phototransformations

phototransformations

Lives in United States Danvers, MA, United States
Joined on Aug 20, 2008

Comments

Total: 49, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Best cameras under $2000 (83 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul Rumohr: Please note the Panasonic G9 included here has yet to be tested, but we are including it here for Amazon our corporate master

Actually, it's "Paranoia strikes deep / Into your life it will creep." But who's counting?

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 15:19 UTC
In reply to:

Nikoncanonfan: Just went to try and pledge and its shipping to US only. Perhaps it is a stupid idea after all....

Perhaps?

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2017 at 15:38 UTC

I'm baffled by how negative most of the comments are on this development and on other similar technologies that in some way create data to make images look better. If everyone here were a photojournalist or some other kind of photographer trying to create true-to-life images I could understand, but most of the photos here I see are heavily manipulated either by the camera (for example, shot with a very wide-angle lens) or by the photographer (cloning, context-aware fill, replacing skies, etc.). It seems great to me that the industry is developing AI methods to help us make more interesting images. Should photojournalists use them? No. But for the rest of us, what a cool new thing.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2017 at 02:47 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Frank Neunemann: OK, but what is "Deep Fill" actually good for? Even more phony photographs made easy...

@entoman - "That choice will be taken away from you" is not what I've experienced so far in my lifetime (and I'm 66) with technological advances.

I still drive a stick shift car, though automatic transmission vehicles have been around for generations. I still wash dishes by hand, though dishwashers have also been around for generations. And I can still shoot in manual mode, with everything the same as it was in 1969, when I bought my first SLR except I'm shooting digital. "Program" mode "takes away" my choices and "Auto" even more so, but I can choose not to use them. Maybe generations from now the camera will do everything for us, we won't have cars we can drive ourselves, and we'll live in Wall-E world, but I don't see this happening soon. There're always people who like to do things themselves, particularly in creative fields, and therefore there's always going to be a market for products we can control ourselves, even if we're considered "retro" when we do that.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 14:06 UTC

Sometimes I wonder if dpreview's writers put this stuff out here just to attract negative or silly comments. After all, it's still time spent on the site that can be used to attract advertisers of legitimate products.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 11:38 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

Frank Neunemann: OK, but what is "Deep Fill" actually good for? Even more phony photographs made easy...

@entoman, do you have the same objections to the manipulations photographers such as Ansel Adams did in the darkroom? All that dodging and burning in and, not to mention using red or yellow filters to turn blue skies to black, and for that matter black-and-white photography itself (and long lenses or wide lenses) are all conscious manipulations of the images that most people see to feel, except in journalism, are fine. This doesn't seem substantially different to me. It's just another tool to try to achieve a vision, which you can use or not use as you wish.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 11:26 UTC
In reply to:

Frank Neunemann: OK, but what is "Deep Fill" actually good for? Even more phony photographs made easy...

People have been decrying new technologies due to what they see as the inevitable losses of older practices since Plato, who (in writing) essentially predicted the death of memory because of the growing popularity of writing. New technologies change things and we adapt to those changes. The same predictions you are making here were also made about calculators, computers and ... digital cameras!

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 15:05 UTC
In reply to:

entoman: Nice to note that at least one person in the US has some sympathy for the people in Puerto Rico, unlike a certain mentally deranged dotard.

Perhaps he does prefer film to digital. But all the photos would be selfies.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 17:48 UTC
In reply to:

TonyPM: For most mortals, 45 mpx is just too much for normal aficionado use. The price doesn't help either.

20-24mpx without a low pass filter or a very weak one is more than enough. All I need is good mid to High iso performance on a camera and good natural colors.

No war moves intended, @marcio_napoli! If I had an 850, would I carry it with me everywhere and use it for the casual purposes you cite here? No, of course not. I don't even carry my G85 everywhere; often I go out with just an enthusiast compact.

But on a special shoot or a trip I may never take again? Sure I would. There are shots I took in the mountains north of Santa Fe, NM, in August that I wish I'd had more than 16MP for, both to capture intense detail and to be able to radically crop in when I either didn't have a long enough lens or didn't think to use it at the time.

Would I ever print these images larger than 20x30? Probably not, but to have the option to do so would be great. I don't think one has to be a pro to enjoy more detail.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2017 at 17:36 UTC
In reply to:

TonyPM: For most mortals, 45 mpx is just too much for normal aficionado use. The price doesn't help either.

20-24mpx without a low pass filter or a very weak one is more than enough. All I need is good mid to High iso performance on a camera and good natural colors.

I can remember when someone posted a simiilar post about most mortals needing no more than 6mp.

I'm very happy with my 16mp G85. But would I like an 850 if I could afford one (along with lenses that took advantage of that sensor), and would I use it in ways I don't use my G85? Yes.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2017 at 15:51 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: the Canon PowerShot G1 (164 comments in total)

My first digital camera, and first significant step back into photography after a 21-year hiatus. Except for the fact that the batteries won't hold a charge, it still works, and it still has a mighty nice little lens.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2017 at 04:11 UTC as 40th comment
On article Yashica is teasing a comeback to the camera market (299 comments in total)

This brought back some memories. My first "serious" camera (after a series of box cameras) was a Yashica 44, a TLR that took 127 film. I still remember walking into Jim Tuttle's camera shop and looking around for what I could afford on my allowance and odd-job money. I was, I think, 15. I used it for several years until, toward the end of high school, I stepped up to my first SLR, a Miranda Sensomat. I still have the Yashica lens, which I use a a loupe.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 15:50 UTC as 34th comment

It seems to be using a rather simple algorithm, but in my case it was somewhat accurate. When I selected for Panasonic, it chose a GH3 (I use a G85), 45 1.8 olympus lens (which I own and like but almost never use), and the 14-45 original Panasonic kit lens, which I also own and sometimes use. It didn't "find" the 45-175 Panasonic, which is the lens I use most, perhaps because there were very few shots with any kind of telephoto lens in the images it selected from 500px.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2017 at 13:53 UTC as 19th comment

Wow. The next big thing in photography is turning a DSLR into a box camera?

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2017 at 14:24 UTC as 103rd comment

I love this idea, though using water as a lens is a very old concept. For instance, there's the water-drop microscope which, as this post (and my memories of being a cub scout) shows, can be created by a child:

http://boyslife.org/hobbies-projects/projects/200/make-a-microscope/

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2017 at 14:20 UTC as 23rd comment
On article 2017 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $900-1200 (482 comments in total)
In reply to:

phototransformations: Having just bought one a month ago, I have to admit I'm pleased to see the G85 as the recommended camera, if only to validate my sense that this is the best-handling camera I have owned. Except for the limitations of the Auto ISO configuration, so far I can't think of anything I'd like to see different. In terms of still image quality, it's only a shade better than the G3 it replaces (except with my 45-175 lens, which was prone to showing shutter shock on the G1 and G3 but not the G85). But man, what an improvement in shooting experience!

I don't know yet. So far, I've just been shooting stills of mostly still subjects and have only used AFC and AFF. As I branch out, which I intend to do now that I have a camera I really enjoy using, I'll see how it does with tracking and maintaining focus on moving subjects.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2017 at 17:19 UTC
On article 2017 Roundup: Interchangeable Lens Cameras $900-1200 (482 comments in total)

Having just bought one a month ago, I have to admit I'm pleased to see the G85 as the recommended camera, if only to validate my sense that this is the best-handling camera I have owned. Except for the limitations of the Auto ISO configuration, so far I can't think of anything I'd like to see different. In terms of still image quality, it's only a shade better than the G3 it replaces (except with my 45-175 lens, which was prone to showing shutter shock on the G1 and G3 but not the G85). But man, what an improvement in shooting experience!

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2017 at 14:59 UTC as 31st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

pjl321: It's still a phone sized sensor so the image quality will only be that of a phone (or lower as a phone uses a prime lens). Yes, you do get 30x zoom which has benefits but it's at the cost of low light and wide angled bokeh. A decent phone today offers F1.7, this camera at it's widest is F3.3 and going all the way to F6.4 at the telephoto end. Anyone who cares about IQ would only be able to use this under the brightest of conditions as the ISO won't be great from such a small sensor.

I'm not trying to knock this camera, i'm sure Panasonic has made a class-leading product here but i am just not sure we need this class anymore. For a camera to sell it needs to set itself apart from a phone. A 1 inch sensor is a minimum now, even if that is at the cost of zoom range. A customer has to *choose* to buy this camera and then *choose* to carry it with them over their phone which they will always buy and always have with them. You have to give customers a real reason to spend their money.

Although I agree with you about the shortcomings of a small-sensor camera like this, I still carry my ZS40 with me in a belt pouch everywhere I go. My phone is faster, but I'm stuck with 28mm and it doesn't shoot RAW, nor is it very easy to see what I'm shooting in bright light. Together, a camera like this and a smartphone make a reasonable "go everywhere" combination. At some point, when phone cameras have reasonable telephoto lenses, this kind of travel zoom will go away. Not there yet.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 14:37 UTC
In reply to:

sierranvin: She could get more if she threatens to unleash sharks with lasers on their heads inside Chipotle locations!

Would the reporters who photographed the carnage (if any survived) need to get releases from the laser sharks? Or the victims? If so, difficult, but it's an incredible story, so this could go on in perpetuity.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 12:34 UTC
On article 2016 iPhone Photography Award winners announced (72 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wild Shooter: I think these competitions are rigged. Other than the winners which are awesome, I didn't even get a mention for my shots which I personally believe are better than a few people sitting on the beach.

Although it's true art is subjective, the stuff that survives for more than a few years seems to be what manages to satisfy on a deeper level than what's either briefly popular or never noticed. Lately I've been posting a series of images I call Flower Mandalas on Instagram to see how they are received. These images are a superset of ones I submitted for a grant from the Massachusetts Cultural Council. One year, I got a form rejection letter. Two years later, submitting others from the same series (as well as 2 that still qualified as recent enough), I won the grant. On Instagram, the same images I'm able to license repeatedly also get the most "likes," though it's hard for me to see them as significantly better than the less popular ones. Still, they must have a little of that mysterious artistic quality that the others lack. Hard to name it, at least for me.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2016 at 02:12 UTC
Total: 49, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »