larrytusaz

Lives in United States Tucson, United States
Works as a Database Design
Has a website at http://bit.ly/1DT7VSN
Joined on Aug 20, 2005
About me:

Equipment:
Sony NEX-6
16-50PZ
50mm 1.8 OSS

Nikon 1 J1, 10-30VR

Comments

Total: 567, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Have your say: Best smartphone of 2017 (53 comments in total)
In reply to:

qunamax: There are so many new models and companies that I don't see a point in following it all while their features remain pretty much the same, just more and more gimmicks and useless stuff, There's so much to be done on PC and with proper camera and in life in general that I don't know where people find time to fiddle with their phones.

I agree with the 1st post. My smartphone is very important but there is no replacing a PC for serious content-creation. Try typing your resume, a long email or memo, creating a Powerpoint etc on a phone or even a tablet. Unless you have a GOOD cloud connection, where are all of those photo files stored? (I am ALWAYS seeing posts from people who've lost their phone & are in a panic because "my photos of my kids are all gone now!!" and I'm like "have you never heard of a PC & an external hard drive?")

There is a reason my phone is always on me but there's ALSO a reason I also have a smallish laptop in the car, there are plenty of times that there is no replacing a full-blown PC with Windows or macOS etc.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 14:09 UTC
On article Have your say: Best smartphone of 2017 (53 comments in total)

Other than the occasional video the camera is irrelevant to me, I have a Nikon D3300. I like budget phones that don't suck. I find 5.5" to be the sweet spot, 5" seems too small whereas 6" feels like I'm carrying a TV tray in my pocket. I need for it to not "lag" but then I don't game either.

I like my ZTE Grand X4, and the ZTE Blade Max which superseded it (on AT&T, I use Cricket, their SIM cards work in AT&T phones) is my likely next phone as it's basically the same phone updated from Android 6 to 7. For only $70 (the new one) you get a 5.5" LCD, 2G RAM 16G storage, very "stock" Android, microSD slot, doesn't stutter, GPS locks on well, has a USB-C port (so much better than microUSB, the cord isn't one way, I can't STAND anything that only goes in one-way and it isn't obvious which way) and it has my new must-have feature--fingerprint sensor. It's SO much easier unlocking your phone that way vs hunting down that TINY Chiclets-sized power button & swiping the pattern.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2017 at 13:59 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

TMHKR: "But but the gear matters but but full-frame master race but but 50 Mpx but IBIS but bokeh but - " [faints] :)

Anyway, most of these cameras were considered advanced compacts in their time. I was expecting cheaper, IXUS-class of gear.

Yes but once he was in the band & well endowed financially, I seriously doubt he ever touched that $80 Japanese guitar again. Regardless, that Mr Petty made that assumption prior to hearing Mike Campbell play makes my point, and especially given that this assumption was made in spite of their lowly position at the time which would mean one wouldn't be as expected to be able to afford the really good stuff.

So yes, if I see you calling yourself a "photographer" yet using highly inferior equipment in your pursuit, I'm doing a double take. Not only that, I'm going to think you've lost your ever loving mind.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2017 at 20:52 UTC
In reply to:

tailings: And there we have it; proof that 'professional' is not in the gear but rather in the person. Professional gear is ANYTHING you use to perform your profession. In other words, there is no such thing as professional gear that is distinct from non-professional gear.

Nope, the idea is to do BOTH. When is the last time you saw whoever is the good golfer these days (no longer Tiger Woods) golfing with broomsticks? When's the last time you saw a NASCAR racer participating in a race using a car straight from the car dealership vs one that's been heavily modified for the track? When is the last time LeBron James played basketball with a basketball or pair of shoes bought from the local dollar store?

No, those shoes, higher-grade of basketballs, higher-grade golf clubs and better car don't make those people great, but when you are great, you use the best to go with your skills while also working on your skills as well. When I see Keith Richards, Mike Campbell, or Joe Perry showing up for a concert using a guitar they bought from Toys R Us, then we'll talk.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2017 at 15:48 UTC
In reply to:

Not an old man: It's not her and not the cameras...it's the CCD sensors. I still have my D200 which I bought in 2012. Will never sell it. The Nikon DSLRs of years like the D200, D60, D80 are the poor man's Leica M9.

Yes, it is funny how we've progressed. In 2006 I was in San Antonio & saw a guy shooting with a Nikon D200, this was before the D300 came along. I was drooling like a dog in a butcher shop (I had a D50 at the time). Now I have a Nikon D3100 (for the wife) that would do at least as good if not considerably better, and a Nikon D3300 (for myself) which would do MUCH better. I paid $350 for the BOTH of them. I try to remember that when I see someone shooting with something like a D7500 or D800, but I still drool. When will I ever learn? (Smiling)

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2017 at 15:42 UTC
In reply to:

tailings: And there we have it; proof that 'professional' is not in the gear but rather in the person. Professional gear is ANYTHING you use to perform your profession. In other words, there is no such thing as professional gear that is distinct from non-professional gear.

Maybe it's because the professionals know what works & they stick to it. I think that's very wise. They remind me of Tom Petty--he hardly strayed from the same style of music for his entire 40 years, other than the odd exception like "Don't Come Around Here No More," and it served him well. It's called being timeless.

Naturally the ones who think flaunting any norms or conventions just for the sake of giving "the man" their middle finger makes them cool will disagree and call that "boring" and "uninspired." I'll take the pro's views over theirs any day. The AMWICs (Another Mom With a Camera) will continue their stupid "Dutch Angle" railroad-tracks posed shots loaded with 32 props and jacked-up cartoonish colors trying to be "inspired," while the pros will stick to what actually looks worthwhile & make the AMWICs look like the jokes to the profession they truly are.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2017 at 15:32 UTC
In reply to:

rfsIII: "I basically have a grudge against shallow depth of field and bokeh" Finally! Someone calls BS on the laziest cliche in photography. Let the shibboleths crumble and the ramparts fall!
Thanks Dan for finding this woman and doing such an incisive interview.

I liked her views overall but I disagree with her on that one. I've been reading about that technique and its appeal for a good 30 years, it's hardly some "Johnny come lately" fad. It may be something the "Instagram hipsters" have just discovered & are doing to death, but that only means they've been asleep or non-existent for the zillions of years this technique has existed yet somehow think they're the ones who came up with it.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2017 at 15:29 UTC
In reply to:

TMHKR: "But but the gear matters but but full-frame master race but but 50 Mpx but IBIS but bokeh but - " [faints] :)

Anyway, most of these cameras were considered advanced compacts in their time. I was expecting cheaper, IXUS-class of gear.

Right on, both of you. Yes the S40 was an "advanced" camera in its day (I had the S50) a portable alternative to a DSLR for enthusiasts, distinctly different than something like a Kodak Easyshare.

The only reason the 'gear doesn't matter" people like this is because they're too lazy or indifferent to try & learn how to use a more advanced camera or bother carrying one with them because "the phone is always with me" yet they want the same recognition & affirmation as someone who actually cares and actually tries. Sorry, but Guitar Hero doesn't make you Keith Richards. The late Tom Petty in an interview was laughing at recalling the "$80 Japanese guitar" his guitarist Mike Campbell had when he first met him & how he thought the worst about his abilities based on that. Having standards is a GOOD thing, the only people who don't like them are those too lazy to try & meet them.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2017 at 15:25 UTC
In reply to:

tailings: And there we have it; proof that 'professional' is not in the gear but rather in the person. Professional gear is ANYTHING you use to perform your profession. In other words, there is no such thing as professional gear that is distinct from non-professional gear.

Nonsense, only an ignoramus would say such a thing. There is a reason most professionals get a Nikon or Canon DSLR and/or get something like a Sony A6000 to use when portability is paramount, it's because most pros with high aspirations seek out cameras commensurable with it. Even the models, most of them anyway, that this person uses are ones which were aimed towards "prosumers" or enthusiasts vs the typical soccer mom. The Canon S40, for instance, I used to own the S50 and that model was absolutely aimed towards a pro wanting a more portable alternative to their SLR or to someone who couldn't afford a DSLR since they were just staring to show up for $1000.

The only people who promote this ideal that the gear doesn't matter are people who are too lazly or indifferent to bother with better gear yet want the same recognition/respect as those who DO bother. Sorry, but you're not getting any from me. Pay your dues and go big, or go home.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2017 at 15:20 UTC
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I used to love my Canon S50 and Coolpix 5700 and in fact recently I've been reorganizing my images from the period when I had those cameras. It is pleasing to see how not all that bad of a job they could do even with the landscapes I like to shoot. Also, if nothing else it's refreshing to hear someone gush about their experience using a REAL camera, to me a phone just doesn't qualify as a legitimate tool to use in enthusiast photography and probably never will. Plus, the old cameras had some features that they seem to leave off, like the optical viewfinder of the S50 and the LCD status panel of the 5700. Most of all, they are more portable than an SLR and that is nice sometimes. Lastly, those cameras she got for so cheap, if she loses or drops them, she's not out much money, I find that portable cameras are so easy to lose.

That said, I also think of how I could get a Sony RX100 for these occasions & how much better it would do, so--why?

Couple of other things.

(1) I like that she isn't into cropping and tries to get it right at the time of capture. I've always seen it that way as well, having read up on techniques towards obtaining excellence at the time of capture back in the film era. The only thing digital changes to me is the need for film, everything else stays the same. To me it's more authentic. Fixing WB in RAW, OK, fake backgrounds--lazy, un-authentic.

(2) On the other hand, I don't see bokeh & shallow depth of field with portraits as a "fad," I've been reading about that for 30+ years.

(3) I suppose there's fun in remembering what older cameras can do, especially if you see old images on your hard drive you took with them, but from a practical level I say just use the best you have. I recently saw a Canon S50 for $20 & almost got it, I mean it's $20, but then I thought "why, you have a Nikon D3300." The only sensible reason to get one would be the peace of mind that if you lost it you're only out $20.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2017 at 14:55 UTC

Not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I used to love my Canon S50 and Coolpix 5700 and in fact recently I've been reorganizing my images from the period when I had those cameras. It is pleasing to see how not all that bad of a job they could do even with the landscapes I like to shoot. Also, if nothing else it's refreshing to hear someone gush about their experience using a REAL camera, to me a phone just doesn't qualify as a legitimate tool to use in enthusiast photography and probably never will. Plus, the old cameras had some features that they seem to leave off, like the optical viewfinder of the S50 and the LCD status panel of the 5700. Most of all, they are more portable than an SLR and that is nice sometimes. Lastly, those cameras she got for so cheap, if she loses or drops them, she's not out much money, I find that portable cameras are so easy to lose.

That said, I also think of how I could get a Sony RX100 for these occasions & how much better it would do, so--why?

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2017 at 14:37 UTC as 167th comment | 2 replies
On article These are the best cameras you can buy right now (479 comments in total)
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: Best cameras one can buy right now are those that 3 years ago were $1000, and today cost $300. Keeping yourself 2-3 years behind the curve brings tremendous value, at 1/3 of the cost, and, at the most, 1/3 stops of detriment. Totally worth it.

Yes that's what I recently did. I got a very lightly used D3300 kit for only $200, then got the 50mm 1.8G for $85. Thus I got a Nikon D3300, 18-55mm II and 50mm 1.8G for a grand total of $285. Its image quality is a match for any DX crop sensor model out there right now.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2017 at 14:19 UTC
On article Ugly Places, Pretty Photos: A portrait shoot at Lowe's (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stujomo: I liked the pictures, I'm kind of surprised at the negative comments and hating on this.
Especially when one considers that these photos are better than most here ever post.
Seem most just want to talk about gear and measurebate rather than going out and doing something with all that expensive gear they purchased.

Well when you post about something like this, expect some criticism as well as praise, It comes with the territory.

Based on comments I've seen since this first hit, it seems the photog was doing this more as an experimentation and it wasn't a "real shoot" if you will. That changes my reaction somewhat with this one shoot. However, my observation IN GENERAL with respect to seeking out excellence during bona fida shoots vs choosing a subpar location as a "challenge" still stands. During a bona fida shoot you go for what will almost guaranteed produce excellence, ALWAYS.

If you want to do a little experimentation here & there as you go, sure, but you NEVER go out of your way to choose a sub par location, equipment etc as a "challenge" during a bona fida shoot. It's like those National Geographic people being flown to the Grand Canyon & using their smartphone vs a DSLR or mirrorless. That's tacky, I'd even support it being a REQUIREMENT for being in business that pros can't do that.

Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2017 at 03:19 UTC
On article Ugly Places, Pretty Photos: A portrait shoot at Lowe's (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Although I'm just a hobbyist, I've been at it for 30+ years. Apparently I've been doing this too long. I say this because this sort of thing is an anathema to me and I have no respect for alternating points of view on it.

It has ALWAYS been explained to me for the longest time that you seek out the best, you NEVER and I mean NEVER deliberately choose suboptimal conditions on purpose as some "challenge." Excellence is the goal.

If you, DESPITE your efforts, end up in suboptimal conditions & you accept the challenge of making the best of it, then by all means. However, you NEVER & I mean NEVER go out of your way to "dumb down excellence" as it were by DELIBERATELY forgoing better conditions as some sort of "challenge." You seek out the ideal background, lighting, equipment, time of day, manner of dress for the model, EVERYTHING. That's always how it's been and it's how it should ALWAYS be. Period. "Times/ideas change," you say? In my book, how I learned it is how it should ALWAYS be.

Sometimes so-called "narrow-mindedness" is a GOOD thing. It's called having STANDARDS rather than just applauding every load of cow dung that comes down the pique. Otherwise we'd be calling McDonald's Chicken McNuggets "culinary artistry" the same way many who have no sense of standards use the description "model" to describe a 300 lbs whale of a woman on Instagram posting about "body positivity." People who always do the opposite of those before them, never mind that those before them were doing photography when the newcomer was still having their mother change their diapers, and do so just for the purpose of being a rebel of sorts vs for any real reason towards excellence are just being childish and stupid. Have some respect for tradition and excellence even as you seek your own path.

Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2017 at 03:10 UTC
On article Ugly Places, Pretty Photos: A portrait shoot at Lowe's (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stigg: the sheer stupidity and vacuousness of this was quite laughable for me. it is at least hilarious, but the resulting "photos" are as humorous as a train wreck.

It doesn't bother me, nor does it cause me to think I could be wrong.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2017 at 04:58 UTC
On article Ugly Places, Pretty Photos: A portrait shoot at Lowe's (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stigg: the sheer stupidity and vacuousness of this was quite laughable for me. it is at least hilarious, but the resulting "photos" are as humorous as a train wreck.

I fully agree. The ONLY reason I could see doing this would be if you were wanting to practice, during a non "real" shoot mind you, so that in the event that you were faced with non-ideal situations they wouldn't be new to you and you'd thus handle them a bit better. THAT I can understand.

However, to deliberately seek out ugly situations during an actual shoot? Yes "stupidity and vacuousness" are words I absolutely think of. Imagine if I, say, am paid to fix a car and I decide to fix it with Duct tape and inferior rusted out parts just "because I can" or for a "challenge?" Image I'm paid to record the latest album by a legendary rocker (Tom Petty if he were still with us, say) and I sought out having it recorded outdoors on a windy day with the microphones placed 100 yards away, even though I have full access to an actual studio. How much sense would that make?

Exactly.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2017 at 00:57 UTC
On article Ugly Places, Pretty Photos: A portrait shoot at Lowe's (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Although I'm just a hobbyist, I've been at it for 30+ years. Apparently I've been doing this too long. I say this because this sort of thing is an anathema to me and I have no respect for alternating points of view on it.

It has ALWAYS been explained to me for the longest time that you seek out the best, you NEVER and I mean NEVER deliberately choose suboptimal conditions on purpose as some "challenge." Excellence is the goal.

If you, DESPITE your efforts, end up in suboptimal conditions & you accept the challenge of making the best of it, then by all means. However, you NEVER & I mean NEVER go out of your way to "dumb down excellence" as it were by DELIBERATELY forgoing better conditions as some sort of "challenge." You seek out the ideal background, lighting, equipment, time of day, manner of dress for the model, EVERYTHING. That's always how it's been and it's how it should ALWAYS be. Period. "Times/ideas change," you say? In my book, how I learned it is how it should ALWAYS be.

No, I love photography AND gear. I also love excellence, striving for it and not accepting less, and certainly not deliberately SEEKING less as some "challenge" of sorts. A "different approach" is one thing, if it's still about EXCELLENCE and the pursuit of it. However, when you deliberately choose a location that you KNOW is going to be likely to give inferior results and you do so when much better locations are readily available, that's dumb. If you're talking about different sites which are both inherently excellent and you choose one over the other for "freshness," then OK, but to choose an inferior location, oh heck no.

Imagine, for instance, I have a hot-shoe flash readily available for usage, and such will likely give far better results than the built-in flash and yet I choose the built-in flash anyway NOT in terms of that I left the hot-shoe flash home due to traveling light, but rather it's right there & yet I pass & choose the built-in. That's dumb. So is this.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2017 at 23:38 UTC
On article Ugly Places, Pretty Photos: A portrait shoot at Lowe's (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Although I'm just a hobbyist, I've been at it for 30+ years. Apparently I've been doing this too long. I say this because this sort of thing is an anathema to me and I have no respect for alternating points of view on it.

It has ALWAYS been explained to me for the longest time that you seek out the best, you NEVER and I mean NEVER deliberately choose suboptimal conditions on purpose as some "challenge." Excellence is the goal.

If you, DESPITE your efforts, end up in suboptimal conditions & you accept the challenge of making the best of it, then by all means. However, you NEVER & I mean NEVER go out of your way to "dumb down excellence" as it were by DELIBERATELY forgoing better conditions as some sort of "challenge." You seek out the ideal background, lighting, equipment, time of day, manner of dress for the model, EVERYTHING. That's always how it's been and it's how it should ALWAYS be. Period. "Times/ideas change," you say? In my book, how I learned it is how it should ALWAYS be.

Yes it's my opinion, and it's the RIGHT one too, I submit.

I think that I've been at this in one way or the other for 30+ years & read many a magazine and article speaking of how to maximize your excellence qualifies me to say what I think. Even if you think my photos aren't good enough for me to have one, oh well.

I mean, you don't have to be a NASCAR performer to know that it would be silly to engage in a race using, say, a "stock"Ford Focus with no improvements to it, a rutty road full of potholes, dirty windshield, bald tires, and a "governor" on your engine so that it can't go more than 70 mph. Why do that? You bring in the BEST equipment, find a suitable location and THEN you race.

Same for NBA players, when's the last time someone deliberately played outdoors in the wind using $10 shoes full of holes, cracked pavement with no lines drawn, & worn-out balls that are half-inflated? NEVER. Why do photographers see the need to engage in such silliness?

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2017 at 20:38 UTC
On article Ugly Places, Pretty Photos: A portrait shoot at Lowe's (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Although I'm just a hobbyist, I've been at it for 30+ years. Apparently I've been doing this too long. I say this because this sort of thing is an anathema to me and I have no respect for alternating points of view on it.

It has ALWAYS been explained to me for the longest time that you seek out the best, you NEVER and I mean NEVER deliberately choose suboptimal conditions on purpose as some "challenge." Excellence is the goal.

If you, DESPITE your efforts, end up in suboptimal conditions & you accept the challenge of making the best of it, then by all means. However, you NEVER & I mean NEVER go out of your way to "dumb down excellence" as it were by DELIBERATELY forgoing better conditions as some sort of "challenge." You seek out the ideal background, lighting, equipment, time of day, manner of dress for the model, EVERYTHING. That's always how it's been and it's how it should ALWAYS be. Period. "Times/ideas change," you say? In my book, how I learned it is how it should ALWAYS be.

Yes, I am serious. The only reason I could see for shooting in such conditions would be in a practice scenario so that if you ever found yourself in such a suboptimal condition during an actual shoot, you will be better prepared to deal with it. But to deliberately choose a suboptimal environment during an actual shoot? Oh heck no, NEVER. I'm only interested in "creativity" if EXCELLENCE is the priority, to me it is ALWAYS the priority.

I feel the same about those National Geographic shooters going to a place like the Grand Canyon & only using their phone. That's stupid. If someone sent me to the Grand Canyon, I'm taking my BEST. I could understand preferring, say, a Sony A6300 with the 10-18 vs the Nikon D850 if you're hiking long distances, after all the A6300 (or a D3400 etc) is still a bona fida serious tool, but no way in HECK would I be caught dead photographing the Grand Canyon using a phone and calling it a "challenge." The saying comes to mind--go big or go home.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2017 at 03:26 UTC
On article Ugly Places, Pretty Photos: A portrait shoot at Lowe's (40 comments in total)

Although I'm just a hobbyist, I've been at it for 30+ years. Apparently I've been doing this too long. I say this because this sort of thing is an anathema to me and I have no respect for alternating points of view on it.

It has ALWAYS been explained to me for the longest time that you seek out the best, you NEVER and I mean NEVER deliberately choose suboptimal conditions on purpose as some "challenge." Excellence is the goal.

If you, DESPITE your efforts, end up in suboptimal conditions & you accept the challenge of making the best of it, then by all means. However, you NEVER & I mean NEVER go out of your way to "dumb down excellence" as it were by DELIBERATELY forgoing better conditions as some sort of "challenge." You seek out the ideal background, lighting, equipment, time of day, manner of dress for the model, EVERYTHING. That's always how it's been and it's how it should ALWAYS be. Period. "Times/ideas change," you say? In my book, how I learned it is how it should ALWAYS be.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2017 at 02:41 UTC as 14th comment | 16 replies
Total: 567, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »