Cameron R Hood

Cameron R Hood

Lives in Canada Vancouver, Canada
Works as a bassist and instructor
Joined on Mar 26, 2005
About me:

Total world domination...I will stop at nothing else!

Comments

Total: 102, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Crazie Nikonian: This will have to be the ugliest camera bag there is on earth. What on earth was Manfrotto thinking?

Colourblind? And bad demin? Yuch...

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2017 at 17:13 UTC
In reply to:

Cameron R Hood: Cool. The 67 didn't come out till 1990? Wow. I thought it was way earlier than that.

Fine. You're entitled to your opinion. I find them quite handsome in a utilitarian kind of way.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2017 at 18:06 UTC
In reply to:

Cameron R Hood: Cool. The 67 didn't come out till 1990? Wow. I thought it was way earlier than that.

...as for the 645 losing 'weird', have you never seen a medium format camera before? They all pretty much look like that - see Hasselblad, Fuji, Mamiya, etc. cameras from the film days.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 18:19 UTC
In reply to:

Cameron R Hood: Cool. The 67 didn't come out till 1990? Wow. I thought it was way earlier than that.

Yeah, that's what I thought...thanks for clearing that up.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2017 at 18:18 UTC

Cool. The 67 didn't come out till 1990? Wow. I thought it was way earlier than that.

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2017 at 18:18 UTC as 9th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Mokutaru: In my opinion what made lots of old photos special back in their days is the fact that photography was not very common. And now that photography is very common its hard to find pure untouched digital photos that look good from the camera without photoshop alterations and then calling it "style".

What i find fancinating these days is when lighting is utilized for photography.

...as is the amount of manipulation they would do in the darkroom. Pretty much everything available in Photoshop was doable in the darkroom, right back to the early days of photography, it just involved nasty, polluting chemicals, and a lot of things being 'thrown out' (used paper, masks, chemicals, washes, bottles, etc.). These images did NOT come magically out of the camera absolutely 'perfect'; Ansel was still doing prints in his last few years of his life on negatives he had taken decades earlier, masking, dodging, burning, trying to make the perfect print. This comment above shows how ignorant you are on the subject of photography.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 17:39 UTC
In reply to:

Cameracist: OK, but you could have written very similar article about Microsoft Lumia :D

Yes, that would satisfy the dozens of users of that phone worldwide who are clamouring for a review...clamouring...

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2016 at 21:25 UTC
In reply to:

Cameron R Hood: Uh, er, ah...Pentax...forgotten AGAIN? You guys ALWAYS leave them out.

It's a well known fact in the Pentax community that they have ignored Pentax for years, only now starting to come around.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 18:19 UTC
In reply to:

Cameron R Hood: Uh, er, ah...Pentax...forgotten AGAIN? You guys ALWAYS leave them out.

And thanks for the lovely, personalized comments, Terkwoiz; you're a charming bloke.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 16:10 UTC
In reply to:

Cameron R Hood: Uh, er, ah...Pentax...forgotten AGAIN? You guys ALWAYS leave them out.

Inexpensive, perhaps. Cheap, definitely not. Go try one. And I definitely think it should be included, in spite of it's low price.

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2016 at 15:52 UTC

Uh, er, ah...Pentax...forgotten AGAIN? You guys ALWAYS leave them out.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2016 at 21:05 UTC as 113th comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

Daft Punk: Slow. But small. Makes a nice sunny weather lens. This is a good thing, not a criticism.

Dear PUNK;

YOU'RE DAFT.
Modern cameras go to iso 204,000. You can shoot bats in dark closets with this thing.

Love,
Cameron

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2016 at 16:56 UTC

God Bless the man for developing a wonderful site for all of us interested in the truth in photography. My heart goes out to his family an friends. May he rest in peace, and thank you, Michael.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2016 at 15:07 UTC as 14th comment
On article Samsung launches enormous 18.4-inch Galaxy View tablet (87 comments in total)

Ridiculous. 'My tablet's bigger than your tablet.' Bigger isn't always better, except in the case of chocolate cake and Apple Pie.

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2015 at 16:35 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

shnikus: I want one in sunset-orange with lime-green grip.

...and a battery grip in black only...

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2015 at 04:21 UTC
In reply to:

technocamper: This camera with the 43mm Limited. I'm done.

...or the FA* 85 F1.4...the 77 limited...the 31...the 50 or 100mm macro...yikes...

Go, Pentax...even though they're DOOMED!!!

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2015 at 15:34 UTC

The North Korean Government tourist camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2015 at 19:59 UTC as 200th comment
In reply to:

dmanthree: Possibly the most worthless idea I've ever seen. Utter stupidity.

The North Korean Government tourist camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2015 at 19:57 UTC
On article Adobe announces final Camera Raw update for CS6 owners (467 comments in total)
In reply to:

murkkor: I have been with Adobe since Illustrator '88 and Photoshop 2.5. I gleefully dumped QuarkXPress 3.3 (and its stupid registration floppy) for InDesign. The Creative Suite concept was great-- it didn't really save any money, but it simplified upgrading. Over the last decade or so, I figure my sporadic upgrades have cost a pretty consistent $200-250 per year. That is entirely reasonable for my three workhorse programs.

CC's $600 a year-- take-it or leave-it --might be doable, but I am getting that old QuarkXpress feeling again. I might consider the cost if I felt I was getting new capabilities, but my most recent upgrades have simply been to stay reasonably current with my associates.

So, Adobe has finally priced themselves to the point where I am actively considering other software. I am downloading Affinity Design right now. If that goes well, Affinity Photo won't be far behind. If a particular project required Adobe, I could always rent it for a month.

I don't think you CAN rent it for a month. I think you have to take out a subscription. This is SO totally wrong.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 14:13 UTC
Total: 102, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »