David Franklin

Lives in United States West Bloomfield,, MI, United States
Works as a Photographer, retoucher & sometime designer
Joined on May 23, 2002
About me:

Professional advertising, corporate & editorial photo image-maker for 30 years; digital photography, digital retouching and 3-D pioneer, all since 1996; exclusively using digital capture since early 2002.

Comments

Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

Very interesting. Yes, there are lots of stitching and other types of "errors" derived by the limitations of the process the photographer chose to use - mostly errors in time, causing errors in subject position from frame to frame, but what is perhaps the most telling thing about the photo is the people in the crowd. I estimate that about 5% of them are actually looking at the royal family, and near 50% of the the 95% are staring downward, at their cell phones. Truly amazing. Why are they even bothering to be there? Sign of the times, I guess. My take: sad.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2018 at 16:20 UTC as 38th comment
In reply to:

llamacide: meh - I'll keep my version 2.....

As to corner performance with my 70-200 f/2.8 II, I would rate it to be more than acceptable at wide apertures from f/2.8 to about f/4.5. Stopped down further, corners sharpen up about as much as anyone could want, starting at about f/5.6. At wide apertures I'm usually shooting a subject where corner sharpness is nearly irrelevant - like people; I don't usually want to count every pore on a person's face. And, for subjects for which corner sharpness becomes very important, I'm usually using the lens at f/5.6 to f/11, even f/13, when the corners are really very sharp anyway. Chromatic aberrations and flair are quite slight, but more the issue with this lens than is sharpness.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2018 at 04:49 UTC
In reply to:

sceneIt: Call me crazy but 70-200 is an old fashioned zoom. They should go 16-35, 35-85, 85-300. Unless they can do better with modern technology.

Just yesterday, after reviewing the results of my last two shoots, I marveled at just how good the 100-400 IS version II lens is. I think that it may nearly, except in the lowest of low light situations, replace my previous favorite - my 70-200 f/2.8 IS II. That got me to thinking that I'd rather have a 35-105 f/2.8 IS L zoom than my current 24-70 f/2.8 II. My most used (non-macro, non-TS) kit would then be a perfect 16-35 f/4.0, 35-105 f/2.8, and 100-400 f/4-5.6. That would be just about perfect.

Link | Posted on Jun 8, 2018 at 04:22 UTC
On article Kodak teases first sample photos of Ektachrome (197 comments in total)
In reply to:

RedFox88: I thought Kodak is only a brand name to be licensed to other companies? Didn't they fold and don't make anything anymore? 🤔

Although I was a digital pioneer among commercial photographers, I was also someone who shot film as a professional, and color transparency film in every format from 35mm to 8" x 10", all the while processing my film in my own studio automated E-6 line for decades, I am grateful to be able to shoot digital. One caveat, however: even if this seems contrary to common "received wisdom" film might often still be a better medium for long term image storage. Properly stored and processed, good quality film can last at least 50-100 years without much care and with minimum degradation. I'm still occasionally scanning pristine B&W negatives and color slides that are up to 50 years old. Check out some of your CD and DVD stored image files from just 15 or 20 years ago. Can you still read the files? Probably not all of them. Switching images from one set of hard drives or solid state media to another isn't much better and a lot more hassle. Think about it. Nonetheless, I'm still shooting digital.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2018 at 03:56 UTC

These were not written as 4 consecutive posts. They were written as one. But the site only allows a short number of characters in each post. Therefore.... The whole thing together explained one thing - why people have unrealistic expectations for BTS information. I'm not crazy, just a competent writer with more than just a slogan to express. Thanks for the name-calling, get over it.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2018 at 21:55 UTC as 5th comment

As an aside to the poster who said that it would be better for an upcoming shooter to learn software rather than lighting, I have to say, no and yes. As a true pioneer in digital imaging for commercial photography, somewhat of an expert in Photoshop and pretty knowledgeable in 3D software, I'd say that one must first learn how to create lighting scenarios on real world sheet metal before either perfecting it in Photoshop or simulating it in 3D. The most important thing to know is just how the image should look, at least according to your own vision. And, a client would much rather hire a photographer who knows how to both get a car to look as good as possible in a real studio and how to anticipate and accommodate for the likely changes that will take place in post production, done by either the photographer himself or a third party that the client chooses.

Have a pleasant day.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2018 at 18:22 UTC as 7th comment

You EARN your knowledge the hard way. And, sometimes, some shooters (like me) enjoy explaining to assistants just what they are trying to accomplish and how they intend to do it. But if they are not in the mood to explain, well then, it's best to be quiet and sweep the floor, and learn about it the next time. Most assistants go through this "apprenticeship" for years before they can confidently take on a big money job, and they've usually well earned their chance by dint of hard sweat equity and whatever talent they possess. Again, not everybody works their way up this way, but most do. In light of this, would you think it fair and reasonable to ask an established shooter to just explain to every website visitor just exactly how thy have figured out to accomplish some dazzling lighting effect on their active set? That's a ridiculous expectation, in my opinion. (continued)

Link | Posted on May 19, 2018 at 18:22 UTC as 8th comment

In order to gain the requisite and sometimes arcane knowledge of how to properly light a car on a studio stage (or even on location), almost all current photographers have worked themselves up from the lowliest assistant position (lugging, lifting, fetching, cleaning, painting, repairing and generally doing whatever needs to be done), to second assistant to first assistant to "junior" shooter, to full-fledged car photographer. Not everyone follows this example exactly; some skip some steps and some follow none of this at all, but this is typical. You learn the techniques you need to know if you're bright enough to understand what's happening on stage while you're otherwise engaged in peripheral matters. (continued)

Link | Posted on May 19, 2018 at 18:21 UTC as 9th comment

I think I have a good idea of this guy's frustration. As a longtime professional who shot cars for most of the biggest makers in the world for a living, and who owned a large car stage until about 8 years ago in which I shot about 60% of my jobs, I can well understand this man's frustration. It would help uninformed people here to know that, In most of the car-shooting world, this specialty, like quite a few others, constitutes what is almost a medieval guild. (continued)

Link | Posted on May 19, 2018 at 18:17 UTC as 10th comment

I haven't read this thread beyond the first dozen or two replies. Here's what I think: Carey Rose did a fine job taking the pictures. Hey, she's probably not a super talented professional, but I didn't expect her to be. If she was, she wouldn't be at DPR. She is, however, a good amateur photographer, and her pictures look like those of a good amateur or a great pro taking everyday personal shots for his or her own memories. Most readers of DPR are themselves amateur photograpghers who would take these same kind of pictures all the time; therefore, these are perfect pictures to show DPR's base readership. My only other comment is that, at DPR, it's Sony-time 24-7. It is a good Sony camera, but please turn down the volume just a smidgen; it's getting to be a little overdone.

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2018 at 00:58 UTC as 20th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

David Franklin: Well, it looks like Adobe is in serious training to finally "jump the shark" in imaging software. As a great (for) Adobe customer since 1996, who has bought literally tens of thousands of dollars of Adobe products over the years, I am greatly concerned by this mystical BS and corporate suck-upping about the "one true Lightroom" to come. If that means that I will soon only have a "cloud" version of Lightroom to choose, as Adobe will concentrate on the cloud version to the detriment of the so-called Classic version, in order to increase profits from storage and decrease double development costs, I will totally quit Adobe. Period. They might not care, but I do.
I will not have years of my work held hostage to their storage regime, and all the security and up/download speed and capacity issues that would go along with it. I am near fed up with the truly awful sluggishness of the program already; this is probably going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Wake up Adobe!

That is nearly irrelevant. If what you mean is that Adobe will "let me" keep copies of my own raw files on my own hard drive, organized into collections or whatever would be Adobe's current organizing version's name, well, that is hardly a feature that would make any difference. I already have that option without paying them for anything. As the functions of the program will still only be available to adhere to the copies in the cloud, so that, in the future, should I want to amend an edit after I no longer have access to the cloud or the program supporting the cloud, I would have lost all the sometimes considerable work put forward up until that point, that arrangement is still unacceptable.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 15:26 UTC

Well, it looks like Adobe is in serious training to finally "jump the shark" in imaging software. As a great (for) Adobe customer since 1996, who has bought literally tens of thousands of dollars of Adobe products over the years, I am greatly concerned by this mystical BS and corporate suck-upping about the "one true Lightroom" to come. If that means that I will soon only have a "cloud" version of Lightroom to choose, as Adobe will concentrate on the cloud version to the detriment of the so-called Classic version, in order to increase profits from storage and decrease double development costs, I will totally quit Adobe. Period. They might not care, but I do.
I will not have years of my work held hostage to their storage regime, and all the security and up/download speed and capacity issues that would go along with it. I am near fed up with the truly awful sluggishness of the program already; this is probably going to be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Wake up Adobe!

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 14:51 UTC as 283rd comment | 2 replies

This subject is ridiculous, because of the theological certainty with which most hold fast to their own "team" (Mac or PC) choices. Despite that, I will still have my say. I have used Windows, Mac and Unix to do stills post, plus some video and 3-D work, for over 21 (yes 21!) years. I started on Mac, went to Unix, then Windows. I mostly use Windows. Still some Mac. No Unix anymore. Mac is still a wonderful OS, especially now that it's really a subset of Unix with a good GUI. Windows, from NT3 on down, has been great for my work. Windows 10 is mostly better than previous versions. I have none of the weird difficulties so many report. The key: install only your work programs on your PC. Then, do only your work on that PC. Keep up updates. Install minimum security programs. Clean (15 seconds) after after necessary internet use, don't open idiotic emails and do gaming and casual surfing on a machine you don't need to work 24/7. Windows will then work great indefinitely. End of discussion.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2017 at 17:00 UTC as 102nd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

David Franklin: It's hard to know where to start in reacting to this "photo essay." I've been a fairly active member of this forum for 15 years. At first, the content here was almost exclusively about gear and the technical aspects of digital imaging, with an occasional foray into examining some great photo work.

With the changes occurring in media in the last 10 years or so, I imagine that it was inevitable that politics would eventually begin to seep into this aspect of the culture, as it has in almost every other one. After all, almost the entire media, as with the Democrat party, academia, most of the very largest corporations, their tech billionaire fellows, and popular entertainment, are fully bathed in left wing ideology, some really believing it, others merely mouthing the platitudes they think will absolve them from guilt and judgment by others for having lived so well. (continued next post)

Finally, if you believe that the people pictured in this essay are representative in any way of the average Trump voter, then I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I'd like to sell you at an amazingly low price. This photo essay, by a person imagining herself to be a cultural anthropologist like Margaret Meade in "Coming of Age in Samoa," with a camera, visiting the vast homeland of a tribe of ignorant yahoos, is sadly deluded by her own weird presuppositions and, obviously, made no real effort to understand the people she pretended to portray.

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2017 at 17:02 UTC
In reply to:

David Franklin: It's hard to know where to start in reacting to this "photo essay." I've been a fairly active member of this forum for 15 years. At first, the content here was almost exclusively about gear and the technical aspects of digital imaging, with an occasional foray into examining some great photo work.

With the changes occurring in media in the last 10 years or so, I imagine that it was inevitable that politics would eventually begin to seep into this aspect of the culture, as it has in almost every other one. After all, almost the entire media, as with the Democrat party, academia, most of the very largest corporations, their tech billionaire fellows, and popular entertainment, are fully bathed in left wing ideology, some really believing it, others merely mouthing the platitudes they think will absolve them from guilt and judgment by others for having lived so well. (continued next post)

The pictures are all OK. They are, of course, highly derivative, and perhaps a conscious or unconscious paean to Diane Arbus. The obvious political slant and clearly ignorant definition of her subjects is obviously a sneering pile of condescension mixed with feelings of unearned superiority. When this person does a photo essay of upper West side Manhattan "sophisticates" and Silicon valley dowagers showing them underpaying their illegal Mexican and Guatemalan maids and gardeners, picturing them show up for "Resistance" rallies in their full-size Mercedes after just having had their spa treatments, flying to global warming conferences in their private jets, chauffeured from their 8,000 square foot homes located in gated communities or multimillion dollar hi-rise penthouses that are protected by armed guards, to their aromatherapy sessions, then and only then will I think that this essay is anything but a fantasy of one-sided, inaccurate and ignorant political bile. (continued next)

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2017 at 17:01 UTC
In reply to:

David Franklin: It's hard to know where to start in reacting to this "photo essay." I've been a fairly active member of this forum for 15 years. At first, the content here was almost exclusively about gear and the technical aspects of digital imaging, with an occasional foray into examining some great photo work.

With the changes occurring in media in the last 10 years or so, I imagine that it was inevitable that politics would eventually begin to seep into this aspect of the culture, as it has in almost every other one. After all, almost the entire media, as with the Democrat party, academia, most of the very largest corporations, their tech billionaire fellows, and popular entertainment, are fully bathed in left wing ideology, some really believing it, others merely mouthing the platitudes they think will absolve them from guilt and judgment by others for having lived so well. (continued next post)

DPR, located in Seattle and London, and ultimately funded by Silicon Valley, could not be immune from the currents of the culture in which it floats. It has been apparent for some time, but, as a politically conservative person who somewhat reluctantly voted for President Trump, I think that publishing this essay, without perhaps a disclaimer of editorial neutrality with it, is finally beyond the pale for me. With this publication, DPR has, well and true, joined the "Resistance." I am not against anyone's right to say, photograph or express in any way or form their opinions, and to publish in any way the result of those views, whatever they may be. However, and this is an important point for those whose reflex reaction is to cry "censorship" or other such characterizations, that doesn't mean that I have to accept their viewpoints, or like them, or praise them, or wish to view them in an outlet that I had previously enjoyed without such political grandstanding. (continued next post)

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2017 at 16:59 UTC

It's hard to know where to start in reacting to this "photo essay." I've been a fairly active member of this forum for 15 years. At first, the content here was almost exclusively about gear and the technical aspects of digital imaging, with an occasional foray into examining some great photo work.

With the changes occurring in media in the last 10 years or so, I imagine that it was inevitable that politics would eventually begin to seep into this aspect of the culture, as it has in almost every other one. After all, almost the entire media, as with the Democrat party, academia, most of the very largest corporations, their tech billionaire fellows, and popular entertainment, are fully bathed in left wing ideology, some really believing it, others merely mouthing the platitudes they think will absolve them from guilt and judgment by others for having lived so well. (continued next post)

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2017 at 16:58 UTC as 24th comment | 18 replies

I hope that the otherwise innocuous bullet point near the end of the list - fixing the "memory leak" - is really the important fix I hope it is. Using Lightroom on my very, very highly specified and powerful new PC has been tortuous, with the program bogging down to 1990-like computing speed, moving as through molasses with the display taking forever to refresh the images after making adjustments. Yes, I know, use the new fast graphics processor, or don't use it, never mind: nothing works short of turning the program off and back on again, a pathetic "cure." Here's hoping!

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2017 at 00:46 UTC as 15th comment | 2 replies
On article Opinion: Why the Canon XC10 is a big deal (797 comments in total)

I don't yet know either if I would consider buying the XC10 or if it is a good value for its intended market. But, I do think that the majority of posters here are at least very premature in their judgments. As to the sensor size, any low/medium cost, self-contained 4k-capable device pretty much requires this smaller than APS-C size sensor to cut down on processing overhead and heat generation. As to the fixed lens, it is either desirable or not, depending on an individual's needs, but it certainly covers an ample range. As to the form factor, it seems to be superior for its intended dual role. As to the memory card options, the Cfast cards will, of course, quickly become cheaper. As to the competition, there is nothing precisely like it now, and every cheaper or like-priced alternative has its own trade-offs and shortcomings. Bottom line: Wait and see before you jump to declare this camera a "failure."

Regards, David

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2015 at 17:42 UTC as 258th comment | 1 reply
On a photo in the Tamron SP 15-30mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Samples sample gallery (4 comments in total)

The produce stand shot shows some decentering and/or some interesting curvature of field, mostly probably the latter. In the far right corner, a sign is pretty sharply rendered while in the near right corner, the image is out of focus, despite the overall sharp focus being on the nearest rows of produce and the good sharpness of the near lower left corner.

Overall, it looks like a very good piece of glass, with performance that rivals more expensive lenses, but, it looks to have some significant flaws as well.

Regards,
David

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2015 at 17:07 UTC as 2nd comment
Total: 30, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »