Bowlomatic

Joined on Jan 15, 2016

Comments

Total: 32, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article DPReview TV: Scan film negatives with the Nikon ES-2 (279 comments in total)

And as shown, make sure NOT to use cotton gloves when handling film!

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2020 at 13:01 UTC as 39th comment | 2 replies

Not certain what a "celebrity variant" is, but it must be extra special!
Seriously, I'd like to have a monochrome something, just not whatever that's going to cost.
I'd like to see an M4/3 mono body.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2019 at 14:54 UTC as 5th comment

I was able to do ad & design shooting in my studio (s) from around 1980 thru 2000, then things went more corporate based for the next 17 years.
I got to work in the golden age compared to now, great jobs, (and some boring), location travel in the US & away...Seeing my work in mags, billboards, collateral....
But today I just don't see it as a career path for someone. It's all become too diluted, too common, to easy, too cheap, too fast....And frankly, everyone's a "photographer" now, everyone has an iPhone.
Organizing projects, hiring assistants, stylists, models, hair & make-up, props, locations, food stylists, building sets, going through airports with half a studio in wheel cases...
And the money was great.

The magic used to be there.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2019 at 01:22 UTC as 26th comment | 5 replies

These days if you're shooting film chances are you know what you're shooting.
Back in the day I used to write on a piece of masking tape stuck to the body. That was really difficult.
Maybe they could sell some modern 3D printed masking tape?

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2018 at 00:37 UTC as 33rd comment

Do we really need an automated "system" to do a relatively easy analog task? Anyone who grew up in this hobby-business-profession doing b&w film will scoff at this.
There's so much used film & darkroom stuff out there it's almost free. Learning how to load a reel in a changing bag, correctly get chemistry to temp with a thermometer isn't rocket science.
Clean filtered running water and clean dust free drying aren't hiding in this gizmo either.
I've probably built 5 analog darkrooms in my life as studio spaces changed over time.
If things like this get people to revisit film, fine. I just think it's a bit overkill to dress up what is still an easy enough thing to do without need of a "screen".

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2018 at 10:30 UTC as 26th comment
On article Does sensor size still make a difference? (1067 comments in total)

Smartphone cameras will take over. Sensor size will be relevant to manufacturer profit. IQ will be whatever the masses settle for and get used to seeing. Apple's billboards of iPhone photos fall apart up close...But look better then billboards from just a few years ago.
Sensors evolving along with print technology evolving helps, and web viewing doesn't really care about resolution.
I could show X numbers of media people, ad agency types, various source images and ask them to pick out the phone based, fake lighting effects, depth.....And most wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2018 at 00:06 UTC as 83rd comment | 2 replies

Can we not call an 8 x 10 transparency a "slide"? And, it might interest you that everyone was drum scanning large format film back in the "olden" days. We'd hitch up the buckboard and head on into town for supplies, and drop film off at the dry goods store "fer processin"...

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2018 at 17:04 UTC as 60th comment | 3 replies

I managed to get out of both Lily and Onogofly with all money back.
I'm cured of crowdfunding, have been for some time.
It's amazing how far we've come from African royalty who need to move money, and you have been determined to be a trustworthy person that could help...Or is it?

Link | Posted on Dec 24, 2017 at 00:01 UTC as 5th comment
On article Canon PowerShot G1 X Mark III review (607 comments in total)

Pro:"Good image quality"
Con: "Lens is somewhat soft"

How can you have one with the other?

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2017 at 14:20 UTC as 103rd comment | 3 replies

Let's argue over the "World's Tallest Midget" as well.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2017 at 20:30 UTC as 89th comment

Jesus Christ.
What next?

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 23:59 UTC as 23rd comment | 1 reply

Jesus Christ.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 23:58 UTC as 24th comment | 1 reply

Or you could go find a Fuji 6x17 and actually focus and get pretty damned sharp results.
Or you could find an old Speed Graphic press body and put a 6 x12 roll holder on it.
Then try and figure out what to do with the format results.
Somehow the "3D Printed" aspect of this doesn't mean much to me. It certainly doesn't guarantee it will make good images.
It's clever, I'll give it that.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2017 at 21:56 UTC as 6th comment | 1 reply

Think I already saw this announcement in the "Hipster Gazette".

Link | Posted on Aug 22, 2017 at 02:06 UTC as 82nd comment

What about the 2nd female's work? Cyanotype algae must have a unique photographic history, many more female photographers must have contributed?
No. I have not read the article. I prefer to be confused by the header.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2017 at 23:57 UTC as 1st comment
On article Analog gems: 10 excellent, affordable film cameras (951 comments in total)

Minox 35 with fast film for some stop-down to help with the non-rangefinder focus.

Link | Posted on May 20, 2017 at 22:40 UTC as 334th comment

I'm wondering how long the term "35mm equivalent" will continue to be relevant to people who have no practical sense of what focal lengths vs. format means when we shot film. Medium format no longer means 6x6cm, or 6x4.5cm, FX still means 24x36mm, but 35mm motion picture film does not mean FX....
I could go on, but I'll stop.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2017 at 23:51 UTC as 2nd comment | 2 replies

Popular Photography was still publishing?

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2017 at 23:09 UTC as 35th comment

Time for me to announce my "Air Selfie - Swatter" Kickstarter campaign.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2017 at 21:49 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

Melchiorum: Who wanna bet it's going to end just like all those other "revolutionary" ambitious small camera drone kickstarters? That is, in failure and misuse of funding?

Designing a drone is not easy. Designing a camera drone is even harder. Designing a compact inexpensive camera drone that also has good software is a true engineering challenge. Even big and experienced companies mostly fail at that. Yet it seems random "designers" seem to think they can easily pull this off just because they can draw a nice drone in modelling software.

A rule of thumb here is very simple: unless there is a working prototype, don't support it. And even with the prototype, use some common sense.

PS: Also, gotta love that super stable broadcast-grade footage they show in their promos. Because, you know, that's totally achievable with current camera technology and gimbal-less video from a tiny sensor on a lightweight drone would totally NOT look like crappy jello-fest full of noise and compression artifacts.

Sounds about right. After the Onagofly debacle, and the Lilly failure, can something like this be at all legit?
Trusting what you see is foolish, the Crowdfunding Promotion business has been growing since crowdfunding started, many of the key players like Kickstarter are connected to the promotion side of the business, it's too much money not to be. This campaign's presentation is slick, and slick is not cheap.

I still like to look at these "projects" from a skeptical marketing view, see how unrealistic they look. This project though, when you look at their timeline, started about 20 months ago. If you trust what they show, they have built two stages of prototypes. I still don't believe any video came out of the actuals, but I think they have built the basic unit. What's odd is at this point they're seeking $125K, and have already reached about $105K with 40 days to go, they will easily reach their goal....but $125K? Where does that get anything going? Tooling, production, testing, paying themselves for the last 20 months...that figure makes no sense. Lily raised tens of millions, and still could not achieve production.

At best, it's a party toy. At that end, it could be a pretty fun party toy. At about $90, it's a cheap party toy. You're right, the video and stills will probably suck. But it could be a fun toy.

I will not be getting onboard though.

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2017 at 13:38 UTC
Total: 32, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »