chadley_chad

chadley_chad

Lives in United Kingdom Nottingham, United Kingdom
Joined on Aug 26, 2011

Comments

Total: 320, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

chadley_chad: Remind me never to publish my work for all the 'DP CRITICS' to shred into a million pieces!

Cheers

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 21:09 UTC

Remind me never to publish my work for all the 'DP CRITICS' to shred into a million pieces!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 22:42 UTC as 14th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Rob: It's a nice effort, but at that level of attempted realism, the CGI work is subpar. She's lacking some fundamental knowledge of visual art, such as how to cast shadows properly in perspective according to light source's angle relative to the subject and vanishing points. That is first year concept art/illustration/industrial design stuff in a good art school.

The creatures themselves are also a bit flat and unconvincing. A much better choice would have been using 3D and doing photorealistic renders that look more like the kind of realism we'd see in movie special effects (which is totally doable with cheap, off-the-shelf 3D software these days if you have the skill). If you guys want to see this type of work done at the professional level, go to cgsociety.org and look in the galleries--all are works done at the level of Hollywood blockbusters, but often by young CG artists who specialize in this type of work, and many are not even pros but hobbyists.

And now Mr Know-it-all backtracks!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 10, 2014 at 11:00 UTC

Some stupid comments follow ....

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2014 at 20:32 UTC as 27th comment
In reply to:

Rob: It's a nice effort, but at that level of attempted realism, the CGI work is subpar. She's lacking some fundamental knowledge of visual art, such as how to cast shadows properly in perspective according to light source's angle relative to the subject and vanishing points. That is first year concept art/illustration/industrial design stuff in a good art school.

The creatures themselves are also a bit flat and unconvincing. A much better choice would have been using 3D and doing photorealistic renders that look more like the kind of realism we'd see in movie special effects (which is totally doable with cheap, off-the-shelf 3D software these days if you have the skill). If you guys want to see this type of work done at the professional level, go to cgsociety.org and look in the galleries--all are works done at the level of Hollywood blockbusters, but often by young CG artists who specialize in this type of work, and many are not even pros but hobbyists.

I'm sure she was chuffed and her friends impressed ... Which is what it's all about. Know it all art/photography snobs I'm sure are the last of her cares!!!!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2014 at 20:30 UTC
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: TWO REASONS WHY CAMERA COMPANIES ARE LOSING MONEY: 1. Capitalism is dying (finally), because it is based on faulty mathematics, so it has to end at some point. 2. NOBODY CARES ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY ANYMORE. The only people who care are the obsessives who think looking at an inferior 2-D representation of something on a screen is better than appreciating the real thing with your eyes in real time. Now that everone has a camera, people are waking up and thinking, what the hell is the point of photography? Why don't I just look at the world with my eyes and stop wasting valuable resources and valuable time doing a pointless activity?

Oh dear oh dear Tord ... you've been trolled!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 12:29 UTC
In reply to:

Zerg2905: GoPro should write a letter to Canon, asking how to make a ridiculous amount of money from not interesting / capable / ubermarket / (here you can insert your own word) products... :)

@Mr Blah ... actually, you got it wrong, because Canons recent sales model involves downgrading the hardware and some features before reaming and launching at a higher price (EOS1200D anyone?). The model you're referring to I think relates to Apple .... But this is a photography site and we don't talk about mobile phones here :-)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 10:50 UTC
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: TWO REASONS WHY CAMERA COMPANIES ARE LOSING MONEY: 1. Capitalism is dying (finally), because it is based on faulty mathematics, so it has to end at some point. 2. NOBODY CARES ABOUT PHOTOGRAPHY ANYMORE. The only people who care are the obsessives who think looking at an inferior 2-D representation of something on a screen is better than appreciating the real thing with your eyes in real time. Now that everone has a camera, people are waking up and thinking, what the hell is the point of photography? Why don't I just look at the world with my eyes and stop wasting valuable resources and valuable time doing a pointless activity?

Do pointless activities include writing nonsense on camera sites!

Luckily it's clear you're trolling; I'd hate everyone to think you were a jerk ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 10:45 UTC
In reply to:

tom1234567: The Monkey takes better photos than some on here??????????

.... and when a new pocket camera comes out, moans there's no hotshoe or EVF!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 10:38 UTC

Sorry sir, you dont own the copyright.

If I were him, I'd be going ape!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 10:36 UTC as 221st comment
In reply to:

Jeff Seltzer: More predictable than the sun rising, the collection of people here calling someone else's work nonsense and worthless. Probably the same people who walk into a modern art museum claiming, "I can do this...what's the big deal?" Well, here's the thing: you did NOT do it. Someone else did, and this is the case here, too. Maybe one day your pictures of puppies, cute kids, sunsets, and flower macros will be in an art gallery, but until then, try to be more respectful and understanding. Maybe you'll actually learn something.

@EricCul

I merely said I didn't like the work; there's nothing disparaging or discouraging about that; and again, I don't see why I have to show my work to make my comments more valid. I remain polite and civil and stand by my original statement that the technique may be clever, but the outcome, for me, is not something I like or what I find pleasing or impressive to view (more confusing ... and should we really have to explain an image; surely a good image says it all!). Guess I'm not 'arty' enough lol!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 5, 2014 at 10:56 UTC
In reply to:

Jeff Seltzer: More predictable than the sun rising, the collection of people here calling someone else's work nonsense and worthless. Probably the same people who walk into a modern art museum claiming, "I can do this...what's the big deal?" Well, here's the thing: you did NOT do it. Someone else did, and this is the case here, too. Maybe one day your pictures of puppies, cute kids, sunsets, and flower macros will be in an art gallery, but until then, try to be more respectful and understanding. Maybe you'll actually learn something.

So, because I don't upload any of my work to the forums, I don't have the right to say I don't like someone else's work? As badi rightly says, one does not have to be a painter to like or dislike a painting.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2014 at 19:53 UTC
In reply to:

OliverGlass: Any photographer/artist doing something creative and showing something different is way better than the armchair critic who has no work to show.

Is it ... Can we not be critics unless we've published work ourselves???

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2014 at 22:41 UTC
In reply to:

Jeff Seltzer: More predictable than the sun rising, the collection of people here calling someone else's work nonsense and worthless. Probably the same people who walk into a modern art museum claiming, "I can do this...what's the big deal?" Well, here's the thing: you did NOT do it. Someone else did, and this is the case here, too. Maybe one day your pictures of puppies, cute kids, sunsets, and flower macros will be in an art gallery, but until then, try to be more respectful and understanding. Maybe you'll actually learn something.

... although let's not forget, both art and photography are subjective and everyone is welcome to their views. Personally, I didn't like these or the process, but each to their own. I think it's ok to say 'I don't like these' as long as its polite; and for people to lecture others for not being impressed or admirable ... Well, that's unfair.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 3, 2014 at 22:38 UTC
In reply to:

DigiMatt: I know not to expect much from the DPR crowd but really these comments are full of ignorance. Most of you have confused camera negative film with distribution print films. These are two TOTALLY different things for different purposes and demonstrate the folly of DPR readers who comment about things of which they know nothing.

The deal today was to help keep camera negative film in production. This is the film that is actually used in the movie cameras. There are no issues with light fluctuation or bad quality with camera film. What you all have complained about was worn out or misused/abused film print distributions. This is no longer an issue as the vast majority of movies are shown digitally, whether they were shot on film or digital cameras.

Wow Digimatt ... Way to make friends and influence people. (Or in other words, how rude!)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 09:05 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (630 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kay Fisher: I was excited to see the V1 but couldn't understand or live without bracketing.
I watched for firmware update for bracketing but...
Then the V2 came out - still no bracketing..
Then the V3 came out and still no bracketing and now they took off the viewfinder.
Go figure.

@richard Murdey .... No idea what that comment is supposed to mean but its clear your the sort that sticks your £90 camera on auto and snaps away. For those more creative, bracketing in most cases is essential. You should investigate it before knocking it!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 22:06 UTC
On Nikon 1 V3 First Impressions Review preview (630 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kay Fisher: I was excited to see the V1 but couldn't understand or live without bracketing.
I watched for firmware update for bracketing but...
Then the V2 came out - still no bracketing..
Then the V3 came out and still no bracketing and now they took off the viewfinder.
Go figure.

Same reason why I never went with the D3000 series .... Great little low cost camera, ruined by not having something as simple as bracketing. Stupid!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2014 at 20:55 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 First Impressions Review preview (1282 comments in total)
In reply to:

minzaw: Sony and Apple are a well known ripped off companies.Remember Sony attempted with sony memory sticks now obsolete >>> now all sony cameras use SD or micro SD card

Well that's odd, as I have 3 NEX models and only use one type of battery. Of course I also own an RX100 and that does have a different battery, as I would expect. Neither would I expect to be able to use another battery from another manufacturer ... So your point is?

As for memory stick - that was no different to Olympus developing XD memory (was it Olympus) - its just in this case Sonys version (like Betamax and minidisc) wasn't that great. Memory sticks were the reason I didn't selected Sony products, so I voted with my wallet ... But I didn't moan about Sony trying to force this technology upon me or feel forced to part with my money as you suggest these companies make you do. Don't like .... Buy something else.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2014 at 10:08 UTC
On Ricoh announces Pentax XG-1 superzoom article (195 comments in total)

I've seen these in Poundland .... It's not a camera, its a drinks flask.

It has to be right ... Surely no one would build something so new using such an old screen and EVF specification .... Would they?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2014 at 09:56 UTC as 37th comment | 4 replies
On Ricoh announces Pentax XG-1 superzoom article (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zigadiboom: Hmmm if this camera had a constant f1.2 aperture throughout the entire zoom range where it could just slip into your pocket it might have maybe had half a chance against the likes of the Panasonic FZ-1000 and Sony RX10.

Yeah, and if only it were also covered in gold, made pizza and had a foldable 12" screen!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2014 at 09:52 UTC
Total: 320, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »