Guidenet

Guidenet

Lives in United States Orlando, US, FL, United States
Works as a Retired Corporate Photographer
Has a website at http://faithartsvillage.com/
Joined on Sep 27, 2007
About me:

I'm a 63 year old retired corporate photographer who has also been a software engineer. My academia is largely based on Vision and my dissertation was on Fluids. I have a small studio and gallery which I enjoy on occasion. My specialty is bird photography, and I've been lucky to have had a few attempts published over the years. For the past twenty years, I worked for a large Fortune 500 company as their in-house photographer for the communications, publicity and care departments. I’ve also done their corporate meetings and events. As the company owns several television stations, making the opportunities endless.
I had to retire because I suffered a massive right side stroke in the spring of 2013. My small portrait studio and gallery are doing better than ever.
I have a daughter who is a successful Wedding Photographer. As I’ve embraced retirement, I've taken more and more shooting contracts, but only those I enjoy like the local little league baseball teams. I occasionally act as a cruise photographer for some of the cruise lines here in Florida when requested by organizations.
I also spend more and more time teaching basic photography for several resources locally as well as out of my studio located at FAVO (Faith-based Art Village of Orlando). As well as Photography, I am also a Water Color and Acrylic painter and enjoy recreating some of my favorite work in those mediums. Learning how to create art is a lifelong passion.
I'm seriously passionate about people learning exposure and the Zone System of Photography before considering themselves sufficiently astute in this craft. I’ve held several Zone System Workshops over the years as well as one Cruise based workshop. I’m also passionate about Ansel Adams’ ideas about pre-visualization. Pressing the shutter button and the camera are just one small part of the image creation process.
I started at eight years old in 1959 when my dad and I built a darkroom, him more than me. My father taught me the Zone System at a very young age. I continued as a youthful photographer, buying glass with lawn mowing money through my high school and then into college with odd jobs. I paid most of my tuition as an undergraduate shooting weddings and baby pictures as well as for the university newspaper. Many of those years I shot 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 field cameras and sheet film. In small format, I shot Pentax until 1968 when I switched to Nikon, needing a better more professional system tool. I still shoot Nikon today as well as Nikkor lenses for some of my large format gear. I also mostly shoot digital but still maintain a darkroom for up to 5x7 format. 8x10 is stored in the attic and is only black and white. I even have a Nikkor enlarging lens. Over the years, I believe Nikon has been instrumental in the creation of truly great glass.

Comments

Total: 223, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

The Nikon 1 system has entry level models and higher end models like the V2. Just like the owners of higher end full frame Nikon bodies, many demand high end glass to go with the body. Nikon's 85 f/1.4G is they're full frame portrait flahship and sells for around $1600 or so. Nikon's F/mount 35 f/1.4 sells for around $1600 as well.

This little 32 f/1.2 is a fast Nano coated high end to provide the same FOV to the Nikon 1 system. $900 is quite reasonable at this level. It's not designed as a general purpose or entry level lens.

Personally, I appreciate the fact that Nikon is expanding this line into specialty high end glass. I'm glad it isn't stagnating like some mirrorless lens lineups.

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2013 at 08:54 UTC as 108th comment | 1 reply

I'd love to be locked into CS6 and the current version of Adobe Camera RAW. Do it to me, except one big thing. Let me be able to buy camera modules for new cameras over the years.

You see, this is what Adobe has held over us in the past and still with this new rental agreement. When you get a new camera and unless you have the latest version of ACR and Photoshop, ACR will fail to recognize your RAW files. If you try to upgrade ACR to a version that will, it will often not work with your current version of Photoshop.. most often. So, you must upgrade Photoshop in order to be even able to upgrade your ACR to be able to convert the RAW files on your new camera.

So the idea that we can lock into some version really doesn't mean much. If you buy a new camera, you'll be forced to get on the wagon, same as now. There is just no choice under this rental scheme. It's a complete scam. ;-(

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 20:24 UTC as 845th comment | 8 replies
On Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction article (1853 comments in total)
In reply to:

Photomonkey: So where are the free market people trumpeting the choices they have as an alternative to Adobe?

So far it is just lots of ranting about price.

After the rants will people really change? Do they really move like the free marketers say they will?

I am waiting to hear the joyous shouts from the new users of PaintSHop Pro.

For one thing, it is a huge price issue. Secondly, many of us have been using Photoshop so long, changing workflows comes as a huge issue with moving to alternative software. There is also a very reasonable issue with quality concerns. ACR has been working with camera makers to get the RAW conversion pretty accurate. I use composites for focus stacking and other reasons. It's not so simple as just moving to Corel Paint Shop Pro. I might have to, but it won't be easy.

I wouldn't mind if Adobe just let me buy Photoshop CS7 then if they want more money every now and then, charge be for new additions to ACR or modules for a new camera as I need them.

I'd even consider Lightroom if it had the tools I'm used to at a pixel level. I don't care or need the organizational part. Content aware tools, composite blending and good layer support.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 19:37 UTC
On Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction article (1853 comments in total)

The problem is these arrogant Winston Hendrickson types think seasoned amateurs and small business professionals think we should be using LightRoom. This whole thing is made up garbage. They claim they have had a butal time trying to support two products if also garbage. It's two types of licensing schemes, not two products. It needs only be one product with cloud access limited on the perpetual license and access enabled on the rental license.

What kind of lazy nonsense is being pushed on us anyway? They want to move me from $200 per upgrade to $240 per year.

I think they are running out of useful features so want everyone on a rental program so they don't have to come up with meaningful upgrades to lure our cash. They've been using the new camera needs new ACR to work in order to scam your upgrade cash. Now, it's this requred rental scam. Either way it's been more of a scam so they didn't have to come up with much in the way of serious features.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 19:01 UTC as 300th comment | 2 replies
On Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction article (1853 comments in total)
In reply to:

lap777: I'll keep buying DxO instead of Lightroom. And Google or someone will make a Photoshop competitor soon.

Stu, you might wish to look at Paint Shop Pro by Corel. I haven't used it in years but it seems to be fairly good. They support adjustment layers. I'll have to look at composite imaging. I'm probably going to download a trial tomorrow and work on it for a little bit. Adobe will have to know we're serious about this and willing to change. Heck, I've not looked at the competition in a good many years. Maybe it's time to take that look.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 15:44 UTC
On Photoshop CC: Adobe responds to reaction article (1853 comments in total)

The way I look at it is that Adobe is leaving photographers who like Photoshop behind. I spend a couple of hundred dollars every year and a half to two years and buy most every upgrade offered since Version 4 (not CS4 but 4). Much of the time I have to upgrade in order for my cameras to be supported by Adobe Camera RAW.

Now, they promise to support my camera in Version 8 of ACR but no further and that PS CS6 will support ACR ver 8. What this means to me is that I can only stay with CS6 until ACR 9 comes out. No camera I may purchase after that point will be supported. That's probably a year to two years, looking at the past. At that point I'll have to upgrade to their new system at around $240 per year subscription or really mess up my workflow by converting RAW files without using a plug-in. Basically, ACR is lost to me in around 2 years max unless I rent Photoshop.

I'm going to look at Corel for now. I need to be comfortable before that time occurs.

Direct link | Posted on May 8, 2013 at 15:28 UTC as 388th comment | 1 reply

The problem with trying to stay with CS6 and a perpetual license is what happens when you need a new version of Adobe Camera RAW and it won't work with CS6? That's where they've had us by the short hairs in the past. I had to upgrade every version to use ACR because the older ACR wouldn't support a new camera and the older version of Photoshop wouldn't support the newer version of ACR. It's like that now. If you have a D800, you have to have CS6 to use ACR 7.4. CS5 won't allow ACR 7.4 so won't support the D800.

So what happens with a new camera? They'll announce ACR 8 and it won't work with CS6. Stuck. I suppose I should start looking at Corell products after all these years. I'm not going with subscription, period.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2013 at 20:35 UTC as 645th comment | 7 replies
On Just Posted: Nikon D7100 in-depth review article (397 comments in total)
In reply to:

SylvainBdg: hum..85%...Nikon and its delicious GREEN skin tones...I am wondering what % is allocated for colour reproduction...my wedding was shot 3 weeks by 4 photographer using 4 different gears..Canon 7d, Nikon D7100 and D700 and Sony A77..guess which camera produced the most natural pics? (apart from the noise pb)..well it was the Sony..I am always surprised to see how much Nikon cameras score...Nowadays people just seem to care about pixels and sharpness..what a pity!!!

Sylvain, that was trollish. You shoot an A77. I did check. You dont shoot Nikon. Moreover, any green cast is a Jpeg setting, not some problem with the camera. I can make your A77 have a green cast or my Nikon D3S. A RAW file is not an image. It's the red, green and blue values stored digitally. So troll elsewhere. Facebook page! Priceless!

Then we have SmilerGrogan with the same foolishness and a brand new accound. You guys. LOL

Direct link | Posted on Apr 27, 2013 at 11:38 UTC
On Just Posted: Nikon D7100 in-depth review article (397 comments in total)
In reply to:

SylvainBdg: hum..85%...Nikon and its delicious GREEN skin tones...I am wondering what % is allocated for colour reproduction...my wedding was shot 3 weeks by 4 photographer using 4 different gears..Canon 7d, Nikon D7100 and D700 and Sony A77..guess which camera produced the most natural pics? (apart from the noise pb)..well it was the Sony..I am always surprised to see how much Nikon cameras score...Nowadays people just seem to care about pixels and sharpness..what a pity!!!

He's a Sony A77 using Troll. I just checked. No doubt he's not telling the truth about this supposed wedding either. Time to note the screen name for further consideration in posts and other area. I'm not sure why some Sony fanbois need to validate the camera model they chose by coming to a Nikon review with such nonsense. Nice catch, Illumina.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 26, 2013 at 22:39 UTC
On Pentax offers K-30 in a variety of colors and finishes article (118 comments in total)
In reply to:

privater: No green one?? how can I complete my rainbow sets.

And Silky Green

Direct link | Posted on Apr 3, 2013 at 01:37 UTC
In reply to:

toni2: Just compare
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_eos550d&products=canon_eos600d&products=canon_eos650d&products=canon_eos700d
4 cameras, 3 years... and same features!
Same MP, same focus points, same screen resolution, almost same viewfinder, last 3 models have articulated lcd, stereo sound (600d have only mono), the same battery ...
And still, every time the price is higher.
It will not be for research that is behind, right?

Ok, for you novices out there. I'd only shoot at max resolution, not a 6 or 2 megapixels ever. That might be all you need at the time, but later you might want a larger image. Memory is too cheap to not always shoot at maximum quality and size. It's way easier to down rez later than to move up to better quality when you don't have it.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2013 at 03:52 UTC
In reply to:

garyknrd: I am fairly new to Canon about 1.5 years now. How do they stay on top with this kind of offering?

They don't stay on top. Nikon has totally caught them and actually passed them in some markets and types of photography.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2013 at 03:42 UTC
In reply to:

Jon Legaspi: 750d will come out early next year to replace 700d, in marketing prespective canon just wanna have a new camera (model number game) in reality its just a copy of 650d.
No fools will buy 700d (unless they dont have 550d/600d/650d).
People will just take Nikon d5200 for an upgrade in same class! (very bad move by Canon).
Canon should Watch out for Pentax, K-5 is a quality camera, even better than Canon 7d (check snapsort.com) and K-5 cheaper by 30%!

The K5 II is a good camera, but they're essentially doing the same thing. The new K5 II is pretty darn close to the K5 and the same darn sensor. Why did Pentax stick with the same old sensor?

Another thing Canon and Nikon both have over Pentax is lens and accessory selection. If Pentax wants to really be back in the game, they need to offer a much larger selection of glass as well as other things like flash and perspective choices.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 23, 2013 at 03:41 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: This lens has much in common with the Pentax DA* 60-200 F/4 ED (90-380 F/6 equivalent) which is tack-sharp at the long end even outperforming most fixed focal lengths.

This is one particular lens which makes the Pentax APS-C system quite attractive.

The new Nikkor 80-400 could do the same for Nikon FX if the optical performance is similiarly top notch and if the price comes down a bit.

Ok, if you folks consider angle of view at one end of a zoom lens makes them common, that's fine. We're not talking equivalent focal length or reach, just angle of view here on one side of a zoom.

And you're right. Pentax doesn't really make anything really like it, do they? The fact you might want the 60-250 if you had a Pentax because Pentax doesn't make a full frame or this 80-400 is irrelavent. Field of view will never be the same as reach or focal length no matter how you slice the loaf. One is 400mm and one is 250mm on the long side regardless of how you wish to crop it.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2013 at 22:59 UTC
In reply to:

gl2k: Odd focal length.
Nikon has already 2 very good 70-200 lenses. The 80-400 has some massive overlap to both of them. Additionally there is the quite good 70-300 consumer lens which is inexpensive and delivers a lot for the money.
I'm not confident if this is really the lens photogs are after except "birders".

Peter and the rest are right. If this lens performs, it will be your number one budget birder for Nikon cameras. As good as the 300 f/4 with converter is, most budget birders will buy a zoom.

The various Sigmas are not bad lenses but they just aren't quite good enough to show that fine detail we all want. This new lens will have to be able to do that. Feather and beak detail, eye glint and skin texture have to be there. i think it will be.

Canon's good 100-400 is probably the best budget birder for them. The problem is it's an old design and it push pull. I do not like push pull telephoto zooms and I think most others agree. When Canon updates, I bet the replacement will not be push pull.

If you can't figure out who'll buy it, just look how many Sigmas, Tanrons, Nikons and Canon lenses that zoom to 400 and 500 that are out there selling pretty well. This will sell off the shelves regardless of price if the optics are good.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2013 at 17:05 UTC
In reply to:

falconeyes: This lens has much in common with the Pentax DA* 60-200 F/4 ED (90-380 F/6 equivalent) which is tack-sharp at the long end even outperforming most fixed focal lengths.

This is one particular lens which makes the Pentax APS-C system quite attractive.

The new Nikkor 80-400 could do the same for Nikon FX if the optical performance is similiarly top notch and if the price comes down a bit.

This lens has nothing in common with that Pentax 60-200 f/4. Nothing at all. The Pentax is half the focal length on the long side. If you want to apply crop factor, you have to apply that to both. Oh and it's a 60-250 f/4, if you check. It's about half the price and built for crop cameras only. The only thing it's equvalent to in this Full Frame lens is the angle of view. That's not a lot in common by my views.

That all said, that 60-250 f/4 is a superb lens for what it is. Also, it's unfortunate that Pentax doesn't yet make a full frame camera. Maybe soon in the future. I wish they'd catch up. I know they will, but when.

As for doing the same for Nikon, they aren't the same thing and Nikon has a plethora of lenses all around it, already top notch. I too hope it's excellent, but it won't make or break them. It just fits in a small nitch amongst all the others, some like the 200-400 f/4 being world class.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2013 at 16:49 UTC
In reply to:

bobbarber: LOL at all the complaints about price.

How many posters complaining about price have carried on in these forums about the disadvantages of 4/3 sensors, such as pixel-peeping chroma noise at ISO 3200 (horrors!) that doesn't even show up in prints?

You can get a slow, sharp 600mm lens for the stabilized OMD for a couple of hundred bucks.

If you prefer DSLRs, then why did you dance on Olympus's grave?

Be consistent, and pay through the nose for telephoto on your "superior" APS-C sensors. It's what you wanted, folks. You can brag about how much your paid for your equipment, but your pictures won't be any better.

Bob, you sound somewhat bitter. This is for our FX full frame models and it is what we wanted. It's a real 80-400, not a half crop of a 300mm. And, who's dancing on Olympus's grave? Have they died?

You're welcome to the smaller sensored cameras. They make even smaller ones if you choose, and I'm sure you can take good pictures with it.

In the mean time, they aren't in the same league as a big FX Nikon or Canon. Different strokes, but if you're that bitter about it, you too can buy one. The Nikon D600 and Canon 6D are quite reasonable these days.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2013 at 11:56 UTC

Good job, Barney. Let's hope it excels in optical performance and I'm an owner. I hope you get a chance to review it. It won't replace my 300 f/2.8 or my 500 f/4, but it might make a great portable bird watcher, and it's a whole lot less expensive. Thanks.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2013 at 05:20 UTC as 44th comment
In reply to:

chiumeister: How is it that both Sony and now Nikon has this same lens out at the same time?

Just curious, but what kind of question is that? You think it's a conspiracy?

For starters, it's not the "same" lens other than the sameapproximate focal range. The Sony is f/4-5.6 while the Nikon is f/4.5-5.6. The Sony has 18 elements in 12 groups while the Nikon has 20 elements in 12 groups so they are not that close to the same optical formula. Not close to the same lens.

The Nikon is black and has Nano Crystal Coating and replaces a lens that has been around for 12 years. The Sony is white and is a new focal range for them. What's all the same about this?

It's a Sony Nikon conspiracy to take over. ;-)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2013 at 05:15 UTC
In reply to:

SHood: Disappointed to see it gain 200g in weight. I was hoping it would weight less than the old lens.

Come on. They put an AFS motor in it. You'd expect it to be a little heavier.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 5, 2013 at 04:56 UTC
Total: 223, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »