending these pictures are art is as hurtful as pretending creationism is a valid alternative to the theory of evolution or that the scientific community is still divided over the influence of humans on global warming.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2014 at 12:04 UTC
In reply to:

carabas: Let's forget the whole "but the pictures are misrepresented" angle, let's also forget the "pah, it's all photoshop" angle, let's even forget the technique, let's just concentrate on aesthetics...

It's sickeningly kitsch.

I think it is doing a great disservice to the photographer and her production to present it as art, holding them up to a standard they could not measure up to.

Frankly, if these pictures weren't oversold I'd either ignore them or at least find them charming, but presented and defended as art pieces, they make me nauseous.

Once again, it's not an insult, art is something extremely rare; even in museum, the largest part of what is presented to you as art is in fact nothing more than great craftsmanship (it is however important to art for historical reason).

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2014 at 09:01 UTC
In reply to:

carabas: Let's forget the whole "but the pictures are misrepresented" angle, let's also forget the "pah, it's all photoshop" angle, let's even forget the technique, let's just concentrate on aesthetics...

It's sickeningly kitsch.

I have no masterpiece, I'm aware that my work is crap of little interest to anyone beyond myself, I do not delude myself into thinking that my production is art or even good photography.

Just because I'm not a great cook doesn't mean I can't realize I'm fed rotten meat.

My grip with the piece of garbage presented here is not the quality, the quality is excellent, its a great show of craftsmanship.

It's not even that you could like it, there is a lot to like, in its own way and if that's your thing.

It's not even that people call these things "beautiful", utterly ripping the word of ifs meaning.

My grip is that people defend these pictures as art.

These pictures are a lot of things, but art they are not, neither are they intended to be.

And don't come telling me "oh, but people reacted the same way to early impressionists, early modern art and the "Sacre du Printemps"", it would only further emphasizes that you don't get the point and don't have a clue about what art is.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2014 at 08:54 UTC
In reply to:

carabas: Let's forget the whole "but the pictures are misrepresented" angle, let's also forget the "pah, it's all photoshop" angle, let's even forget the technique, let's just concentrate on aesthetics...

It's sickeningly kitsch.

Don't get me wrong, these pictures are perfect among a set of swarovski crystal animals, ceramic unicorns and beanie babies.

The skill and talent required to produce them shouldn't detract from the fact that the result is by nature, rubbish (which was the point and is in no way an insult, most of us spend our life brilliantly producing rubbish, some of us produce high-grade rubbish and very, very few of us actually produce anything that is not, I certainly don't count myself as one of the lucky fews).

Conversely, the fact that the end product is rubbish shouldn't detract us from the fact that they required work and talent and that, had the creator aimed for something else, she obviously had the skills to do so.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2014 at 19:57 UTC

Let's forget the whole "but the pictures are misrepresented" angle, let's also forget the "pah, it's all photoshop" angle, let's even forget the technique, let's just concentrate on aesthetics...

It's sickeningly kitsch.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2014 at 17:53 UTC as 197th comment | 11 replies
On Fujifilm teases upcoming SLR-style X system camera article (921 comments in total)
In reply to:

yabokkie: no more teasing needed.

judging from the photo the camera cannot be anything good.

And how is that supposed to affect its ability to take good pictures exactly ?

Even the design abortion that is the Nikon Df is a more than competent camera once you adapt to the weird design and ergonomic idiosyncrasies.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 20, 2014 at 13:43 UTC
On Nikon Df preview (2817 comments in total)
In reply to:

PerL: After checking on camera size com one can see that the Df is not much bigger than a Panasonic m43 G3H (15 mm thinner actually) , close to the same size as APS-C Pentax K3 and a little bit lighter (and 11 mm thinner). Just mentioning for those claiming it is large and bulky.

If you exclude the grip, it's closer to the D600 than the K-3.

It's gigantic compared to a GH3, it's even worse against an Alpha 7 or an E-M1, and that's before even putting a lens on them.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2013 at 16:23 UTC
Total: 37, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »