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: 521, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

SushiEater: I think it is stupid idea to begin with.
1. Loss of light.
2. Since it uses your flash and power (since there is loss of light you would not be able to take as many flashes) what is the point.
3. For 1/2 the price (and this is expensive version, there are other much cheaper versions) why not get
MRC-232 LED Ring Adjustable Hotshoe Light Video Lighting Lamp 6000K for DSLR
from Ebay?
It uses Sony battery included (cheaper versions use AA just like your flash), allows to use it as video light, adjustable light too.
Some versions can be used as flash or video.

Because LEDs run a constant power, and pictures are produced by energy, power x time. A speed light has about 60 watt-seconds of energy. You have to run a common 10 watt LED ring light for 6 seconds to get 60 watt-seconds.

How many subjects can hold still for 6 seconds? How many photographers can shoot 6 seconds handheld?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 25, 2013 at 01:43 UTC
In reply to:

Potemkin_Photo: Give it 3 months and every Chinese me-too shop will have this for $19.99 with free shipping from Shenzhen. Just wait, you know it's going to happen.

Grock, there are many knockoffs of the original Ray Flash. They came out a few months after it was launched, and perform virtually identically.

The new Ray Flash addresses (we hope) the serious flaws of the old one, by borrowing from some existing fiber-optic products. Give the cloners a chance: we'll be seeing knockoffs in a couple of months.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2013 at 10:27 UTC
In reply to:

Pierre Daigneault: Now what about an aluminium foil plate with a hole cut in it (crumpled to defuse) put onto the front of the lens. Then direct the regular flash at the plate and use the reflected light with the main light as back lighting......
...voila....$0.20.....

The plate surrounds the lens, right?

So, how do you direct a flash at the plate without directing it at the lens?

Are you familiar with "veiling flare"?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2013 at 10:23 UTC
In reply to:

rayflash: Hello,
your information is inaccurate, chinese fake for 20 USD does not function,light loss minus 4-5 EV, compared to the RAY FLASH original.Llight output power of chinese fakes is insufficient for serious shooting.therefore the choice of every customer,what light quality will be use for photo shooting.

new universal adapter for all types of DSLR cameras

Indeed. I've measured two different Chinese ring flashes and they're within half a stop of the Ray Flash. And they all had nearly identical imbalances between top and bottom.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2013 at 10:21 UTC
In reply to:

jackpro: this is another option http://enlightphotopro.com/gear/the-orbis-ringflash/

Depends on how you define "option". The original Rayflash was very uneven, but at least it was hotter on top on a landscape image.

The Orbis is hotter on the bottom. Research "sinister lighting" if you don't understand why that is unflattering.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2013 at 10:15 UTC
In reply to:

photoholiko: Didn't Leica have something like this for their R-System?

Been there, done that. LOL.

This "getting old" stuff sucks.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 23, 2013 at 11:18 UTC
In reply to:

electrophoto: Back in the day, nice idea... but today?
Well I simply don't see any potential advantage in this... We have an abundance of great digital bodies - for almost any taste.
The only thing this would bring is an awkward way to control it, even less practical for quick reviewing and I can't see any advantages over even the most basic DSLR with this.

Such as?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 22:46 UTC
In reply to:

leicaman: It could be done with todays technology. It would be great to flip a FF sensor into my Leica M4s.

Ah to have a well-built all metal hockey puck of a digital camera would be wonderful

You can't have FF. The sensor needs to go through the camera's 24x36mm film gate. Sensors have about a 4mm "moat" of support circuitry, contacts, and mechanical framework around the sensor, so the biggest possible back for an ordinary 35mm camera is 1.3x crop, like Leica Modul-R.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 22:45 UTC
In reply to:

Frank Dernie: I have a Leica DMR which works brilliantly on my R8 but results in a heavy camera.

I always thought the digital film idea was wishful thinking. Until all the electronics and battery of a digital SLR can be packaged to fit inside the cylindrical space enclosed by a 135 cassette it will be impossible. Why didn't anybody seem to think of that before throwing away so much money?
Blindingly obvious, from an engineering perspective, I would have thought.

That's not where the story ends.

Eventually, Quest hired Applied Color Science to build some electronics, and ACS got as far as a prototype board stack about twice the volume of an SLR (not a film canister) when Quest couldn't fund it and traded all rights to ACS in exchange for their debt. That, as far as I can tell, is as close to working as Silicon Film ever got.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 22:40 UTC
In reply to:

Frank Dernie: I have a Leica DMR which works brilliantly on my R8 but results in a heavy camera.

I always thought the digital film idea was wishful thinking. Until all the electronics and battery of a digital SLR can be packaged to fit inside the cylindrical space enclosed by a 135 cassette it will be impossible. Why didn't anybody seem to think of that before throwing away so much money?
Blindingly obvious, from an engineering perspective, I would have thought.

It struck me as utterly impossible using 1999 level technology.

I've looked at all sorts of financial info on these guys, and never could find where they'd spent any money on electronics design. They had an IC packaging designer (not much use, unless you can order in large enough quantities to get a sensor maker to implement your package design). They ended up in such debt to Quest Manufacturing, a plastics fabricator, that Quest ended up acquiring the defunct Silicon Film.

You would expect electronics design and tooling to cost about 20-50x what the housing designs cost for a product like this, If your biggest creditor is the guy who molded the insert housing and the spiffy looking reader, the logical conclusion is that there was no electronic design, whatsoever.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 22:18 UTC
In reply to:

Mark: OMG. Given the big moves in Sensor & Battery Technology this simple idea would be a very affordable option today. Brining it back I say. Who owns the patent?

Dominik Schmidt probably did more real work on this stuff than anyone else, and a quick check shows at least one of his patents still in force

Silicon Film didn't pay their maintenance fees, all theirs are dead.

Kodak has some, not sure of the status.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 21:56 UTC
In reply to:

budi0251: Back in the day when we could get date back replacement upgrade for our camera; I suppose it'd still be possible with such data backs, thus having enough room for electronics (with some problem for nose area, photog needs to breath as well)
About electromechanical control/sensor, now that's another engineering problem.

Today?
2nd hand 6MP APS-C sized sensor DSLR can be bought for about 150 bucks, coupled with some basic lens.
If this device wish to compete with that, it should cost less than 100 bucks and still no more easier than that relic DSLR (and worse IQ).

I think that's what killed the Leica Modul-R. The day I first tried it, the unusually thick "digital back" and the limited eye-relief meant my nose was squashed painfully against the back of the camera. Even though the 1.3x crop added eye-relief, it still wasn't enough.

That same day, back in July of 2005, I tried the Nikon D2X. That experience totally convinced me that the whole idea of a modular DSLR was dead. (Although I subsequently tried to revive it. Long story).

An opportunity a few months later to spend a week with the Modul-R reinforced that conclusion. The R9 with a Modul-R was a thoroughly obnoxious camera.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 21:43 UTC
In reply to:

photoholiko: Didn't Leica have something like this for their R-System?

By September 2011, the Modul-R was long discontinued.

Leica announced development with Imacon almost a decade earlier, back in June 2003.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2003/06/25/leicadigitalr9

They shipped in June 2005.

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2005/05/31/leica_due

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2013 at 19:58 UTC
In reply to:

VadymA: A sad story of creating a product that nobody needs. Hope their patents will find the way in some industry, if not in consumer photography. And I have a feel that all this talk about exciting new products is just a smokescreen to save their faces in front of investors...

I don't think I've ever seen anyone use "raytrix" and "success" in the same paragraph before.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 13, 2013 at 15:19 UTC
In reply to:

Artak Hambarian: Rallyfan mention something very interesting. Why Lytro does not advertise the capability of creating a one shot stacked focus pictures? That is an amazing feature. It may be realised both in camera and via post processing. One shot means that you have perfect set of pictures to focus stack.

Because it can't focus stack beyond the DOF of the decimated image, and you can get that same DOF in a conventional camera simply by stopping down to that DOF.

If you have an f2 Lytro with 4:1 decimation, the best deep DOF you can get is f8. You'd get the same thing just by stopping down to f8.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 13, 2013 at 15:16 UTC
In reply to:

Leandros S: Under what terms are you using these images? You're a commercial site, and commercial use is not permitted by the copyright holder (Val Klavans for the retouched versions). Your versions are on the rather large side to be claiming fair use.

Hadn't thought of that. Leandros referred to the images as "too large to qualify as fair use", but that's just insane. 500 pixels is less than 1/3 the width of my laptop screen. It's not big enough to use in an article (which would be fair use) or project for a lecture (also fair use). Printed at an industry standard 300dpi, it's not even 2 inches square, so it's not even a threat to the refrigerator magnet market, let alone the fine art market.

I think Leandros may have some agenda that goes way beyond a legitimate complaint.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2013 at 01:57 UTC
In reply to:

hydrospanner: I've been looking for this exact piece of metal ever since I got a good tripod and head over a year ago. Now I realize that I couldn't find it because it wasn't there.

Gotta get one...

That exact piece? Why? Does the Manfrotto name mean so much to you that you've ignored 20 other makers, all of which appear to do it better than Manfrotto (100% machined clamps and plates, no cast or extruded aluminum)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2013 at 16:51 UTC
In reply to:

lmtfa: Manfrotto manufactures good reliable products. I have a bunch of their products that make your camera feel safe on your tripod. Their not pretty, take a look at the 808RC4 3 Way Pan and Tilt. But attached to your tripod and the camera to it, it's like the USS New Jersey, steaming off the coast of some country ready to dish out sme hurt.

The limiting factor like the battleship it was not up to date. No Arca-Swiss compatibility but its reliability and price made up in a way for that. No upgrade for me, I don't throw good money after bad.

Funny. I've formed the opposite opinion, and I formed that low opinion using RC4. I've had their aluminum screws break, dumping equipment, and the lock arm on the clamp fail, also resulting in dumped equipment.

I've also modified Manfrotto plates and clamps, and have seen voids in their castings when sawing or milling them. Scary stuff...

At this point, I only use Manfrotto clamps for very lightweight gear, on a bench top so it can't fall more than 6 inches.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2013 at 16:49 UTC

Seriously, $32 US for single way (sideways on the camera) generic extruded plate, when the same money will get you a Sunway or Benro fully machined plate with a square biridectional ARCA tenon and a top that's machined for a specific camera.

And $130 for a low tolerance cast clamp bundled with that extruded plate? Subtract the plate, and that means they want $98 for a cast clamp, when Acratech, Kirk, RRS will sell you the best fully machined clamps in the world for that, and Sunway or Benro will get you a basic machined clamp for $40.

Manfrotto has totally lost the plot, here.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2013 at 20:07 UTC as 29th comment | 4 replies

Technically, she didn't "add color". The Cassini photos have much more color than the average photographer is used to dealing with. She actually took a lot of the color away.

There are multiple images per view, taken by a monochrome sensor with a filter wheel that includes multiple IR wavelengths, visible red (a couple of differ wavelengths) green, blue, violet, and UV. Pick three (red, green, and blue, if you want true colors, or any three if you want false colors) drop them into the channel mixer, and viola.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2013 at 14:01 UTC as 15th comment
Total: 521, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »