Jim Evidon

Jim Evidon

Lives in United States Palm Desert, CA, United States
Works as a Retired
Joined on Jun 2, 2005

Comments

Total: 239, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article This camera is made of 32,000 drinking straws (178 comments in total)

Probably how bees and flies see the world. I wonder how it handles moire. I'll hold off getting one until the 20 megastraw version become available.

Link | Posted on Feb 10, 2017 at 21:35 UTC as 30th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Jim Evidon: Several years ago my wife and I together with another married couple decided to go take a look at the lava flow overlook since Kilauea had recently erupted and the lava 'river' was quite active. We were told that it was a short walk across the lava field. Warned to walk only on what appeared to be the coolest lava crust, and we walked, and walked, etc. More than two hours later we arrived at the cliffs.

We saw the lava flow over the cliff. The sulfur dioxide was so thick in the air as to make impossible to breathe. The heat and stench were intense. Our athletic shoes were trashed from the sharp lava field. It was a heroic but foolish feeling to walk on lava crust with a hot red glow just below the surface. Would we break through?

The comment of Samuel C. in this thread was the most apropos in describing such people who do this as stupid. As one of those stupid people, I quite agree. At the time we were 70 which is proof that wisdom does not necessarily come with age.

Samuel,
You are not a Troll and I am not stupid. I prefer not to comment on stupid comments made by a person who should know better except for the fact that he failed to learn good manners while growing up if, if fact, he did so. My own good manners prevent me from expressing what is truly on my mind.
Cheers,
Jim

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2017 at 07:03 UTC
In reply to:

Jim Evidon: Several years ago my wife and I together with another married couple decided to go take a look at the lava flow overlook since Kilauea had recently erupted and the lava 'river' was quite active. We were told that it was a short walk across the lava field. Warned to walk only on what appeared to be the coolest lava crust, and we walked, and walked, etc. More than two hours later we arrived at the cliffs.

We saw the lava flow over the cliff. The sulfur dioxide was so thick in the air as to make impossible to breathe. The heat and stench were intense. Our athletic shoes were trashed from the sharp lava field. It was a heroic but foolish feeling to walk on lava crust with a hot red glow just below the surface. Would we break through?

The comment of Samuel C. in this thread was the most apropos in describing such people who do this as stupid. As one of those stupid people, I quite agree. At the time we were 70 which is proof that wisdom does not necessarily come with age.

Rick Knepper
Jim, two hours is a short walk. it certainly sounds like you were not outfitted correctly and you were not mentally or physically prepared.

But, this walk isn't foolish for everyone.

Rick,
Try it before you criticize. It is neither a level walk, nor a smooth one. The heat level is quite intense. The hazardous terrain is quite an emotional strain as well.
It is obvious that you have not been there. I'm glad I did it, but I would not recommend it for everyone, especially for the typical 70 something tourist.
As the saying goes, walk in another man's moccasins before criticizing him.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 19:42 UTC

Several years ago my wife and I together with another married couple decided to go take a look at the lava flow overlook since Kilauea had recently erupted and the lava 'river' was quite active. We were told that it was a short walk across the lava field. Warned to walk only on what appeared to be the coolest lava crust, and we walked, and walked, etc. More than two hours later we arrived at the cliffs.

We saw the lava flow over the cliff. The sulfur dioxide was so thick in the air as to make impossible to breathe. The heat and stench were intense. Our athletic shoes were trashed from the sharp lava field. It was a heroic but foolish feeling to walk on lava crust with a hot red glow just below the surface. Would we break through?

The comment of Samuel C. in this thread was the most apropos in describing such people who do this as stupid. As one of those stupid people, I quite agree. At the time we were 70 which is proof that wisdom does not necessarily come with age.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2017 at 08:41 UTC as 5th comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

Jim Evidon: It makes you wonder how the Weston's, Adams and Andre Kertez managed to take such great pictures without a Canon EOS-1D whatever. Oh, that's right. Talent. The more technology we have, the more complicated the camera. But is it really better for all of the complication? I doubt it.

CortoPa,
"And what do you think those great talents would have shot with today?

Seriously....."

Kertez: A Leica; Weston & Adams: a Med. format Hasselblad, Phase One or possibly just stick with an 8x10 field camera with sheet film and if in a lazy mood, use a light meter. Why mess with perfection?

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2017 at 21:32 UTC

It makes you wonder how the Weston's, Adams and Andre Kertez managed to take such great pictures without a Canon EOS-1D whatever. Oh, that's right. Talent. The more technology we have, the more complicated the camera. But is it really better for all of the complication? I doubt it.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2017 at 19:58 UTC as 25th comment | 11 replies
In reply to:

Joe Braun: I'd give anything just for ACR and Lightroom to know how to process the green channel properly. I love Fuji, their cameras, and their lenses, but X-Trans raw files are killing me. Adobe conversion can squeeze good resolution out of the files, but leaves and grass always come out looking like a watercolor painting. Irident Transformer does a much better job with the detail in greens, but that extra step doesn't make the workflow any easier.

badi, Good to know. Do you allow the camera to apply any sharpening or NR? With all of my Bayer sensor cameras, I keep NR and Sharpening off and do it all in post processing. What do you do?

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 19:23 UTC
In reply to:

Joe Braun: I'd give anything just for ACR and Lightroom to know how to process the green channel properly. I love Fuji, their cameras, and their lenses, but X-Trans raw files are killing me. Adobe conversion can squeeze good resolution out of the files, but leaves and grass always come out looking like a watercolor painting. Irident Transformer does a much better job with the detail in greens, but that extra step doesn't make the workflow any easier.

LR and PS are lightyears ahead of the competition in everything, but they still can't do a decent job of raw conversions with Xtrans files. They only answer to FujiX owners is to use Irident or C1 for Raw conversion and then move over to the Adobe programs for everything else.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2017 at 01:31 UTC
In reply to:

Joe Braun: I'd give anything just for ACR and Lightroom to know how to process the green channel properly. I love Fuji, their cameras, and their lenses, but X-Trans raw files are killing me. Adobe conversion can squeeze good resolution out of the files, but leaves and grass always come out looking like a watercolor painting. Irident Transformer does a much better job with the detail in greens, but that extra step doesn't make the workflow any easier.

Download Irident Dev. or Capture One. Either one does a great job with Fuji X Trans Raw images. Irrident is relatively cheap. I use Irrident to convert my Fuji X Raw images to DNG or Tiff and finish them up in LR or PS, if necessary. LR is much better than it used to be but can't touch either Irrident or Capture One.
Download a trial and compare the same image between ACR and either Irident or C1. Then decide if it is worth spending a little money, which isn't much if you consider the cost of the camera.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2017 at 22:18 UTC
In reply to:

Jim Evidon: AgatePassPhoto praised the old HP B9180.
I also had an HP B9180 printer and I agree with his opinions. A real workhorse that produced excellent prints. How much is a new print head for any quality printer? Well let me say this; when my 9180 died and needed a new print head, the price quoted could have bought me a new HP B9180 printer if they were still available. HP no longer made the 9180 and never replaced it with a new model. So I bought an Epson R3000.

In general, printer prices are loss leaders to get you into the ink purchases. Because printers are loss leaders, you can expect that the replacement print heads are going to be prohibitively expensive.
The Epson print quality is no better than was the older HP 9180 and the Epson inks are more expensive. Such is progress.

BTW, the HP B9180 also had a built it print media scanner to correct ink output which assured consistent color tones for job to job.

I have no answer and my B9180 was long since buried.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2017 at 08:36 UTC
In reply to:

Jim Evidon: AgatePassPhoto praised the old HP B9180.
I also had an HP B9180 printer and I agree with his opinions. A real workhorse that produced excellent prints. How much is a new print head for any quality printer? Well let me say this; when my 9180 died and needed a new print head, the price quoted could have bought me a new HP B9180 printer if they were still available. HP no longer made the 9180 and never replaced it with a new model. So I bought an Epson R3000.

In general, printer prices are loss leaders to get you into the ink purchases. Because printers are loss leaders, you can expect that the replacement print heads are going to be prohibitively expensive.
The Epson print quality is no better than was the older HP 9180 and the Epson inks are more expensive. Such is progress.

BTW, the HP B9180 also had a built it print media scanner to correct ink output which assured consistent color tones for job to job.

I found that I got banding when I used thicker paper. Despite HP's claims, the B9180 did not like heavy weight gallery quality paper.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2017 at 07:20 UTC

AgatePassPhoto praised the old HP B9180.
I also had an HP B9180 printer and I agree with his opinions. A real workhorse that produced excellent prints. How much is a new print head for any quality printer? Well let me say this; when my 9180 died and needed a new print head, the price quoted could have bought me a new HP B9180 printer if they were still available. HP no longer made the 9180 and never replaced it with a new model. So I bought an Epson R3000.

In general, printer prices are loss leaders to get you into the ink purchases. Because printers are loss leaders, you can expect that the replacement print heads are going to be prohibitively expensive.
The Epson print quality is no better than was the older HP 9180 and the Epson inks are more expensive. Such is progress.

BTW, the HP B9180 also had a built it print media scanner to correct ink output which assured consistent color tones for job to job.

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 05:44 UTC as 8th comment | 4 replies

Nice idea, but tools tend to get dirty as they are used and the sliding surfaces of the "aperture" will tend to bind.

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2016 at 20:35 UTC as 61st comment | 2 replies

Very very pricy line according to their website. But most leather goods are.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 22:03 UTC as 21st comment
On article Kodak Ektra 'photography' smartphone goes on sale (90 comments in total)

I remember the original Ektra. It was a very premium 35mm rangefinder camera that was intended to compete with the Contax and the Leica. While it was probably the finest camera made, it was also the most expensive, especially when tourists and GI's could lay their hands on Leica's for a few dollars or a carton of cigarettes.

Now it is a cell phone. SIC SEMPER GLORIA MUNDI.

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2016 at 08:03 UTC as 20th comment | 1 reply
On article Mobile Speed: Portable SSDs for photographers (204 comments in total)

Great products for those who don't like to carry a thin card wallet with SD cards and have to have the very latest even though it leaves a bigger bulge in the pocket and a big dent in the pocketbook. I believe my Think Tank SD card wallet was under $20
and carries 512 GB worth of 32GB cards.

SSD's are great for desktop or laptop storage as they are much more reliable than hard drives. But for these products shown, I really don't see the point for most of us.

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2016 at 21:50 UTC as 24th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Jim Evidon: Wow!! A real technical breakthrough. It ranks right up there with the Pentax ill-conceived taxi-yellow camera that came out with a while back and quickly disappeared. It will look nice if they also come out with a zebra-striped special edition M to mount it to. By the way, I own a Leica T and an M9P, so I believe in the brand.
But a red lens? Give me a break.

It's ok if you want to be noticed. For informal street photography, it's a non-starter.
I'll take a black blob or even a silver blob any day.

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2016 at 22:47 UTC

Wow!! A real technical breakthrough. It ranks right up there with the Pentax ill-conceived taxi-yellow camera that came out with a while back and quickly disappeared. It will look nice if they also come out with a zebra-striped special edition M to mount it to. By the way, I own a Leica T and an M9P, so I believe in the brand.
But a red lens? Give me a break.

Link | Posted on Nov 15, 2016 at 22:05 UTC as 86th comment | 3 replies
On article Nikon KeyMission action cameras now shipping in US (81 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jim Evidon: There is no need for an in-depth review of a 360 degree camera. It performs one function. Any other information would concern ease of use and quality of build. That should take no more than a paragraph. After I have every other camera goody I need or want, I would consider this for the one or two times I would use it before adding it to my collection of other fad items I foolishly bought.

creaDVty,
I thought my comment was self evident. None, never and not at all. As I said:
"..After I have every other camera goody I need or want, I would consider this for the one or two times I would use it before adding it to my collection of other fad items I foolishly bought...."

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 19:29 UTC
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (765 comments in total)

In 1947 a new Kodak Monitor. A 620 medium format folding camera with auto shutter cocking, a Supermatic shutter that went all the way to 1/400 sec. ( wow) and a f 4.5 Anastigmatic coated lens ( Oh boy!). I kept that clunker until 1961 when I bought a used Leica IIIF with a 2.0 Summitar collapsing lens and I never looked back. I guess my age is showing.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 06:56 UTC as 236th comment
Total: 239, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »