munro harrap

munro harrap

Lives in France France
Works as a none
Has a website at none
Joined on Dec 27, 2007
About me:

irrelevant

Comments

Total: 707, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Video: Leica M10 First Look (13 comments in total)

The best things in life are free, it gets progressively worse as you up costs. Doubt me? consider your labours finance all tragedy-arms for your wars, your futile space explorations, your large hadron collider, chernobyls everywhere, and on a personal note ferraris, bugatti veyrons, Leicas, Hasselblads, hi-end hifis and computets and iPhones and Macs etc. And then there's jewellery cosmetics and high fashion-none of which are necessary and which consume vast earthly and spiritual resources, and all of which enslave mankind in general. and us gearheads in particular.
If A Leica 10 and a 50mm, 35mm 21mm and 24mm and visoflex cost me 10 per cent of my annual income I would certainly be tempted- though sensor reliability is a problem with Leitz.
But is not and right now I can listen to Angela Hewitt playing Bach French Suites on the radio and it costs NOTHING, not a year's salary AND my peers respect and favour. Why photography indeed!! Even her piano costs less than an M10!

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 20:49 UTC as 1st comment

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b08bcc18/storyville-zero-day-nuclear-cyber-sabotage.

You might be able to view this if in the UK. It will provoke some debate, and concerns US destruction of irani nuclear processes using merely hacking and malware.

So, if you doubt Google et al can steal the entire content of your hard drives more easily if you help them by installing RAISR , take a long hard look at the forthcoming long-term economic implications of this documentary

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 01:54 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Buying a second lens: what lens should I buy next? (296 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: Unless you do birds or bugs, nobody actually needs more lenses. If you get a good enough and fast enough 24-85mm or 24-70mm equivalent lens when you buy the body- giving you a vast and infinitely variable range of focal lengths, you'll be just fine.

I have many lenses, but find in practice they are used only for specific purposes, as in general use on a D800 the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 is just fine. I use it all the time, unless the light in winter demands an f1.4 to stop action.

Marketing men, but not modern photographers go large on bokeh and fast lenses abilities to put the background out of focus, but on a full-frame camera there's very little depth of field wide open at f3.5 even at 24mm, and the closer you get to your subject the more out of focus the background gets anyway.

Its not the aperture that gives extra depth of field, but your closeness to your subject, and with faces and bugs you will need more depth of field not less

IF you buy a body with a kit lens thats good, that is easily good enough unless you want to go long and then you just get a long zoom- like a 70-300 IS USM or VR, and if you live in a country where its dark for months at a time your costs double because you needs must buy fast and long zoom and standard fast zoom.

Skanter's correct- that combination in reasonable light is good to go for all eternity- with enough spare batteries and a fast charger!!

When I started I only had a standard lens with a 35mm body, and it was f3.5.
an a6000 with a 16-50mm is cosmic in comparison!!

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 01:37 UTC
In reply to:

munro harrap: To Whom pray is this of ANY value? Nobody uploads or "shares" hi-res files, because we want to keep our stuff and our copyright to ourselves. It benefits only Google as it allows Google to steal hi-res images from your computers already reduced in size, muppets! as when you are online that app works to Googles advantage in the background all the time. In the same way with Windows 8 and 10 oneDrive is ALWAYS on and CANNOT be deleted. Its why windows keeps asking you to sign into "your" account- to make it theirs-see Terms and Conditions.

At home or at work your connection is free anyway-with the company broadband or your own. IT just makes theft so much easier- and of course even Google, Microsoft and Apple must by now be running out of hard drive space, so.....they are asking you for your help in this matter.

Google and Microsoft and Apple all constantly take material from online hard drives because their software has zero actual value culturally- and nor have their servers or anything else-so they seek out like collectors material that has value-easily taken from you, if you have your work online at all.

If my mobile is stolen, my work could be backed up as you go to iCloud, or wherever, IF it works at the time!! But there is NO guarantee it will or that I who take loads of pics will have space at that crucial, historic moment AND have my machine to upload all my stuff at the time.

Yes its absolutely great to possibly be able to retrieve stuff or use Windows 10 or Sierra to interactively redistribute your work via the cloud to your computers at home or wherever as you work.

But to be cynical and realistic this costs money or costs goods in exchange, period. Fair does??

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 01:29 UTC
In reply to:

munro harrap: To Whom pray is this of ANY value? Nobody uploads or "shares" hi-res files, because we want to keep our stuff and our copyright to ourselves. It benefits only Google as it allows Google to steal hi-res images from your computers already reduced in size, muppets! as when you are online that app works to Googles advantage in the background all the time. In the same way with Windows 8 and 10 oneDrive is ALWAYS on and CANNOT be deleted. Its why windows keeps asking you to sign into "your" account- to make it theirs-see Terms and Conditions.

At home or at work your connection is free anyway-with the company broadband or your own. IT just makes theft so much easier- and of course even Google, Microsoft and Apple must by now be running out of hard drive space, so.....they are asking you for your help in this matter.

I do have to spell it out dont I? Photographers back up their work OFFLINE. If you do it online, you become dependent not merely on the OS, the Internet and equipment that has nothing to do with your work and can be lost or corrupted, or merely dumped with the rest of the old software by people whose job it is to create the means of operating these machines and their communication interactively with them.
You become their client-not the other way around and have to accept their terms and conditions, and put up with those changing on their whim.
I am no longer on Facebook. Why? A few weeks ago I went to CEX Facebook page to see if they had phone numbers listed. To my amazement comments I had posted on a cousin's page had been lifted and pasted by Facebook and CEX as editorial advertizing on Cex' page without asking either of us if this was OK. It is not. It was a private post-friends only. Password protected from firewalled computers.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 01:20 UTC

To Whom pray is this of ANY value? Nobody uploads or "shares" hi-res files, because we want to keep our stuff and our copyright to ourselves. It benefits only Google as it allows Google to steal hi-res images from your computers already reduced in size, muppets! as when you are online that app works to Googles advantage in the background all the time. In the same way with Windows 8 and 10 oneDrive is ALWAYS on and CANNOT be deleted. Its why windows keeps asking you to sign into "your" account- to make it theirs-see Terms and Conditions.

At home or at work your connection is free anyway-with the company broadband or your own. IT just makes theft so much easier- and of course even Google, Microsoft and Apple must by now be running out of hard drive space, so.....they are asking you for your help in this matter.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 23:43 UTC as 5th comment | 5 replies
On article Buying a second lens: what lens should I buy next? (296 comments in total)

Unless you do birds or bugs, nobody actually needs more lenses. If you get a good enough and fast enough 24-85mm or 24-70mm equivalent lens when you buy the body- giving you a vast and infinitely variable range of focal lengths, you'll be just fine.

I have many lenses, but find in practice they are used only for specific purposes, as in general use on a D800 the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 is just fine. I use it all the time, unless the light in winter demands an f1.4 to stop action.

Marketing men, but not modern photographers go large on bokeh and fast lenses abilities to put the background out of focus, but on a full-frame camera there's very little depth of field wide open at f3.5 even at 24mm, and the closer you get to your subject the more out of focus the background gets anyway.

Its not the aperture that gives extra depth of field, but your closeness to your subject, and with faces and bugs you will need more depth of field not less

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 23:29 UTC as 53rd comment | 6 replies
On article Google Pixel XL camera review (181 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: PIXEL XL phone by Google - 128GB-5.5"- Android Nougat - Factory Unlocked 4G/LTE Smartphone (Quite Black) £1,999.00

The same money buys a brand new D810 Nikon. Or a 55" 4K OLED LG smart TV (nice big monitor too!)

The same money buys you a year living like a God in India.

Or about 20 Nokia 1020s !

There is no @munro harrap, and I am usually infallacious as I bought my D800 in very good condition for £750 with under 16K actuations, from a website reseller but not Amazon.

This is obviously a match for my LG G4, if its RAW files are as good, but I paid less than £300 for it brand new. It has user replaceable batteries and can take 200Gb micro SD cards and shoots reasonable 4k video and has a radio you can indeed also record from...... get one and shut it!!

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 14:41 UTC

My last work on Kodachrome was ruined by Kodak's processing of it. Completely. They refunded the cost of the film, but I lost five weeks work. It kind of put me off....

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 12:57 UTC as 20th comment | 1 reply
On article 2017 Oskar Barnack award offers €80,000 prize fund (55 comments in total)

Now company lawyers rule that someone in some photo somewhere MIGHT sue, so no reportage of our own lives is publishable. Yes, if you are a starving bombed Syrian or doe-eyed Afghani kid that's fine, because you cannot afford legal representation, and sue, or charge model fees!!
But here you are harassed and endlessly persecuted in the street as a paedophile if you include any kids, (rampant sexism against men!), and the depressed populations whose mindset has been raped and trampled on by disgusting and constant newsfeeds of what to normal people is unthinkable, (Saville etc.) question the right you have to record them in their saddened condition at all. While all the time they are doing it themselves and watching violent porn and film online and on TV.
Its fine for everyone to rant on Twitter , and to post endless family pics for public consumption by 6 billion people on Facebook and Flickr etc.

Just not You! "Some really nice stuff, but we cant use them...."

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 12:39 UTC as 2nd comment
On article 2017 Oskar Barnack award offers €80,000 prize fund (55 comments in total)

Its best to ignore the pfaff that goes with awards expos reviews and critics, and carefully reading the clients brief, respond to it appropriately.

Unfortunately today's lowered standards are due to lawyers in most cases. Have a read of the Sony World Photo terms and conditions, and you will see that the straightjacket they impose fetter all freedom of expression worse that any dictatorship ever has.

You have to get permission from everyone in the photo. It cannot include any trademarks etc. offend anybody in any way at all -no, I wont continue- go have a read- Olympus too. No way can anyone not making specially doctored tailored pictures with signed model consent enter, unless you do landscapes or birds animals and bees whose individual signed consent is not required or their "privacy" respected etc; as is ours. Its why people put in rubbish-they are left with no other choice
Try getting your personal work published in the West now, if you are a reportage photographer .

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2017 at 12:15 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

munro harrap: Fine, IF you develop and print in a proper darkroom. For those who scan, a warning. I used to scan. I stopped. Why? I stopped because scanning records the emulsion in 3D: it records and registers as image the chemical lumps. The higher the scan resolution, the more clearly they are revealed, such that you get almost a contour map of the image, and, le pire!, is that as the scan moves across the image the light creates a record of the shadows cast by the chemicals in the emulsion. You might like this, but I much prefer to do it as the process intends: in a darkroom with chemical baths etc.

INTERESTING IDEA, THANKS.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 16:59 UTC

Dan, it is not ridiculous at all: the majority of people fail to register that photography IS all about the light ("And God saw the Light that it was good and divided the Light from the darkness"etc)
Akhenaton, and Turner, and me too regard the Sun as God, just as the Hindus and yes, the Japanese do- "the land of the Rising Sun" Danny boy!!

The only tragedy involved here other than the failure to realize simple longstanding truths and beliefs as even relevant is Nikon's failure to pack their precision goods properly in foam cut-outs inside decent strong boxes, so that our machinery cannot be damaged in transit.

Other than that it is one of the planet's most important companies, and it is an amazing company, here maybe trying to clue you into what thay want as competition entries!!

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 16:56 UTC as 28th comment | 1 reply

Fine, IF you develop and print in a proper darkroom. For those who scan, a warning. I used to scan. I stopped. Why? I stopped because scanning records the emulsion in 3D: it records and registers as image the chemical lumps. The higher the scan resolution, the more clearly they are revealed, such that you get almost a contour map of the image, and, le pire!, is that as the scan moves across the image the light creates a record of the shadows cast by the chemicals in the emulsion. You might like this, but I much prefer to do it as the process intends: in a darkroom with chemical baths etc.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 16:35 UTC as 41st comment | 7 replies

In Camera a black screen can mean that your shutter is no longer opening, I have had this happen on a 1020 Nokia. Why does this happen? Well, we here believe that packaging is the reason. I mean, if you are going to put the phone right up against the top cover of a flimsy cardboard box, barely wider or longer than the phone itself, the result will almost always be a damaged phone, or at least one whose normal life is radically shortened. Come the day when they are packed in big boxes in cut-out foam inserts they will work properly forever.......

Link | Posted on Jan 1, 2017 at 10:54 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
On article Google Pixel XL camera review (181 comments in total)

PIXEL XL phone by Google - 128GB-5.5"- Android Nougat - Factory Unlocked 4G/LTE Smartphone (Quite Black) £1,999.00

The same money buys a brand new D810 Nikon. Or a 55" 4K OLED LG smart TV (nice big monitor too!)

The same money buys you a year living like a God in India.

Or about 20 Nokia 1020s !

Link | Posted on Dec 31, 2016 at 11:48 UTC as 8th comment | 2 replies
On article Setting new standards: Nikon D5 Review (493 comments in total)

While I can accept the use of great subject-tracking AF, other than that I struggle to justify the cost, of both this and the Canon equivalents, because here you are still at 20MP, to get the OK high ISO performance.

I personally find the results visually disappointing relative to what a D800 l puts out. Were the results really noise-free up to 3200 I might say OK, but they are not, no. So to me the trade off in resolution for better high ISO performance fails, as by the time you get to 12800 the results are dreadful. There is also a lack of fine detail resolution and of openness, legibility and integrity about the files that niggles: and this is the camera.

Given that you can buy a new car for the cost of this body without a lens, I do feel Leitz, Nikon and Canon need to expect a drop in sales to individuals who have to pay with their own money AND make £6000 before they can begin to profit from ownership,

One body and one pro zoom £8000 lost to Japan: we must make our own!

Link | Posted on Dec 25, 2016 at 02:28 UTC as 17th comment
On article Sony Xperia XZ camera review (96 comments in total)

I just cant stand cameras with the lens in the corner. Ridiculous

Link | Posted on Dec 24, 2016 at 00:28 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

munro harrap: They were possibly also the last cameras boxed appropriately in a big box with layers of cutout corrugated cardboard and inlays for protection, with the cables underneath, and the manual each in its own language on top. They are the ONLY machines that can be safely transported without damage in their own boxes- why they work still and why the lenses are sharp. An object lesson for internet resellers and manufacturers in general.

These Ricohs sit in the middle of the box inside cutout layers of corrugated cardboard-inside a hole their shape, trapped there and protected above by the manuals and below by the cables. If you drop the box the camera stays in its isolated compartment- not so for any other machine I've ever seen. Go online and look at the new religion and its rites!!

It's called Youtube unboxing videos.

Link | Posted on Dec 24, 2016 at 00:24 UTC
In reply to:

munro harrap: They were possibly also the last cameras boxed appropriately in a big box with layers of cutout corrugated cardboard and inlays for protection, with the cables underneath, and the manual each in its own language on top. They are the ONLY machines that can be safely transported without damage in their own boxes- why they work still and why the lenses are sharp. An object lesson for internet resellers and manufacturers in general.

We and they are being stupid as if the lens passing and body testing in factory proceedures are correct and consistent, perfectly protected they would all arrive in the same condition. Good and bad samples are simply good and bad packing results. A 24-35mm F2 Sigma lens has a nice but useless case for example. It is 18 lenses in 13 groups. The slightest misalignment due to shock ruins it. And ALL our equipment the same. Years ago I had to buy FIVE Sony R1 cameras before I got one that worked with a sharp lens. Why-it was packed like the panasonic I mentioned. If your D800 autofocus is faulty-its packaging- if your lens doesn't autofocus properly or if the VR results have a wiggle in the middle on straight lines-like rain traces, its shock damage, not mirror-shock, but damage to the VR in transit. Probably because the shop left it switched on.

Link | Posted on Dec 24, 2016 at 00:19 UTC
Total: 707, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »