laueddy

laueddy

Lives in United States Seattle, United States
Works as a Wedding Photography
Joined on Oct 12, 2003

Comments

Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14

Those are some terrible photos...!

Direct link | Posted on Feb 2, 2014 at 00:30 UTC as 16th comment

I think it would be a huge lost for us if we are to lose the Hasselblad brand, so I am glad the CEO who's responsible to the Lunar is gone. CEOs always get pay the big bucks, so I feel like he should paid Hasselblad the money back for the lost in business! Is that guy a total idiot in the first place to create Lunar?? Maybe in got pay by Canon to destroy the Hasselblad?!!?

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2014 at 19:16 UTC as 61st comment
On Canon announces EOS M2 in Japan news story (616 comments in total)

For the Fuji XF Camera, Fuji actively improves their camera but coming out with new Firmware for free.

For Canon, the solution is not free new firmware, but a newer Expensive EOS-M ver. 2 camera which the improve is not much more than a firmware upgrade on the Fuji.

Talk about Value here ......., the Fuji XF system rocks.

With that being said, I did just order my EOS-M from BH with the Adapter yesterday. It's not a bad price to purchase as a spare camera that my wife can help me carry around while I have my 5Dm3 and the other big lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 4, 2013 at 01:13 UTC as 73rd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Daro31: Great, fantastic technolovy, and excuse me for being cynical, all this so that someone can see a 2x2 inch photo on their I phone for .5 seconds. It really makes me wonder?

Those are some awesome pictures. A combination of zoom, fast AF, and high resolution into one, the price of the lens is quite affordable. At least for a professional.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2013 at 04:55 UTC
On What's new @ CES 2013 article (126 comments in total)
In reply to:

CameraCarl: Once again, lots of new cameras but only two with viewfinders. My wife (who is not as serious a photographer as me) won't even consider using a camera that does not have a viewfinder. And after struggling with the Panasonic LX3 and Canon S100 in daylight and bright sun, I will never buy another camera that doesn't have one. I can't figure why the manufacturers do not realize this. Why do they think photos ought to be taken at arm's length?

I found taking picture with just the LCD fairly difficult. This may has to do with age too. As you get older, especially with glasses on, you start to need to put the camera further away from you to see (Unless with reading glasses, or for the very least remove your existing glasses). Problem solve with a viewfinder. EVF wasn't too good until recently. I am currently using a 5dm3, E-M5, and the X Pro 1 all have Viewfinder. Putting your eye against a viewfinder also help reduce camera shake, which I think is another important factor to take good picture.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2013 at 15:36 UTC
In reply to:

Mssimo: When did 1024 x 768 8" screen become "low-res." This article needs a new title. It may suck for photographers but for other reasons like its crap 5MP camera and low storage.

1024x768 is pretty low resolution. It barely have enough resolution for windows 8 or mac os. Some website now don't display properly unless your have 1280 on the wide side.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 23, 2012 at 22:46 UTC

Microsoft still provide updates for Windows XP, or our iPad 1 are still getting updates to new iOS. So, there is very little reason for Adobe not to provide a security for such an expensive software they sell.
When going from an older version to a new version, it should be about new features and functions, not patch.

Direct link | Posted on May 14, 2012 at 20:40 UTC as 16th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

shaocaholica: Urgh. Why can't Apple just give devs and their own camera team access to the raw data and save it as something like a DNG. Also manual exposure and white balance. Its all happening in the background so its not like they need to write any low level code for it.

I am not surprised. It used to be relatively costly to learn photography. We are talking about cost on films and developing, let alone enlargement, or cropping.
Digital photography made photography so easy, just like almost anyone here in the US can drive.
Films, we have to worry about color casts, so we put in filters. 90% of us use day light balance films, where again color filters are needed to correct the color ahead.
With Digital, we have AWD, we can shoot in any lighting conditions, etc.....! Yes, digital photography is a lot easier, and you have to be very good and set yourself apart from the average.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 20, 2012 at 21:51 UTC

It's only $1000 diff. if you would to compare this with the 24-70 II on Canon side. But I wonder if it can even get as sharp as the 24-70 Mark I. which is about the same price as this.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 6, 2012 at 18:18 UTC as 68th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

LJohnK2: So using the Photographers figures Avg. cost $ 2,500/(8+22.5 hrs)=
$ 82/hr....so it appears the Bride is young and has never hired a Plumber, Electrician or paid a car repair bill.....but then again who can fault here deductive reasoning as it is embraced by "educated" political and business leaders in her culture....she has learned well....she considers the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

And an IT Consultant can easily charge over $100/hr just by talking before any real works are started.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 09:06 UTC
In reply to:

IcyVeins: Come on people, this is such an obvious troll. I can't believe that a professional photographer and DPR really fell for this. It's just some goofball trolling craigslist trying to get people on sites like this up in arms.

Yet, I enjoy reply these post every so often..! A way to kill time and write a few comments...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 08:59 UTC
In reply to:

rickpoole: Outstanding response Nikki! As I've upgraded my equipment to near professional quality and gotten much move involved in advanced post processing I can really understand and appreciate all the expenses and time involved in doing high quality professional work. I am a little surprised at the number of hours spent editing wedding photos - I would have expected a lot more, maybe even double the 25 hours or so (I guess I still have a lot to learn about automating PP). Being a part-time owner of a family business I can also really appreciate all the expenses of running a business. It's not easy, it's not cheap and it is getting harder and more expensive by the year as more regulations appear and prices continue upwards.

Hopefully your explanation will open a lot of eyes on how hard it is to make even a decent living as a small photography business and that current wedding photography prices are actually quite a bargain.

RPoole

Exactly! My 5Dm2 can do ok, but when I start using my 85 1.8 or 135 f/2 lense with minmal DOP. I trust my 1-series, and no less.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 08:57 UTC
In reply to:

G10Rebel: the generation of whiners, those generation 90's...

Getting married can be cheap or expensive depends on what you want, but who cares if people stop giving up their marriage so easy, and get divorce then married 3 or 4 times (or more) in their life time...!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2012 at 08:55 UTC
On Eagel Eye in the My best picture ever ! challenge (11 comments in total)

Totally Awesome!

Direct link | Posted on Jan 21, 2012 at 07:43 UTC as 7th comment
Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14