Dan Nikon

Lives in United States N/A, CA, United States
Works as a Full time pro, 20+ years
Joined on Feb 4, 2007


Total: 61, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »

I have a full Hassy V system that includes 9 lenses, 10 backs, 2 x 501CM's and a 500ELX, I use it for fine art in doing darkroom prints, stellar system for peanuts in terms of what it used to cost. That being said, as tempting as this 50 MP back is and I don't find the price too outrageous, I would rather have a 20MP 56mm x 56mm ( that is the full image area ) back that I can impart the same look and feel of the format with, not a cropped version that only slightly outdoes my new D810. Sure, high res is great but I would rather sacrifice MP count for great low light and having it be 6x6.

I never crop my 6x6 images, I shoot to fill a square frame. Hopefully they will sell enough of these to create the basis for R&D to make a proper 6x6 back one day...one can only dream at this point.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2014 at 18:11 UTC as 7th comment | 7 replies
On GalleryItem:2715903 (1 comment in total)

Bumper is only 48 pounds, 16 more than stock as it is aluminum.

Posted on Oct 8, 2013 at 19:03 UTC as 1st comment

I don't really care what Adobe does at this point, I started using Photoshop with version 2.0 in 1991 and have concluded my purchasing with CS6, end of the line, no clouds, no subscriptions, done! I just don't need it nearly as much anymore as I have nearly completely moved away from digital in my career anyway, so what is the point of chasing software rainbows?

I think they have really screwed them selves here and the bean counters have to be freaking....

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2013 at 17:09 UTC as 114th comment

While I have my own high end fine art darkroom and do my own processng, there are two things I am really happy about with this news. One is that as Ilford continues to realize what a great niche film is, especially black and white, the newly announced Kodak Alaris umbrella is also re-tooling for this niche and it looks like we might all have the best of all worlds after all, photographically speaking.

But I have to say...the best news of all might be that it would appear that dpreview is also realizing that film is not only not going away, but that it totally makes sense that the site matures in scope as the use of film does. There is simply no reason anymore to have this bashing going on, which is better or not, it has always been senseless. 20 years I have been happy to use digital, but there is simply no way I would ever give up black and white film, not when gallery print sales keep going up.

Good job Ilford, good job dpreview, keep it up.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2013 at 03:00 UTC as 10th comment
On article 17 signs that you were alive before digital photography (149 comments in total)
In reply to:

snegron2: I miss film. :(

Why miss what you can easily buy? We all deserve to be able to enjoy a balanced creative diet, if you want film to be a part of that diet, then by all means, partake my friend, partake:


Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2013 at 01:38 UTC
On article 17 signs that you were alive before digital photography (149 comments in total)

Huh...I'm actually fairly young. I guess one thing I don't understand is that unlike music and other forms of arts, there seems to be this near-constant & insecure need to make fun of a great medium in which to arrive at a fine photograph. I have shot digital for 20 years now, great stuff. But it is not replacing my darkroom, my Hasselblad and my 4x5 as the price I get for those black and white prints goes up and up....with very few exceptions, I don't see digital output doing the same.

And to add to that, I have had a teenaged intern working with me over the Summer. She asked about film use, wants to try it because she is more than a little tired of doing everything in life on a computer. But yeah dpreview...where would digital be without all the web born hype?

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2013 at 19:01 UTC as 49th comment
On article David East: Stills photography with a GoPro (29 comments in total)

I sometimes use my Hero 3 black to get remote stills for some corporate work. Now, understand that these still have limited usability in terms of what one might customarily expect...think earlier camera phone shots. But like GoPro can not replace a RED, the stills can not replace those from say, a D800. The files do need more post processing as can clearly be seen here, but it is a start since the number one reason to use a GoPro for anything is alternate POV with a small and light footprint and for peanuts compared to a larger motion system.

So before you argue quality or it replacing a DSLR, think iPhone and how it has progressed, it will get better.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2013 at 17:06 UTC as 21st comment
On article Celebrities who love photography (65 comments in total)

These are fun, but...

I have access to similar subjects in political arenas in some of my corporate work and one exercise I always employ in editing is to think of the image as if it were a bit more mainstream, less exclusive in terms of access and then look at it again. 8/10 times, it is the exclusivity of the subject rather than the talent behind the shot that got it in the 1st and 2nd round of the edit.

I would love to see these same photographers take on more pedestrian subjects, then post them anonymously in a place like Flickr or even here for critique and see what happens. I bet the difference in reaction to the work would vary quite a bit

Link | Posted on May 3, 2013 at 18:01 UTC as 11th comment
On article Fujifilm X100S Real-world Samples (205 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kwick1: Wow, these...ummm...suck. Lifeless colors, no accutance, flat, digital appearance. I was seriously considering ordering one, but not now. Yes, the high ISO shots were nice, but that's not enough when everything else is so bad.

You need to re-think how those who shoot these cameras "Real-World" use them to give examples of what the cameras can do. This is not unique to you Barney but instead, seems to be an issue with every gallery like this on every review, nearly making all cameras look the same. It does the viewer, the makers of the cameras and the validity of the site no favors.

But what do I know, I am just a professional photographer, not a blogger or camera tester...

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2013 at 17:24 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100S Real-world Samples (205 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kwick1: Wow, these...ummm...suck. Lifeless colors, no accutance, flat, digital appearance. I was seriously considering ordering one, but not now. Yes, the high ISO shots were nice, but that's not enough when everything else is so bad.

I'm sorry but this is just flat out uninformed.

The camera-holder could have used the "Astia" setting with deeper blacks like I do on the X100 and just knocked it out of the park in a place like Pike Place Market that just ooozes great wraps of mixed light. As part of a 6 year book project, I shot for a week in Seattle when it was mostly the same kind of light and came away with outright luscious Kodachromes.

This site *should* be like a Car and Driver road test. No one expects the reviewer to drive it like he stole, just use the darn camera like HE shoots it, like HE owns it. Otherwise, there is nothing real world about these kinds of galleries because in the real world, even an amateur would have put more of an effort into putting some style and panache into the final products.

The camera is fine, it is the "photographer" that failed to really show what can be done with it.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2013 at 22:14 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100S Real-world Samples (205 comments in total)
In reply to:

ashwins: Nice set of pictures.

X100s seems to have the tendency to overexpose a little, though.

The "photographer" overexposed most of them and chose poorly in terms of light that would reveal this camera's true ability in terms of spatial color relationships, only a couple start to pull the saturation threshold into the range of what a professionally exposed color neg or chrome should look like. David Alan Harvey has one of these and the few pics he has posted just utterly blow these flat-tastic happy snaps away...

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2013 at 19:35 UTC
In reply to:

hanoman: It's too small. I would like to have space for a jacket/sweater and some food as well

I know what you mean, but...just do what I do and don't fill it to capacity with camera gear. I hated how heavy and over padded Lowe photo packs used to be, but this line is really getting there due to how much weight they trimmed off over the years.

Even in a regular pack you have to pack things together like food, water and clothing, this is no different in some ways...

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2013 at 19:08 UTC
In reply to:

ScottRH: Water and camera in one pack is a bad idea. No thanks, I carry them separately.

I use both the 10L and 15L packs full time professionally, never have an issue with a leaking Camelbak bladder. Just don't fill them 100%...

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2013 at 19:05 UTC

Nice to see this!
I use the 15L version for my 5 lens 4x5 kit and ski big terrain with it. I also use the 10L version for my Hasselblad 6x6 kit for the same task. The lack of padding in the straps is a wee bit of an issue but I never overload my packs to begin with preferring to leave room for other needed items like food, water and clothing.

Now if they could only make a water resistant and non-wetsuit like pouch like the Zing, life would be grand!

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2013 at 19:03 UTC as 20th comment
In reply to:

Jack_D: I would have liked to seen a portrait of Paul Simon included in the final roll.

Paul was contacted by me and most likely by Steve but he was not to oblige his likeness and it might have to do with the whole branding / copyright thing that happened when "Kodachrome" hit the airwaves.

A shame really, he would have had some great PR out of it...

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2013 at 00:30 UTC
In reply to:

maboule123: Really? You, the last Kodachrome to be processed?
I was coming back from the Canyon lands, Arches Park to be exact on my way home to Montreal. I dropped 5 Kodachrome films to be sent for processing on January 25th, at a photo store in Salt Lake City. Since I wasn't to wait the customary 7 days I left my home address written on the envelopes. I received ALL my slides in plastic boxes at my door two weeks later.
The clerk mentioned that there wasn't any more Kodachrome for sale, but that Kodak was still honoring their prepaid Kodachrome.
What? You were there when The Beatles broke up?

Not to be processed but to be shot in the timeline of when the clock ran out. I watched Dwayne shoot his last roll that day as I had 12 frames left to go in one camera and 7 in another.

In early 2005, I contact Dwayne's son at the lab about this project. I told him I wanted to shoot the film until the very last moment and he said it was a long ways off but OK. So over the years, we kept in touch, I went out to visit with him and my project gained steam:


So on December 30th at the end of the day when it was obvious that Dwayne's was not going to get through the 15,000++ rolls that had come in, I asked Grant, "OK, so what now?"

He simply replied with a smirk, "Keep shooting!"

So I did and the rest is history....

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2013 at 00:28 UTC
In reply to:

John Crawley: It is hard to beat film...

Woodlink, I am not sure I understand...

You can buy thousands of rolls of fresh color and black and white film from B&H, Adorama and Freestyle and pros like my self are using it more and more for niche work, especially hand printed black and white fine art. Not sure why you think film is dead when people still use it, even 20-something's who are not part of the Lomo crowd...

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2013 at 00:02 UTC

Steve shot the last roll to come off of the production line, Dwayne of Dwayne's Photo shot the last roll to be processed and I shot the last roll before the machine was shut down, had 50 rolls come out of the last 100 roll batch along with Dwayne's roll on January 17th at 1:00 PM when Kodachrome officially passed into the history books.

If you want to see what was on the **very** last roll to of the film to be shot and processed as actual Kodachrome, I uploaded frame number 8 from that roll here:


This was out of 1,285 rolls I shot for my project over a 6 year span, about 65 well past the lab cut off date of December 30th, 2010. The edit is nearly done, I have about 300 top images for the book and a couple of publishers on the line...

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2013 at 23:54 UTC as 67th comment | 1 reply
On GalleryItem:2423000 (1 comment in total)

This was shot January 16th at around 10PM in central Kansas while on the way to the lab the night before Dwayne's Photo turned off the last functional K-14 Kodachrome processing machine in history. I used a mirror bought from Walmart placed on a 5 gallon bucket in a wheat field.

Shot with a Leica M6TTL with a 35mm 1.4 ASPH at F 2.0, 30 minutes. You can see the effects of the mirror fogging over due to the 15 degree temps after half an hour....

Posted on Feb 8, 2013 at 23:43 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

JakeB: So....

How many old farts are on here waxing lyrical about a dead technology because they don't really understand the new one?


Probably a few.

I am a middle aged pro who makes a great income off of shooting both digital and film and intend to keep it that way bud. What is sad is that unlike other crafts, passions and vocations, the bashing of film based photography has become as much a hobby or pastime for folks on here as photography it self.

There is nothing dead about a technology or method of working that continues to be well expressed in the hands of talented users, but ignorance and narrow minded thinking would surely prevent you from seeing that now wouldn't it...

Been using digital full time for nearly 20 years by the way, it is not new to me Mr. JakeB...

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2012 at 17:12 UTC
Total: 61, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »