fmian

fmian

Lives in Australia Sydney, Australia
Works as a Photographer/Re-toucher/Consultant
Joined on Mar 28, 2010
About me:

If you're reading this it's probably because I wrote something that confounded or intrigued you. You should know that much of what I say is uncomfortable truth laced with straight faced sarcasm. Don't take it to heart.

Comments

Total: 1000, showing: 141 – 160
« First‹ Previous678910Next ›Last »
In reply to:

fmian: Finally catching up to the quality of 35mm motion film..

Meanwhile Arri makes a motion film scanner that pulls 4096x3112 px of detail out of analog film.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 11:23 UTC

Finally catching up to the quality of 35mm motion film..

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2016 at 08:31 UTC as 35th comment | 10 replies
In reply to:

MadManAce: A click bait article if I ever saw one. Comparing spec sheets and making grandiose claims without any side by side testing, that is sinking to a new level. How about doing getting some PROs to compare the AF in different real life situations with lighting conditions and some repeatable dark studio tests. Lastly, I know very few situations that any PRO would use Dynamic Area Auto 3-D Select Focusing that reviewers are so keen on the D5. How the heck can one be satisfied with the camera making the decision on what to focus on. Now, I am not saying the Canon will win, but given these parameters, I would like to see the true results, not some spec sheet speculating article design to create controversy.

Pulitzer prize winning photographs have been taken with manual focus cameras for the better part of a century, therefore your logic is invalid.
'the pros would be all over it' - It doesn't sound like you know anything about pro camera users at all.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2016 at 04:09 UTC
In reply to:

MadManAce: A click bait article if I ever saw one. Comparing spec sheets and making grandiose claims without any side by side testing, that is sinking to a new level. How about doing getting some PROs to compare the AF in different real life situations with lighting conditions and some repeatable dark studio tests. Lastly, I know very few situations that any PRO would use Dynamic Area Auto 3-D Select Focusing that reviewers are so keen on the D5. How the heck can one be satisfied with the camera making the decision on what to focus on. Now, I am not saying the Canon will win, but given these parameters, I would like to see the true results, not some spec sheet speculating article design to create controversy.

@Silver Nemesis, A troll would be someone who places bait (usually nonsensical or illogical statements) to fish for a strong reaction from people.

The reason DPReviews assessment doesn't line up with the pro popularity of these products is because any pro photographer can make up for differences stated with use of good technique.
The popularity of the measurably lower product in this case I believe comes down to non measurable attributes like handling and familiarity and support of the product from the manufacturer.
So the statement Vivid1 made is inaccurate because he/she isn't aware of what I just wrote above.
Hence why I wrote troll or ignorant.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 12:41 UTC
In reply to:

MadManAce: A click bait article if I ever saw one. Comparing spec sheets and making grandiose claims without any side by side testing, that is sinking to a new level. How about doing getting some PROs to compare the AF in different real life situations with lighting conditions and some repeatable dark studio tests. Lastly, I know very few situations that any PRO would use Dynamic Area Auto 3-D Select Focusing that reviewers are so keen on the D5. How the heck can one be satisfied with the camera making the decision on what to focus on. Now, I am not saying the Canon will win, but given these parameters, I would like to see the true results, not some spec sheet speculating article design to create controversy.

Either a troll or just ignorant.
Like many have done before, using the 'McDonalds is also popular...' response is usually enough to make them go away.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 10:17 UTC
In reply to:

MadManAce: A click bait article if I ever saw one. Comparing spec sheets and making grandiose claims without any side by side testing, that is sinking to a new level. How about doing getting some PROs to compare the AF in different real life situations with lighting conditions and some repeatable dark studio tests. Lastly, I know very few situations that any PRO would use Dynamic Area Auto 3-D Select Focusing that reviewers are so keen on the D5. How the heck can one be satisfied with the camera making the decision on what to focus on. Now, I am not saying the Canon will win, but given these parameters, I would like to see the true results, not some spec sheet speculating article design to create controversy.

@Barney Britton: Yes, but did you ensure the sun was passing through the correct equinox so that your hemisphere of the earth was having an even spread of celestial gravitational force applied to it?
Either that or have the test done in a simulated zero g environment to knock out any variables...

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 03:43 UTC
In reply to:

biggercountry: A recommendation for the latest in the Canon EOS 1D line as a "landscape photography" camera? With the fastest AF and continuous shooting ability that Canon knows how to make? Really?

Meanwhile most Olympic Games photographers are shooting with a recommended for landscape camera... What are thinking?

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2016 at 15:02 UTC
In reply to:

Rooru S: Guess Canon will offer Log profile and other features with the C version of the 1DX Mk.II... for a premium of course. Will Nikon do anything to get better video specs or will they wait until 2020?

^^ You mean Red or Arri.. Or Kodak films..

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2016 at 14:38 UTC
In reply to:

Mark Banas: Remember not too long ago when commenters repeatedly asked "when are you going to review and compare Canon and Nikon flagship DSLRs?"

What now? Medium format? Lightfield cinema cameras? NRO imaging satellites?

Film cameras?

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2016 at 13:54 UTC
On article 8 creative tips for shooting waterfalls (159 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jay Williams: You should've mentioned a polarizing filter. Sometimes, you may want to remove the glare from the surface of the water. More often that not, however, I use it to get rid of glare off of wet rocks. It can also help get more saturated colors in foliage by—you guessed it—eliminating glare. A bonus is that it can give you longer shutter speeds, too, in lieu of a neutral density filter.

Better still, take two CPL filters and use them to create a variable ND filter.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2016 at 22:17 UTC
On article 8 creative tips for shooting waterfalls (159 comments in total)

Well written article. Got me thinking about doing some myself for the first time :)

Would just like to add to this:
'Tripod: Any time you're shooting long exposures a tripod is a must'
- Make sure your camera/lens is positioned in line with one of the legs of the tripod for the greatest stability. Same goes for light stands.
Have seen a bunch of seasoned photographers smash their cameras because they forgot this.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2016 at 22:09 UTC as 50th comment
In reply to:

steelhead3: Who uses the 11/24 other than a few niche players?

I'd imagine the 'very happy and creative' niche players would be using the 11-24..

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2016 at 02:57 UTC
In reply to:

Mach Schnell: Okay, so it is obvious they are Canon fans. No issues with that, even though I shoot Nikon. Wouldn't it have been a lot more useful list to show the top 10 most frequently rented items?

No, because then it wouldn't be the unique opinions of a bunch of people who's insight and perspective we respect.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 22:35 UTC
In reply to:

Gesture: Where is the word "Nikon"?
To its credit, I think Nikon has done well with its, dare I say, "affordable" full frame cameras.

They mentioned Nikon when they said the Canon 11-24 replaced the Nikon 14-24.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2016 at 22:30 UTC
On article Top tips for composing great landscapes (130 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: To me, your white signature on dark background is the dominant (or at least a major) visual component of nearly every one of these images -- it seriously degrades the compositions. If you insist on marking each image, I'd strongly suggest making it a more subtle watermark, using tones more consistent with those of the area upon which you impose it.

Look, you didn't originally ask about Bob Ross. I answered the question you asked in a sensible manner. I'm sure we can keep going back and forth with this as you keep changing your questions to suit your desired answer.

Valid points were raised on either side of the discussion and that has already been said more than once here. So I don't see why you have to get emotional and confused enough to imply that I've been yelling or something. If I had said something way out of line as your reaction suggests, I would have been deleted or whatever it is the mods do in that situation.

It's obviously a polarising topic that should have its own article, and if you can't talk about it by adding something that continues the discussion calmly then maybe you should take a break and go for a walk or something.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 17:25 UTC
On article Top tips for composing great landscapes (130 comments in total)
In reply to:

ProfHankD: To me, your white signature on dark background is the dominant (or at least a major) visual component of nearly every one of these images -- it seriously degrades the compositions. If you insist on marking each image, I'd strongly suggest making it a more subtle watermark, using tones more consistent with those of the area upon which you impose it.

Monet considered the colours of his signatures carefully so it matched the rest of the painting.

Van Gogh for the most part applied his signature to flow within the lines and shapes of his paintings. Although there are some where he blatantly did the opposite. If he wasn't famous I'm sure many would consider those ones ruined.

Ie. They usually took great consideration of composition when applying their signatures, hence why each signature is unique.

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 15:47 UTC
In reply to:

Studio1138: Sure wish they had put in IS.

Well wow, that's a whole bunch of stuff I didn't consider. Even though I shoot in a range of conditions and environments it's never presented an issue for me to want a fast (er) lens with stabilization.

I guess my brain doesn't even go there because I'm mostly using manual focus systems on older 135 and 120 formats. So it kind of is what it is and I don't have another option.. so I try to find other workarounds.

I get what you're saying though, would make life easier in specific moments.
I found myself once using a 100mm f/4 macro with Ilford 125 ASA at minimum focus distance to fill this guys face into the frame and just get his eyeballs in focus (some funky body painted model with bizzare contact lenses). Impromptu available window light shot, no tripod cause a table was in the way, 1/30s at the apex of my breath. Only one shot. Lol. The photo came out great but I have to say I flirted with chance and got lucky.

If I had to do that repeatedly and reliably, I'd want IS as well..

Link | Posted on Jul 28, 2016 at 06:50 UTC
In reply to:

Studio1138: Sure wish they had put in IS.

'and lose over a stop of light'
Compared to what? This new lens, or if it theoretically had VR built in?

The 105mm VR Macro has a claimed 4-stops of stability compensation.

Assuming the subject can hold still, we can compare:

~1/100s @ f/1.4 (for this new lens)
to
~1/15s @ f/2.8 (for the 105 VR macro)

and we have a ~2-stop advantage for the 105mm VR macro compared to this new lens. Plus you have a closer minimum focus distance.

Of course.. there are other things to consider when taking a shot and sometimes you will want one over the other, but it's worth considering what situations the VR will let you decrease shutter speed in (rather than stopping the aperture down).

Personally I would sacrifice aperture for stabilization in a lens. Not a problem if people feel otherwise.

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 23:29 UTC
In reply to:

Nobby2016: well i love my 85mm f1.2... thought just shooting at f1.2-f2.0 all the time is a bit boring.

don´t get me wrong i love the look, it is just that there are more possibilitys for portraits then shooting at f1.2.

many portrait photographer forget that.
some portfolios only show 85mm and wide open.

that said i would buy a mark III version of the 85mm f1.2 instantly. :)

@Nobby2016, I enjoy taking portraits with my 8mm f/4 circular fisheye, easy to get everything in focus so you don't have to worry about DOF when your subject is running away from you. But I do wish I could afford the 7.5mm.. Less CA on the edges where it's important to capture the models flailing limbs.. One day.. :)

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 15:53 UTC
In reply to:

Reilly Diefenbach: Coming soon to a forum near you, a flood of even fuzzier nose and ears shots than previously available!

You say it like users will be locked in to f/1.4, or won't be able to get their subjects to move further back..
You should check out a DOF calculator to see how this works...

Link | Posted on Jul 27, 2016 at 15:37 UTC
Total: 1000, showing: 141 – 160
« First‹ Previous678910Next ›Last »