Artistico

Artistico

Lives in United Kingdom Inverness, United Kingdom
Works as a Artist
Has a website at http://www.galleryhakon.com
Joined on Nov 1, 2007

Comments

Total: 277, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Canon PowerShot G7 X First Impressions Review preview (698 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: THe Image Quality is excellent, but to get the sensor from Sony did Canon have to promise not to add a viewfinder? NO viewfinder? NO viewfinder. It has not got a viewfinder. WHY???????

If the screen is still as good as it was on the G10, you won't need a viewfinder. I'm not sure what's happened to the screens of the other G iterations, though, but on my old G10, I could see clearly in sunlight even with sunglasses on - and the image on the screen showed accurate exposure too. My Fuji F30 was good too, but the other digital cameras I've had, including my quite new Panasonic GM1 aren't anywhere close to it for some reason. Apparently, there isn't always progress...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 17:14 UTC
On Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup article (18 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artistico: Easy to do with digital. But I guess the appeal(?) of lomography must be using terrible cameras with horrible film and get expensive, soft, colour-shifted photos - just so they can call it art because it's not digital. I find the phenomenon fascinating but not for me.

Using pencil and paper is a bit different from photography, so not quite a valid comparison, though I see the point you're trying to make. I suppose it's not dissimilar to what happened to painting, which was by many seen as obsolete at the advent of photography. It was considered a craft, not an art, the purpose of which was perceived as providing a documentary record or visualising events of the past. Photography changed all that. Perhaps digital photography has the same effect on film photography as photography once had on painting?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 16:37 UTC
On Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup article (18 comments in total)

Easy to do with digital. But I guess the appeal(?) of lomography must be using terrible cameras with horrible film and get expensive, soft, colour-shifted photos - just so they can call it art because it's not digital. I find the phenomenon fascinating but not for me.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 14:27 UTC as 9th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Scott Eaton: I shoot a lot of landscapes and haven't used a 'polariser' in years. I do realize their benefits, but their need is aesthetically quite narrow...aside from killing annoying glare on reflective surfaces for commercial work at times. Often the 'free glare' version in landscape work is often the more preferable.

In other respects, lunking around a 105mm filter when your lenses are smaller threaded makes no sense. Using a warming filter on a digital camera makes less sense. Most of the comments below trying to justify warming filters are from the same people that would use warming or color adjustment filters with print film because they we're too ignorant to realize lab printing nullifies the effect.

AWB in digital cameras also nullifies the warming effect. Perhaps Lee should include a recipe for ice cubes in the box as well.

So, unless you're still shooting tranny film this is a near pointless product,

Spot on. A polariser can still make sense, but only for reducing reflections if needed, not so much for adding contrast or definition in skies any more. ND might sometimes be needed to adjust shutter speeds. Apart from that, digital is like having every other filter known to man at your disposal in post processing, as well as many others that could never have existed in the film days.

Filmmakers, even the ones still using film stock, also tend to go for digital scanning and grading more and more nowadays as even with a lavish supply of filters available, colour and exposure matching different exterior shots can be an absolute nightmare. I suppose filter makers are going to need clever marketing to keep in business these days, like making new filters and trying to convince people it is the thing that has been missing from their photography to make their images better. That strategy does sell cameras, after all. Not sure if it works for filters, though.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 22:05 UTC
In reply to:

Artistico: Personally, I can't see the point of a combined warm-up and polariser in a digital workflow, but I am sure those who can are the target market anyway. And lots of people still like their neutral grads and other filters that digital post processing have rendered partly obsolete as well. The effect of polarisers undoubtedly has a big place today, of course, since for many shooting situations there is no way you can replicate its effect in post processing. The warm-up effect of an 81A filter, however? I can't see how the difference between something shot with a regular and a warming filter would be anything but negligibly subtle and only visible in a direct side-by-side comparison of prints, the perceived colour of which would be affected a lot more by the light used for their display than by a warm-up filter used during shooting.

Gradual ND's can be useful, though in most cases the effect can easily be replicated digitally too, or even improved upon as you can shape the ND effect to the image precisely - though this can often involve quite a bit of post-processing and sometimes it would be easier at the time of shooting. If for some reason you cannot do a multi-shot HDR, an ND grad can save your photo from over-exposure too, of course.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 21:03 UTC
On Delkin introduces new 'Black' range of rugged SD cards article (47 comments in total)
In reply to:

toomanycanons: I just read the replies below about the bad experiences some have had with their SD cards. I've shot nothing but SD cards for the past 8 years and never had any problem at all.

Never had one stick in the slot, never had the teeth go south, never lost any files from some corrupt SD card. Lucky me.

I think you're actually in a majority. Most people have never had SD card problems. Those who have are more likely to call in on a thread like this, and so it seems there are more people having had trouble than not.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 19:48 UTC
On Delkin introduces new 'Black' range of rugged SD cards article (47 comments in total)
In reply to:

spidercho: I use 5 SD cards A-Data for 9 years and I had 3 of them broken from nothing. Two lock/unlock broken buttons and one broken card from putting in and outside the camera.

Now I use SanDisk and they are better.

Yup. if you don't use flash, from my experience, I'd normally expect a battery to last about twice as long as the CIPA rating.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 19:47 UTC
In reply to:

Artistico: Personally, I can't see the point of a combined warm-up and polariser in a digital workflow, but I am sure those who can are the target market anyway. And lots of people still like their neutral grads and other filters that digital post processing have rendered partly obsolete as well. The effect of polarisers undoubtedly has a big place today, of course, since for many shooting situations there is no way you can replicate its effect in post processing. The warm-up effect of an 81A filter, however? I can't see how the difference between something shot with a regular and a warming filter would be anything but negligibly subtle and only visible in a direct side-by-side comparison of prints, the perceived colour of which would be affected a lot more by the light used for their display than by a warm-up filter used during shooting.

Getting it right in camera instead of being "lazy" might be right for you. You still admit it's not necessary, though, which was the point I wanted to go for. It's a personal workflow preference. I suppose it's nice to still be given the options of working with colour filters for those so inclined, but the only filters one will ever really need in a digital workflow is ND and polarisers.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 19:42 UTC

Personally, I can't see the point of a combined warm-up and polariser in a digital workflow, but I am sure those who can are the target market anyway. And lots of people still like their neutral grads and other filters that digital post processing have rendered partly obsolete as well. The effect of polarisers undoubtedly has a big place today, of course, since for many shooting situations there is no way you can replicate its effect in post processing. The warm-up effect of an 81A filter, however? I can't see how the difference between something shot with a regular and a warming filter would be anything but negligibly subtle and only visible in a direct side-by-side comparison of prints, the perceived colour of which would be affected a lot more by the light used for their display than by a warm-up filter used during shooting.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 22:45 UTC as 12th comment | 6 replies
On Zeiss launches Loxia full frame lenses for Sony E-mount article (269 comments in total)

Why make it so hard to enable or disable aperture clicks? I'd have thought a simple switch, or a mechanism allowing the aperture ring to move away from and closer to the camera body in two clickable positions for either stepped or unstepped control, would have made more sense...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 11:04 UTC as 1st comment
On Canon introduces new $78K 50-1000mm cine lens article (153 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artistico: Okay. If this niche videography product is DPreview newsworthy, when can we expect reviews of medium format digital cameras that might be a tad more in line with DPreview's purpose?

True. Might be more relevant, though. But i see your point. A proper review does take a long time to write - as it should.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 18, 2014 at 00:22 UTC
On Canon introduces new $78K 50-1000mm cine lens article (153 comments in total)

Okay. If this niche videography product is DPreview newsworthy, when can we expect reviews of medium format digital cameras that might be a tad more in line with DPreview's purpose?

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2014 at 12:37 UTC as 35th comment | 2 replies
On Tiny fps1000 high-speed camera boasts 18,500fps article (137 comments in total)
In reply to:

Weia: Why those DOS-computer resolutions, why not 720p and 1080p?
And logic speeds like 500 or 1000 fps?

If you want higher resolutions at a higher frame rate, then by all means get an expensive high-speed camera. These products are the entry point and gets you a lot of bang for your buck, but it's not meant to have the best specs in the world.
What's more logical about 500 fps or 1000fps? Presumably the speeds are the optimal framerates for that resolution without getting dropped frames due to processing limitations. They're not there to please someone's wish for the roundest numbers possible.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 9, 2014 at 11:39 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G7 X real-world samples gallery posted article (241 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gesture: Bring it in at $500, then you might have something.

Won't be that long a wait until it goes down to $500.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2014 at 21:46 UTC

A lot of NR softness to me, but why so much of it at ISO200? With the sensor, none or very little would be needed at base ISO to retain texture that has been completely obliterated in many of the samples. Looking forward to seeing more properly converted Raws to see what this camera is actually capable of.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 10:48 UTC as 83rd comment | 3 replies
On 'See Impossible': Canon counts down to... something. article (1665 comments in total)
In reply to:

DPhotoWriter: Medium format compact mirrorless camera - woot

If Maniya had come with such a mysterious teaser, that's what I would be hoping for.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2014 at 08:47 UTC
In reply to:

Artistico: Unless a miracle had happened, Panasonic jpeg processing is known to be absolutely awful for retaining detail, and the only thing they seem to have done to compensate is to add too much sharpening (assuming these are representative of the default settings), so one cannot really tell much about potential sharpness from these samples, and it looks like it is yet another Panasonic that needs to be used in raw-mode only.

Many of the 10.9mm shots, even the f/5.6 ones, look too soft, though it appears to be the focus point being in the entirely wrong place - does it have a focus issue at 10.9mm? Corners aren't bad if you compare to wide angle corners of most system camera lenses I've seen.

Still, all the photos look as if they came out of a compact camera. A good compact camera, mind you, but a compact nevertheless. Raw might give much better results, and I presume we'll see some properly converted raws once Adobe supports the camera.

Until then, I'll remain interested but unconvinced.

I've not looked at GX7 jpegs, but knowing Panasonic, the only measure by which they potentially could be better is sharpness (which doesn't look all that nice as it appears to be applied after aggressive noise reduction). Other camera manufacturers get it right, so why can't Panasonic?

To be honest, I'm not that bothered about it. Even if I had a camera with a good jpeg engine, I'd still shoot raw to have more processing possibilities. Still, making good jpegs is definitely in their interest as their cameras would be easier to evaluate from the first sample photos you see, which would lead to more pre-orders for Panasonics.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2014 at 10:11 UTC

Unless a miracle had happened, Panasonic jpeg processing is known to be absolutely awful for retaining detail, and the only thing they seem to have done to compensate is to add too much sharpening (assuming these are representative of the default settings), so one cannot really tell much about potential sharpness from these samples, and it looks like it is yet another Panasonic that needs to be used in raw-mode only.

Many of the 10.9mm shots, even the f/5.6 ones, look too soft, though it appears to be the focus point being in the entirely wrong place - does it have a focus issue at 10.9mm? Corners aren't bad if you compare to wide angle corners of most system camera lenses I've seen.

Still, all the photos look as if they came out of a compact camera. A good compact camera, mind you, but a compact nevertheless. Raw might give much better results, and I presume we'll see some properly converted raws once Adobe supports the camera.

Until then, I'll remain interested but unconvinced.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 4, 2014 at 09:34 UTC as 140th comment | 11 replies

I find this slightly amusing, for what's ethical and sustainable about being a camera business these days? Not much considering that all cameras have - in effect - become disposable cameras, most of which will only be used for a few years before being thrown away. Like most other things it's become a consumable rather than something built to last "forever". Building things to last is bad economy as it doesn't create the imaginary growth of money that people seem to want despite the fact that it is eating its way through finite resources at an alarming pace.

I suppose making a limited collector's edition camera is the only way to keep people from disposing of their cameras. A bit like buying a small patch of the rainforest to prevent it from being cut down... Except the resources going into making the limited edition will never be used for or recycled into something more useful.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2014 at 09:19 UTC as 82nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

shutterbud: I think this might be thee most pathetic product ever launched in the photography world. Canon are truly desperate to come out with this. What a sick joke.

I think you've forgotten Hasselblad's rebranded Sonys...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2014 at 09:18 UTC
Total: 277, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »