Lives in United States United States
Joined on Dec 13, 2005


Total: 96, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Did anyone ever mention how little they care?

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 13:34 UTC as 228th comment | 1 reply
On article This vibrant hyper-lapse shows off New York in 8K (69 comments in total)

Nice time lapse technically, but I had to turn off the music which was a total mismatch with the video I thought. Plus I found the constant switching of points of view distracting, as I had just gotten interested in what was going on in one scene when I was ripped away to another one, and then another. I didn't even last a minute.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 13:11 UTC as 35th comment
On article Under pressure: Canon vs. Nikon in a hydraulic press (296 comments in total)

Somewhat interesting to see once, but once is enough.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 13:28 UTC as 61st comment
In reply to:

David 247: Photography by its very nature is always manipulated and always has been to a some degree. No camera or film ever produced, shows exactly what the human eye sees and how the human brain interprets it. In fact, no two people ever see exactly the same. There is a realm of reasonable representation and some level of acceptable interpretation by the photographer. Reasonable adjustments of highlights, shadows, color, etc are generally acceptable. What is not acceptable for documentary work is adding or removing elements or modifying elements in a way that is unnatural or false. Take the same photo at the same moment with different cameras and receive widely different impressions of what eyes and mind see. None will show exactly the same. All would qualify as reasonable representations. Limited post processing is reasonable as long as it does not significantly alter the subject as seen. There are no limits on artistic work as long as it is stated as such.

Ditto here David. It was almost a shock to me to find out recently how much dark room manipulation Ansel Adams did. I'm not sure his 'raw' (negative) file would pass National Geographic muster. While I'd guess most serious photographers and judges agree with you, there will forever be arguments over what 'reasonable' and 'significant' is.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 13:39 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (813 comments in total)

So, what's next?
2-1/4 square?
Full frame is so yesterday.
I mean how could you even take a serious shot with APS-C or 4/3's right?

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2016 at 22:07 UTC as 39th comment | 4 replies
On article Lens shootout: Sony RX10 III destroys the competition (488 comments in total)
In reply to:

Grig: I don't see destruction compared to FZ1000... Sorry... May be good idea to change it to "outperforms" or something like it if you really think so, but not destroys for sure... But to me FZ Leica lens is sharper and less CA... Especially on the sides at F8 at 400mm

With all due respect to BB and DPR, I disagree and think headlines should inform and entice, but not to the point of deception. To me "Destroys" is over the top, cheapens the editorial headline, and leaves a false impression.
Sadly I see this trend with all to many publishers. I'd like to think we have a more 'mature' readership here.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2016 at 22:23 UTC
On article Pelican lightens up with Air cases (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jonathan F/2: I actually use my pelican case as my carry on luggage for clothes and put my cameras in my backpack!

Why buy a Pelican case for clothes?
We travel extensively and every suitcase I had soon fell apart, even the most expensive. A few years ago I considered a Pelican case as they are considered the toughest. plus I like the top hinge vs split suitcases as the latter takes up twice the room when open. But when I looked at the weight and what I'd have left over for clothes, it was out. This new lighter case might change things. Another issue we considered is Pelican cases sometimes draw unwanted attention.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2016 at 13:48 UTC
On article Upwardly mobile: Sony a6300 Review (2165 comments in total)
In reply to:

pkcpga: Not sure how the Nikon d7200 is the benchmark for comparison for a year now and the Sony a6300 doesn't match or beat the Nikon and the Nikon receives a silver and the Sony a gold. I guess cameras have gotten worse with time so they get higher awards or maybe the Sony has such a great user interface it deserves the over look.

I think we forget use. If you're a professional using a camera day in and out, then perhaps a mirrored camera with a big lens selection might be good. I'm a traveler first and photographer second, and found my huge Nikon DSLR sitting in the closet most of the time in favor of smaller cameras. As a long time Sony user, I think the current menu is great! I prefer it over my Nikon menu. Of course perhaps coming from the Nex 7 menu from hell it just seems better. I take two small cameras that cover from 15-100mm so never have to change lenses, the bane of travel photographers in tense conditions. So my lens needs are minimal too. That said, I see no reason to upgrade to the a6300. It has all the improvements I'm not looking for except perhaps weather sealing.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 13:33 UTC

I have a feeling the photos didn't do the lens justice.
I also have a feeling the lenses won't be flying off the dealers shelves.

Link | Posted on Apr 1, 2016 at 12:41 UTC as 33rd comment | 1 reply

I've often wondered about my monitor color gamut, but realized most people viewing my photos on their monitors aren't calibrated either. So even if mine is perfect, the photos will still be seen differently by others.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2016 at 12:47 UTC as 26th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

TheDarmok74: I'd wish the assignment would be "take photos that best show the camera's capabilties" and not "show what good a photographer you are".

Barney, points to you for keeping your cool! The commentator has a small point, but lacks social graces. It would be nice to see photos taken at the extreme of it's capabilities. E.g. maximum zoom, max. wide angle, macro, very low light, etc. and clearly labeled as such.
Many thanks for all the good work you guys do.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2016 at 14:25 UTC
In reply to:

rsf3127: It is quite impressive that this 1" sensor are about to reach the DXOmark ranking of APS-c sensors inside very respectable pro cameras launched some years ago.
However, those high ISO samples remind me of how far have technology evolved in this field.
From a travel photographer perspective, using one of these compact zooms instead of a Sony A700 or Nikon D90 and their huge 16-105 or 18-135mm lenses - and with the same IQ - is something liberating and totally worth the investment.

Right to the point. Where can you find a 24-70 f1.8-2.8 zoom for an interchangeable lens camera like on the Sony RX100M series? I'm not aware of any.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2016 at 14:17 UTC

So... who or what market is this intended for?

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2016 at 02:49 UTC as 5th comment
On article X-Factor: Canon's EOS-1D X Mark II examined in-depth (618 comments in total)

There seems to be this underlying impression that if the pro's use it, it must be better for the enthusiasts. I'm sure this is a well made camera that meets many of the needs of say a professional shooting sports. But as a hiker and amateur landscape photographer who travels light and can take his time with a shot, it's the wrong piece of equipment. If I judge this camera, it should be within it's intended use.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2016 at 14:43 UTC as 76th comment | 4 replies

I've heard this before but it's worth repeating. For the last year I've heard nothing but news on the A7 series. How many of us need or even want full frame? Much less pay $3k plus for the body not to mention the lenses. I wonder how many a6000's have sold in the meantime? This wonderful APS-C camera came out almost two years ago at a very reasonable price. There just hasn't been anything new since and I think this is Sony's main market. Unless of course full frame drops below $1000. Even then I'd personally stick with APS-C due to it's size advantage.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2016 at 14:25 UTC as 37th comment | 14 replies

I've seen a lot of street photography and have to admit that with Ruiz I'm impressed. The expressions seem to mirror the dark atmosphere with its vibrant tones.

Link | Posted on Dec 11, 2015 at 13:39 UTC as 30th comment
On article Nikon D40 Review (3 comments in total)

Had one of these for years and I have to admit, my overall favorite DSLR due to the size, ease of use, quality pictures & price. Now I've gone to mirror-less.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2015 at 13:38 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

Richard Murdey: And these are better than the RX100 series how exactly?

If Canon hadn't removed the tilt rear screen, I'd probably still own a G series. Instead I went to the Nikon P7700. So for me, they screwed up.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2015 at 14:47 UTC
In reply to:

jorg14: I've had my photos published in books and magazines throughout the USA and shot for over 50 years (non professionally) and have no use for RAW.
Too time consuming, very poor archiveability, and dubious results for the effort involved. Most people spend far too much time analyzing a picture from a technical point of view instead of an artistic one. Very few of the most famous pictures of the past would pass today's pixel peeping muster.
Unless you shoot for very large prints, work in a studio, or have some other critical photographic work, you're probably wasting your time shooting raw... unless you just enjoy playing around.

Thanks for the mostly thoughtful replies. I knew this would raise controversy.
When I shot film (seldom), my local lab would process the shots, or I shot slides which went to Kodak which did a great job. I've never lost my negatives (or positives) once.
I've spent many hours experimenting with raw vs jpg in Photoshop, and again could not see significant enough differences (& yes I have 20-20 vision) to warrant the extra work. I simply shoot dark to preserve the highlights and then bring out the dark tones & never overwrite my jpg's. Having had 30 or so digital cameras which generate various raw files, I'm not about to deal with all those file formats. Now if the standard were to go to DNG things might be different.

Link | Posted on Sep 4, 2015 at 01:14 UTC
Total: 96, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »