John Sevigny

Joined on Jan 29, 2021

Comments

Total: 81, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

wjan: I am sick of this hyped "AI everything" mantra. There is no real AI available today, only some more or less well executed variations of ML (machine learning).

It's true. The article is not even about AI, really. There's no actual machine learning in the proposal. I think AI, as a marketing concept, will have died before the end of 2023z

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2023 at 05:09 UTC
In reply to:

dnscott645: Why would anyone today would want to shoot color film. Color film and print paper are dye based therefore not very archival. Digital color prints are pigment based and are very archival. Electronic files can be made archival too with special discs or good back-up. Black & white is another story, as it is archival when processed right. There are also a lot of historic processes for shooting B & W the give different results. By the way, your digital photo printers and papers give analog like prints by allowing adjacent ink dots to blend with each other

Museum quality color prints are giclee or some form of inkjet. This is true at most of the top end labs.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2023 at 04:57 UTC
In reply to:

Jagganatha: And another thing. WHY do you have to download each individual camera/lens profile. WHY are they not provided in the software you have already paid for and downloaded online. It is not that you just need to add any NEW profile to what you have bought, no. You have to be online to be able to download every single camera/lens combination one after the other to even be able to open a file AT ALL! The DXO programme itself contains NO profiles for lenses or camera sensors, NONE, unlike Adobe and Mac OS Photos that come with all their profiles built-in.
&, if you have to transfer your programme to a new machine, or install it again after an OS update or because Windows has crashed or whatever, well then you have to go online, log into your DXO account and email them, asking them very politely if, pretty please you can reinstall the software you have paid them for, and they might say no. A few years ago they wiped all our acounts of all our purchases so we cannot get paid-for software again

I may be too dense to use DxO correctly, but far too often the program picks some random lens like (Nikon 28-70 2.8) when a lens like Sony's 28mm 2.8 or 35mm "Zeiss" 2.8 isn't available.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2023 at 04:44 UTC
In reply to:

Tom_A: Happy with DXO - it corrects most of my gear.

However would be good if now recent iphones were included as well. Curious about that.

In general, even the newest iPhones suffer from weird distortion, particularly on what's considered normal mode, which is pretty wide. Iphones have very good cameras even if the files are anemic. A DXO style fix would, for me anyway, get me using my phone more.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2023 at 04:40 UTC
In reply to:

Davud: COVID really did a number on film production. Until Fujifilm decides to ramp up their productions, we will not see a price drop. Always better to have two rivals than a monopoly.

fuji is ramping down production

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2022 at 23:13 UTC
In reply to:

j102030: The argument laid out in the article is questionable in a number of ways. First of all, the assumption that the Lomography film is still being produced just because the rolls they sell have new expiration dates is overly optimistic. They just might have some master rolls left.
Secondly, if Kodak has trouble keeping up with production for their existing film lines, why would they then have the capacity to add other, cheaper emulsions with (presumably less profitable) prices?
Lastly, I don't think film users would be all that happy about switching to worse emulsions every time the price goes up.

The only thing that will stabilize film prices is when supply meets demand. That will happen either through ramped up production to increase supply or through less demand because of the higher prices. Most likely it'll be a mix of both.

Exactly this. Films such as cinestill are likely sitting around frozen somewhere. Highly unlikely anyone's producing it. And I don't care how many rolls they make of a given emulsion - the price is never going down.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2022 at 23:13 UTC
In reply to:

brycesteiner: If there really was demand they would be building new plants, opening up the shuttered ones, or competitors would be seeing the need and building small scale plants. That seems to be how the market works.

90% of used cameras are damaged. They're Wayyyyyy too expensive and most film labs today are rubbish. I loved shooting film. Now that i's dying, I love shooting digital.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2022 at 23:10 UTC
In reply to:

ZilverHaylide: Sorry, but as someone who has done photography for decades, I think color film is headed to the cemetery, the only question is how fast the hearse will drive there.

That said, I think that old cameras and film might still be useful for a long time, if used for their strengths: 1) traditional high-quality black & white, where you can still with film get high resolution and large dynamic range, and customize development, all at a still-reasonable price, especially via DIY, and 2) infrared B&W, where for the price of a roll of film and an IR filter, you can do what you'd need a costly modified body to do with digital.

15 years ago nobody was shooting film. It was all about dslrs and megapixels. Once digital cameras became affordable, film got a death sentence. Nobody used it then and nobody would use it now. And as a photographer who travels to work 10 months a year, I would far rather just carry a camera and a laptop than rolls of film. And if I was going to shoot film, it wouldn't be Kodak.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2022 at 23:05 UTC
In reply to:

dnscott645: Why would anyone today would want to shoot color film. Color film and print paper are dye based therefore not very archival. Digital color prints are pigment based and are very archival. Electronic files can be made archival too with special discs or good back-up. Black & white is another story, as it is archival when processed right. There are also a lot of historic processes for shooting B & W the give different results. By the way, your digital photo printers and papers give analog like prints by allowing adjacent ink dots to blend with each other

Custom labs can make color prints that will last hundreds of years.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2022 at 22:56 UTC
In reply to:

Edac2: Last night I saw some Kodachrome slides taken in 1952 that looked as clear and vibrant as they would if they were shot today. Sadly, if a trove of undeveloped Kodachromes were found today, there would be no way to process them. Bringing back Kodachrome might be a goal for Kodak to look into.

The chemicals needed to shoot Kodachrome are among the worst for thr environment. And Kodachrome was going for over $20 US when I last shot a roll more than two decades ago. Provia was a huge improvement, and unlike Kodachrome, not close to impossible to scan.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2022 at 22:53 UTC
In reply to:

pixelpreaching: Bring back Kodachrome, modified so it can be developed with E-6

Impossible. Kodachrome is never coming back and certainly not as an e6 film. It was fine for its time. I shot a ton of it. But it's badly overrated.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2022 at 22:47 UTC
In reply to:

jimmytong: Film is not dead!

Nah. It's just another $5k year expense. I loved shooting film when there were good labs. Now I'm happy with digital. It's about how much cash you have and personal preferences.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2022 at 19:25 UTC
In reply to:

LeDatas: I'd be more interested if Olympus, Canon, Nikon, or Pentax re-released one of their old classics. I loved using an OM-4 back in the early 2000s. I just can't see myself spending over $5,000 to rekindle the film experience. I think I'm just too practical with my money, but I understand the beauty/appeal of Leica cameras.

Ditto.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2022 at 19:23 UTC
In reply to:

Vallkar: This classic camera update looks even better.

#digitallives

😀

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2022 at 19:22 UTC
In reply to:

kathala: so everything is retro...except of course the price.
fun fact: in 1984, you could buy an M6 AND a Noctilux for well under 2k USD. even after adjusting for inflation, that is LESS than the price of this reissue M6...

I got my M6 ttl new for $2k. Floor model.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2022 at 19:20 UTC
In reply to:

Daniel Bliss: One other factor that would help -- camera manufacturers bringing back basic film bodies that would work with current lenses. For Canon and Nikon that would mean either a film SLR that works with recent glass (less of an issue with Canon because of a far wider base of compatible used bodies; in Nikon there's not a single film body that works with E series lenses at anything other than maximum aperture, while pre-1990 bodies only work with G lenses at minimum aperture), or a mirrorless body that would have to have a recessed lens mount and a separate view finding apparatus in order to pull it off -- think in terms of a 35mm camera that has proportions like one of the old instamatic film cartridges so that the film canister would be appropriately forward of the film plane but the lens mount recessed far enough to cover the narrower flange distance required by M/L lenses.

Is there the demand for this? That's up to the manufacturers to work out and film enthusiasts to lobby for.

most film shooters want to use retro cameras to match the retro film look they get when they take pictures of retro gas stations at night. 90% of film shooters have no interest in a "new" camera when an ancient camera on ebay looks so much cooler.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2022 at 02:17 UTC

This is never going to happen. Kodak continues to sell patent after patent and get rid of all film related infrastructure. Finally, nobody ever makes anything cheaper. The fact that they could doesn’t change the fact that they won’t,
.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2022 at 02:05 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

John Sevigny: Charging for every upgrade seems a little unfair. $9.99 a month for PS/LR is one thing. $75 every six months for DXO is a little steep. Especially when the most significant upgrades are unnecessary features like the “Time Machine.”

Good answer, Spazmaster. Did you come up with that idea all by yourself? Gold star for you today!

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2022 at 14:51 UTC
In reply to:

nickolas84: Phones have doing this "for years".
Welcome to the modern world dinosaurs (I mean ILCs)
The difference still is that phones do it with a single tap. No media to transfer the files, no raw to dng transformatiton, no extra computer needed or any other device for actually publicing-sharing the photo.

I guess I’d better sell all this Fuji and Sony gear. Not to mention my computer. Such a fool I’ve been.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2022 at 14:44 UTC
In reply to:

bbartlomiej: I've compared it to DxO PL 5 and I must say I have mixed feelings. The retouching tools seem nice but DeepPRIME XD is strange. It does provide better denoising of uniform colours etc. but it gets much worse in areas when uniform, plain colour meets with some other, more detailed area. See for yourself:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bbartlomiej/52406019732/in/dateposted-public/
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bbartlomiej/52406019782/in/dateposted-public/

The areas where background meets with the dog's body are strange, with artifacts. For some usage older DeepPRIME may be a better choice.

When you get to the actual printing stage, most of that disappears. I use DXO almost exclusively for noise reduction.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2022 at 20:20 UTC
Total: 81, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »