Joseph S Wisniewski

Joseph S Wisniewski

Lives in United States Detroit, MI, United States
Works as a Speech and sensor scientist
Has a website at http://www.swissarmyfork.com
Joined on Jul 12, 2002
About me:

I've been in love with photography for over 40 years.

My favorite form of photography is macro, and much of my gear is of my own design.

I've done professional photography on and off for over 20 years.
Taught 8 years at Midwest Photography Workshops.
Designed 3 scientific digital cameras and 6 lenses.

Author of mImage and (coming soon to the App Store and Google Play) ColorForEveryone.

Comments

Total: 548, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Manfrotto introduces new lens filter lineup article (125 comments in total)
In reply to:

Seeky: "A time-honored, multi-functional filter, the Ultraviolet filter blocks UV light from entering the lens eliminating blurring, haziness and blue casting."

Wow, now I know what was wrong with my images! Can I get a few boxes of these YouVee-shall-not-pass-magic-discs?

Even more so. Lenses transmitted a lot more UV back in the day when they had 3-4 elements and simple MgFl coatings. Today, when 8 element primes and 20 element zooms are common, not much UV gets to the sensor in the first place.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 23:05 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Franiec: If you look at the beautiful piece of wood (the grip) alone, meticulously carved and finished, don't blame Italian craftsmen for the fail of the whole concept. Taking quite ordinary camera, re-badge it, put the work of art on the front plate and expect that it would sell for 10 x the price of the RX100 is unthinkably naive concept.
Hope that the people who lost their job in process will not suffer for too long and steer away from Luna(r)tical and idiotic ideas as this whole concept is.
Their talents could and should be rewarded in so many different ways of expressing themselves - think Leicatime.
I'm curious if the guy responsible for this monumental blunder is still milking Hassy, or he is gone (in disgrace).

You are quite welcome.

The strange and convoluted history of the great camera makers of old has always been one of my interests.

I still think there's room in this world for icons, and Blad is important enough to be one of them.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 22:59 UTC
In reply to:

Summi Luchs: Good news. So I can employ the designers and make a new luxury car based on a Subaru.

Would you consider Saab a luxury marque? They once luxury-upped the Subaru Impreza and called it the Saab 9-2X.

Would you believe that GM once attempted to market a dressed up Subaru Forrester in India as a luxury SUV? Under the Chevrolet label, no less, because when all you've got is Tata, even Chevy drips luxury. (That was the second-generation Subaru-built Forrester, not the first generation Isuzu Trooper with a Subaru label).

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 22:57 UTC
In reply to:

Richard Franiec: If you look at the beautiful piece of wood (the grip) alone, meticulously carved and finished, don't blame Italian craftsmen for the fail of the whole concept. Taking quite ordinary camera, re-badge it, put the work of art on the front plate and expect that it would sell for 10 x the price of the RX100 is unthinkably naive concept.
Hope that the people who lost their job in process will not suffer for too long and steer away from Luna(r)tical and idiotic ideas as this whole concept is.
Their talents could and should be rewarded in so many different ways of expressing themselves - think Leicatime.
I'm curious if the guy responsible for this monumental blunder is still milking Hassy, or he is gone (in disgrace).

Read the post directly above yours.

OK, back? Blad's ex CEO, Dr. Larry Hansen appears to be in retirement, and is now the "face" of various charities.

Luca Alessandrini is now running "4V Designs" a company in Italy that sticks bits of wood, metal, rhinestones, carbon fiber, rare animal hides, etc. on various brands of smart phones and cameras for boutique stores. So, basically, he's taken Luna and gone indy.

Well, you asked.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 22:45 UTC

If you're going to do "seems that" articles from sources as dubious as Photoscala or Photo Rumors, then please, at least get some quicker ones. This "news" came out back in January, when Ventiz (the company that owns the Blad brand) replaced CEO Larry Hansen with Ian Rawcliffe.

Hansen was the guy with all the weird "new market" dreams, the one who discontinued the V system, launched the Lunar, Stellar, and Solar, launched the Hasselblad boutique store in Tokyo, set up Blad's Luca Alessandrin as the head of Blad's new design center in Italy, and set up the deal with Vertu.

Rawcliffe is doing his damnest to take the company back to its core market (a phrase I usually disapprove of, except in rare cases where the company has expanded into the idiot-sphere). So far, he has launched the CMOS digital back (their first actual new medium format product since around 2005), shut down the Italian design center, and given Luca the old glutal boot.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 22:34 UTC as 96th comment
In reply to:

Joseph S Wisniewski: I didn't renew "prime" after the rate increase.

All I ever used was the free 2 day shipping. All the other bloat they piled on was useless to me.Seriously, no prime video for Android? And they wonder why their numbers are down.

Or, for a different "What is that?"

A program launched on the three-year anniversary of their iOS version. ;)

And if you want a third "What is that?"

An Android program that has been in existence for three years, but was kept exclusive to Amazon's proprietary "Kindle Fire" tablet (but opened up to all Android users three months after Amazon launched their "fire phone", go figure).

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 22:20 UTC
In reply to:

Joseph S Wisniewski: I didn't renew "prime" after the rate increase.

All I ever used was the free 2 day shipping. All the other bloat they piled on was useless to me.Seriously, no prime video for Android? And they wonder why their numbers are down.

What is that?

Something released months after I dropped my prime membership, LOL.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 8, 2014 at 01:51 UTC

I didn't renew "prime" after the rate increase.

All I ever used was the free 2 day shipping. All the other bloat they piled on was useless to me.Seriously, no prime video for Android? And they wonder why their numbers are down.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 5, 2014 at 15:42 UTC as 20th comment | 3 replies

This is interesting...

"The Panasonic Lumix DMC-CM1 smartphone boasts a 1 inch 20MP sensor, which is likely the same imaging unit we've seen used by other recent high-end compact cameras like Sony's Cyber-shot RX100 III."

So, is Sony, who happens to be the world's biggest manufacturer of large image sensors, using Panasonic sensors in their own cameras? Or is Panasonic, who doesn't make as many sensors as Sony, but is still such a big manufacturer they're in the top 5, using Sony sensors in their cameras, instead of their own?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 18:43 UTC as 100th comment | 1 reply
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (338 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wedding photographer: I believe that the new perfect portrait lens should have:
1) beautiful pattern bokeh (Yes);
2) accurate and fast autofocus (No);

In my opinion modern lenses have acceptable sharpness (considering possibility of their mediocre autofocus systems).

I think, other parameters such as “flawless sharpness” and especially “No distortion“ should be placed on fourth or fifth place.

However Marketers of Zeiss have other point of view. They look based on synthetic tests of manual sharpness - far from real life.

Zeiss said "neutral" bokeh, not "beautiful", so I'm hesitant to give it that first "yes".

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 15:30 UTC
In reply to:

misha marinsky4: "The Master" was shot using Kodak 65mm.

The problem is this: No one makes cine cameras any longer. Eventually, there will not be any parts when one needs repairs. That's less than 10 years away.

With quantum advances in raw exposure, PP becomes easier each year. Cinema DNG is one example. Black Magic is giving Red stiff competition.

Readers' thoughts?

Tell me about it. I ran into an "artist" who made lamps from musical instruments that he got by the pound. Bought one that he had made from a moderately rare (and totally fascinating) flute with a wood body and metal head. After I bought it, I told him I was going to remove the flute and scrap his lamp parts.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2014 at 06:59 UTC
In reply to:

Deardorff: Once again Hasselblad shows their head is still firmly planted deep in their collective ass.

Where is the SQUARE format back?

"it's a shame there's no way to build a rotating mount into the back, but I'm guessing focus tolerances may exclude that."

There is a way. Leaf made nice rotating sensor backs for 6x6 cameras. (Remember the Hy6 debacle?) So I'm thinking what "may exclude that" is Phase One, who acquired all of Leaf's IP four years ago.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2014 at 06:35 UTC
In reply to:

Eamon Hickey: Can somebody clarify something for me. The WSJ article includes the statistic that motion picture film sales have fallen from 12.4 billion feet in 2006 to an estimated 449 million feet for this year, a decline of 96%.

The article talks almost exclusively about what media films are being shot with nowadays. But am I right in guessing that those sales figures must include all types of motion picture film, including internegative, interpositive, and release print stocks, not just camera negative film? So it's probably the case that the vast majority of the decline in sales comes from the large-scale switch to digital post-production and (for movies) digital projection?

In other words, the 12.4 billion feet of film sold in 2006 was not all camera negative film was it? Thanks in advance for any answers.

> Roll film needs its own version of the Impossible Project.

There are multiple versions of that. Hang around APUG for a while, people are building roll film coaters in their garages. You've got European companies with anywhere from 6 to 100 people popping up with factories using scavenged equipment from much larger factories.

Of course, modern film tech like tabular grains or Kodak Vision III are going to go away and the films available will look a lot like 1950, but hey...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 22:58 UTC
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Inception, Dark Knight to name but two film shot on film.

Paraphrasing the words of the directors themselves (taken from various sites and interviews).

1) The quality of film is better than digital.
2) Depending on the film used the resolution is better.
3) They prefer the look and feel.
4) The dynamic range is much better than digital, especially the highlights.
5) When you digitise it you still, apparently, capture a lot of the quality, look, feel and DR.

It cost more, the production is longer, the gear larger, but some top directors and producers think it is well worth it.

These are their words not mine. I don't shoot movies and decided to do some research after reading some comments from people who are obviously nobs and know-it-all better than top directors.

I wasn't really aware film is still used to make films. I found my own research very educational and surprising.

And yes, I have nothing better to do on a Friday afternoon!

> Inception, Dark Knight to name but two film shot on film.

The Dark Knight is a personal peeve of mine. The super-loud IMAX camera ruined substantial amount of the film's dialog, forcing the actors to do ADR work, trying to lip-sync new dialog to images on a monitor. I know it's Batman, so everybody is supposed to be kind of emotionally flat, but I found the end result to be horrible.

But curiously nostalgic, with overtones of a dubbed Kiung Fu film from the 70s.

Bet the producers were saying "thank God Bain's mouth is covered so his ADR will be more spontaneous and emotionally charged".

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 22:46 UTC
In reply to:

Flashback: I recently cleared my loft of all my old darkroom equipment. Brought back some fond memories.

Some of it went to a Jumble Sale, the rest dumped. I did keep the enlarger lens though. Never use it, but a lovely piece of glass made by Hoya.

Thanks Kodak. Just hang in there...

Get a bellows, mount that enlarger lens up, and shoot some serious macro.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 23:19 UTC
In reply to:

Mescalamba: Sigh,

its a shame that nobody saved Kodak, both digital and film division. Most will never know how much we lost.

Kodak, in its heyday, was a joy to deal with. I licensed IP from them twice. They were very friendly to small operations, and gave you terms you could start with and grow with.

A pleasure in these days of patent trolls.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 23:17 UTC
In reply to:

stratplaya: I hope they are shooting the next Star Wars movies with film. The last three were hard to watch and lacked any character.

> The last three were hard to watch and lacked any character.

I don't think that was a film vs. digital issue...

And the "Phantom Menace", arguably the worst film in the franchise, was shot on 35mm film.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 23:14 UTC
In reply to:

misha marinsky4: "The Master" was shot using Kodak 65mm.

The problem is this: No one makes cine cameras any longer. Eventually, there will not be any parts when one needs repairs. That's less than 10 years away.

With quantum advances in raw exposure, PP becomes easier each year. Cinema DNG is one example. Black Magic is giving Red stiff competition.

Readers' thoughts?

The Master is considered a flop, costing $30M, grossing $28M.

Repairs aren't really a problem. People use to say that parts would be a problem for film cameras, but it turns out that there are so many units sitting in used camera stores, ebay, attics, etc. that all the cameras that are still being used can be repaired for the next 100 years.

So, the cine camera parts supply is secure until people start misplacing or melting down the warehouses full of film gear, or selling it by the pound to people making "steam punk" jewelry.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 23:03 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: Digital already surpasses film in every aspects (resolution, dynamic range, noise) and can closely simulate any film we had. I think we should ban film photography, just for environmental reasons.

> Since 80s, few movies are shot entirely in 70mm any more.

Six in the US. The last to actually make money was 1992's "Far and Away". The other five all flopped. Aside from that, two films shot in 1970 didn't flop, "Airport" and "Patton". The rest crashed and burned.

The last European 70mm film to make money was Ryan's Daughter, also back in 1970.

On the subject of film ruining a movie, did you see "The Dark Knight Rises"? All that truly horrible ADR work was a consequence of the noisy IMAX cameras destroying the original dialogue.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 01:07 UTC
In reply to:

nerd2: Digital already surpasses film in every aspects (resolution, dynamic range, noise) and can closely simulate any film we had. I think we should ban film photography, just for environmental reasons.

@nerd2, you missed a few. The projection quality of digital just eats film for dinner. The last movie I saw projected on film, "An Education" was literally ruined for me by film projection. The projector jitter, probably not much worse than I'd been seeing for years in other film movies, exceeded "distracting" and catapulted the experience to "sickening".

Definitely time to outlaw the stuff. Look who's lobbying for it. The owners of the moribund Star Wars franchise, as dead as film itself. Tarantino, because all of life is noir. Aptow, the god of shlock comedy, someone who has yet to produce a film I can even sit through.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 00:55 UTC
Total: 548, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »