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: 259, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

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 80th 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
In reply to:

goloby: All I'm asking is for every hobbyist or professional photographer out there that has never tried film to give it a go. Get an old film camera, they are cheap. Most of your digital lenses will work. Buy a few rolls of Provia slide. Or some negative film, Portra, Ektar, Pro400h. Send them to a proper lab for dev and scan. You might be pleasantly surprised.
Or if you are into instagram and filters get some cheap film, kodacolor, superia200/400, colorplus 200, vista 200. See where all the hype comes from.
Are you a b&w buff? Then you have to try T-Max and Tri-x. There's no substitute.

Good for you. Sometimes I wish film had been right for me, but for me it was when digital came of age and I got Lightroom that I could finally do those tweaks I had always wanted to do with my photos before, turning them into my own vision.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 17:37 UTC
In reply to:

goloby: All I'm asking is for every hobbyist or professional photographer out there that has never tried film to give it a go. Get an old film camera, they are cheap. Most of your digital lenses will work. Buy a few rolls of Provia slide. Or some negative film, Portra, Ektar, Pro400h. Send them to a proper lab for dev and scan. You might be pleasantly surprised.
Or if you are into instagram and filters get some cheap film, kodacolor, superia200/400, colorplus 200, vista 200. See where all the hype comes from.
Are you a b&w buff? Then you have to try T-Max and Tri-x. There's no substitute.

I used film for years before digital showed up, long enough to have earned the right to make "bold assertions" or "stick labels" on it. If your idea of photography is to create an image, than it's no more or less authentic or needing more or less skill than digital: It's just using different tools for the same job, and it's all a matter of preference and what keeps you in touch with the creative process. Just because you use a digital camera doesn't automatically prevent you from thinking before you shoot, nor does it necessarily make taking pictures less fun. Just like religion, it might be right for you, but that is no reason to think it is valid for the rest of us.

Now, if you choose film over digital just because you think it is more authentic (nostalgic?), fun and needs more skill, then I'd say that sort of defines "retro chic". If you do it because you're more comfortable with the tools and you feel they get less in the way of your creativity, then it's not.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 15:26 UTC
In reply to:

goloby: All I'm asking is for every hobbyist or professional photographer out there that has never tried film to give it a go. Get an old film camera, they are cheap. Most of your digital lenses will work. Buy a few rolls of Provia slide. Or some negative film, Portra, Ektar, Pro400h. Send them to a proper lab for dev and scan. You might be pleasantly surprised.
Or if you are into instagram and filters get some cheap film, kodacolor, superia200/400, colorplus 200, vista 200. See where all the hype comes from.
Are you a b&w buff? Then you have to try T-Max and Tri-x. There's no substitute.

Oh my - sounds like film is becoming retro chic now...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 12:03 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: I sometimes scan drawings. Then it is important that the lens system is rectilinear, or there is some compensation. For my old Perfection 3200, it is not. So, the resulting scan gets slightly compressed along the long side.

Any way to find out how linear scanners are?

I've been using the Epson 4990 for I believe more than 10 years now. Though I did purchase it with film scanning in mind, it has seen more drawings and paintings scanned on it, and I haven't noticed any linearity issues after thousands of images scanned.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 12:01 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: 'Dual lens system for optimised film (6400dpi)'

Highly inaccurate and misleading.
I don't know why companies can't list the true resolution...

2300DPI sounds more realistic. I have heard people test the much older 4990 to 1700. My experience tells me it is a tad more, but the point is that the dpi claims of scanner makers are quite overrated. Just because it scans at those bloated resolutions doesn't mean it actually resolves that much detail - just like cameras with many megapixels and small sensors, come to think of it. It just creates unnecessarily large files with poor per-pixel detail and sharpness.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 11:54 UTC
In reply to:

fmian: 'Dual lens system for optimised film (6400dpi)'

Highly inaccurate and misleading.
I don't know why companies can't list the true resolution...

Only large format scanners aimed only at professional use lists the actual true resolution. If you find the optimum scanning height, though, an Epson flatbed isn't too bad. My guess is you could get something close to 3000ppi, if my experiences with the Epson 4990 is anything to go by where I get more resolution at 2400dpi than at 1800dpi when I keep the object to be scanned at a certain distance from the glass. I find it better for artwork than for film, though. When "scanning" my old slides and negatives, I found the results from a Canon 5D and a macro lens superior to the scanner.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 08:16 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 First Impressions Review preview (1312 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artistico: If image quality is on par with the specifications, this is going to be an amazing little camera. I'd also be interested to see whether lowering the megapixels from the MFT "standard" of 16 will affect noise and dynamic range. Makes me tempted to trade in my GM1 and get this one. It hinges a bit on image quality too, of course.

@breivogel. There is a logical flaw in your comment. I'll leave you to find it.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 15:42 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 First Impressions Review preview (1312 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artistico: If image quality is on par with the specifications, this is going to be an amazing little camera. I'd also be interested to see whether lowering the megapixels from the MFT "standard" of 16 will affect noise and dynamic range. Makes me tempted to trade in my GM1 and get this one. It hinges a bit on image quality too, of course.

Yes, I realised that a bit after writing the comment. So, same sensor pixel pitch as the other micro four thirds cameras, basically. It doesn't make it any less interesting a camera, though. It depends on the lens performance, really.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 23, 2014 at 12:19 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX100 First Impressions Review preview (1312 comments in total)

If image quality is on par with the specifications, this is going to be an amazing little camera. I'd also be interested to see whether lowering the megapixels from the MFT "standard" of 16 will affect noise and dynamic range. Makes me tempted to trade in my GM1 and get this one. It hinges a bit on image quality too, of course.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 22, 2014 at 21:44 UTC as 32nd comment | 4 replies
On Hands-on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 article (234 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zoron: why it doesn't have a flip screen again?

Because that would make it a few fractions of an inch thicker, which would make its size so much bigger it would no longer fit into the pockets of the Panasonic R&D team.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2014 at 08:59 UTC
On Samsung NX1 First Impressions Review preview (633 comments in total)
In reply to:

peevee1: DPR, what is the battery life? It is missing from the specs.

Then put it in your pocket.

Anyway, since you're so worried about battery life, I'm sure you'd have needed a spare for peace of mind regardless of listed battery life.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 16, 2014 at 20:37 UTC
On Hands-on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM5 article (234 comments in total)

I like where the ultra-micro 4/3 form factor is going. For now I'll stick with my GM1, though, despite missing having a viewfinder every now and again, but perhaps a future GM6 or GM7 will be my next camera.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 22:23 UTC as 35th comment
In reply to:

princecody: What 3 people on here already on this lens? I wanna know how!

Yes. I can't see the point of that "own it", "want it", "had it" thing, as people click that they have or had things that have not been released and that they would never get anyway.

As for me, I sold mine on eBay. My Panasonic GM-1 got too front-heavy...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 21:50 UTC
On Canon unveils PowerShot G7 X with 1"-type sensor article (51 comments in total)
In reply to:

Markol: Nice tribute to the RX100 and would have been a killer 2 years ago.
Almost exact copy of the RX100 with a Panasonic model number. Great innovation!

Canon used G7 as a model number in 2006, I think it's a bit unfair to say they stole the product number from Panasonic when it's more the other way around, although I still find it strange why they would call it G7X anyway. It's not like it's a G7 with a bit Xtra...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 15, 2014 at 14:52 UTC
In reply to:

znerk: Just purchased a r3000, and the shop owner said he couldn't possibly think the r3000 would be replaced... Guess he had wrong, fukkkkkk

Yes, and magically, just after the new one was announced, the one you bought stopped printing beautiful prints. Same thing happens every time they announce successors to my cameras too. My old ones suddenly lose resolution, dynamic range and ISO performance, rendering them useless.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 14, 2014 at 09:36 UTC
In reply to:

Mahmoud Mousef: electronic paper (re-usable, durable and infinitely rewritable) & printers that print on various affordable e-paper sizes will get my wallet out and excitement levels up. Far too much e-waste with the backwards pricing of inks, clogged printers and cheapened laser printers with low yield toner too. I think we are all tired of these cheap tricks and the waste of experimenting with expensive inks and single-use photo paper.

Bring on the e-paper revolution.

Why would you need to print it 8 times before getting it perfect? Sounds like whatever your workflow is now you're doing something wrong if you need to waste that much ink and paper to get it right.

Also, wouldn't something worth printing 8 times to get perfect be something you wanted to keep forever? If so, e-paper would be a lot more expensive than regular paper.

If you really need laser printers, you get more expensive ones with better toner yields, not the "competitively priced" ones that cost less than toner. Those are a complete rip-off.

Replacing paper with e-paper would not work in so many different ways. If the price ever got reasonable enough for it to make sense replacing traditional paper with it, people would also be throwing it away, making it a lot worse than throwing paper away today...

Direct link | Posted on Sep 14, 2014 at 09:31 UTC
In reply to:

Artistico: Even without the red dot, I like that it still looks like a Leica. Perhaps it's a stealth thing. Without the red dot, it's less likely to be noticed or stolen. Then again, the resale value might suffer, so I'm sure you'll get people adding a red dot themselves, just like I've seen someone add red rings to non-L Canon lenses and selling them on eBay. Interestingly, the buyers actually bought them for more than the lenses cost new, which goes to show what we already knew: people like showing off their iconic brand looks.

Surely, if all hipsters have a Leica, it's not hip anymore, so they would need to get something else. The Hasselblad Solar springs to mind...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 15:43 UTC
On Sony a7S used to shoot Chevrolet commercial article (278 comments in total)
In reply to:

dash2k8: All these haters coming out of the woods! I see this situation as Company A decided to use Device B to shoot Commercial C. Who cares what they use, as long as they get the desired results? The Mona Lisa was painted with a 0 megapixel camel hair brush but the result wasn't so bad, was it?

If you don't like the A7s, say "I don't like the A7s" or "I would use something more powerful/expensive/professional." To dump on this camera just because it's not an Arri is nothing but self-service.

Oh yes, Rafael was brilliant. Michelangelo, on the other hand, was vastly overrated as a painter, but better as a sculptor. DaVinci was okay, but it's not his paintings that are his best or most interesting work.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 15:41 UTC
Total: 259, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »