Ashley Pomeroy

Ashley Pomeroy

Lives in United Kingdom United Kingdom
Joined on Aug 12, 2008

Comments

Total: 235, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Seems to have been scaled down from previous years. The programme used to be marketed as a series of contests rather than workshops, and you could win a 5D MkII (for example). Now you just get the loan of some equipment. I wonder if they'll do it next year?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 4, 2012 at 18:33 UTC as 22nd comment

"The App doesn't allow you to see only contributions from your photographically-inclined friends"

Obvious solution: take your non-photographically-inclined friends to one side and tell them that they're not your friends any more, then dump 'em. It's cruel, but sometimes you have to be cruel, and sometimes it's just more entertaining that way.

Direct link | Posted on May 25, 2012 at 18:33 UTC as 10th comment

It's worth pointing out that the old Olympus 7-14mm f/4 was also extremely expensive, and the company sells a 300mm f/2.8 which will set you back the price of a decent used car. And both lenses are apparently excellent, so I guess you pay for quality in Olympus-land. I imagine this will outsell the aforementioned by a wide margin.

You know, what with all the financial shenanigans back then I was worried that Olympus might fold, but they seem to be bouncing back.

Direct link | Posted on May 24, 2012 at 17:14 UTC as 41st comment | 3 replies
On Just Posted: Canon EOS 5D Mark III review article (706 comments in total)

While I'm at it, page 23 mentions the "28-70mm L-lens" - old lens knocking around the office from the original 1Ds review, or typo? Gonna dig out the 17-35mm f/2.8, hmm? The old 24-85mm from the Canon D30 review?

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2012 at 18:22 UTC as 106th comment | 1 reply
On Just Posted: Canon EOS 5D Mark III review article (706 comments in total)

Cue floods of images on Flickr of cats shot with this body, the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS lens, and the HDR - Embossed 3 and Bold 3 modes left on *all the time*. Hundreds of images uploaded every day. "Youre photo is good example on the lfickr - DIMOND HEART AWARD POSt 5 award 15". If there aren't such images already. I haven't looked. Don't have the stomach for it.

Direct link | Posted on May 23, 2012 at 18:20 UTC as 107th comment
On The One-Light Studio article (94 comments in total)

Side lighting's fantastic - you could also bring in a white panel on the left to provide a bit of fill. One problem is that it's not very flattering unless the model has a lovely complexion or lashings of make-up (which is what they had in George Hurrell's day).

Direct link | Posted on May 22, 2012 at 19:52 UTC as 36th comment

I wonder how much larger it would have to be for constant f/2.0 (or faster) across the range - I'm sure they've drawn up a chart, and I suspect a small gain in speed would mean a large gain in size and weight, but it would give the system even more of a USP. Now they need a 35-100mm - perhaps they could make them white, too ;)

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2012 at 17:13 UTC as 27th comment | 5 replies
On 02-Tele-Olympus photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Not bad at all. Bottom-right corner looks a smidge worse than the bottom-left. Skin looks very noisy, but that's the body, not the lens.

Direct link | Posted on May 21, 2012 at 17:04 UTC as 1st comment
On Just Posted: Canon PowerShot SX150 IS review article (86 comments in total)

On a tangent, I remember several years ago the bugbear of all compacts was purple fringing - DPReview used to have a specific test, with a cut-out bit of cardboard in front of a bright light. The SX150 has some, but not very much - what happened to cure the problem? Better lens coatings, clever sensor design, processing?

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2012 at 17:36 UTC as 14th comment
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V review article (130 comments in total)

Has to be said that the image quality, on a per-pixel level, doesn't seem any better than the old Olympus C8080 wide zoom from 2004, or the Sony F828 from the same era. The HX200V produces a large file, but it doesn't look as good. The only real advance seems to be the longer lens and image stabilisation; I'm surprised that the technology has stayed static for eight years. Perhaps there's a fundamental limit to what you can do with small sensors, and it was reached a long time ago.

Direct link | Posted on May 12, 2012 at 14:11 UTC as 30th comment | 2 replies
On Just Posted: Sony Cyber-shot DSC-HX200V review article (130 comments in total)

Cor, I'd forgotten about DCResource. Always thought they were wasting their time, and they'd go the same way as Lone Star Digital, and the other one that I forget. That kind of job's too much for one man, but the revenues aren't enough to employ a staff, so eventually there'll be DPreview and probably Imaging Resource, and thingy. The bloke who uses his daughters all the time. The-digital-picture, that's it.

Direct link | Posted on May 12, 2012 at 13:58 UTC as 31st comment | 1 reply
On L1013736 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (5 comments in total)

I've always wanted to see the individual hairs on this man's chin, and now I can. I can only dream and wonder what the shirt looks like in colour.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 20:03 UTC as 5th comment
On L1013573 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Ouch - it's as if monochrome in this context means "white, dark grey".

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 20:02 UTC as 1st comment
On L1000568 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (2 comments in total)

DTC-325-101

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 20:01 UTC as 1st comment
On L1000503-DNG photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

This is another one that benefits greatly from turning brightness down and boosting the contrast a bit, although the white block on the left is blown out whatever you do. I wonder why so many of the images have +0.66 exposure compensation?

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 19:59 UTC as 1st comment
On L1000492-DNG photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (5 comments in total)

I've had a go in Photoshop - minus 150 brightness followed by auto contrast produce a pretty nice image, although it would have been nicer if they had used a red filter. I wonder if there was something off with the metering, or the histogram preview?

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 19:57 UTC as 2nd comment
On L1000272-DNG photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (4 comments in total)

On the surface it's a dull photo - but I looked at the full-sized version and was impressed by the detail in the bird, which is just a tiny dot in the preview. And the reeds are really sharp, almost painful. Hopefully the shadow noise is really low, because if you carefully keep the highlights under control and boost the shadows this should produce lovely output.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 19:53 UTC as 4th comment
On L1000350-DNG photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (5 comments in total)

The Beatles were great, weren't they?

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 19:51 UTC as 2nd comment
On L1000219-DNG photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (5 comments in total)

So that's what happened to Magenta De Vine.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 19:45 UTC as 4th comment
On L1000332-DNG photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (6 comments in total)

It has to be said that a lot of these images seem to have been overexposed, or shot on an overcast day against the sky; this one would have looked really nice if the horse's nose wasn't a mass of plain white.

Direct link | Posted on May 11, 2012 at 19:45 UTC as 3rd comment
Total: 235, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »