Blaufeld

Blaufeld

Lives in Italy Grosseto, Italy
Works as a IT.A.F. N.C.O.
Joined on Jul 30, 2012

Comments

Total: 38, showing: 21 – 38
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

69chevy: These people are ruining the world.

First, they are changing out of their sweatpants, and leaving their houses.

Next, they are taking photographs with no regards for ISO, noise, or DR.

Then they have the nerve to go meet other people... in person!!

They should stay put, and stop enjoying themselves.

Their Insta-crap is ruining my fun of sitting home on a photography forum talking trash about cameras I don't know how to use.

Well, so because I usually take my mirrorless camera with me in my bike or bicycletrips shooting and talking with people, spending more time with my eye on the evf than on the screen photoshopping, that I would like using Instagram?
I've used Instagram, and, guess?
For making photos IT SUCKS.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2012 at 12:54 UTC
In reply to:

Abe Adew: funny how the "real" photographers with their "real" cameras giving a bad rap about this article.
The reality is, we have a single App that brings a community closer together through the love of photography. Great people, great idea, honorable mission.

you see, "real" photographers.. no amount of your medium format portfolios can have impact as big as these people with their camphone.

"Great people, great idea, honorable mission."
"Impact as big as these people with their camphone."

Pleeaseee......
It's just hip-sterness at its WORST.
If for "impact" you mean like a truck loaded with manure that comes tumbling downhill toward a local dairy products exposition, I agree...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2012 at 11:12 UTC
In reply to:

Adrian Harris: What the F is instagram, will it help me be a better photographer?

Nope, just a "spray and pray" one.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2012 at 11:08 UTC

I tought that the meaning of photography was taking a meaningful image that tries to convey a message or to elicit an emotional response...
Here we have casual snapshots laden with a filter and uploaded to a network saturated with "white noise" in the meager hope that someone will click the "like" button and fill the hopeless need for attention...
I'm not a snob, I simply can't stand all this "social" crap.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2012 at 11:07 UTC as 8th comment | 10 replies

Today the Olympics are a great ground for useless marketing stunts.
Yawn...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2012 at 11:00 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

RichardBalonglong: Many "photographers" here really had a big problem against iPhone or any smartphone users. Many of these "photographers" really complain on the technicalities side of photography like resolution, pixels, white balance. Is photography for these complainers is all about pixels, resolution, etc..? I guess they thought if they had the "best" and most expensive camera equipment out there, they feel like they're "professionals" and a good photographer. I guess these people complain against people using iPhones to create photographs can't create great photos from a "crappy" cameras...

And worse, they can't make a meaningful/moving image with their "greatest and baddest" pro camera that is currently sitting in their closets while they are busy reading gear reviews and arguing on blogs about photography... :)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2012 at 07:57 UTC
In reply to:

Cincojoe: WOW this site amazes me. You call yourselfs photographers? Really? Shouldnt you be supporting a fellow photographer no matter what he used to take the photos? They are photos. Just that. Nothing more. A moment captured in time. You guys are nothing but gear heads that pixel peep and totally miss out on the big picture. I can only hope you're not like this in your everyday lives and I surely hope you don't act like this around your children if you have any. WOW.

"if they disagree with me--I DON'T CARE how good they are, I won't hire them. I'm dead serious."

You are a real pro.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2012 at 07:53 UTC
In reply to:

happypoppeye: Some great images ...you guys do know these are downsized for a blog right?
But, people tend to get really defensive when they throw so much money at an item thinking it will make them better photographers.

"Better" as in "like a postcard", yes.
"Better" as in "having more meaning/able to create an emotional response", no.
;)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2012 at 07:50 UTC
In reply to:

JadedGamer: As has been said countless times, the best camera in the world is the one you have with you there and then.

Saying "what wonderful photos, you must have a really professional camera" is on the level with saying "wonderful food, you must have a really advanced food processor" or "you run really fast, you must have really great shoes"...

Ah, the hobby wannabees... Delight of the marketing department.. ;)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2012 at 11:17 UTC
In reply to:

larrytusaz: I agree with (qwertyasdf) why would a PRO use the wrong tool for something like this? Gee whiz, I just came back from a vacation in the Ozark mountains, I took an Olympus E-PL1 and Nikon D5100. The camera in my phone never saw the light of day--and I know what I was doing was hardly as significant as this.

The gear doesn't matter, not one bit--okay, fine. I guess it's time for Nikon & Canon to close their doors? Maybe the chefs there who cook for the important people can bring their Stouffer's microwave "meals in a bag," since--you know, "if you're a good cook you should be able to make a great meal using a hot plate and a bag of dirt." Or--maybe the reporters can write their stories using a box of Crayons & coloring books. If these guys are such good swimmers, wouldn't a mud hole be good enough, why bother with a pool with specific dimensions--after all, "it's all in the swimmer's skill level?"

Ugh. Enough of this. Just change your name to "cameras-are-for-luddites.com" already.

Larry, the iPhone has the capabilities to make shots worthy of magazine publication. Since the client want a competent end product, he will gladly accept that, WHATEVER IS THE HARDWARE USED.
If you want to delude yourself thinking that him will ask "What is the camera used", you are buying the corporate Canikon crap.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2012 at 11:13 UTC
In reply to:

larrytusaz: I agree with (qwertyasdf) why would a PRO use the wrong tool for something like this? Gee whiz, I just came back from a vacation in the Ozark mountains, I took an Olympus E-PL1 and Nikon D5100. The camera in my phone never saw the light of day--and I know what I was doing was hardly as significant as this.

The gear doesn't matter, not one bit--okay, fine. I guess it's time for Nikon & Canon to close their doors? Maybe the chefs there who cook for the important people can bring their Stouffer's microwave "meals in a bag," since--you know, "if you're a good cook you should be able to make a great meal using a hot plate and a bag of dirt." Or--maybe the reporters can write their stories using a box of Crayons & coloring books. If these guys are such good swimmers, wouldn't a mud hole be good enough, why bother with a pool with specific dimensions--after all, "it's all in the swimmer's skill level?"

Ugh. Enough of this. Just change your name to "cameras-are-for-luddites.com" already.

Cmon, its not about making pictures with crayons, it is more like making photographs with what can be considered a nice point-and-shoot camera that has its limitations but can be used by a pro for a nice satisfying job. And yes, for magazine use this is a SERIOUS blow to the traditional photographer market.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2012 at 07:24 UTC

Now the "Pro Gear Police" will come in this thread and start beating everyone with their Canikon cameras... ;)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2012 at 07:20 UTC as 55th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

thincrust88: Just viewed the pics on the Panasonic website...

I'm sorry, but not a single image stands out.

I too think that lately the photographer is choosing poorly. I doubt that with an high-end camera these images could be better - they simply "lacks pizzaz", even if they are "good enough" for the typical magazine/web Olympics report.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2012 at 06:41 UTC

" The stuff we can buy now for $899 (G5) or $1299 (The Olympus OMD) is so much better when it comes to on sensor performance than anything that pros shot at the Olympics four and eight years ago that it's laughable. And the two targets for the work haven't gotten one lick better. All the images are destined for magazines or the web. The images, from a quality point of view, whether from a 16 meg Nikon D4 or a 16 meg Panasonic G5 are both ultimately limited by the conversion to CMYK (much more limited gamma, weaker blacks), the transfer to a lower line screen resolution, the lower reflective value of the cheap paper and the vagaries of matching inks to an electronic sensor output. Bigger isn't going to make a difference. Same with relative noise performance."
Kirk Tuck, original post at http://visualsciencelab.blogspot.it/2012/07/the-ever-changing-perspective-of.html
I gave you a little bit of advice: read his blog, thake a look at his LEVEL of work and the GEAR he uses. ;)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2012 at 13:31 UTC as 14th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Kissel: Fast and reliable AF really matters for sports photography, and Panny proved it's capable back in the times when GH2 was introduced.
G5 doesn't shine with it's continious shooting though, with only 6fps, but hey, it's a enrty-level camera.

A REAL pro photographer is well able to do competent shots even with a speed of 2-3 frames per second, "spray-and-pray" is the REAL mark of a wannabe.
And I'm not sorry for anyone feeling offended, soccer dads included.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2012 at 12:50 UTC
On Review: Nokia 808 PureView article (348 comments in total)
In reply to:

Debankur Mukherjee: Its sad to see a great company like Nokia making such innovative products but adopting out of date OS and Windows........
Think of this device running on Android.....

It's very clear you have never had a Samsung Galaxy S 2 (yes, i said 2 on purpose, even that has features the rest of the mobile phone world can only dream).
BTW: the addicted simpletons buy an iPhone...

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2012 at 13:19 UTC

MMhhhh... the top ten earning photographers in the US make money shooting corporate/political portraits and architectural portfolios with medium format cameras.
So according to the conventional wisdom of the typical poster here, they are not "Pro".

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2012 at 08:21 UTC as 21st comment

I suggest to take a look at the 28 July post of Tuck on his blog, "The Visual Science Lab".
I concur with him: there are too much self-appointed "Pro Photographers" that cling to old-fashioned (and corporate-fuelled) concepts of what is and what is not "Pro gear".
Please remeber that the 2008 Olympics saw the "pro" use of a Canon EOS 30D,
a camera that today is totally trumped in every aspects by a lowly Olympus OM-D or Panasonic G3.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 30, 2012 at 08:48 UTC as 35th comment
Total: 38, showing: 21 – 38
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »