Giuseppe Fallica

Giuseppe Fallica

Lives in Italy Palermo, Italy
Joined on Mar 31, 2009

Comments

Total: 29, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1224 comments in total)
In reply to:

Giuseppe Fallica: The "essence" of the matter is only one: has this new Lumix GX8, changed "party", adopting the brand new IMX269 EXMOR SONY sensor?
If the answer is affermative, this new GX series camera could be a really new camera and not a simple restyled GX item.
At this point, it would be useful to know something more about this sensor.
Is it really a sensor with a notable dynamic range increased and noise reduced? or are these just rumors?
These are the questions. Everything else, are secondary issues.

Don't misunderstand me! Handling, speed, metering, size, weight, reliability, lens availability are all very, very important features in the choice of camera instead of an other one. But finally, what makes the concrete difference between a pic made with a Hasselblad and a bridge camera is a particular feature...! Five years ago I've supplemented by interchangeable lens camera equipment, with a Finepix X100. A small camera with a fixed lens and no zoom. But with a revolutionary sensor (five year ago) capable of reach performance in low light dramatically superior than my reflex camera.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2015 at 06:09 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1224 comments in total)
In reply to:

Giuseppe Fallica: The "essence" of the matter is only one: has this new Lumix GX8, changed "party", adopting the brand new IMX269 EXMOR SONY sensor?
If the answer is affermative, this new GX series camera could be a really new camera and not a simple restyled GX item.
At this point, it would be useful to know something more about this sensor.
Is it really a sensor with a notable dynamic range increased and noise reduced? or are these just rumors?
These are the questions. Everything else, are secondary issues.

Dear Adroole, what makes concrete difference between a camera and an other one, is only the sensor: softness of colors, dynamic range, contrast, noise, etc.
Sensors customize brands and series more than all other components together. Everything else becomes secondary. So, my attention goes firstly to the IMX269 EXMOR SONY. Obviously GX8 has some improvements in design, body, shutter. For example, according to rumors this new sensor is much better in dynamic range: that's what I want to know

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2015 at 18:54 UTC
On The big beast: hands on with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX8 article (1224 comments in total)

The "essence" of the matter is only one: has this new Lumix GX8, changed "party", adopting the brand new IMX269 EXMOR SONY sensor?
If the answer is affermative, this new GX series camera could be a really new camera and not a simple restyled GX item.
At this point, it would be useful to know something more about this sensor.
Is it really a sensor with a notable dynamic range increased and noise reduced? or are these just rumors?
These are the questions. Everything else, are secondary issues.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 16, 2015 at 15:26 UTC as 127th comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

Angrymagpie: "If they’re being honest, I suspect that most enthusiast photographers have at one time or another aspired to owning a Leica."

Not for me. I've always thought of Leica M as an expensive luxury item for wealthy photography enthusiasts.
X100 series got me interested in the idea of a digital rangefinder. But that's a Fujifilm, not Leica. Though some would say that it is perhaps more Leica than Leica nowadays.

Correct Angrymagpie! I own (among others) a X100 first series. This camera is absolutely still amazing, but it's almost six years old. Next to retire! Many doubts about my next step: Leica Q? RX2 (When?) X100nextgeneration (When?)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 15:43 UTC

Thanks Barnaby, you have perfectly unintentionally replied to my post!
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/55968224

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 14:55 UTC as 133rd comment

Leica Q. That's the camera that I'd like to use for the next five years, but it rises a reasonable doubt: should I expect that Sony will very soon introduce the new "RX1"? Is really incoming, just around the corner, a compact full frame, curved and super performing dynamic range sensor, 35mm fixed lens, >50MPixels, >100,000 ISO and interesting competitive price, compared with this amazing Leica Q (though surely high price)?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 14:23 UTC as 11th comment

the curvature of these new sensors must be such that its radius should have the vertex exactly on the "nodal point".
In such a way that each pixel is equidistant from the nodal point. In this way the focus works much like human eye and all the physical problems (aberration, vignetting, focus at the edges) arising from the progressive increased distance of the pixels of the sensor flat (as like the points of the film) moving from the center toward the edges, are eliminated in one fell swoop!
But there is a problem:the nodal point is not a fixed point. It moves by changing the focal length of the lens. So I wonder, what consequences it will result.
Either manufacturers build the perfect camera lens with "fixed focal length", or they invent variable curvature sensors? I really do not know

Direct link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 07:21 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

Giuseppe Fallica: Leonardo da Vinci, many centuries ago, had realized that the mechanics can copy from nature. And if the eye retina is curved, there is a reason...

No problem and no controversy. We are not talking about "art" (the quality of which is not measurable), but about mechanical tools. If the idea works or do not work, the result will be verified and measured with mathematical accuracy. :-)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2014 at 07:28 UTC

Leonardo da Vinci, many centuries ago, had realized that the mechanics can copy from nature. And if the eye retina is curved, there is a reason...

Direct link | Posted on Jun 18, 2014 at 06:56 UTC as 112th comment | 4 replies

I regret the times of the glorious Hasselbad 500 with the Planar 80mm. This new object has a look that wants to be original, but that finally is only baroque and not sober. Inside, I'm afraid, it's a blend of third-party tecnology (Sony, first of all) which is likely not to be able to run to the fast pace that the market dictates. In other words, Sony already has better things in the drawer, directly with its own brand.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2013 at 10:05 UTC as 114th comment
On Hasselblad responds to Lunar criticisms article (613 comments in total)

I regret the times of the glorious Hasselbad 500 with the Planar 80mm. This new object has a look that wants to be original, but that finally is only baroque and not sober. Inside, I'm afraid, it's a blend of third-party tecnology (Sony, first of all) which is likely not to be able to run to the fast pace that the market dictates. In other words, Sony already has better things in the drawer, directly with its own brand.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 23, 2013 at 07:57 UTC as 14th comment
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Blending Images article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

Giuseppe Fallica: Improving photographs working on levels, curves, contrast, saturation, filters, lights, shadows, gamma, as well as using HDR techniques, photo stacking, etc.., is deontologically appreciable, because the final result, however, isn't a fake: only a picture improved.
Techniques such as the one here illustrated, however, leave me puzzled because goes beyond the Photography and entering the creative montage. Which often has a great artistic value.
But that's not Photography.

P.S.
Jean, It's obvious that my comments were related to the purposes of the technique, not to the the "technique itself". Your tutorial is a masterpiece and I will be the first to use it!

Direct link | Posted on Mar 15, 2013 at 13:55 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Blending Images article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

Giuseppe Fallica: Improving photographs working on levels, curves, contrast, saturation, filters, lights, shadows, gamma, as well as using HDR techniques, photo stacking, etc.., is deontologically appreciable, because the final result, however, isn't a fake: only a picture improved.
Techniques such as the one here illustrated, however, leave me puzzled because goes beyond the Photography and entering the creative montage. Which often has a great artistic value.
But that's not Photography.

- continue from -
And I do not mean just photojournalism social or war reportages. Even the landscape photos are discarded without hesitation by newspapers such as National Geographic, if counterfeit beyond what is a simple calibration.
The case of the legendary Robert Doisneau photo "Kiss by the Hotel de Ville" is completely different. We discuss it if the kissing couple is casually on site, or it's a couple in a pose. But even in the latter case, technically, no question of a montage.
Infact, one thing is to create a scene or a situation. Another thing is to remove people with rubber ...

Direct link | Posted on Mar 15, 2013 at 11:13 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Blending Images article (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

Giuseppe Fallica: Improving photographs working on levels, curves, contrast, saturation, filters, lights, shadows, gamma, as well as using HDR techniques, photo stacking, etc.., is deontologically appreciable, because the final result, however, isn't a fake: only a picture improved.
Techniques such as the one here illustrated, however, leave me puzzled because goes beyond the Photography and entering the creative montage. Which often has a great artistic value.
But that's not Photography.

Do not get me wrong.
I assumed that creative manipulation has a great artistic value, often even more than in documentary photography.
But it's another thing.
It's therefore necessary to understand what we are talking about: creativity or photojournalism?
In the first case it's ethically permissible to use any tool. No limit.
In the second case, It's ethically allowed the use of calibration tools, but not "manipulation".
It was discovered that some photographers, trying to emphasize the famous tsunami a few years ago, have created photomontages using pieces of Niagara Falls.
This is unethical.
The newspapers, now more than ever, in the digital age, they are very strict in this respect.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 15, 2013 at 11:12 UTC
On Photoshop Gradient Tool: Blending Images article (223 comments in total)

Improving photographs working on levels, curves, contrast, saturation, filters, lights, shadows, gamma, as well as using HDR techniques, photo stacking, etc.., is deontologically appreciable, because the final result, however, isn't a fake: only a picture improved.
Techniques such as the one here illustrated, however, leave me puzzled because goes beyond the Photography and entering the creative montage. Which often has a great artistic value.
But that's not Photography.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 14, 2013 at 09:24 UTC as 32nd comment | 7 replies
On getting in some practice for halloween in the Funny Pet Faces challenge (18 comments in total)

πραγματικά άξιζε την πρώτη θέση. Συγχαρητήρια!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 31, 2012 at 09:06 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Giuseppe Fallica: there is a big misunderstanding.
There are two ways to use the hdr technique, totally different.
The first is a technique simply aimed at expanding the range of tones in the presence of wide light variation.
This technique generates classic normal images, and the skill of the photographer becomes even more great if the observers appreciate the result without needing to understand that it is used the HDR technique.
else, completely different, is the HDR tecnique used to generate surreal or hyperreal images.
do not confuse the two.

I mean: the first way of using the HDR technique is - in concrete - a simple adjustment, calibration, of images (therefore, in my opinion, it can be used in photojournalism).
The second is a technique of "manipulation", reality distortion, designed to create photo art, surreal or hyperreal that cannot (must not) be used in photojournalism. Of course.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 5, 2012 at 20:45 UTC

there is a big misunderstanding.
There are two ways to use the hdr technique, totally different.
The first is a technique simply aimed at expanding the range of tones in the presence of wide light variation.
This technique generates classic normal images, and the skill of the photographer becomes even more great if the observers appreciate the result without needing to understand that it is used the HDR technique.
else, completely different, is the HDR tecnique used to generate surreal or hyperreal images.
do not confuse the two.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 4, 2012 at 07:59 UTC as 96th comment | 1 reply
On Stone house in the Home challenge (3 comments in total)
In reply to:

dibilio57: Bellissima!

Thank you Angelo,
do people like the shot, the home or the place?
I'm twice happy, becouse I like that shot, but the home is my weekend small buen retiro into the wild! A dream that came true!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 8, 2011 at 12:24 UTC
On Il Cairo in the Egypt challenge (3 comments in total)
In reply to:

Behzad_T: My favourite! very beautiful!

Thank you Behzad!

Direct link | Posted on Oct 3, 2011 at 19:54 UTC
Total: 29, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »