Jimbob Productions

Jimbob Productions

Lives in Australia Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Works as a IT Manager
Joined on Jan 4, 2007
About me:

Pentax Z-70
Pentax K-10D
Pentax *ist-D
Pentax K-20D
Pentax K-7

DBG-1 Battery Grip
DBG-2 Battery Grip * 2

SMCP-FA 31mm Limited (Black)
SMCP-DA 40mm Limited
SMC-M 50mm F1.7
SMC-A 50mm F1.2
SMCP-FA 50mm F1.4
SMCP-FA 77mm Limited (Black)
SMCP-FA*85mm F1.4
Super Takumar 135 F2.5 SM
Takumar 200mm F3.5 SM
SMCP-FA*80-200 F2.8
SMCP FA*400mm F5.6

SMCP DA 12-24
SMCP DA*16-50
SMCP DA*50-135

Sigma 50-500mm EX DG F4-6.3
Sigma 105mm EX Macro

Pentax AF500-FGZ Flash
Sigma EF 500 Super Flash

Comments

Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7
On Lytro announces Illum light field camera article (346 comments in total)
In reply to:

123Mike: Very deceptive product. It makes you THINK that you can focus later. But what it actually does, is it takes very deep DOF photos from multiple angles at the same time. And each in fairly low resolution, because otherwise it can't be done.
Then during PP, you should what parts you wish to blur, not what part you wish to focus. The camera has like, what, 11 sharp in focus photos to start with, each from a different angle.
It's neat, but a little bit deceptive the way it's marketed !

Care to explain how they get deep dof from a constant F2.0 lens? In fact, the method you describe is what the phone camera manufacturers are doing, simulated blur. Lytro cameras capture a single image on the sensor ar low DOF, and capture the angle of light as it hits the sensor. It then uses mathematics to work out what the image would look like at any point in the focal range, effectively simulating focus, not blur.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 25, 2014 at 08:30 UTC

Given the original 12-24 was co-designed with Pentax, and the Pentax lens roadmap shows a similar range lens, is it possible that the 12-28 is also co-designed with Pentax? http://www.pentax.jp/english/products/lens/K_Mount_Lens.pdf

Direct link | Posted on Jan 29, 2013 at 22:34 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Jimbob Productions: Um, so I guess if you want to completely change your workflow to accommodate a tablet then fine. But I'm currently using a Samsung Slate 7 PC. Tablet form-factor, with full windows (runs Windows 7 natively but I've updated mine to run WIndows 8). This is the tabley that was the test platform for Windows 8. Surprised that I don't see it in your review.

Anyhow, here's the workflow advantage.

I run full Lightroom, with Nik software's complete package. Could also run Full Photoshop if I wanted.
So, no need to change my workflow. I get a stylus to handle fine details and it has a Wacom digitizer surface built in. So not only can you show your photos to a client, you can edit them in the field and connect to your mobile via WiFi to send them wherever you want.

Microsoft's surface Pro will do much the same - but I can do it all now.

@xdfortier - I haven't calibratd it yet - but you can do it exactly the same way you would a standard laptop - the Samsung Slate has a fully functional USB 2 slot.
@jwg63 - I get around 6 hours of use when using the optimised setting - but not for heavy workload. I get around 3 hours under heavy use such as editing photos. More than enough for me - but may limit some.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2012 at 23:25 UTC

Um, so I guess if you want to completely change your workflow to accommodate a tablet then fine. But I'm currently using a Samsung Slate 7 PC. Tablet form-factor, with full windows (runs Windows 7 natively but I've updated mine to run WIndows 8). This is the tabley that was the test platform for Windows 8. Surprised that I don't see it in your review.

Anyhow, here's the workflow advantage.

I run full Lightroom, with Nik software's complete package. Could also run Full Photoshop if I wanted.
So, no need to change my workflow. I get a stylus to handle fine details and it has a Wacom digitizer surface built in. So not only can you show your photos to a client, you can edit them in the field and connect to your mobile via WiFi to send them wherever you want.

Microsoft's surface Pro will do much the same - but I can do it all now.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 15, 2012 at 05:26 UTC as 73rd comment | 3 replies
On The story of a picture - Sydney Harbour Bridge article (29 comments in total)
In reply to:

Geoff Helliwell: Carrying out professional photography in public places in many major city centres/places of interest very often requires a licence and fees to be paid if a crew/props/models/interuption to free movement by others etc are involved. Walking around with a camera round your neck (as a rule) does not. It would be completely un-enforcable as hundreds of thousands of tourists do it all the time. For the same reason, I can't see how anyone could claim copyright on a location. (JimBob has got it right, I think)

Copyright would apply to a building. However, section 66 of the copyright act specifically excludes photograhy from breaching that copyright.

"The copyright in a building or a model of a building is not infringed by the making of a painting, drawing, engraving or photograph of the building or model or by the inclusion of the building or model in a cinematograph film or in a television broadcast."

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2011 at 13:10 UTC
On The story of a picture - Sydney Harbour Bridge article (29 comments in total)
In reply to:

ParxyinOz: Just wanted to bring people’s attention to the fees expected if you intend to shoot ANYWHERE around Sydney Harbour for commercial purposes. I.E if you intend to publish the images.

These fees a crippling to most photographers. And when I mention it to my clients. They just think I must be an absolute rip off merchant. When I show them the rules, the project goes right out the door.

Unfortunately many other areas in this “ Lucky Country “ have taken up the same approach. All our national parks for instance. Here’s the link to the official Government site on the fees issue. http://www.harbourtrust.gov.au/events-venues/filming-and-photography/index.html

Do us Aussie photographers a favor and e-mail the Australian Tourism Authority and tells them this is why you have decided not to come. We might be able to force a change.

If you want to shoot at a particular site - wildlife park, historical site etc, then it's best to check their website to see what type of photography they allow. Some wildlife parks don't allow SLR's. Some historical buildings don't allow tripod use (because they get in the way). Most sites have a website for you to check.

BTW - bring a polariser - and maybe an ND grad - things are bright here.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2011 at 03:08 UTC
On The story of a picture - Sydney Harbour Bridge article (29 comments in total)
In reply to:

ParxyinOz: Just wanted to bring people’s attention to the fees expected if you intend to shoot ANYWHERE around Sydney Harbour for commercial purposes. I.E if you intend to publish the images.

These fees a crippling to most photographers. And when I mention it to my clients. They just think I must be an absolute rip off merchant. When I show them the rules, the project goes right out the door.

Unfortunately many other areas in this “ Lucky Country “ have taken up the same approach. All our national parks for instance. Here’s the link to the official Government site on the fees issue. http://www.harbourtrust.gov.au/events-venues/filming-and-photography/index.html

Do us Aussie photographers a favor and e-mail the Australian Tourism Authority and tells them this is why you have decided not to come. We might be able to force a change.

Sorry this information is not not correct. You've cited the wrong authority. The authority that handles the harbor foreshore is Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority. You can happily photograph for commercial purposes around the foreshore without charge (unless you have more than 10 crew with you).

There is a separate issue with the Opera House. The Opera House Trust actively prevent commercial photography of the Opera House although they have no basis in law for doing so. Again, there is no charge to photograph the Opera House.

The authority you quote ONLY administers a few national trust sites around Sydney and they charge because they have to allocate security to you when you shoot commercially. They are only recovering costs. This is the same situation as our national parks.

The good news is a tourist coming in on a tourist visa is not allowed to take commercial photographs anyway. So by all means come to Australia, enjoy yourselves and take lots of photos to show your friends.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 19, 2011 at 00:22 UTC
Total: 7, showing: 1 – 7