dr8

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Apr 7, 2011

Comments

Total: 218, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

uh, those sample pics, are those exposure times listed? ex "8h10" wow, that's kinda much, don't you think? Is that a total time from multiple shorter exposures? Hours of exposure, wouldn't that allow any little bit of ambient light to ruin your shot if you weren't at a "dark sky" site?

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2021 at 01:29 UTC as 10th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

dr8: The video shows device being used in "landscape" orientation. Even the party-goer selfies - how can 99.9% of cell phone users possibly make sense of this product?

Hmmm, this posted twice & I can't seem to locate a "delete this post" button... so I'll just change the text, so here this is now different.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2021 at 22:15 UTC
In reply to:

dr8: The video shows device being used in "landscape" orientation. Even the party-goer selfies - how can 99.9% of cell phone users possibly make sense of this product?

Indeed! Thanks Francis !!!

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2021 at 22:15 UTC

The video shows device being used in "landscape" orientation. Even the party-goer selfies - how can 99.9% of cell phone users possibly make sense of this product?

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2021 at 18:41 UTC as 11th comment | 12 replies

What are the limits as imposed by the physical and electrical properties/laws and interference induced by such closely packed pixels? Things like photon and electron bleed? How is that insulated/isolated? Sure, maybe you can actually manufacture it, but can you re-configure/control the laws of physics involved? I know there is a 3,200 mp camera, but it's kinda big < https://www6.slac.stanford.edu/news/2020-09-08-sensors-world-largest-digital-camera-snap-first-3200-megapixel-images-slac.aspx >

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2021 at 17:49 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

Stigg: Its quite poor as it is disorienting and not representative at all of what a human observer would see. I'd much prefer a good still of these or other falls or a video from a revealing vantage point.

the video segments were short enough to be a "movie" made from regular still images that use the 'motion/morphing' "filter". These short, jerky clips are what I ended up seeing after bad reactions to a med!

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2021 at 04:12 UTC
In reply to:

ZeroOne01: The falls are very impressive.
However, the video is kind of all over the place with no coherence.

well with the "Ansel Adams" approach at least we have time for the image to register in our brain. Sensory overload doesn't make a good impression. The flights and photography were amazing, but the break-neck speed and edits makes it all seem like a hokey car commercial. Is this from the school of no shot should be more than 1.74 seconds? And, no, I can't make my own. I no longer have the resources.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2021 at 04:02 UTC
In reply to:

lotzi: Well, this is a rather low effort contribution, a 40 year old film used to make copies, spooled on cartridges.

I am not sure that people who are taking up B/W photography now, and playing with films expired 40 years ago, realize that those films, when new, exposed correctly and developed with care, were quite good. There was none of the appalling grain, bad contrast, stains and splotches that seems to be the new norm for people playing with film. That is not the retro look, that is the look of bad technique and expired materials. The retro look is the wedding photos of Grace Kelly.

yeah, I remember spools of 35mm 5asa that we used in high school 'industrial arts' class. (1971) We used it for headline text when making printing press layouts. I think some of us in the 'photo club' also tried it out in our cameras. I think we decided it was way to slow for anything we were shooting.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2021 at 21:46 UTC

Quote: "The cheeky five-minute video first goes over all of the features of the lens before diving into the real-world experience of using using it on a modern mirrorless camera." - yes, it is 'cheeky', but it doesn't really get into "real world experience" because who in the real world would use this as a portrait lens? Why no sports, wildlife or landscape situations?

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2021 at 16:47 UTC as 50th comment | 3 replies

hobbies are hobbies, opinions are opinions. but for me I will never miss the sadness, disgust & anger of seeing a roll of happy accidents on the roll of film shot during the Apollo 17 launch, or the several rolls of happy accidents of a faulty meter on that fall Colorado trip. OR, OFF TOPIC, the scratchy pops & clicks on my 1000+ vinyl LP collection. (those "Famous Charisma Label" pressings from England were the worst!) However, my analog cassette & reel-to-reel tapes have held up exceptionally well - even tape from the 1960's!!!

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2021 at 18:01 UTC as 71st comment

Back in the early 1990's I was fortunate enough to get some nice up close photo's and video of a 'blue-footed-booby' without going to the Galapagos or a zoo. One ended up on Lake LBJ in central Texas for a few weeks!!! weird...

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2021 at 20:52 UTC as 74th comment

were the last few lens reviews shot at an active volcano, the lenses seem to be covered with ash...

Link | Posted on May 17, 2021 at 21:19 UTC as 54th comment
In reply to:

sirhawkeye64: Reminds me of the days of Seattle Film Works (except they mostly dealt with film rolls, not disposable cameras). You'd either sign up or otherwise buy the film from them, shoot it, and then send it back in to have it developed and you could optionally get copies in their proprietary format on floppy (the proprietary file format was annoying, as i had to find a file converter program to convert them to JPEGs later when I was archiving all the disks about 5 years ago).

Actually, these days its harder to find companies that will develop film for you, it's not like you can just drop it off at the One Hour Photo anymore and some people don't have the tools or knowledge to develop their own film, so I could see a limited need for this type of service but surely something that some people might take advantage of.

I'm not going to Google it, but it's been in the last year or so that I saw in Walmart the Fuji UNDERWATER disposable film camera for sale!

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2021 at 20:01 UTC
In reply to:

Txoni: More deliberate and unnecessary plastic waste. This kind of products should not be allowed anymore.

I'm wondering if maybe folks are simply rebranding/labeling 100's of millions of camera's left over from the 90's & 00's, still stashed in warehouses all over the world! Huge mountains of unsold disposable cameras! Imagine the joy users will experience when they see all the issues old, poorly stored film reveals on their prints!

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2021 at 19:58 UTC
In reply to:

60yearsaphotographer: Thank you for your site. Digital is not archival,film is.

If you take time to overthink it, both mediums a frighteningly fragile. However, having dealt with both, I much prefer digital. It is far and away vastly more flexible, creative and resource conserving.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2021 at 17:48 UTC
In reply to:

themountainphotographer: Faked pictures have now reached its peak. They should have used Fauxtoshop. When you start faking it, you are on a slippery slope. Faking it without doing a photoserge.com course just axed for a ban. If you want to do it for real, that's O K2.

Ha, you said K2! (also "axed", are you from Louisiana)

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2021 at 22:03 UTC

Title is misleading. Monty Python's "how to play a flute" is comparable...

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2021 at 22:18 UTC as 15th comment

Gotta confess, some years ago I messed up and pulled a #6! Sent someone a signed copy of an Ansel Adams print book... :(

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2020 at 18:10 UTC as 25th comment
In reply to:

Lensmate: 'Airplanes' photographed with a helicopter is simply fabulous!

:) ...

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2020 at 01:09 UTC
In reply to:

Lensmate: 'Airplanes' photographed with a helicopter is simply fabulous!

My question remains unanswered. Concorde, Constellation, DC-6 are all out of commercial passenger service and have been out of production for years or decades. So, just because the A380 is nearing phase-out "WHY" would that qualify as a reason for not appearing in the photo-collage? Please explain...

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2020 at 00:10 UTC
Total: 218, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »