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: 91, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

brycesteiner: that looks more like 3d rendering to me. The people don't look real.

Yes, it looked so remarkably like a 3-D animation render (I used to create 3-D animations for businesses until I "semi-retired" from that end of my business 12 years ago) and so unlike live video from a drone that I was shocked when I read that it was actual drone footage. Something is "off" with this footage, but I can't quite understand what made the video look that way.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2021 at 17:05 UTC

Please tell me that this is satire.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2021 at 00:19 UTC as 96th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

David Franklin: This reminds me of one of my weirdest shoots, as a professional.
I coincidentally had some level of government "clearance" from having been vetted by the Secret Service to shoot the U.S. President, so, when I started work for a top secret defense contractor in the 1980's, it probably made some further clearance easier, and I was allowed to shoot some things that were components of the research for this system that were quite amazing and also, of course, highly classified.
One such product, was for the stupidly nicknamed "Starwars" initiative, which was actually a very smart attempt to get a jump start on development of an anti-missile and anti-satellite system that would be platformed in orbit in outer space.
I was shooting this object in my studio. It had some unusual properties, because of its intended purpose that were never explained or told to me in advance, but became clear during the shoot.
(See next post)

I can assure you this was all very real, and what I explained was easily not secret information, and certainly not at this point. Although I actually did photograph Reagan, along with many other photographers, I certainly was not on a familiar basis with him.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2021 at 20:47 UTC
In reply to:

David Franklin: This reminds me of one of my weirdest shoots, as a professional.
I coincidentally had some level of government "clearance" from having been vetted by the Secret Service to shoot the U.S. President, so, when I started work for a top secret defense contractor in the 1980's, it probably made some further clearance easier, and I was allowed to shoot some things that were components of the research for this system that were quite amazing and also, of course, highly classified.
One such product, was for the stupidly nicknamed "Starwars" initiative, which was actually a very smart attempt to get a jump start on development of an anti-missile and anti-satellite system that would be platformed in orbit in outer space.
I was shooting this object in my studio. It had some unusual properties, because of its intended purpose that were never explained or told to me in advance, but became clear during the shoot.
(See next post)

Well, I set up the object, background and lights for the picture. I metered the picture with a light meter and shot it, then ran the film through my studio E6 film processor. The result was a perfect background with a black hole in it. I added three more stops of light by increasing exposure time (I was using "hot' lights). Tested. Still no object. Then eventually went to seven more stops of over-exposure and finally saw something there. I added a couple of more stops with bigger lights and a little more time and I finally had an image that was acceptable And this was with direct light; bounced or diffused lighting was not even considered, as it would cut down on the brightness value of the lighting too much to be practical, as we would have gotten so far down into reciprocity correction* as to be almost self-defeating for the time I had available; armed guards were waiting to carry this thing back to the company's lab.
Oh well, just another day in the studio.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2021 at 20:20 UTC
In reply to:

David Franklin: This reminds me of one of my weirdest shoots, as a professional.
I coincidentally had some level of government "clearance" from having been vetted by the Secret Service to shoot the U.S. President, so, when I started work for a top secret defense contractor in the 1980's, it probably made some further clearance easier, and I was allowed to shoot some things that were components of the research for this system that were quite amazing and also, of course, highly classified.
One such product, was for the stupidly nicknamed "Starwars" initiative, which was actually a very smart attempt to get a jump start on development of an anti-missile and anti-satellite system that would be platformed in orbit in outer space.
I was shooting this object in my studio. It had some unusual properties, because of its intended purpose that were never explained or told to me in advance, but became clear during the shoot.
(See next post)

In order to survive an attack on it by an enemy that was anything short of damage by concussion of large scale matter making a direct kinetic hit on it, it was designed to both be highly undetectable and even possibly survive a near-miss nuclear attack, as well as just ambient radiation, by absorbing, and then partially allowing passage through it (the real key), of all sorts of of energy particles. Keep in mind that even a nuclear explosion in outer space creates only heat and other radiation that might destroy something, by other than kinetic contact, because there is no atmosphere to affect, like there is on earth, so other obvious effects of an explosion are precluded.
Back to the shoot of an object designed to absorb and pass through most any wavelength of radiation. Light is such a type of radiation. The object appeared to be matt black, but I had shot hundreds of matt black objects before, so I had no anticipated problem with that.
(See next post)

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2021 at 20:19 UTC

This reminds me of one of my weirdest shoots, as a professional.
I coincidentally had some level of government "clearance" from having been vetted by the Secret Service to shoot the U.S. President, so, when I started work for a top secret defense contractor in the 1980's, it probably made some further clearance easier, and I was allowed to shoot some things that were components of the research for this system that were quite amazing and also, of course, highly classified.
One such product, was for the stupidly nicknamed "Starwars" initiative, which was actually a very smart attempt to get a jump start on development of an anti-missile and anti-satellite system that would be platformed in orbit in outer space.
I was shooting this object in my studio. It had some unusual properties, because of its intended purpose that were never explained or told to me in advance, but became clear during the shoot.
(See next post)

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2021 at 20:17 UTC as 42nd comment | 11 replies

As far as Fro goes, he's no worse than most Youtubers in presenting opinionated but otherwise pretty accurate information, and better than most. As to his "fund a photographer" effort, it would probably go over better if represented as, and actually was, a fund for gear for photo education, because it is otherwise a little vague and easily misconstrued; it may not always be awarded to an educational institution, but, instead to some neophyte photographer, and I don't know which. As for the gear suppliers (Canon, Adobe, etc.), some of the posts in this thread are proof positive that "no good deed goes unpunished."
I think it's a very good idea, despite the fact that I had to sacrifice a lot of other things in my life to get even that level of gear when I was just starting out. So, I just hope that any non-teaching institutions or individuals that may wind up receiving the funds are truly grateful for, and cognizant of, the leg up they receive from this initiative.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2021 at 21:29 UTC as 32nd comment | 1 reply

And now for the news; bears are reporting to be hibernating in the winter, the sun seems to be coming up every morning with amazing regularity, and Leica is raising their prices! Who woulda thunk it?

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2021 at 16:30 UTC as 129th comment

This article can be summarized thus: the new Nikon pro mirrorless camera with Z mount will use a Sony sensor based on the one in the Sony A1. A lot shorter and more to the point.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2021 at 15:22 UTC as 82nd comment | 4 replies
On article Canon RF 85mm F2 Macro IS STM gallery update (107 comments in total)

Something tells me that most of this lens’ critics don’t actually own this, or even tried, this lens. I own it, use it, and the faults of my lens have been greatly exaggerated. The gallery shows a lot of the goodness of the lens, and the mechanical faults trumpeted here just don’t match the reality. It’s only slower or noisier in focus when you go from macro to far focus; otherwise it would be best described as average, not great, but not bad either. And, optically, it’s excellent. Throw in f/2.0, near macro, very good but not “L” level build, and you have a wonderful RF lens for all who can’t afford nearly $3,000.00 for a good portrait lens.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2021 at 22:22 UTC as 13th comment | 7 replies

I don't know about the actual longevity of this tripod. Most people may not know that, years ago, ALL Gitzos were sold with a lifetime warranty. I bought two "Giant" (goes up to about 12 feet tall with center column) aluminum tripods in the 1970's. After 50 years of very hard, rugged professional use, thrown around in vans and planes with very heavy steel light stands by dozens of uncaring assistants, they both work about as well as when I bought them. How does that sound for ever-lasting? I never did have to send them in for repairs, so I don't know if they would still be fixed for free. There may have been a change in policy, especially so because, if I am not mistaken, Gitzo was then made in Switzerland, and the company itself may have actually changed somewhat with their new location, but it would be an understatement to say that I am extremely pleased with them. It is an epic understatement that there are few photo related tools that one can count on for 50 years after purchase.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2021 at 05:57 UTC as 22nd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Eric Hensel: The ad copy is entertaining...
" you can even set the fastest cameras on motor drive and let the flash follow. "

To robertfel: I used to own and use 12 4800 watt second flash packs (Speedotron) and lots of high end Profoto stuff as well. This stuff was necessary when I shot 8"x10" film of cars in my studio at ISO100 at the most. Things don't work that way anymore. Cameras yielding details equal to 8X10 film work very well using ISO 800 or even 1600 (higher if you don't mind some image deterioration). There is no longer any reason to need that kind of flash power in one head. Even back then, I rarely shot any of my heads at full 4800 watt second power levels. Today's cheap flash units have almost the same sophistication and features - maybe 90% or more - of the Profotos, and the mid-size ones, say at 400 or 600 watt seconds, are so inexpensive that they easily replace separate heads for a more powerful power pack at a much lower price. Plus, they run on batteries. There's only so much one can afford - if you run a for-profit business - for the last 5-10% of a drastically shrinking difference.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2021 at 22:18 UTC

It looks like Profoto, which I have always admired - and I've owned a lot of their gear in the past - has finally jumped the shark with this one. A $17,000.00 flash pack has outpriced itself in relation to its relative financial utility. No one can ever make enough MORE money, for any reason at all, than the cost difference between this flash pack and a $600.00 monolight made in China or a slightly more or less expensive one made in the U.S. It would be like trying to sell a fantastic electric pencil for $500.00, one that functions perfectly and makes the pencil much easier to use. Yes, it may be superior in some very interesting and helpful ways to a common $0,50 pencil, but the cheap pencil will do the same job of writing a note on a notepad, with only an extremely small margin of superiority left to the massively expensive unit that is easily overcome by a likewise extremely small addition of time and attention. All that, and the cheaper unit leaves a $499.50 bonus to the writer.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2021 at 20:06 UTC as 25th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Indohydra: I don't understand. You can get an image on a piece of plastic? How does the camera print anything on plastic? Or is that done in a "lab". I don't get it.

Speaking of residual sales, my best experiences with that was when I was shooting mostly for Time-Life, Inc. (and lots of others as well) as a very frequent freelance contributor. Since I was based in Michigan, they called me to shoot mostly in the Midwest, but even occasionally elsewhere, even in NYC one time. Regardless, at the time, Time-Life had their own stock photo department, and if you shot for them, your work automatically went into their sales bin. What was great was, they never let you know about a sale until you received the check in the mail. You never knew it was coming, and then one trip to the mailbox on a random day would yield a total surprise, like manna from heaven - $400.00 here, $600.00 there, and that was decent money then, often more than you got from the original assignment. To anyone else here who ever worked for them then, remember those long thin tan film envelopes with templates for caption information? Nostalgia.

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2021 at 00:33 UTC
In reply to:

Kodachrome25Nikon85: My Kodachrome slides from 50 years ago are still vibrant with no fading at all, and with exceptional high resolution. I' ve scanner them and view them on a 5K computer monitor, and 4K OLED TV. Agfachrome 50 was great for its reds and clear blues and had good resolution. Ektachrome 64 and 100 faded somewhat and were not as sharp as Kodachrome.

I took a lot of portraits with Kodachrome 25 with my Nikon 85/1.8. Some of the best work I ever did. Digital makes it easy and free to take lots of pictures and frees you from the discipline of carefully composing and thinking. But it makes it hard to make photos worth keeping. I am trying now to get back in the mode of careful work to make photos that others might want to see 50 years from now - or even next year. With cell phone cameras today, these are shared immediately but no one looks at them a year later.

Yes, of course, all films, and prints as well, will fade when constantly exposed to light. Given equal exposure, Kodachrome will fade more slowly, but it will fade and change color, sooner or later. All film and prints that you want to preserve, should be kept in the dark, in a cool dry space and not in direct contact with any acidic or out-gassing materials (example, an acid free carboard box), whenever possible. Of course, prints for display can't, by definition, be kept in the dark, but they should at least be kept behind glass or UV blocking stable and non out-gassing clear plastic, with an airspace between the glass or plastic surface and the surface of the print, and in places where only indirect sunlight hits them.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2021 at 21:33 UTC
In reply to:

Kodachrome25Nikon85: My Kodachrome slides from 50 years ago are still vibrant with no fading at all, and with exceptional high resolution. I' ve scanner them and view them on a 5K computer monitor, and 4K OLED TV. Agfachrome 50 was great for its reds and clear blues and had good resolution. Ektachrome 64 and 100 faded somewhat and were not as sharp as Kodachrome.

I took a lot of portraits with Kodachrome 25 with my Nikon 85/1.8. Some of the best work I ever did. Digital makes it easy and free to take lots of pictures and frees you from the discipline of carefully composing and thinking. But it makes it hard to make photos worth keeping. I am trying now to get back in the mode of careful work to make photos that others might want to see 50 years from now - or even next year. With cell phone cameras today, these are shared immediately but no one looks at them a year later.

Yes, Kodachrome from the same period as its E-6 rivals was and is considerably more long lived. That's because, as I understand it, Kodachrome was actually a black and white emulsion, to which very stable dyes were applied during a very long and complex process. E-6 film has less stable colorants embedded in the emulsion that are activated by the chemical reactions caused by the E-6 chemical processing. The E-6 film dyes faded much more easily but the E-6 process was simpler, faster and cheaper, so it eventually survived while Kodachrome didn't. Sad, but it's the way of the world. In my later years of shooting transparency film for publication for clients, I installed an E-6 processing "line" in my studio to take as much control of the image outcome as I could. It was an interesting experience and helped my work come out better and faster.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2021 at 03:40 UTC
In reply to:

Colin Dutton: I tried a demo of Silverfast a couple of months ago and although the interface is overly complicated I did get good results from it. The biggest problem is the price: a single-scanner, single-computer licence for the Nikon Coolscan 9000 costs over €400 which I thought was pretty crazy. So I'm using VueScan.

I have a Nikon CoolScan 9000 and nothing but Windows 10 machines with only USB ports, and, for that reason, I haven’t used my 9000 with its first gen 1394 FireWire connection for years and years. I do have Viewscan Pro and as yet uninstalled second gen FireWire (800) card (my computer vendor says 1394 cards are unreliable or won’t work at all in Win 10 computers) for one of my Win 10 machines. Does anyone know how to make some combo out of these things that will allow my 9000 to run again, before I install that new FireWire 800 card?

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2021 at 07:36 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Sony a1 review (680 comments in total)
In reply to:

Frage: Does the use of electronic shutter has an impact on out of focus areas (Bokeh)?
If yes, why would you use electronic shutter in combination with studio flash?
*************

Edit.
What kind of use can you guys think of for electronic shutter in combination with flash?

In an many events, the use of "silent" e-shutter is an advantage, because it is unobtrusive and will not bother the participants. If you use flash, you lose all the benefits of the silent shutter because the flash is way more noticeable and annoying to participants than a relatively quiet mechanical shutter. Hence, there is no really good use case for flash with e-shutter that I can think of, and I shoot a lot of events. At large events, except for ones like weddings (ceremony only, and not always), symphony orchestra or live plays, I find rare or no complaints about shutter sound, but often get complaints about flash or too frequent flash bothering people. And, in most of those exceptional cases where shutter noise is a real problem, there seem to always be outright rules that prohibit flash as well. This seems like a solution in search of a problem to me. The 1/400 mechanical shutter speed with flash is a relatively minor - compared to 1/250 - but much better feature.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2021 at 07:34 UTC
In reply to:

wats0n: I think part of the issue with camera sales is we reached peak “quality” years back, I haven’t found a good reason to upgrade a body I purchased several years ago.

As a professional, this is my take on what you are discussing here. I agree that the image quality out of the last generation of DSLR's and mirrorless is so good that it would be rare that better quality would be needed to meet client expectations. By the way, my client's "quality expectations" are most often way below my own, and sometimes I think if I gave them very well retouched cell phone pics, they would like them. What makes the R5 worth investing in, is not exactly the better image quality that it produces (true), but just how easily, quickly and consistently I can achieve getting a well exposed, well composed and critically in-focus images from the camera. This is what the R5 does so much better that my 5D4 did, and it is the bedrock of why a professional is hired, rather than a client's brother-in-law who also "takes pictures." Better image quality, yes. But the other factors like killer eye focus, exposure simulation, and video capabilities are way more important for pros.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2021 at 03:48 UTC
In reply to:

RandyPD: DILC camera sales are down 34% for 2020 and they expect it to be better by only 1% for 2021. They decreased costs and increasing operational margins by slashing R&D spending. They were also saved by their printer sales.

Correct me here, if you will, but, I don't think that it is true that Canon "suffered a loss" at all; I think that, instead, they made less overall money from sales, but suffered no loss. And, in fact, they increased their profit margin, regardless of the contribution to profits from their printer division. I haven't seen any figures that they actually lost any money selling cameras.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2021 at 03:13 UTC
Total: 91, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »