AD in KC

Joined on Dec 12, 2011


Total: 81, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Why are we so instantly enamored with photographers who are dead? How many living, breathing artists are out there who can't get a gallery to return their calls?

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2016 at 22:05 UTC as 53rd comment | 9 replies
On article Medium-format mirrorless: Hasselblad unveils X1D (1189 comments in total)

I like it!! Too much for me but maybe other manufacturers will want to get on board the format. And then add some tilt-shift lenses.....

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 17:24 UTC as 132nd comment
On article 2016 Roundup: Semi-Pro Interchangeable Lens Cameras (256 comments in total)
In reply to:

Terkwoiz: Pro, pro-level, professional, etc... These terms can be defined in different ways. So professional-level oftentimes means top-of-the-line. Nothing to do with whether or not someone does something "professionally" or for a living. Sure, plenty of people who take photos "for their livelihood" probably use less than top-of-the-line equipment with great results.

Also, just because someone makes their living through photography doesn't necessarily mean they're pro-level. Hardly. Plenty of amateurish garbage makes people a lot of money.

One thing is for sure, there is an incredible amount of whining and crying going on all over the Dpr forums. It's nauseating. There are a load of posts whining about the same thing, bringing nothing new to the conversation.

Dpr, thank you for your hard work and great articles as always. I can read through the lines and make up my own mind. I appreciate your detailed and thorough research.

Yeah, professional means "for pay", but "unprofessional" doesn't mean "amateur" does it? It's more than simply collecting a check. Professional also means reliable, consistent, diligent. And why can't you love what you do AND make a living at it? Splitting hairs of syntax is really a waste of energy. And yet, here I am throwing energy at energy wasted.........

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 16:57 UTC
In reply to:

probert500: when do they release the Larreee and the Moe-eee?

nyuk nyuk nyuk

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 02:05 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Semi-Pro Interchangeable Lens Cameras (256 comments in total)
In reply to:

aris14: To my POV the only reason to name this roundup semi-pro is to justify editors to post the which cam I should buy. Pros do not really need any suggestions. Except third class pros maybe...

Pros look at what's available, what works for what they do for a living and buy that camera. Test them for what?

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2016 at 16:10 UTC
On article 2016 Roundup: Semi-Pro Interchangeable Lens Cameras (256 comments in total)

I've been using a Canon 5Dii and iii professionally for six years now. Full-time. Is that why I'm making a semi-living? Will my income double if I use a 1D? I wish some blog writer had told me that years ago.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2016 at 15:20 UTC as 56th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

aramgrg: I also want to activate controls by double blinking my eye and looking at specific setting.

Agreed. Telekinesis gives me a headache. Levitation is much easier and more fun anyway.

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2016 at 02:12 UTC
In reply to:

Tom Caldwell: Five changes of theme and gradual attrition and regular Canon dslr owners will be gently steered into full electronic finders. Such is the cost of not rocking the mirror based ovf boat. Meanwhile I suppose no reduction in body size by discarding the ovf and pentaprism will happen. Existing dslr users will feel secure and will hardly notice that one day some models down the track they will find themself with a pure evf camera in their hand.

Something similar has happened with "live view". First it was tentative and now with flip lcd it is not even technically necessary to have an ovf.

If the ovf became an evf overnight not only would it cause great grief from dslr body traditionalists but Canon would only have one model change to sell instead of several. Makes sense. Softly, softly ...

I for one Canon dslr user would be happy to do without an OVF. If a an EVF sees what the sensor sees then I don't mind it not looking "real" - theoretically, as I've never actually seen an EVF... I am looking forward to the day when there is no flipping mirror and wide angle lenses can be designed without that hurdle to jump. Smaller sharper wide-angles and no pentaprism, maybe! If that's the future then sign me up!

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2016 at 02:02 UTC
In reply to:

2eyesee: Sorry for a bit of a 'newbie' question here...

I got myself a Spyder 4 to calibrate my PC screen and it's a great help to get more accurate colours in prints. But I was not aware of what seems to be claimed in this article - that ambient light influences colour perception on a display.

I wouldn't have thought that this would be the case, as the display itself doesn't change and that's what you're looking at.

What's the best ambient light to do colour sensitive work then? Is natural daylight ok? What about at night - do I need a special daylight adjusted bulb in my lamp?

Sorry for being a bit off-topic - I'm just interested in what's best practice given the discussion here.

I agree 2eyesee. If the screen adjusts automatically, then you're editing to a moving target. Somebody could walk past you while you're editing at the local coffee shop and change your color temperature by blocking natural light from the window.

Might be fine for viewing, but not editing--seems to me.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2016 at 13:59 UTC
In reply to:

AstroStan: As a forum observer I knew immediately from the "Leica" in the title that there will be complainers regarding the price. And then there will be the car analogies (Ferrari vs Kia). Here is another perspective:

The equipment costs incurred by advanced amateurs doing "real" astro-imaging (not nightscapes) is probably shocking to most amateur terrestrial photographers here. A good amateur scope can easily cost $10k to $20k and requires a mount that costs $5k-$15k. Good CCD cameras (CMOS is a joke for real astro) start around $5k and various accessories (e.g. color filter wheel, AO) add several more thousands.

Sure there are cheaper ways to do astrophotography but the results are unambiguously objectively inferior (it is easy to objectively qualify and quantify astro-images). But, at least in this arena, you pretty much get what you pay for...

I've seen superb photos in coffee table books that cost about $50. Buy one of those and then go out and LOOK at the stars! Just saying'.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2016 at 15:47 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2472 comments in total)
In reply to:

Battersea: I love the Fuji cameras. I am sticking with Canon DSLRs, for now, but I do love the look, feel and IQ of the Fujis.

Me too, on both accounts. I wish Canon would make a FF mirrorless with lots of nice lenses to go with. I'm kinda holding out, because I don't NEED any such thing...

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2016 at 01:13 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2472 comments in total)
In reply to:

Don Sata: The review says the ISO dial needs to be lowered to the waist to be used but I believe it's ok to just lower it above chest level and tilt the camera.

Well sure you CAN, but you'll void the warranty.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2016 at 01:09 UTC
In reply to:

Thorfinn: Sorry,
for something like USD 80 I can talk to my local saddler or shoemaker craftsman, choose whatever leather I want (fx. same as the Jensen Interceptor Interior), feel it, smell it ...
Sometimes marketing costs eats real craftsmenship.

You're not violating anybody if you make a copy for yourself! And save trial-and-error time and money by just using the dang thing. A neck strap aint' rocket science!

Deep breath, Charlie J!

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2016 at 19:44 UTC

Lotsa people buy cameras because they like cameras. And why not? Hang that Leica around your neck on a gorgeous strap and take it on parade at the next art fair!

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2016 at 19:37 UTC as 16th comment

OK Canon! Put a viewfinder in in your M for crying out loud! Call it an MV.

And make a full-frame mirrorless already! Now that your 1D people are sitting around bored...

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2016 at 16:19 UTC as 366th comment
In reply to:

AD in KC: Phase One is such a dumb name for a company.

Speaking as a "person" and not a "photographer" (I am in fact both, simultaneously) what does "phase one" MEAN in regards to photography? Maybe B+W was a phase? Maybe cyanotype was an earlier phase than digital? Like phase negative three or negative four... What's phase two going to be? Besides what it means, it just sounds hollow and pretentious - like "Integra".

Just a thought. Or even worse: an opinion.

Link | Posted on Dec 31, 2015 at 05:34 UTC

Phase One is such a dumb name for a company.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2015 at 22:14 UTC as 17th comment | 6 replies
On article Nikon announces development of flagship D5 DSLR (442 comments in total)

All this talk about Nikon! Nikon, Nikon, Nikon! Did nobody see the Canon announcement today and I quote: "We're working on something really REALLY awesome! It's going to be SO cool!"

Now THAT'S news!

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2015 at 01:25 UTC as 44th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Nuno Souto: Memo to CaNikon:

I hear you, Nuno. I wish Canon would go full-frame mirrorless AND take advantage of that short flange distance to make really compact, sharp TS lenses. And other stuff. That would be a wonderful thing. Unless they charged $8000 for it.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2015 at 14:12 UTC
Total: 81, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »