jeffcpix

jeffcpix

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Aug 12, 2005

Comments

Total: 17, showing: 1 – 17
In reply to:

nerd2: Digital already surpasses film in every aspects (resolution, dynamic range, noise) and can closely simulate any film we had. I think we should ban film photography, just for environmental reasons.

If the studios and directors would like to assure the supply of film, they should consider buying the Kodak plant -- I should think that Kodak would sell it for a reasonable price. Or perhaps Quentin could try 'crowd-funding': How many feet of film do I get for my $25?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 04:09 UTC
On A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens article (163 comments in total)

An excellent article on this type of lens can be found at

http://www.antiquecameras.net/petzvallens.html

I think it unfortunate that the manufacturer chose to make a 'replica' rather than using a conventional focusing helical, diaphragm and T-mount. If a photographer today seeks that specific bokeh, there's no reason he should be penalized with waterhouse stops, rack and pinion focus and a sloppy lens mount.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 11:09 UTC as 30th comment | 1 reply
On Massive 3,000 square foot pinhole photo on display article (34 comments in total)

Any details on the material... how it was sensitized, how it was processed? Who paid for it?

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2014 at 11:08 UTC as 21st comment
On Olympus Stylus 1 Preview preview (324 comments in total)
In reply to:

zapatista: Well, constant f2.8 is nice, I wonder how is does vs. an FZ200.

Too bad Sony doesn't update the KM A2 -- one of the last
great Minolta designs. And the A2 28-300 f2.8 was a G lens!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 29, 2013 at 10:23 UTC
In reply to:

bawboh86: Are there any good accessories I can use with my Sony SLT-A77? I see Nikon and Canon mentioned, but not a lot on how to get some of the functionality out of my Sony.

Have you considered:

"portable 5" (diag.) LCD monitor is the perfect complement to your compatible DSLR camera or camcorder."

http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921666295823

Direct link | Posted on Sep 27, 2013 at 05:30 UTC
In reply to:

semorg: Mind you, initially they were hoping to raise $100,000.
So the good news is that they got enough money to manufacture these things. The bad news is they'll probably wont meet the demands and those who are not in the first 100-200 will have to a wait for a long time or live with some shoddy quality stuff.

You can fool some of the people all of the time.
But there's one upside -- at least it's not being
developed using tax money by the Defense Department.

If it were such a wonderful idea, the Chinese/Koreans would
have made these with T-mounts, barrel controlled f-stops,
helical focusing and sold them for less than $99 dollars delivered. Look how much CAT 500mm lenses are selling for on ebay -- amazing that anyone would think that this paperweight would cost more to produce.
And wait until they learn what a 'waterhouse stop' is.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 9, 2013 at 04:36 UTC
In reply to:

b craw: I have a(n) MFA and have been teaching both digital and film photography for 10 years at the university level. It never ceases to surprise me how many in the photographic community are ill-tempered and close minded. It is part of the reason I am apprehensive to call myself a photographer despite nearly all my work ending in a photograph.

While I am capable of seeing the lack of practicality or need in various photo contexts of this technology, I can envision some applications for particular conceptual work. But asking some photographers to think conceptually - beyond technical masturbation - may be a bridge too far.

[i suppose I should acknowledge my own ill temper here.]

Conceptual fantasy = an idea that a person has no means to execute in a medium he is ill-equipped to manipulate.

It's not uncommon for 'aspiring artists' to choose a 'message'
that might be better expressed in another medium -- except
that medium takes more effort/experience than 'pushing a button and letting Kodak do the rest'.

But these days play=creativity and we wouldn't want to damage their budding self-esteem... or lose those tuition $$$$.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 22, 2013 at 05:18 UTC
In reply to:

b craw: I have a(n) MFA and have been teaching both digital and film photography for 10 years at the university level. It never ceases to surprise me how many in the photographic community are ill-tempered and close minded. It is part of the reason I am apprehensive to call myself a photographer despite nearly all my work ending in a photograph.

While I am capable of seeing the lack of practicality or need in various photo contexts of this technology, I can envision some applications for particular conceptual work. But asking some photographers to think conceptually - beyond technical masturbation - may be a bridge too far.

[i suppose I should acknowledge my own ill temper here.]

And asking professors to demand technical proficiency instead of conceptual fantasy might be yet another bridge still further.
I guess that would require a PE rather than an MFA

Direct link | Posted on Jul 21, 2013 at 06:43 UTC
In reply to:

Rage Joe: Wunderbar! I finally get the camera I've always craved for. Only if I could get one covered with elephant's foreskin. That would be perfect now.

Hassy should have re-issued Sony's best still camera, the a900. Add a set of Zeiss primes (or cines) for the best IQ in the 24MB class.
They're well deserving of all the ridicule.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2013 at 10:16 UTC
On Classic lines when clients want you to work for free article (142 comments in total)
In reply to:

Anepo: I have been offered money to photograph as i am not a pro i decline despite taking far better photos than your average mom and dad,
not at a pro level however, the reason i refuse is both that i do NOT beleive that i am good enough to take on a job.

AND in my country it is a crime to take a paid job for photographing if you do not have a license in photography
(yup no university school degree in photography? Then you cant work in the industry)

However i am allowed to take photos and if someone likes them they can purchase them, they are not allowed to hire me in advance.

Eitherway so far people have asked to buy a photo from me 4 times (an average joe not a company), i have declined each time and just given them an A4 sized print, why? I do not feel my photos are worth the money and i made someones day. Though for the love of me i dont understand those people wanting to buy a photo by me, they are mediocre at best.

Anepo wrote:
"AND in my country it is a crime to take a paid job for photographing if you do not have a license in photography
(yup no university school degree in photography? Then you cant work in the industry)"

How many of you would be willing to accept a scheme where photographers would need to be licensed in order to work?

How many 'professions' are there where all you need are the tools of the trade to promote yourself as a 'professional'?

I think we have all seen work done by 'non-professionals' that's
of excellent quality -- and there's even a school of thought which argues that it's the content not the object that counts.
Face it, we're in a "You press the button, we do the rest" business. Lots of people have figured out how to put a frame around reality -- 'professionals' just seem to do it better.

The business of photography is more about business than art.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 6, 2013 at 09:59 UTC
In reply to:

Photomonkey: For those sneering at his work he starts out saying that this lens is not for everyone.
Frankly his work is very appealing despite the detractors.
As for it being in use for over 100 years that is true insofar as view cameras have been around that long. However the usual use has been to increase DOF and only rarely to decrease it.
The technique is enjoying a fashion these days because of the renewed interest in alt. lenses.Just as Instagram and any number of PS actions give a photographer a look, this effect is another enjoying some fashion at the moment. As fashions/fads go at least it is attractive.

There was a time when head shots were done with large format cameras. In order to reduce exposure time, images were made using large apertures which meant DOF was extremely limited.
Unless the sitter was looking directly into the camera, DOF
was not sufficient to get both eyes in the same plane/focus.
In order to get the plane of focus to correspond to the plane of the eyes when the sitter's face was not parallel to the film plane, the lens was was rotated slightly around its vertical axis. This resulted in both eyes being sharp and the fall-off in
sharpness extending in front and behind equally (Scheimpflug). Both eyes would be very sharp -- but the tip of the nose and the ears were quite soft.

It was a look -- one that few photographers today are capable of reproducing or even recognizing.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 16, 2013 at 11:50 UTC
On Roundup: Enthusiast Zoom Compact Cameras article (420 comments in total)

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX7

10MP | 24-90mm (3.75x) Zoom | $300 (US) £355 (UK) €460 (EU)

WOW -- someone needs a currency calculator!

Direct link | Posted on Dec 21, 2012 at 11:25 UTC as 77th comment | 3 replies
On Exhibition Review: 8x10 By Impossible article (85 comments in total)

If there's a market and someone willing to produce, distribute
and sell it -- why not? One of the great things about the web is that it allows
niche markets to be easily served.

Except for the almost immediate gratification (digital is far
more immediate), not to mention the almost immediate disappointment
when glitches occur, one might as well expose a sheet of film,
just in case additional copies are desired.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2012 at 05:04 UTC as 27th comment
In reply to:

ThomasH_always: My take is very, very simple, and consistent:

No RAW, no interest, no buy.
No viewfinder, no interest, no buy.

Got that in Japan at last? You delivered a half of "must have" features,
its a no buy.

When I want FF, I use a Sony a900.
When I want a P&S a small sensor is fine.
But when it's time for post=processing with either,
I want RAW.
I find it hard to believe that anyone would argue against
having a choice to shoot RAW rather than jpg only.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 25, 2012 at 06:04 UTC
In reply to:

ThomasH_always: My take is very, very simple, and consistent:

No RAW, no interest, no buy.
No viewfinder, no interest, no buy.

Got that in Japan at last? You delivered a half of "must have" features,
its a no buy.

OK you don't want RAW -- but
it sure would have been great for those
of us who do.
I can live without an OVF in a P&S, but
RAW is a must for anyone who has gone beyond PS Elements

Direct link | Posted on Aug 24, 2012 at 07:13 UTC
On Photo Tip: Five for Five article (111 comments in total)

"If snapshooting was a valid technique, there'd be little difference between their work and the work of the average person on the street. "

Cell phone images of breaking stories would indicate that
content trumps technique and Weegee's advice still stands:
F8 and be there.

But for those situations where there's the opportunity to
take the time, why not? It's not like we're spending money
for film and processing.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2011 at 04:11 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
On Photo Tip: Five for Five article (111 comments in total)

Some good ideas for those who haven't come up with them previously --
however, in that we're not paying for film anymore, I suggest
ALWAYS taking a shot as soon as the opportunity presents itself --
sometimes, that first shot is all you get.
Sure, if the opportunity arises to fine tune and explore alternatives, go for it.
But snapping first and thinking second can sometimes be rewarding.
You can always delete.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 11, 2011 at 07:00 UTC as 32nd comment
Total: 17, showing: 1 – 17