jdc562

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jan 18, 2010

Comments

Total: 51, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

jdc562: For 15 years I have owned Dell laptops and desktops, which I used for photo editing. During this time Dell reliability has declined. Their technical service response is the worst. Similarly, Windows is full of bugs, which it charges to fix--not to mention the vulnerability to viruses, hacks, etc. Dell and Microsoft problems have cost me days of lost time and aggravation. When Consumers Reports published their users' survey of computer reliability, the data for Apple's reliability and service was far superior to all Windows machines, especially Dell's. So, I switched to Apple and have been very satisfied with their hardware and service. I did pay more, but the savings in terms of lost time, repeated aggravation, and cost of repairs has made the higher price worth it.

To HowaboutRAW: First, you say updating Windows would have prevented ransomware attacks that exploit flaws in Windows.

Then, you contradict yourself by saying the way to avoid the problems with Windows is to kill auto-updates. There are no a priori criteria for separating problem-causing auto-updates from non-problem manual updates.

You falsely assume I didn't run System Restore, etc. In addition, I ran Microsoft's Windows validation procedures. All reported the procedures were successful. Nonetheless, the error messages repeated.

Your assertion about "more much more powerful replacements for System Restore" emphasizes the dysfunctionality of Windows and the hassles it causes users.

A much lower PERCENTAGE of Apple users report such problems.

Your denying problems with Windows is consistent with Microsoft itself: the company has no provision for the public to report flaws in in Microsoft products. This arrogant, closed, system assures persistent problems. QED

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 02:03 UTC
In reply to:

jdc562: For 15 years I have owned Dell laptops and desktops, which I used for photo editing. During this time Dell reliability has declined. Their technical service response is the worst. Similarly, Windows is full of bugs, which it charges to fix--not to mention the vulnerability to viruses, hacks, etc. Dell and Microsoft problems have cost me days of lost time and aggravation. When Consumers Reports published their users' survey of computer reliability, the data for Apple's reliability and service was far superior to all Windows machines, especially Dell's. So, I switched to Apple and have been very satisfied with their hardware and service. I did pay more, but the savings in terms of lost time, repeated aggravation, and cost of repairs has made the higher price worth it.

For those who doubt the vulnerability of Windows, where have you been??? I kept my Windows machines loaded with anti-virus, anti-malware programs and never clicked on any messages from unknown sources. My Windows computers never became infected; however, many others were not so lucky. Did you not read all the reports on the recent two giant ransomware attacks?? The attacks exploited specific vulnerability flaws in the Windows operating system. Moreover, look at all the complaints from Windows users whose Windows systems malfunctioned after Windows did automatic updates. That did happen to me. To fix the problem that they themselves caused, Microsoft wanted a credit card $99 minimum down payment to start, with more charges to add. Whether the malicious attacks exploiting Windows are technically "viruses," or not, they are prevalent and serious. To claim such attacks don't occur anymore and Windows is a sound operating system is ignoring all the reports to the contrary.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 23:57 UTC

For 15 years I have owned Dell laptops and desktops, which I used for photo editing. During this time Dell reliability has declined. Their technical service response is the worst. Similarly, Windows is full of bugs, which it charges to fix--not to mention the vulnerability to viruses, hacks, etc. Dell and Microsoft problems have cost me days of lost time and aggravation. When Consumers Reports published their users' survey of computer reliability, the data for Apple's reliability and service was far superior to all Windows machines, especially Dell's. So, I switched to Apple and have been very satisfied with their hardware and service. I did pay more, but the savings in terms of lost time, repeated aggravation, and cost of repairs has made the higher price worth it.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 21:35 UTC as 303rd comment | 12 replies
On article Video: Removing a stuck lens filter... with a band saw (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stacey_K: One more reason to not use a "protective" filter. I'm sure all that torque on the lens didn't hurt anything.

Thanks for the correction. When he showed the filter with the shattered glass, I missed that it was the earlier filter--when they tried this the first time. On the second time, there were no visible cracks in the filter glass, although they did hear some crunchy sound as they unscrewed the second filter. But, in any case, the second filter was intact enough to block putting a piece of cardboard over the front element before doing the work.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 05:01 UTC
On article Video: Removing a stuck lens filter... with a band saw (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stacey_K: One more reason to not use a "protective" filter. I'm sure all that torque on the lens didn't hurt anything.

Yeah, but the steel ruler could jammed sharp pieces of broker filter glass against the front element of the lens. Also, a sharp shard of glass could have dislodged during the bandsaw cutting and jammed between the moving saw blade and the front element. I thought he was pretty cavalier with the hand file. I'm with Marty4560: protect the front lens element before doing the other work.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 02:24 UTC
On article Video: Removing a stuck lens filter... with a band saw (139 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ron Poelman: Adam's "oval" comment is worth underlining;.
anything that puts pressure on the rim distorts it,
especially with big diameter, thin rim filters,
(like that weird filter wrench).

Before you drag out the tool box, put it on a window sill.

At night the cold should squirm the interference some
and the next day as the Sun cranks up,
the mating surfaces should expand at different rates.
A rubber band around it and a decent grip on the barrel
and touch wood, all of mine have come off easily.
The trick is to rotate, not squeeze.

Post removal inspection and clean-up is worth some thought, too.

Just pressing the filter ring against a thin sheet of ice (e.g., made in a dish put in a freezer) for a few seconds would be better: the filter ring would get much colder than the lens mount. So, the ring would shrink more, loosen, and then twist off with a filter wrench, jar opener, etc. Also, why not avoid the "oval" problem by using something that goes all the way around, like a pipe clamp?

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2017 at 02:12 UTC
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: If only Sony would just produce a zoom that has decent bokeh.

Every time I see a nasty bokeh image, there's pretty much only one vendor responsible these days. They almost make my eyes water.

Re: "The Name is Bond" and statements regarding your link:
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2016/09/05/testing-the-uber-hot-sony-70-200-f2-8-g-master-and-a7rii-by-steve-huff/

Mr. Bond, this is another misrepresentation in your series of posts. Contrary to your assertions, in this link Steve Huff concludes:
"In some cases, as with ANY lens, you may get busy bokeh. This background was all netting and trees behind the netting. This created a crazy busy bokeh, but in most situations the Bokeh from this lens is some of the best and smoothest I have seen. "

Mr. Bond, you are not understanding the articles you are citing; Huff contradicts what you are saying and clearly substantiates what SELEES posted.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 01:02 UTC
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: If only Sony would just produce a zoom that has decent bokeh.

Every time I see a nasty bokeh image, there's pretty much only one vendor responsible these days. They almost make my eyes water.

Re: "The 24-70 has poor bokeh. You can clearly see it here:
https://lightcentric.wordpress.com/tag/sony-a7r/"

Are we both talking about A-mount lenses?
I went through the text at your link and couldn't find the supporting information for "You can clearly see it here." Maybe we're talking about different lenses.
In the thread for the Sony a9, we're talking about a-mount lenses. And I was referring to my experience with the a-mount Sony Zeiss 2.8 24-70 lenses (both I and II). I have used both extensively on Sony a99 i and a99 ii at a range of focal lengths and apertures, always with good bokeh. Maybe you were talking about an f4 24-70 lens for the a7 mount?

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 23:00 UTC
In reply to:

The Name is Bond: If only Sony would just produce a zoom that has decent bokeh.

Every time I see a nasty bokeh image, there's pretty much only one vendor responsible these days. They almost make my eyes water.

I get very nice bokeh on my 24-70 Sony Zeiss and my 74-400 i Sony G lenses. The Minolta legacy lenses were/are also known for their nice bokeh. To make your criticism credible, you need to specify the lenses that perform as badly as you allege.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 20:45 UTC
In reply to:

jdc562: In using my Sony a99 ii, I am very disappointed in the high noise levels at ISOs above 400--something important to me for my principal use: wildlife photography. Therefore, this would be the first performance parameter I would check on the a9. What good is the availability of very high ISO settings if the resulting images have junky grain?

Because of their similarity in shape and size, fine details in fur and feathers are also removed by noise reduction techniques. Not acceptable.

I only shoot raw and initially process in Adobe Camera Raw. Maybe your images are ones with busy compositions that don't show the noise. Mine often have large dark spaces where the noise is most apparent. At first I didn't notice the noise on my 27" 2560x1440 monitor. Then I posted some 25% crops on a pro share site and got howls of criticism for the noise in the images. They were right: I had overlooked the noise. You had to look closely, but it was there, and probably more apparent on higher resolution monitors.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 20:38 UTC

In using my Sony a99 ii, I am very disappointed in the high noise levels at ISOs above 400--something important to me for my principal use: wildlife photography. Therefore, this would be the first performance parameter I would check on the a9. What good is the availability of very high ISO settings if the resulting images have junky grain?

Because of their similarity in shape and size, fine details in fur and feathers are also removed by noise reduction techniques. Not acceptable.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 20:22 UTC as 98th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

magnetisch: Additional tips ... .

Exposure:
Do not overexpose white clouds. Some pattern in the clouds will make an image.

Focus:
Difficult. You photograph the ground through a huge volume of air, the earth being at least several hundred meters away. Everything will be hazy, all cameras hunt for focus. Use manual focus, set it by using some high contrast area on the ground.
This will also take care that you don´t focus onto the dirt of the canopy.

Haze:
Aerial photos look flat. Always. Stuff is to far away, to much air in between.
Post processing is a must. Use clarity and contrast a lot.

Lens hoods:
Always a hassle in a small aircraft. Not enough space.

Reflections and dirt in/on the canopy:
I wear dark clothes, use a black cloth around the lens and get as close to the glass as possible. DON´T scratch the plastic! A new canopy for a motorglider -> €7000!
Use the small foul weather window!
Clean the canopy before. ASK THE PILOT how! See price above.

Safety:
Strap your camera to something!

Well of course--if you take the door off during flights, you'll lose the door and risk injuring property and people on the ground. It's better to take the door off before the flight ;)

Seriously, my pilots never objected. I learned about the practice from one of them, who had to convince me it was safe. But when we got in the air, even when banking in turns over my survey sites, I was surprised that I never felt unsafe.

Also, this were relatively short distance flights in warm tropical weather with no rain, snow, or other inclemency.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 03:04 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (1092 comments in total)
In reply to:

jdc562: Considering all the inferiorities the review lists for this camera, it looks to me like DPreview lacks the integrity--honesty--and courage to dare to give the holy Leica-branded camera a more accurate lower numeric score. They give the Sony a99ii, with its superior features, an 85%, but give the Leica 84%. I bet if DPreview were given this exact same camera disguised as a different brand, the numeric score would have been far lower.
This is a fawning, obsequious, prejudiced score. DPreview, I'm not just disappointed, I am disgusted.

Mr. Saadawi,
Regarding your reply to me "If you only come to DPR to read the numerical ratings, you're missing out on a lot pal"
My leading statement was "Considering all the inferiorities the review lists for this camera..." Did you understand these words?

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 21:07 UTC
On article Leica SL Review (1092 comments in total)

Considering all the inferiorities the review lists for this camera, it looks to me like DPreview lacks the integrity--honesty--and courage to dare to give the holy Leica-branded camera a more accurate lower numeric score. They give the Sony a99ii, with its superior features, an 85%, but give the Leica 84%. I bet if DPreview were given this exact same camera disguised as a different brand, the numeric score would have been far lower.
This is a fawning, obsequious, prejudiced score. DPreview, I'm not just disappointed, I am disgusted.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 20:20 UTC as 140th comment | 8 replies
In reply to:

magnetisch: Additional tips ... .

Exposure:
Do not overexpose white clouds. Some pattern in the clouds will make an image.

Focus:
Difficult. You photograph the ground through a huge volume of air, the earth being at least several hundred meters away. Everything will be hazy, all cameras hunt for focus. Use manual focus, set it by using some high contrast area on the ground.
This will also take care that you don´t focus onto the dirt of the canopy.

Haze:
Aerial photos look flat. Always. Stuff is to far away, to much air in between.
Post processing is a must. Use clarity and contrast a lot.

Lens hoods:
Always a hassle in a small aircraft. Not enough space.

Reflections and dirt in/on the canopy:
I wear dark clothes, use a black cloth around the lens and get as close to the glass as possible. DON´T scratch the plastic! A new canopy for a motorglider -> €7000!
Use the small foul weather window!
Clean the canopy before. ASK THE PILOT how! See price above.

Safety:
Strap your camera to something!

You are much better off not shooting through plastic in the first place. On a Cessna, for example, open the window or, weather permitting, take off the door. The doors on the models I have used have quick pull hinge pins so the door is easily removed. Yes, many pilots I have worked with will take off the door. No problem. You are strapped in and won't fall out. If you do shoot through plastic, do not use a polarizing filter: it will create colored bands in the light going through the plastic. See earlier replies in this series for more details.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 02:53 UTC

This is the best article of the series so far. Very useful techniques. I'm glad the author took the reader's advice to recognize the usefulness of a Cessna in addition to helicopters.

One point should be added to the vibration discussion: avoid the temptation to rest the camera on the window sill--or any other part--of the plane. To some extent your body can act as a big bean bag, and every little bit of vibration attenuation helps. Learn to reduce your body's contact with the plane. To reduce the pressure of your upper torso on the seat, lean a little off the seat back, brace your arms against your torso, and steady your hands and camera against your face.

As always, emphasize communication skills with your pilot. Get educated about your shooting objectives, then explain your needs and intents as much as you can with the pilot before getting in the plane. The more the pilot already understands your needs before the flight, the more efficient things will be in the air.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2017 at 20:10 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Simple Studio Technique: Pet Portraits (87 comments in total)

I am an "enthusiast" non-commercial photographer who likes to see my photos go to good use--beyond entertaining my friends. Most of these "good uses" have been photos downloaded by conservation groups to illustrate their websites, publications, and talks--all pro bono. As a pet lover and amateur student of dog and cat behavior, and a person who has a "way" with these animals, I was glad to see this article providing ideas and techniques for a new potential outlet for my photo hobby. And kudos to Samuel Spencer and his colleagues for their good work to benefit orphaned pets.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2016 at 19:07 UTC as 28th comment

Are the captions for blind people? Captions that state the obvious are useless.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2016 at 21:14 UTC as 32nd comment | 3 replies

I can hear it now. "Nikon's best!" "No!!! Canon's much better." "You idiots are behind the times! Sony has the best new technology!!!" "Who are you calling us idiots???" That's what sober people already yell at each other in camera club meetings. Just wait until they get drunk in a photographers' bar..... ;)

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 18:21 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply
On article 6 tips for better wildflower photos (62 comments in total)

Readers would benefit if the advantages of the polarizer were accompanied by this big warning: using a polarizer with a wide angle lens can produce a blue blob in the sky. This may explain the blue blobs in the first two photos. This a result of the light angles not being uniform over a big swath of blue sky. As you describe, the polarizer is more effective at certain angles of the light. Consequently, the polarizer darkens some portions of the sky more than others, producing the blob effect. Here's the fix: when a wide swath of blue sky is in the frame, remove the polarizer and substitute a gradient neutral density filter, or just adjust the sky exposure in post processing.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2016 at 01:14 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply
Total: 51, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »