rallyfan

rallyfan

Lives in Wakanda
Works as a Professional
Joined on Feb 5, 2011

Comments

Total: 322, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
In reply to:

marike6: Some are trying to make this about free speech, suggesting that DPR is some beacon lighting the way for free speech by posting "A Day in the Life of the KKK" stories. DPR uses an expletive filter as curse words offend some users. Just like some don't want to read curse words, some users don't want to login to DPR to see "A Day in the Life of the KKK" images. Even though this story is more about photographing the secretive, typically clandestine KKK, some users may find these images offensive because of what the KKK stands for. In that sense they are not appropriate for DPR.

So I'm not interested in seeing stories dealing with extremists as there are enough great photographers covering more positive things to last a whole year of stories. Obviously others with different perspectives aren't outraged by groups like this. That's fine too. But judging by the extremely contentious comments I'd say that politics or ethics are not at all good topic for a site like DPR.

I come here to use the comparison tools for gear.

This is an article about... another article that happened to have pictures.

I'd have rather seen a review of the now-superseded Panasonic G5. Why? Because this was a camera review site.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 16, 2013 at 07:31 UTC
In reply to:

Provia_fan: Film was never this sharp because it was more faithful than digital is. It's almost like the old vynil vs CD debate. Are CDs really better because it cuts off unwanted frequencies?

Very useful comment, thank you.

I had pictured (no pun intended...) film at the microscopic level as binary analogue but I like your explanation much better

Direct link | Posted on Aug 16, 2013 at 06:48 UTC

So guys, if this article generates enough clicks, would you consider a follow-up on something like cannibalistic infanticide? It might get some click-throughs to the Gearshop site.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 16, 2013 at 06:40 UTC as 30th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Edward Crim: Your statement about Anthony Karen, that he "has gone on to photograph white supremacist groups, the infamous Westboro Baptist Church and the Ku Klux Klan." implies that Westboro Baptist Church is a whie supremacist group akin to the KKK, which is not true. Fred Phelps, for all his vitriol against homosexuals, does not profess the superiority of the white "race", but rather the opposite. He was active in the civil rights movement at a time when few other attorneys were (yes, he is an attorney). He took cases others wouldn't. He and his followers argue that race is inconsequential to standing in law. Read the article linked below.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/05/05/hate.preacher/index.html

I believe you are correct. I heard one of his children on the radio; she said she is a civil rights lawyer.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 16, 2013 at 06:38 UTC
In reply to:

Provia_fan: Film was never this sharp because it was more faithful than digital is. It's almost like the old vynil vs CD debate. Are CDs really better because it cuts off unwanted frequencies?

The statement is illogical.

The data are widely available. Whether you like one "look" over another is a matter of personal msiconception (what some might leniently refer to as "personal taste"). However, data are data.

In any case, I prefer you continue seeing film as "better," as explained above, if you are generating images for second-party use. If you are shooting for yourself I don't care either way.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 15, 2013 at 01:07 UTC
In reply to:

Provia_fan: Film was never this sharp because it was more faithful than digital is. It's almost like the old vynil vs CD debate. Are CDs really better because it cuts off unwanted frequencies?

By implying I'm blind you're resorting to insults, ostensibly in lieu of a logical argument.

By implying I can't see a difference between film and digital, you're resorting to a straw man argument, as in fact I've never stated I can't see a difference. In fact, if someone helps you re-read my post, you might come to understand that I specifically point out differences.

However I'm not here to argue or to generate an air of negativity. Instead I'll focus on what you and I have in common.

Example: Neither you, nor I, know what you are talking about.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2013 at 22:34 UTC
In reply to:

rallyfan: I can't disagree. Images have never been better, work flow has never been easier to manipulate, and products have never been easier to share.

A lot of the criticisms tend to boil down to angst-driven "get off my lawn!" cries from self-annointed purists that have the time to cry in the wilderness.

Most people simply go on shooting images. Life moves on.

I can't speak for production houses. There is a specific "look" to well-shot movies that is attractive even in my view, but that's only because it reminds me of the outdoor cinemas I'd visit during the summers of my childhood. It's no more accurate than any other image from the past. Maybe the houses are striving for that look to augment rose-coloured glasses worn by their audiences. I don't know, but I suspect simple nostalgia rather than a desire for accuracy.

I can't speak for camera manufacturers either, but I suspect their marketing propaganda sometimes speaks of "film-like" qualities in order to target a specific clientele. Nostalgia sells sometimes. Previous generations spoke of "the good old days" and by that they meant the... 1940s. We tend to overlook flaws and problems from the past because they're gone, and we miss the years more than we miss the difficulties.

As film users age, they will invariably require more and more health care. Autoradiogrammes are now digital...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2013 at 18:22 UTC
In reply to:

rallyfan: I think the main take-home message of the story is to beware from whom you rent lenses.

Of course, I wouldn't know that... Thanks so much for pointing things out to me. Your wisdom is a blessing to all.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2013 at 18:11 UTC
In reply to:

Dimitris Servis: Why so much rant about KR? Everyone does his job the best way they can and make a living. You don't like him you don't read his stuff! I sometimes visit his page when I am bored to have some fun, he is so USish exotic to me! And I love the way he tries to exalt the most casual snapshot to a work of art.

I have to agree though, that quoting KR for anything else than blabber is kind of indicative of your understanding of the current field of photography...

One of the more appalling qualities of his site frankly is his overt nationalism. It's a bit creepy actually. Luckily the general population is not, in my limited experience at least, as aggressively ethno- (or even ego-) centric.

A few years back when I visited the site, his sabre-rattling was rivaled only by his self-promotion.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2013 at 18:10 UTC
On Is the snapshot dead? post (70 comments in total)
In reply to:

Puddleglum: Cranky old photographer wants the kids off his lawn. News at 11.

11 is past his bed time. News at 6; no sooner because he needs time to get home from the early bird dinner special (5pm).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2013 at 18:03 UTC
In reply to:

Antony John: Anyone notice the D800 had the worst 'weeks to repair' for cameras at 65 weeks?

No.

We don't just buy brands, we "buy" the distribution/support system. We therefore generally buy Canon. The guy is a ring away. Granted, I usually want something yesterday and for free (a compromise from my original stance, two days ago and you pay me...) and he usually wants to deliver something in two weeks for a lot of money, but he's better than Nikon.

The worst? Setting aside consumer stuff like Samsung, I'd say the current worst is Pentax. Distributor in one city; service in another. They apparently rarely speak. Go figure.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2013 at 18:01 UTC
In reply to:

Provia_fan: Film was never this sharp because it was more faithful than digital is. It's almost like the old vynil vs CD debate. Are CDs really better because it cuts off unwanted frequencies?

There is a certain delusional quality to the "vinyl sounds best" argument that at this point is almost certainly pathological, as the data indicating the contrary have been readily available for decades. In any case, I don't care what on what format you listen, or to what you listen.

The same type of delusional state is also apparent in the "film looks best" argument. In this case, though, I do care. PLEASE continue thinking film is best.

I've got money on it, so to speak. The more of you that try to convince people grain is better than detail, the more of you that carry on about a dead guy that carried field cameras up mountains to photograph a bunch of rocks 60 years ago, the more of you that ramble meaningless drivel about another dead guy that built a small, light camera suitable for social "posing" by owners and voyerism, the more clients will come looking for an image that actaully suits their needs -- a digital image.

Thanks boys!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2013 at 17:55 UTC
On Is the snapshot dead? post (70 comments in total)

Slow day so you went with this, eh?

So, are there going to be "articles" about snapshots based on the views of some random obsessed guy in Reykjavik or maybe Kampala next?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2013 at 07:58 UTC as 28th comment
In reply to:

G3User: These images don't impress me. Camera manufactures strive to produce great images from their products and then this guys throughs a yellow instagram filter on them, very unprofessional. I would expect this from my teenage daughter but not a pro. The expressions of the 2 people at the top are not very nice, they are saying to the Frank " I have no respect for you, put that camera down".

It's a highly stylized, very deliberately shot series in general.

I don't watch it, it's too much of a chick flick frankly, but the way it's shot is very nice in my view.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2013 at 01:36 UTC

I can't disagree. Images have never been better, work flow has never been easier to manipulate, and products have never been easier to share.

A lot of the criticisms tend to boil down to angst-driven "get off my lawn!" cries from self-annointed purists that have the time to cry in the wilderness.

Most people simply go on shooting images. Life moves on.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2013 at 01:34 UTC as 30th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

chillgreg: It's very simple. Ren Kockwell (no google indexing for this post) is an outright idiot, a buffoon, and a snob. His language and attitude have become progressively more arrogant and condescending over the years. Any knowledge of value he once offered is now mired in the sickly sweet treacle of fake virtuosity and blind narcissism.

Is it out of the realm of possibility that he's actually developmentally disabled? Just curious.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2013 at 01:32 UTC
In reply to:

wildbild: The Lytro is not a consumer product.
It is still this great technology that hasn't found it's purpose, yet.

If it's not a consumer product why do users have to go through the silly hoops of sending their images to a third party server and deal with... Facebook logins and such rubbish?

Do you send your images offsite during your normal work flow?

So, it seems they've not targeted serious use (yet?), they've targeted novelty use. Except nobody paid money for what looks like a talcum container and does everything except, well, take actual usable pictures now, today, right this instant -- what people actually want, in other words.

If they're targeting non-casual users, they need to get off the "our servers" model. It's not that kind of party.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2013 at 01:30 UTC

I think the main take-home message of the story is to beware from whom you rent lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 13, 2013 at 23:11 UTC as 34th comment | 2 replies
On Preview:canon-eos-70d (1311 comments in total)
In reply to:

FrankS009: These are big, heavy cameras with big heavy lenses. Would not want to lug one any farther than I would have to.

F.

He's no longer with us physically. Whether he carried a field camera up a mountain to take pictures of a bunch of rocks or whether he also carried 200 kg of IWF-approved bumper plates makes no difference. That's his problem.

He's irrelevant.

He'd be relevant if he were carrying my bag. He's be useful if he were carrying my bag.

He's not.

It really is that simple.

I'll leave whether what you did 35 years ago is relevant to your imagination. I suspect you can guess the answer...

Light is right. What I can lift and what I prefer to lift are two very different things.

The real competition to the 70D is Canon's 100D. The real question is, "for a second body in the kit, does the smallest DSLR in the range give up too much in terms of features that are actually useful to this medium-range body?"

Posted on Aug 13, 2013 at 20:37 UTC
In reply to:

rfsIII: Maybe people in the US are so passionate about cameras because they look around and realize they have nothing else...The see a government run by moral cowards whose only goal is to destroy the other party regardless of the devastation it inflicts on the actual public; their banks are run by thieves who reap fortunes by selling worthless paper and never face a minute in jail; their clergy, when not excoriating the poor and downtrodden or preying on altar boys, preach a message whose main point is "hate thy neighbor unless he is exactly like thyself"; and finally, they work for Dickensian plutocrats who take glee in squeezing every drop of life and joy from their employees while paying them less and less each year in inflation adjusted terms.

Mr. Bilton is lucky he escaped with just a scolding, it could have been so much worse...

All this talk of food is making me hungry...

Direct link | Posted on Aug 13, 2013 at 20:32 UTC
Total: 322, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »