Richard Schumer

Joined on May 30, 2012

Comments

Total: 190, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

matthew saville: OK, a fantastic video, but let's open a can of worms and get something straight:

Yes Ansel Adams went to town with the zone system, obsessed over chemicals, burning & dodging, znc even posed / staged some portraits. But, that doesn't extrapolate to the "anything goes" approach that we see today.

What I'm talking about is the commonness with which folks these days reference Ansel's dark room wizardry as an excuse for extreme digital manipulation. Photoshop work that totally departs from photography and becomes photo-compositing.

Have a look at Moonrise Hernandez again, for example, and notice just how small the moon is. Despite being an absolute master of his craft and entirely capable, he didn't re-shoot the moon with a super-telephoto lens and layer it back into the wider angle scene. (And make no mistake, he sure could have if he'd wanted to!)

So, the next time you want to use Ansel's "make, not take" catchphrase as an excuse to go bonkers in Photoshop, think again.

Seconded. When I mess with post-production, I have learned from experience to undo the last "correction" in a series of them, as the eye gets used to things over time and what seems right after many tries is usually too much.

Subtlety is a rare skill.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2016 at 02:48 UTC

Frankly, I don't understand this concept at all. Work in the darkroom is the most solitary experience I've ever had, what with the darkness and all.

OTOH, most drinkers I've been with over the years respected the warning not to drink alone, so they seem to crave companionship. What use would company be in a darkroom?

Or is it intended to be a trendy theme bar, like the bicycle- and motorcycle-shop bars and cafes seen lately in San Francisco?

I wish the owner would have commented, but maybe we'll be seeing a press release about this project in future.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 18:59 UTC as 16th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Matt1645f4: Have tried gimp so many times it just can't handle raw files doesn't matter what you run it on my laptop or my brother works desktop which he uses blender for animation and large raw images from advertising agencies. Gimp just has a melt down every time.

If you use GiMP on Linux, one can install dcraw and ufraw-gimp, darktable, or rawtherapee and use their tiff output in GiMP; ufraw-gimp automatically opens a tiff in GiMP.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2016 at 18:46 UTC
In reply to:

Al Valentino: Iridient, PhotoNinja (which i use), DxO.... The list goes on for photoshop alternatives.

For a list of all viable alternatives simply look at the comments for this article 👍

For Linux, there is also Digikam, sometimes bundled with a cataloguer (shofoto). Although it does not allow masking, it is otherwise a decent PS replacement. It automatically deals with RAW images if dcraw is also installed.

UFRaw (a free RAW converter) is available in a version which acts as a plugin for GiMP (UFRaw-GiMP). It automatically outputs a TIFF and opens it in GiMP.

Gwenview for Linux, like Irfanview for Windows, can import RAW files and output TIFFS or any other format (JPG, PNG, GIF), although without adjustment, if dcraw is also installed.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2016 at 14:45 UTC

I've been testing GiMP 2.9.5 (beta) and it's quite stable now; I use it for production. Why use a Beta? BC it has 16-bit picture depth and seems peppier than the 2.8.x branch. Don't forget to add G'MIC plugins!

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2016 at 14:19 UTC as 104th comment
In reply to:

Anastigmat: Ricoh should put its own brand name on some of the Pentax cameras. It was a pretty well liked brand when it was making Pentax K mount cameras in the past.

Ricoh was well-known in mid 20th Century for inexpensive consumer-level cameras, some with K-mount. It was seen as a cheaper alternative to Pentax itself, having no unique features to set it apart IIRC.

@Zvonimir -- Asahi camera co. acquired the Pentax name in a post-war auction of the Zeiss assets; the camera sold as the Contax D and under other names in the USA, was intended by Zeiss to be called "Pentax" (for Penta-prism Contax.)

Ricoh's cameras were very popular in Japan and Asia, and the USA; not so much in Europe and Russia, I think.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2016 at 17:03 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: when studio lenses retire (203 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Schumer: I have a bunch of Pentax lenses I use on digital Pentaxes. When I moved to an *ist DS from my film MX, I envisioned digital images to be near-perfect representations of the objects before the sensor, unlike film, which added its own character. I secretly laughed at film-simulations, knowing I could achieve through curves or other algorithms whichever effects I wanted.

The newest sensor tech appears to go far beyond the abilities of older lenses, no matter how sharp they appeared on film, to render enough detail to withstand pixel-peeping. So, new lenses are needed to match 30MP-Plus images.

In effect; I see my old SMC MF glass as just another film simulation in my toolkit.

The Second Digital Revolution, for me, will not be for autofocus (I spent decades building the skillset, and now it is easier to focus manually than otherwise) but for the ability to use sharper glass, which, requiring less processing, gives me more headroom to add my preferred changes to the image in PP.

@ Robin... One thing I forgot is that the older m42 and the SMC Pentax-M, both of which I'd had since new, had only 1/3 stop advantage in light transmission from f:2 to f:1.4. I found/find this odd, and have always been curious about its effect on exposure metering, since that is done wide open....

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2016 at 15:30 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: when studio lenses retire (203 comments in total)
In reply to:

Richard Schumer: I have a bunch of Pentax lenses I use on digital Pentaxes. When I moved to an *ist DS from my film MX, I envisioned digital images to be near-perfect representations of the objects before the sensor, unlike film, which added its own character. I secretly laughed at film-simulations, knowing I could achieve through curves or other algorithms whichever effects I wanted.

The newest sensor tech appears to go far beyond the abilities of older lenses, no matter how sharp they appeared on film, to render enough detail to withstand pixel-peeping. So, new lenses are needed to match 30MP-Plus images.

In effect; I see my old SMC MF glass as just another film simulation in my toolkit.

The Second Digital Revolution, for me, will not be for autofocus (I spent decades building the skillset, and now it is easier to focus manually than otherwise) but for the ability to use sharper glass, which, requiring less processing, gives me more headroom to add my preferred changes to the image in PP.

@ Robin...<it was "dreamy" all over>

Yes, but stop it down to f:5.6 or so and it is sharp enough to "cut glass," as we used to say.

A sharpening algorithm other than masking can reduce the haze of coma and CA at wide apertures if one prefers; no need at medium ones.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2016 at 13:45 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: when studio lenses retire (203 comments in total)

I have a bunch of Pentax lenses I use on digital Pentaxes. When I moved to an *ist DS from my film MX, I envisioned digital images to be near-perfect representations of the objects before the sensor, unlike film, which added its own character. I secretly laughed at film-simulations, knowing I could achieve through curves or other algorithms whichever effects I wanted.

The newest sensor tech appears to go far beyond the abilities of older lenses, no matter how sharp they appeared on film, to render enough detail to withstand pixel-peeping. So, new lenses are needed to match 30MP-Plus images.

In effect; I see my old SMC MF glass as just another film simulation in my toolkit.

The Second Digital Revolution, for me, will not be for autofocus (I spent decades building the skillset, and now it is easier to focus manually than otherwise) but for the ability to use sharper glass, which, requiring less processing, gives me more headroom to add my preferred changes to the image in PP.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2016 at 17:39 UTC as 18th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

FuhTeng: I enjoy their MTF - remarkable performance to have HIGHER resolution for 30 lp/mm than 10 lp/mm! Even the mighty OTUS lenses can't pull that off.

@Rotonda -- The chart is not quite full frame 35mm (43mm image circle) but as my old eyes read it more like a 38-39mm ic. If you are planning to use it on a FE-mount FF a7, it "might" cover the whole sensor. Let us know if it does!

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 17:19 UTC
In reply to:

DanielFjall: All I can afford is vintage Leica glass, which is amazing. I bet this must be truly spectacular.

Not only that, but if prices are adjusted for inflation, this lens is not so expensive after all; I seem to remember mid-20th century Summicrons going for about $300-400 new. The price index in the US has, on average, gone up 1000% since then, so this optic is about twice as dear. Is it a better performer on a 24 mpixel sensor? That I dunno.

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2016 at 01:18 UTC
On article Under pressure: Canon vs. Nikon in a hydraulic press (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

anu l: I felt a bit disturbed after watching it.

You too probably wont like watching it if you are a photographer !!

@CyberAngel -- No, unfortunately. Coppola was pretty clear the car was real. Hollywood does this all the time if it's cheaper or quicker to blow up a classic anything than to make a prop. In this case, it was obviously cheaper to find a 1948 vintage Alfa 6c 2500 with Farina body near the Italian location than to make and transport a fake. Remember, these were not particularly rare cars at the time and it was only 22 years old -- not yet even "vintage," let alone "classic."

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 21:00 UTC
On article Sony announces FE 50mm F1.4 ZA prime lens (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

noflashplease: Another huge and heavy E-mount lens? Lenses of this sort appear to use long flange optimized SLR optical formulas with the equivalent of short flange adapters built in. You really have to wonder if Sony is designing lenses from the scratch just to be awkwardly large or if it's just old wine in a new bottle?

Either way, I really don't see a point to this FE lens? Why did Sony even bother?

@Yake Leica angles the pixel receptors off-center to remove vignetting; Sony does not, so its lenses may not be able to use the short flange distance as well.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2016 at 21:34 UTC

I had my own specialized tools -- but no microwave. I had a cheap immersion heater and a small container filled with concentrated developer solution; I dabbed hot developer on areas that needed more ooomph. I dry sponged highlights to keep them bright. I pre-flashed paper with light to change the response curve.

On the negative side, I diluted developers to increase sharpness (acutance.) I added sodium sulfite to soften grain. And some things I would still like to keep secret (which means I forgot them.)

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2016 at 14:34 UTC as 43rd comment
In reply to:

KevinG: Amazing! As someone who embraced digital shooting from 1999 on it is just so eye opening to see how much would go into the making of a print for sale. I always loved the fact that once you had your "master file" set in digital as long as you stayed on the same inset & paper you were pretty mush assured consistency from print to print. It had to be so hard to remember exactly what you did when printing in the darkroom. sometimes even notes you write at the time are not 100% accurate.

That's why AA prints are worth so much more than anyone else's prints from his negatives.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2016 at 14:11 UTC
In reply to:

Gatoraied: I had my own darkroom back in the early 60's and worked as a commercial photographer. I sent all color work to Rochester and only did my B&W's. Film was 35mm, 620, 120. Did lots of dodging and burning which worked quite nicely. When seeing Adams' multi light & toggled enlarger/projector light array I thought " Ahhh, thats how he did it!". Of course never using 8x10 negatives the thought never crossed my mind but it was brilliant!. For years many of us in the business knew Adams manipulated his photographs but could never quite nail down how it was done. Of course anyone who worked photography knew getting Adams kind of exposures were next to impossible and just thought he performed some magic in the darkroom but never realized that using that toggled lighting was one of his creations. Interesting to know the rest of the story. BTW, I wonder if National Geographic will purge all of Adams' photos from their archives?

Ah, hindsight is so romantic. I did the same, but I must admit I fell into the "discussion trap" of the time, trying to decide whether I was for "condenser or diffusion" enlargers.

Now, the discussion trap seems to be "equivalence." Some things never change.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2016 at 14:08 UTC

On viewing the first in the series of the blonde, and using the 100% loupe, I thought at first I saw some ugly chroma noise in her sweater; on closer inspection, turns out that was the WEAVE of the garment.

I am impressed!

Nice bokeh, too. Reminds me of a 2.8 Zeiss Planar iirc Rollieflex from mid last century -- and that's a good thing.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 01:56 UTC as 20th comment
On article Under pressure: Canon vs. Nikon in a hydraulic press (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hugo808: LOL, I hope this is going to be added to the testing procedures in future.

@DerFalke You got me with that one. Huzzah!!

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 20:22 UTC
On article Under pressure: Canon vs. Nikon in a hydraulic press (295 comments in total)
In reply to:

anu l: I felt a bit disturbed after watching it.

You too probably wont like watching it if you are a photographer !!

Being a fanboi of Alfa Romeos and a former user of a Canon AE-1, I felt the same twinge watching this as I felt when that beautiful Alfa coupe was blown up (along with his bigamic wife) in Godfather II.

The difference is that any pawnshop can still supply AE-1s for cheap prices.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 20:18 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2652 comments in total)
In reply to:

onlooker: It would have added a little ace in the hole for Pentax had it provided for interchangeable focusing screens to distinguish itself from the pack. Alas, no. From Pentax website http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/k-1/feature/04.html :

"The focusing screen is fixed on the camera body, and is not interchangeable."

@miles green

Is it easy to acquire focus manually on the K-1 screen?

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 18:32 UTC
Total: 190, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »