Lives in United States Waterloo USA, IL, United States
Works as a public affairs/photography
Joined on Aug 20, 2005
About me:

Former U.S. Navy photojournalist and public affairs officer. Now with Army Corps of Engineers. Used to use only Nikon 35mm. Got hooked on digital (D1X) in Iraq two summers ago and have not shot a role of film since returning. Own Nikon D200, D70 and lenses. Understand there are other great cameras, but I use at least one old manual lenses that I had with my F on my D200 for astronomical photography. Strong opinion: 'no' to FF. No need to outmode the new DX lenses.


Total: 13, showing: 1 – 13

I suspect too many have brought this about by making use of the capabilities inherent in RAW images to create almost an altogether new version of what was in front of the camera. The end result is that Reuters will now only accept less than excellence because they depend on truth, which has been distorted by some to make themselves look better. Sad...

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2015 at 23:14 UTC as 60th comment | 1 reply
On article Tamron SP 150-600mm F/5-6.3 Di VC USD Lab Test Review (268 comments in total)

I just got mine two weeks ago and am thrilled with it. It may not be the absolute sharpest lens at 600mm -- but it reaches there. It is at least as sharp and faster focusing than my earlier version Nikon 80-400mm. I have been using it for sports photography for a small newspaper for two weeks now, as well as photographing humming birds on my porch, and it does the job for barely $1,000. This is a good alternative to anything else even remotely comparable.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2015 at 00:21 UTC as 15th comment
On article Adobe expands Photoshop and Lightroom offer (628 comments in total)

Some people need to read the fine print when they "buy" software. Whether you get a box and disk or download the program, all you are buying is a license to USE the software. Adobe CC does not mean your software and photos are somewhere in the "cloud." It means you are purchasing the license to USE the software on a monthly basis. You can store all of your images and files on your own local computer, just as you always have. By your software checking periodically with Adobe, upgrades are downloaded as they are available. This is $120 per year software. That's all it is.

Link | Posted on Nov 22, 2013 at 00:00 UTC as 114th comment | 3 replies
On article Classic lines when clients want you to work for free (141 comments in total)

I shot an aerial image of an ethanol plant as a target of opportunity on another job and later offered a large print to the management for $100. They said they had plenty of such images and I said "thanks" and headed for the door. As I did, the manager said, "I'll give you $10 for it," and I replied, "I'll give you 25 cents a gallon for ethanol," and left. I'm sure he found the print, crumpled up in the trash can by his secretary's desk. I have also answered people who question my prices by saying, "I have $25,000 in equipment and I have never been in a camera store and had anyone tap me on the shoulder and offer to pick up half of the cost of a new camera or lens."

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2013 at 00:28 UTC as 65th comment
In reply to:

ezyernie: the reporters will be layed off as soon as the paper completes setting up it's Twitter and Tumbler accounts.

Yup... all they need is someone to cut and paste the incoming photos and news... How will they replace ad sales? If they can solve that they can operate for free and it will all be profit!

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2013 at 22:15 UTC

The Sun-Times is doing what my Daddy used to call "peeing in your boots to keep you feet warm." It doesn't last for long and neither will they.

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2013 at 22:12 UTC as 43rd comment

Wonderful story and touching image. Both are good news when all around us, phojos are being put out to pasture and replaced by the multitudes with cell phone cameras, image distributors are pirating work and assuming its ownership and the world seems to move from one tragedy to the next at an ever increasing velocity. I am glad to learn of Rodrigues' success and wish for many more for him!

Link | Posted on Mar 12, 2013 at 21:17 UTC as 28th comment

Let's see -- without any other considerations, using Nikon as a baseline, when the scientists made the decision in 2004, we could have chosen from the D2H, D100 or D70. Now -- add a lens of choice and instrumentation to point it, trigger it, etc., make it solid enough to survive a multi-G take off, a 350 million mile journey through the radiation-laced vacume of space and a rentry... it sounds to me like the engineers did a pretty decent job in 2004. And if they had chosen the state of the art commecial camera, it probably wouldn't work now anyhow. Remember, pretty pictures are really only to keep the public off NASA's back while they conduct real science. We will be amazed in coming days and months, just as we still are with images from another rover that's been their 8 years now, sitting outside in a hostile environment. For those who are already complaining -- my Daddy always told me, "Some people would gripe if you hung them with a brand new rope." HANG in there, complainers!

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2012 at 01:43 UTC as 63rd comment

Most of the comments criticizing the PhoJo are being made by people who (a) are not journalists and (b) have never faced much threat, and certainly not combat or street violence. Hindsight is also 20-20 vision. Criticism from afar and afterward is NOT a luxury the photographer had. Concerning fires and accidents -- unfortunately, they occur. And while one may choose not to publish the photo for some reason, a journalist, who's job is to record these kinds of tragedies, must shoot first and judge later. Otherwise they are simply censoring the situation based solely on their own values.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2012 at 13:33 UTC as 19th comment
On article Shooting with the Leica M9-P (620 comments in total)
In reply to:

jwalker019: I checked out an M9 at a local camera shop to see what all the fuss was about. It was a lovely experience: the camera is clearly a fine piece of work, the rangefinder experience is enchanting and the lenses are to die for. But it's also heavy like a brick, has no hand grip to speak of, and has a *very* noisy sensor which was outclassed even when it was released.

I just can't buy into the idea of an $8k camera (no matter how seductive the look and feel) with a fixed, antiquated sensor. Unless you simply have money to burn, it doesn't make sense with a device you'll need to upgrade every 2-3 years.

You need higher sensitvity in lower light -- night and indoor sports, etc., which Cartier Bresson didn't seem to shoot much of. I'm convinced that Bresson and Adams would have used and mastered digital equipment and software had it been avaikable in their era. It was -- and remains -- all about capturing and then reproducing the image.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2012 at 18:24 UTC

Let's face it. There will always be people who feel someone else got, or is getting a better deal. The whole scenario is based on foreign exchange rates and timing. In the US, we recently saw the D700 drop $500 -- no refunds to those who paid $2700 for one a month ago. Switch to Canon if you must. Their top end models are more expensive. The thing you are cutting off to spite your face is your nose.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2012 at 10:37 UTC as 45th comment | 2 replies
Total: 13, showing: 1 – 13