marco1974

marco1974

Lives in United Kingdom London, United Kingdom
Has a website at www.pbase.com/marcoraugei
Joined on Sep 27, 2006

Comments

Total: 15, showing: 1 – 15
On Sony shows off upcoming full-frame lenses at Photokina article (327 comments in total)

OK, so now we finally will have a 35/1.4... but it'll be the same size as the 24-240 superzoom! So much for the mirrorless advantage in terms of size and weight.
But oh, wait: we also have the more compact 35/2.8, don't we? But then the DOF and the total light-gathering ability is the same as that of a 23/2 on APS-c (which could obviously be much more compact to begin with). So much for the FF advantage in terms of DOF and ISO.
Mmmh, it seems that in spite of marketing claims, one just can't beat the laws of physics. Bummer.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 07:21 UTC as 11th comment | 16 replies
On Ricoh GR comparative review preview (37 comments in total)

Ugh!
UGLY Moiré!
M.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 5, 2013 at 09:39 UTC as 15th comment
On Fujifilm X-M1 real-world samples gallery article (101 comments in total)
In reply to:

Duncan Dimanche: You know the fuji sensors are nice in low light but they are never sharp. Even the RAWs are being stripped off noise in order to create an illusion of amazing high ISO performance... it does remind me of Sony's JPGs

It would be nice if those samples shot would be in RAW...
But I know that there is little difference in Fuji's raw and JPGs...

I'm trying to like Fuji but I really can't...just look at that girl's portrait... there seems to be not much details....

Cheers and thanks for posting those

Not sure what you mean there - the JPEGs from my X-E1 and XF 14/2.8 and 60/2.4 are VERY sharp indeed.
(No fanboy here, just my first-hand experience).
Besides, sharpness is overrated anyway. A good photo is first and foremost about composition and tone (colour / b&w gradations).

Direct link | Posted on Sep 12, 2013 at 15:35 UTC

If tripod mounted, then why such a high ISO?

Direct link | Posted on Sep 5, 2013 at 17:23 UTC as 3rd comment
On Leica announces X Vario zoom compact with APS-C sensor article (757 comments in total)

Slow lens!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2013 at 19:41 UTC as 191st comment
In reply to:

marco1974: "pansy whining"? Is this what you think of not being willing to stand for blatant corruption?

No. I wrote "NOT being willing to stand for", i.e. that he would NOT stand for it.

Anyhow: I'm glad to see that the post I was referring to in indignation has now been deleted.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 1, 2012 at 20:35 UTC

"pansy whining"? Is this what you think of not being willing to stand for blatant corruption?

Direct link | Posted on Nov 30, 2012 at 09:41 UTC as 21st comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Micky Nixgeld: Does somone need "The Zonesystem" in the age of HDR and other digital "goodies"?
For film it´s great, but...

Beautifully put, DaveMarx!
I agree 100%.
Marco

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2012 at 09:21 UTC

All those who say the Zone System is irrelevant today must be those same people whose idea of photography is to "spray and pray" with their 10fps DSLRs set to Matrix/Evaluative metering, and then "tweak and salvage" whatever sheer chance presented them with (at least exposure-wise) in post-processing.
BUT for those who instead wish to MAKE pictures and approach photography as a more slowed-down and deliberate art akin to painting, the Zone System is actually as relevant today as it ever was.
Marco

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2012 at 11:55 UTC as 33rd comment | 1 reply
On Extreme contrast edits in Lightroom 4 and ACR 7 article (168 comments in total)

Yes, that's what I meant with my previous post.
Then, if some people wish to make *shadows* as light as *highlights* and call it *art*, by all means that's their prerogative.

Oh dear... indeed.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2012 at 09:54 UTC as 33rd comment
On Extreme contrast edits in Lightroom 4 and ACR 7 article (168 comments in total)

Absolutely.
In fact, deep shadows should NEVER be "lifted" to medium-tone!
"Extreme contrast edits" invariably produce extremely cartoonish results.
Marco

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2012 at 07:24 UTC as 35th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

elefteriadis alexandros: -Yes, first photoshop, (money and months to familiar with that..) then filters, then again some extra money for Nikon software,( ..familiar with that..), then double triple exposure (forget if the subject move..) shot raw and give money for extra space in hard drive to gain maybe 1-2 stop, maybe in the end some pictures looks dull or fake....
-Huh start all over again..
-Hey dude take some real film camera and go out to take real pictures!!

Yes! But I'd like to add: nothing prevents one from using 'film photography' techniques (like GND filters, spot metering + zone system, etc.) with DSLRs too...

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2011 at 07:37 UTC
In reply to:

HiRez: HDR brings everything towards a flat grey mess. Pictures need definition and HDR tends to remove it. Yes, you can see more detail in the shadow and/or highlight areas, but it just never looks natural, no matter how good the software or how skilled the artist/photographer.

Sorry, but I still prefer a more natural looking picture with some clipped highlights or shadows.

I agree 100%

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2011 at 07:35 UTC
In reply to:

dccdp: In my opinion, the original picture is actually better than the processed result. It looks more natural, the unprocessed shadow areas outline the shapes better and give "depth" to the picture.

The final result is just a flat, artificial, oversaturated, cartoonish picture.

exactly my point, also!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 7, 2011 at 07:34 UTC

Hmmm... I actually like the "uncorrected" image best. LOL

Direct link | Posted on Oct 6, 2011 at 19:02 UTC as 32nd comment
Total: 15, showing: 1 – 15