sean000

sean000

Lives in United States Bellingham, USA, WA, United States
Works as a Technology - IT Support
Joined on Feb 16, 2005
About me:

35mm f/2.0D
50mm f/1.8D
90mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro (Tamron)
80-200 f/2.8D
300mm f/4 AFS
Kenko Tele Pro 300 1.4x TC
Speedlight SB-800 & SB-600 Flashes
Gitzo 1227 Tripod with Markins M10 Ballhead

Comments

Total: 78, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On Uncommon Still Life in the Uncommon still live challenge (1 comment in total)

I like the idea, but it just seems like too much stuff. Maybe if you got ride of most of it, and just kept the more interesting pieces thoughtfully arranged. I'd play with the lighting a bit more as well.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 23, 2012 at 19:42 UTC as 1st comment
On still life with piggy in the Uncommon still live challenge (1 comment in total)

Uncommon, and a little twisted ;-) I like it!

Direct link | Posted on Nov 23, 2012 at 19:40 UTC as 1st comment
On a hazy day at the Dead Sea, Israel in the Uncommon still live challenge (3 comments in total)

I really like this shot, but I would also be tempted to play with it a little. To see what it looks like with a lot more clarity (steeper S-Curve), or converted to a B&W or toned B&W. Then again I like it the way it is... the 2-dimensional flatness kind of makes a neat effect that makes beach, water, and sky blend together.

Direct link | Posted on Nov 23, 2012 at 19:37 UTC as 1st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

bryanbrun: You don't buy this lense over the Panny 20mm b/c it focuses faster and silently, you buy it b/c the bokeh is so much better than the Panny 20mm.

The Panny 20mm suffers from harsh pancake bokeh.

The Oly 12mm with the same build and features is one of the top selling lenses on amazon for CSC. Oly is duplicating that approach.

I have had the 20mm f/1.7 since January 2010, and never have I thought the bokeh was lacking or distracting. You have to focus extremely close to your subject to get much blur anyway. For most shots taken a few feet or more from the subject, there will only be a slight defocusing of the background at f/1.7... enough to emphasize your subject but not enough to blur the background into obfuscation. You need a longer lens like the 45mm f/1.8 to get much background blur at a normal shooting distance, so there the quality of the bokeh will matter more.

My 20mm pancake focuses fast enough for me on both my old GF1 and on my E-M5, and it produces sharp and contrasty images. I bet this new Oly will be a fantastic lens, but I'm going to pass for now. As my kids get older, the 20mm focus speed will become more of an issues, so I can see upgrading in a year or two. - Sean

Direct link | Posted on Nov 17, 2012 at 23:49 UTC
On Hands-on with the AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/4G ED VR article (258 comments in total)

Sweet looking lens, but I think I'll keep my much less expensive AF-D 80-200mm f/2.8 for now. It doesn't have VR, but I mostly use it outdoors where I have little trouble getting the fast shutter speeds I want anyway.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 26, 2012 at 00:17 UTC as 44th comment
In reply to:

sean000: I may have to revisit my neglected G+ account, but only to participate as a photographer. When it comes to sharing photos with friends and family, all of them are on Facebook. Unfortunately Facebook is absolutely horrid when it comes to photography. Yes they finally got around to allowing higher resolutions with less compression, but Facebook albums are clunky to manage.

I have had an almost entirely neglected Flickr account since Flickr first started. I have always found Flickr to be a frustrating site to navigate. The social aspects of it were appealing, but as a photo sharing site it always seemed lacking to me.

Richard, I also use Smugmug. That is my main photo sharing site. I used to post from Smugmug to Facebook, but found that it was time-consuming. Also there is some value to having FB albums that friends can browse (because chances are they will do that more often than they will browse your Smugmug site). I have found that Lightroom makes it easy for me to publish a subset of Smugmug photos to FB very easily. Totally redundant, but I only post about 25% of my Smugmug photos to FB.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2012 at 05:36 UTC

I may have to revisit my neglected G+ account, but only to participate as a photographer. When it comes to sharing photos with friends and family, all of them are on Facebook. Unfortunately Facebook is absolutely horrid when it comes to photography. Yes they finally got around to allowing higher resolutions with less compression, but Facebook albums are clunky to manage.

I have had an almost entirely neglected Flickr account since Flickr first started. I have always found Flickr to be a frustrating site to navigate. The social aspects of it were appealing, but as a photo sharing site it always seemed lacking to me.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 16, 2012 at 22:30 UTC as 25th comment | 3 replies
On Leaving my DSLR at home: An iPhone experiment post (171 comments in total)

Nice article and great photos. However, I would add that there are many options in between an iPhone and a DSLR: High quality compacts that are not much larger than an iPhone (up to large sensor compacts), as well as interchangeable lens cameras like m4/3 and Sony NEX. You don't have to choose one extreme or the other. I get that you didn't want to make this honeymoon trip all about photography, but it looks like you still did. No you weren't hauling or fiddling with as much gear, but you still couldn't escape the fact that you are a photographer who obviously spent some time thinking about and capturing photos on this trip. In fact the apps can make the iPhone even more fiddly than a DSLR. I do take photos with my iPhone sometimes, but I can get the job done much faster with my DSLR or my Olympus OM-D (which fits in a much smaller bag and goes on all my family outings). Photographing the kids with an iPhone is just too frustrating ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Oct 13, 2012 at 13:01 UTC as 76th comment | 2 replies

Thanks for the review. I will probably check this out. In years past I have mostly photographed landscapes, architecture, and candids of people. I'm very good at candid shots of people, whether they be candid portraits or wider shots. However I have never really been good at posing people for more formal portraits. I have read a few articles and know some major things to avoid and some tricks to make the shot more flattering (it's also just partly a matter of taking time to observe the shot for anything that doesn't look quite right). Now that I have a toddler and a baby, I shoot far more portraits than I ever have before. I'm definitely better at coaching my subjects than I used to be, but I think this book will have some useful tips.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 6, 2012 at 20:22 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

Luke Kaven: I'm having a hard time understanding how one can market a set of tools for "photojournalism" that surely renders all of your work unpublishable by journalistic standards.

Good point. If you manipulate the look of the photo to such a degree, won't people wonder if the content has also been manipulated? Was the kite really there, or did the photographer paste it in with software? Or maybe the man and the kite were actually photographed against a less interesting background.

I suppose you could say that the New York Times Magazine, who has published his photographs, can get away with creatively enhanced images because they publish feature stories that allow for more creative working of both text and images when compared to straight reporting like you find on the NYT front page. I remember in my college journalism classes, the professor would call you out for writing sentences or paragraphs that violated the standard rules of journalistic integrity. He would say, "You can say that on the Editorial page or in the Features section, but that doesn't belong on the front page or anywhere in the A section!"

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 23:08 UTC

Interesting story to juxtapose with Kate Bevan's anti-Instagram rant. It's a wonderful photograph. But does the art filter make the photograph better or worse? I like the photo and I like the look and mood the filter creates. I would probably like the photo without the filter effect as well. Any time you use effects like these you run the risk of alienating some viewers who find it gimmicky, but you may also wow some viewers who think it is really cool. Either way the photograph needs to be a good one, and this one definitely is in my opinion.

But as Luke Kaven commented, I would think that most journalistic photo editors would reject this shot because of the filter. New York Times Magazine is of course a features publication, so it can get away with obviously manipulated images. For straight news reporting, the audience might wonder if the contents have been altered as well as the colors. Was that kit really there, or did the photographer add it?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 22:58 UTC as 28th comment | 3 replies
On Is Instagram 'debasing photography'? article (291 comments in total)
In reply to:

sean000: The real problem isn't whether or not these types of nostalgia filters are ruining photographs. She finally gets to the real problem towards the end: Most people do not edit. They simply shoot and post, shoot and post. Rather than choosing the best version to share out of a series of ten almost identical photos, many people will share all ten. Whether they have had trendy filters applied or not, the truly excellent photographs get buried in a sea of mediocrity or similar shots. I only share or print a small percentage of the photos I take. Lightroom helps me make sure the truly special ones are not forgotten, and they end up getting printed, shared on Facebook, or posted to Smugmug.

As for filter effects: No they won't make a bad photo interesting, but they won't always ruin a good one either. I occasionally use such effects on photos where I feel like the filter effect fits the subject or mood. You just have to use an editorial eye and ask whether or not the effect helps or hurts.

And yes...I have see some excellent instagram photos. I've seen some where I thought it was a good use of the filter, and I've seen some where I thought the filter was a bad choice or was taken too far.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 19, 2012 at 23:58 UTC
On Is Instagram 'debasing photography'? article (291 comments in total)

The real problem isn't whether or not these types of nostalgia filters are ruining photographs. She finally gets to the real problem towards the end: Most people do not edit. They simply shoot and post, shoot and post. Rather than choosing the best version to share out of a series of ten almost identical photos, many people will share all ten. Whether they have had trendy filters applied or not, the truly excellent photographs get buried in a sea of mediocrity or similar shots. I only share or print a small percentage of the photos I take. Lightroom helps me make sure the truly special ones are not forgotten, and they end up getting printed, shared on Facebook, or posted to Smugmug.

As for filter effects: No they won't make a bad photo interesting, but they won't always ruin a good one either. I occasionally use such effects on photos where I feel like the filter effect fits the subject or mood. You just have to use an editorial eye and ask whether or not the effect helps or hurts.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 19, 2012 at 23:52 UTC as 124th comment | 1 reply
On Photoshop CS6: Top 5 Features for Photographers article (98 comments in total)
In reply to:

aris14: Seriously now, can someone claim that we 've seen miracles in Ps after the version CS2? Anyone with the CS2 plus the plugins that a serious user needs is almost ahead of the CS6. Pls add LR too..

You've obviously never used one of the newer version. Content-Aware fill, newer versions of Camera RAW, the photomerge/stitching/HDR tools, and more are all light years ahead of CS2. I upgraded from CS2 to CS4 and it was worth it for better ACR alone. Then I upgraded to CS5.5 and was wowed by how much better it did many things I regularly use Photoshop to do. You should download the demo.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2012 at 01:34 UTC
On Photoshop CS6: Top 5 Features for Photographers article (98 comments in total)
In reply to:

36hike: Adobe Photoshop is the most bloated piece of software on the market... photographic or otherwise. If they'd spend half the energy on streamlining the product they already have, vs. continually releasing a stream of releases with minor tweaks, they might have a much larger audience.

Yeah, I get it about those who have already invested years in learning the hidden secrets of the megalith. Frankly, I'd rather spend the time photographing.

When are people going to say enough with the frosting. Please bake a new cake?

Lightroom was the new cake: A complete tool for photographers to manage, develop, share, and print photos. Photoshop can do a lot more, but for basic photography you don't need it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2012 at 01:30 UTC
In reply to:

adrianlew: Nokia is retarded. What will a user do with a 41 mega pix? Its the quality not the size that counts... Those photos will only take space. No wonder the almost went out of business.. Same poor decision to run windows instead of android on nokia phones... I think the really should close the doors...

@Glen Barrington: I don't know if I see this saving Nokia either, but it's still an interesting concept. Unfortunately it's going to appeal to a very limited market. It's too thick for a Smartphone and I doubt it will have the chops to replace a dedicated compact camera. So I'm not sure who it will appeal to, which probably means prices will drop fast.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2012 at 05:01 UTC
In reply to:

adrianlew: Nokia is retarded. What will a user do with a 41 mega pix? Its the quality not the size that counts... Those photos will only take space. No wonder the almost went out of business.. Same poor decision to run windows instead of android on nokia phones... I think the really should close the doors...

This is actually a clever idea. One of the big issues with current smartphone cameras is that you don't have an optical zoom, and the digital zoom can quickly turn an 8 MP image into a low resolution image. More megapixels means more room for digital zoom/cropping. I would be very surprised if it can match the detail of a good 10 to 16 MP camera, but it will probably blow away current Smartphone cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2012 at 00:00 UTC

Consumer advocacy... one more reason to love this website.

I'm still waiting on my E-M5 to arrive, but the 20mm f/1.7 has been my favorite lens for the GF1 since I bought it in January of 2010... and I'd hate to have to choose between it and the new camera.

I notice they don't specifically say how low an ISO one needs to avoid the problem, but from what people have posted here that is variable. For some it starts happening at 1600, others at 3200 or higher. I don't know if it will be an issue for me, but it's nice to know they are working on a solution.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2012 at 18:52 UTC as 63rd comment | 4 replies

I recently listened to an NPR interview with an author who wrote a book called "The Practical Wedding." The interview discussed ideas for throwing a memorable, but affordable, wedding. It was a short interview, but there was actually no mention of photography. Hiring a pro photographer was very important for my wife and I (and she was worth it), but I have certainly been to weddings where the couple did not hire a photographer. At one the bride and groom left disposable film cameras at all the tables and asked guests to take photos with these cameras. At the other the bride and groom simply encouraged guests to take photos using whatever camera they brought (from cell phones to DSLRs) and to please post the images on Facebook for everyone to enjoy. That couple later told me that they wished they had hired someone after all. Turns out that only a handful of guests took many photos, and only a few bothered to post them online. Fewer still were worth printing.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 22:15 UTC as 104th comment
In reply to:

7enderbender: Here is the problem: this discussion can go back and forth and back and forth. "You're a rip-off" - "But here are my expenses plus markup" etc etc.

I think part of the reason why a lot of photographers, artists and actually a lot of other businesses aren't doing so well is because they don't understand pricing.

Here's the rule: Never - and I mean never - justify your price based on your expenses. Yes, calculate your expenses to understand your profit margin. But that's between you, your spouse and the IRS. It is irrelevant to your client. They can care less about your three 5D Mark IIs and how much they cost you. The only reason they hire you is their perceived value they get from your pictures. That's it. End of story. There is no cost+markup argument.

Getting to the actual value is of course difficult in an artistic and emotional field.

That being said: Nikki Wagner should rethink her cost structure and business model a bit. Something is off there.

I think Nikki Wagner was trying to show what it is like to be a wedding photographer and I doubt she shows this information to potential clients to justify her price. That's up to the clients who must compare her prices and quality of service to other local photogs.

We can all debate her itemized expenses, but I do think that her essay provides some useful information that future brides and grooms should understand. Of course what matters at the end of the day is the perceived value of your services, but obviously the wedding photography industry has a PR problem: Most regional markets obviously support $3,000 wedding photography packages (if you're good enough), but many clients pay these prices while grumbling that the photographer is making hundreds of dollars an hour... which just isn't true. I have seen wedding planning websites that explain exactly what Nikki Wagner explained, but of course there will always be some who think wedding vendors conspire to jack up prices.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 17:09 UTC
Total: 78, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »