Jim Salvas

Jim Salvas

Lives in United States West Chester, PA, United States
Works as a Photography/Writing
Has a website at camerajim.com
Joined on Mar 24, 2006
About me:

Serious photographer for 60+ years.

Comments

Total: 250, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I think they disadvantaged the amateur with that 35mm prime lens. It's not even close to what I'd choose in that setting. It forced him to either get too much background or a nasty close-up perspective.

Link | Posted on Jun 9, 2017 at 14:06 UTC as 27th comment

Here's some detailed info on traditional strobe lighting of NCAA arenas:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/7240440

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2017 at 12:43 UTC as 40th comment | 1 reply
On article Google will no longer develop Nik Collection (389 comments in total)

They bought Nik to get Snapseed, which IS getting regular updates. The Nik suite of filters has the unfortunate limitation of not working on a smartphone, so Google just does not care about it.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2017 at 16:06 UTC as 196th comment | 1 reply
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (805 comments in total)

The Yashica FX or Contax RTS series are worth consideration, because they give you entry to the Zeiss T* lenses made for that mount. The Contax models were also made by Yashica, but are more pro-looking and more stylish, designed by Porsche. The Yashica glass was also darned good.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 16:40 UTC as 305th comment | 4 replies

I worked in the advertising department of a daily paper during the closing days of hot type newsprint. One of my jobs was to watch as the final page frames were locked up, reading them upside down and backwards as the printers worked, ensuring that all ads were locked in the right positions. Considering the large number of pages in the paper every day, it was remarkable how few errors there were. Those were craftsmen.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2017 at 14:56 UTC as 26th comment

Why does everyone assume the majority of pro camera buyers are pros? My guess is that most of them are amateurs who would not have nearly this much trouble switching. If you're shooting your daughter's ballet performances, it may even seem cheap to switch to this (silent) and fast camera, while still looking like a pro.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 21:43 UTC as 96th comment | 3 replies

So, what you're saying is that very few established sports photographers will switch because of the cost. The conclusion is that only new sports photographers will buy Sony, which is still something of a market. And then what happens if those new photogs get better shots or more shots the older guys miss? In other words, none of the cost calculations matter until this gets out in the field. And then they might not matter much at all.

Link | Posted on Apr 25, 2017 at 15:16 UTC as 164th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

Jim Salvas: One can only imagine what they could accomplish with a current sensor. The CCD sensor on Cassini was designed in the 90s and has a resolution of 1 megapixel. NASA obviously uses a lot of stitching and stacking to do these photos, but still, they wring a lot out of this old sensor.

I can understand the argument about the mass of a larger camera, but I still don't understand the energy difference between sending scores or hundreds of images for a mosaic, as opposed to sending the same amount of data as a single image from a larger sensor. I'm not a rocket scientist, but I'm sure one will be right along to 'splain this to me.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2017 at 19:48 UTC
In reply to:

Jim Salvas: One can only imagine what they could accomplish with a current sensor. The CCD sensor on Cassini was designed in the 90s and has a resolution of 1 megapixel. NASA obviously uses a lot of stitching and stacking to do these photos, but still, they wring a lot out of this old sensor.

I think it was more of a limitation of its time, but Cassini has been transmitting very large scale images as mosaics. The more recent Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter has a 14-chip sensor array, producing up to 20000 x 65000 pixel images. Even that is dated, having been launched in 2005.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2017 at 15:49 UTC

One can only imagine what they could accomplish with a current sensor. The CCD sensor on Cassini was designed in the 90s and has a resolution of 1 megapixel. NASA obviously uses a lot of stitching and stacking to do these photos, but still, they wring a lot out of this old sensor.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2017 at 13:21 UTC as 34th comment | 9 replies

In my case, it scored my crowd-pleasers -- mostly pretty good landscapes -- very high, but scored my bestselling stock photos quite low. One of my stock photos which has sold over and over for good money hardly moved the meter at all.

But, as everyone else has said, the keywords are very good and I may use the link for that from time to time.

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2017 at 03:21 UTC as 65th comment

My forum tag line on DPR is from a hockey player, so I can relate. I think the best parts of your essay are the Dunning-Kruger effect among newbies (how many photos of treebark and a new photog's bare feet do i have to see?), the related need for feedback and the admonition to just keep practicing. Here comes that tagline:

"You miss 100% of the shots you never take." - Wayne Gretzky

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2017 at 13:03 UTC as 16th comment

I agree wth Allison on the Olympus 12-40, but i do see it as something special, as it is sharp almost all the way across its range and a good near-macro. It has kept me from buying primes within that range, with the exception of a 17/1.8 for portability and a little more speed.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2017 at 11:01 UTC as 242nd comment
On article The Leica Summaron 28mm F5.6 is old-fashioned fun (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

Toselli: I can't understand all the hate for this lens, at the end of the day the results are not even that bad as I thought! There are modern zoom lenses with worse results, and they are also not built that well and are not a pleasure to use at all. If you have the money, and also a general purpose lens in the 24 - 35 range, I can't see why anyone should not consider to buy one to do something different...

The key characteristics of this lens are that it is very slow, hard to handle and has serious optical flaws. The $2,500 price you have to pay to get that is just icing on the cake. People below are comparing it to a Ferrari. But it's a Ferrari that only goes 60 miles an hour and stops when it gets wet.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2017 at 16:17 UTC
On article The Leica Summaron 28mm F5.6 is old-fashioned fun (189 comments in total)

Which raises the question: why do rich people insist on throwing money on obsolete things like horses and Leicas?

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2017 at 15:36 UTC as 47th comment | 3 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (392 comments in total)

I'm older than most here, so my first camera was a Kodak Duaflex, a gift from my parents for Christmas, in the full kit box, with flash, film and a starter set of flash bulbs. My dad, an enthusiast himself, helped me set up a darkroom in a closet to develop the 620 film and make contact prints. I found the camera again a few years ago after my mother died, stored at the bottom of a linen drawer. I keep it on a shelf in my office.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2017 at 18:27 UTC as 171st comment
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (892 comments in total)
In reply to:

ldog: Great subject DP! The EVF is a revelation and one of the greatest advancements in photography since digital. I shoot weddings with manual focus primes and the EVF allows a nearly perfect hit rate even wide open. And since the EVF is truly WYSIWUG I never even look at the meter. With a little practice I'm nearly as fast as AF and my exposures are perfect. And there's no contest in low light for manual focus. The EVF/MF simply allows the process of photography to disappear and gives so much fluidity to the activity that I'm much more in the moment and have better results. It was strange letting go of the OVF at first but I now feel they are an artifact of the machine age.

" yeah the EVF is nice for noobs"

Really? This particular noob has over 60 years of experience and I prefer EVFs for everything but shooting action.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 17:56 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (892 comments in total)
In reply to:

gcbodie: OVF is better because I can tune it to my eyesight with the diopter whereas the EVF requires me to be wearing my reading glasses to use that screen.

I've never seen a high-end EVF camera without diopter adjustment. It works just like on an OVf.

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 15:28 UTC
On article Ask the staff: electronic or optical viewfinder? (892 comments in total)

I use cameras with EVFs and don't regret the conversion from OVFs, which I used for over 50 years. I am not a sports or action shooter, so this may have a lot to do with it. I understand the superiority of an OVF for that. However, I don't understand those who prefer an OVF for low light shooting, because as the light drops, so does brightness of the viewfinder image. Right now, I can point my camera into the darkest recesses of my room (very dark right now) and still see almost exactly the image the camera will record. To me, low light performance is a huge advantage of an EVF, not a handicap. Where am I wrong there?

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2017 at 15:27 UTC as 310th comment | 1 reply

Deadpan. It's the key word in "art" photography, as people cannot be seen expressing emotions or animation of any sort. You just center the subject, who sits without expression and preferably without posture. If the background is slightly ironic (an electrical outlet or background supports showing), all the better. These photos hit that deadpan nail right on the head. Dead. Pan.

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2017 at 17:03 UTC as 61st comment | 2 replies
Total: 250, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »