Biological_Viewfinder

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jul 14, 2010
About me:

I'm still working on this

Comments

Total: 250, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article 2016 Challenge of Challenges winners announced (52 comments in total)

The lack of originality is due to the nature of challenges themselves.

I mean, if the challenge is waterfalls, then that's what will win that challenge. ETC!

I think it would be far better for the viewer and voter and forum user and photographer, if instead of challenges of challenges, DPReview sought out the most liked samples from the many types of photography forums where people ask for C&C and are not in any challenge at all. That's where you are going to find unique quality.

The challenges were FAR MORE COMPELLING back when DPReview wasn't directly involved and it was just people in some of the forums who did it, instead of all of them. The new kind of challenges end up being less about image quality and more about who and how many people you know in the forums that will pump up your picture regardless of its visual impact. It is more about the clique groups and less about photography. I'd prefer if DPR just stepped aside and let us enjoy it the way it was meant to be enjoyed.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 03:46 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply

Good stuff. I'd be delighted if any of my aerials turned out so nice.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2017 at 08:36 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

1sol3ss: I'm going to vote, but I'm not a big fan of any of them to be honest.

I'm not even going to vote. None of them seem to be worthy of being the BEST of the BEST; maybe the best of whatever challenge they won, but not the best of the year.

Link | Posted on Feb 15, 2017 at 19:37 UTC
In reply to:

Donnie G: Nikon takes a one-time loss of $1Billion, primarily due to their restructuring of their business, and now everybody here thinks that spells doom and gloom for the company. Well, think again folks, because Nikon will be around for a long time to come. However, they do have some work to do in order to put this hiccup behind them. 😎

I think the point was that it seems more possible that a world in ten years might not include Nikon.

Maybe all of our talk about Can(ik)on was true.

Link | Posted on Feb 14, 2017 at 21:05 UTC
On article Sony SLT a99 II Review (1506 comments in total)

Hmm... not French toast.

Sony is a great innovator. It's just that CaNikon have been doing this for so long that they have the end-user in mind a bit more when it comes to ergonomics and menus and tactile response button placement.

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 17:55 UTC as 202nd comment

"Hey is that an old Nikon? I remember when I had one of those. I think it was a D900, the last camera the company ever made. Those were the days. Remember how enormous those cameras used to be? Nobody carries that kind of gear anymore. We had to use a backpack just to carry our lenses.... hahahah."

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2017 at 15:58 UTC as 296th comment
On article Prime or zoom? LensRentals investigates (237 comments in total)

I'm actually pretty surprised that our image quality from enormous hand-telescope of a device is actually so inconsistent. I know that there is variation in manufacturing, but it's so bad that typically nobody is going to know for sure of the quality they have.

I bet a person who made a camera body that did nothing but analyze a lens for the consumer would sell a lot of units. Just a readout on an LCD, it doesn't take pictures at all. There's a permanent test chart laser etched on the sensor. The readout tells the user to zoom out through the focal range and when to change the aperture; then you put the SD card in your computer and run the program and you get the results. A score of 72, not bad; I think I'll keep this one...

Kick start it! Make it happen.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 18:37 UTC as 46th comment
In reply to:

CaPi: Is it just me or does this lense dwarf the camera body?
I dont care how good this lenses is if i only get to used it on a tripod.
I dont enjoy doing that for potrait scenarios at all.

I walk up to my subject through the snow, up hill, both ways...

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2017 at 18:31 UTC
In reply to:

Biological_Viewfinder: I hate all of these except that very last one which looks more natural like it could have been taken from a higher hill.

The rest seem like weird abstracts; bad photographs showing a rare view because we do not fly does not make them good photographs. They're just angles we normally do not see, but they're still bad pictures.

The ground beneath the snow is dark and so with a light snow, yes the landscape isn't completely white. Had there been more snow, it would have been more white.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2017 at 18:37 UTC
In reply to:

Biological_Viewfinder: I hate all of these except that very last one which looks more natural like it could have been taken from a higher hill.

The rest seem like weird abstracts; bad photographs showing a rare view because we do not fly does not make them good photographs. They're just angles we normally do not see, but they're still bad pictures.

No. The drone makes it far, far, far worse.

A helicopter ride is loud but its also quite expensive, so not too many photographers do that very often. A drone is a piece of equipment; and once your photographer neighbor has one, you get to hear EXTREMELY ANNOYING, BEE-BUZZING, NOISE OF A CAMERA DRONE IN OPERATION EVERY DAY HE USES IT TO LOOK AT THE SUNRISE, SUNSET, VALLEY, HILLS, TREES, NEIGHBORS, HIS OWN HOUSE, ETC, FOR AS LONG AS HE'S INTO IT.

So, no a helicopter ride is like your neighbor having company over. Even if it's a loud BBQ, you know that they won't be there tomorrow. A drone is like your neighbor getting a dog. BARK, BARK, BARK!

People who use drones should give everyone that ever has to hear it some compensation money. "Here's $50 sir, sorry about the noise."

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2017 at 06:31 UTC

I hate all of these except that very last one which looks more natural like it could have been taken from a higher hill.

The rest seem like weird abstracts; bad photographs showing a rare view because we do not fly does not make them good photographs. They're just angles we normally do not see, but they're still bad pictures.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2017 at 04:42 UTC as 16th comment | 11 replies
On article Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art DxO results: a new king is crowned (246 comments in total)
In reply to:

dtray187: I had this lens on my d810 for a few shoots.... it was incredibly sharp , but the bokeh was not looking good to me, too harsh, that's a huge deal. And the way it rendered skin wasn't to my liking. It Was just too clinical, I replaced with the 105mm 1.4e and wow that thing is amazing!
Honestly the 85mm 1.4g I liked better than the art, 1.4g wasn't as sharp but rendered incredible, memorable portraits. This sharpness war needs to be balanced with results on portraits.

Bokeh is lens distortion.

And again, the only reason it is appealing is because the photographer has no care in the world for whatever the background is, as long as there is some kind of color there at all, that's fine.

But if instead of following everyone else, let's say that the photographer never used bokeh; then s/he would always be looking for ways to tell more of the story rather than "this is a person".

Even if the background is dingy, dark, wet, brick; that's the story, and it's important. And it's constantly overlooked or outright ignored in favor of a stronger 3D effect with almost zero story involved.

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2017 at 06:37 UTC
On article Grab a free copy of DxO OpticsPro 9 while you can (184 comments in total)
In reply to:

EOS Paul: Free licenses to an old version. Wow, how do they manage that without going bankrupt *rolls eyes*

Yes, I meant the ability to use some Optics 11 tools into the giveaway (specifically that reknown noise-reduction I've heard about), which would expire after 60 days and then the program would still be Optics 8 afterwards.

I think that all this stuff is way over-priced, and I wish there were more offerings like gimp or somewhere in between. I mean, you can say you get what you pay for, but if a steak costs $100 a pound then how often would you eat that steak?

Link | Posted on Feb 5, 2017 at 04:57 UTC
On article Grab a free copy of DxO OpticsPro 9 while you can (184 comments in total)
In reply to:

EOS Paul: Free licenses to an old version. Wow, how do they manage that without going bankrupt *rolls eyes*

It's kind of strange because from what I hear the DXO Optics 11 has to-die-for noise-reduction; but unless I see it, I wouldn't buy into it when I already have Photo-Ninja for that.

Um, maybe the company could have attached some tools into the program which would expire in 60 days? That way you could experiment with new tools, but the program itself would revert to version 8 after 60 days. You would still have the program and you could better decide whether you wanted to own the newest version.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2017 at 04:35 UTC
On article Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art DxO results: a new king is crowned (246 comments in total)
In reply to:

dtray187: I had this lens on my d810 for a few shoots.... it was incredibly sharp , but the bokeh was not looking good to me, too harsh, that's a huge deal. And the way it rendered skin wasn't to my liking. It Was just too clinical, I replaced with the 105mm 1.4e and wow that thing is amazing!
Honestly the 85mm 1.4g I liked better than the art, 1.4g wasn't as sharp but rendered incredible, memorable portraits. This sharpness war needs to be balanced with results on portraits.

I don't do portraits very often. However, I find that when I do that I enjoy as much sharpness as I can possibly get. And the reason is that I can always post-process softness in, but I can never add crisp detail when it isn't there to begin with.

Additionally, sharp details add a whole extra dynamic for portrait work. You can leave it all sharp on old men and they look fantastic, or you can leave just the eyeballs sharp so that you can almost touch the wetness of the eye.

Also, bokeh is overrated, overdone, and uncreative. You're basically mimicking everybody else. Bokeh essentially removes the background when its most visible, so you have almost zero control of your aperture since you leave it open pretty much always. Therefore, you don't even think about the background and lose context and meaning in all the photos.

You can keep on parroting what you've heard all you want. But do you really want to be the same or do you want to be able to be yourself? Be different!

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2017 at 03:34 UTC
On article Sigma 85mm F1.4 Art DxO results: a new king is crowned (246 comments in total)
In reply to:

dtray187: I had this lens on my d810 for a few shoots.... it was incredibly sharp , but the bokeh was not looking good to me, too harsh, that's a huge deal. And the way it rendered skin wasn't to my liking. It Was just too clinical, I replaced with the 105mm 1.4e and wow that thing is amazing!
Honestly the 85mm 1.4g I liked better than the art, 1.4g wasn't as sharp but rendered incredible, memorable portraits. This sharpness war needs to be balanced with results on portraits.

Society is so weird.

Bokeh is more important than sharpness.
Let's say it a different way... the blurred background is more important to people than the sharp subject.

Just... odd.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 16:41 UTC

Good, now whenever people bother me about shallow depth of field and image quality, I can tell them to go buy a Medium Format; and they won't cry, "but it's too expensive and not a fair comparison".

Hopefully a lot of the people who drag 4/3rds and APS-C through the dirt because they think full-frame is the top tier will leave and get Medium Format and shut up.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 16:01 UTC as 56th comment | 2 replies

At $75, it's almost worth it to buy the thing just to 'pretend' to drop it in front of people. I did that with a 70-200mm lens coffee mug and it was worth every penny, every time!

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 21:28 UTC as 74th comment | 3 replies

Drone buyers should have to go to jail up front.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 15:50 UTC as 19th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Biological_Viewfinder: The case should be thrown out of court for being frivolous. I don't care what happened; she's asking for $2.2 Billion and therefore the case should be dismissed on the basis of it being frivolous. It's stupid and I'm tired of the games. If there's ZERO chance she could get $2.2 Billion; then drop the case until she gets reasonable.

Secondly, why is the restaurant being sued? Wasn't it the photographer who did the actual "damage"? Sue the person not the deep pockets. Again, frivolous and needs to be dropped. If anything, she should be fined for bothering the public with her nonsense.

I'm being facetious because all this stuff is under my post about it being frivolous; and it is such regardless of whether the letter of the law is written that way or not.

It's like a neighbor that had people coming over at the earliest possible time the morning to do some contracting work. It was so loud, and I said to him, "I don't care if it's legal, do what's right!"

And he did. So should this woman and all like her. $2.2 Billion is unrealistic in every form and all such suits should be immediately dismissed as a waste of the tax payer's money and the court's time.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 19:15 UTC
Total: 250, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »