Lives in Israel Israel
Works as a Computers
Has a website at
Joined on Sep 5, 2004
About me:

Nikon D750
Nikkor 16-35mm f/4 AF-S VR
Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S VRII
Nikkor 50mm f/1.4 AF-S
Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 AF-S
Nikon SB800
Gitzo 3530S + Markins M20 + RRS clamp + RRS L-plate


Total: 9, showing: 1 – 9
In reply to:

wus: Some time a go, I compared a cheap (and I mean considerably cheaper than all those tested by LR) with my somewhat older B&W CPL, on my Sony A77 II with various lenses. On low and medium focal lengths I did not see a difference, but starting from around 150 mm the cheaper filter added visible blur. At 400 mm - my longest lens - the difference was very obvious. The cheap filter deteriorated image quality considerably, the B&W barely noticeable.

Same story - I don't know why, but with the longer focal length the image became so blurry with weird highlights that it became noticeable in the viewfinder.
It was on 200-500/5.6, and on 200 the effect was weak, but b 409mm it became most prominent.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2017 at 17:48 UTC

What about sharpness then?
I had one that resulted in Vaseline-like effect - weird halos and general loss of sharpness.
Sticking an el-chrapo polarizer in front of your expensive lest is a veeery bad idea.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2017 at 17:44 UTC as 7th comment
On article Accessory Review: Western Digital My Passport Wireless (83 comments in total)
In reply to:

gmarmot: I've always wondered why devices such as this and other standard external drives, are not made with solid state components. I have an Apple MacBook with solid state drive, and it's been flawless. For me, I'd pay the extra money for this feature and it's accompanying ruggedness (I assume it would not be over double the price?).

An SSD can easily be 4 times the price of an HDD, double is way too optimistic IMO

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2015 at 16:50 UTC
In reply to:

raducdz: I read the comments around here and realize more and more that there aren't many artists around,but too many "photographers",and many of them rather ignorant with no aesthetic sense.I see Andreas Gursky's image is making some noise...can't imagine why.I finished an art college and majored in art photography,and he was given to us as example of a great artist with an original great style and technique I have to say Gursky's image is impecable. Supeb geometry, superb minimalistic scene, and probably a huge and superb print! I think people call it boring because there's no kitschy bird flying, dog running or kid playing, or something you "great photographers in your spare time" like to see. Every image speaks to a person, and while some of your images only speak to you, their images speak to people who are willing to pay huge amounts of money for them.They ARE better than us,that is why they do better than us in photography.What we can do,is analyze,learn and respect.

I'm sorry?
Allow me to disagree with the stated opinion. Since when 'better' translates into 'commands higher price'? I do respect the guy - I'm sure he's a great businessman and a pro in marketing, but calling this a great photograph? Blah... no, let me rephrase - it's pace is in a trash bin as far as art goes. And don't trust your professors - they will brainwash you into thinking this is art... oh, I'm sorry, I'm afraid they already did ;-)

Analyze, learn, and respect?
Analyze - sure!
Learn - absolutely! Go learn the marketing side. As far as photography/art goes - god forbid, go make your own art.
Respect - of course! You can't argue with success. Just realize it's not the pure art that gets you these amounts of money.

By the way - if art makes you experience some emotion, then Gursky's image IS art. It's just the kind of emotion I personally don't want to experience.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2013 at 20:36 UTC
In reply to:

toomanycanons: OK, I checked out his pics. OK snapshots with the equivalent of a decent point and shoot. Made possible only because his employer told him "we're going to experiment here. Use your iPhone and let's see what happens", not "and make sure you get the shot". Great work if you can get it.

Guess how many photographers used their best equipment, got superior images and no one ever hears about them? Sometimes PR is as important as the actual results - if not more so. Both the agency and the photographer got mentioned a lot, so their goal was achieved. Being better known means more future jobs / higher price taken for the same assignments. In the business sense - a job well done! As far as photography goes - meeeh...

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2012 at 07:44 UTC
On article Photoshop CS6 Beta: New Features for Photographers (154 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kampbyll Photography: PS is ok , but my view point is very simple , PS to me is an excuse not to buy better equipment , i personally would rather have the best equipment than there is no need to waste my time in PS , i have no need to go to Photo Shop , my pictures look great like they are , and those who waste time there should just upgrade there camera , better yet take better pictures!

No lens is perfect and no sensor can capture the scene as *you* see it, thus...

There are also so-called purists that reject the use of software for the sake of authenticity - this is a topic worthy of another discussion and IMO this approach is too simplistic as these "purists" don't realize what's going on onside the camera anyway. If you're one of them, this discussion is pointless as this is similar to religion.

If you're not one of thew "purists", I hope you do some local image adjustments. Of course, there's other software besides PS - but none of it combines the power, convenience and output quality of PS.

If you don't use *any* image editing software and not one of the "purists", then you're missing about half the image creation possibilities. As simple as that.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2012 at 10:07 UTC
In reply to:

Mandeno Moments: It's good that Nokia is thinking outside the box and the sensor size is stunning, but what about the dynamic range of a 1.4 micron pixel? If they kept the sensor size and put 10 megapixels on it the pixel size would be ~5.6 microns, which is the same size as those found in the Nikon D300s and Fuji X100. This would give a much greater dynamic range, albeit the price would be the loss of the digital zoom. Digital zoom with noise is little gain for me.

I speak as a photographer. Happy-snappers will probably love Nokia's approach if it's simple to operate.

The Nokia post shows a bare lens, and all the technology in the world is useless if the lens is covered in fingerprints and scratches. If I'm buying a high end photography-focused phone I want a sliding lens cover, with the option of cover-opening switching the phone to camera mode.

I believe we forget about signal/noise ratio that gets worse with smaller pixels. Also, modern phones are probably to weak to process the images in 12-24bit.

BTW, I'm not trying to diminish the achievement - I'm duly impressed with the sample images!

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2012 at 00:25 UTC
On article First Impressions: Using the Nikon V1 (131 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ponxo: Nikon must put this sensor and features in a P7100 body, call it P8000 And have an awesome compact camera. They will do it in 3 year, when they finish milking this cameras. Hope isn't late.

That's what Canon G1X is :-)

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2012 at 21:55 UTC
In reply to:

HiRez: HDR brings everything towards a flat grey mess. Pictures need definition and HDR tends to remove it. Yes, you can see more detail in the shadow and/or highlight areas, but it just never looks natural, no matter how good the software or how skilled the artist/photographer.

Sorry, but I still prefer a more natural looking picture with some clipped highlights or shadows.

I strongly disagree.
HDR is a two-step process - first, you get all the data in a single file that holds more data tan can be displayed anywhere, be it display or paper. If you would compress the dynamic range linearly, you would get a really flat-looking image with most of the details, but totally without punch. This first step is mostly automatic. The second step is to map tonal values so that your image looks natural and has local contrast. This is the step where lots of images get ruined. Just as when cooking a meal, you can't leave it totally uncooked or overcooked - both results would be bad. The uncooked one is just flat-looking image (bland taste). The overcooked result can have some burnt parts and the food would be too hard to eat and not even look tasty - it means "grunge" look in HDR - too much local contrast and very unnatural looking results. HDR done right though - cooked just right and with some added spice - can look amazing!


Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2011 at 10:56 UTC
Total: 9, showing: 1 – 9