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: 449, showing: 241 – 260
« First‹ Previous1112131415Next ›Last »
On article Quick Review: Apple iPhone 5 (217 comments in total)
In reply to:

io_bg: What innovative does this iPhone have in the camera department? Nothing. If we have news for every new Apple product, why don't we have news from other cell phone manufacturers? Be it Samsung, Sony, HTC, etc...

I would hardly consider the popularity a basis for it being covered so much by a PHOTOGRAPHY site. I doubt that sites dealing with the culinary arts give a hoot how popular McDonald's is, or Chef-Boyardee canned spaghetti, because they aren't proper culinary arts products.

Same here. I'm no professional, just a hobbyist, but I wouldn't be caught dead using a camera phone for anything. It's an insult to real photography. This site seems to forgotten whom they're catering to. They get to make the choices, but I sure don't agree with them. It's like R.E.M. selling their songs to Chevrolet for a commercial jingle.

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2012 at 23:42 UTC
On article Quick Review: Apple iPhone 5 (217 comments in total)

McDonald's is the most popular restaurant, but I would hardly consider that a reason for sites dealing with the culinary arts to talk about them.

And talk about them, and talk about them, and talk about them, and tal....

Link | Posted on Oct 1, 2012 at 23:31 UTC as 76th comment | 12 replies

In terms of its appearance, I am glad "compact" viewing mode has been retained. I don't like the recent trend towards wider-spacing, you end up having to click "next, next, next" repeatedly, and scroll forever. I like a "spreadsheet"-like view.

As for moderation--I hope it's light. Frankly, I don't know about other people, but I LIKE being able to come in here & debate topics and opinions passionately. It's not as if we have a bunch of "here's how I made money in 3 months" spam posts. There's already too many places in real life or cyberlife where political correctness & concerns about not offending someone are taken too seriously. I do NOT want to see the forums become to where you can't state your opinion because it offends someone's sensibilities. Allow both sides to debate their points with passion, & if it becomes a little passionate and heated at times, so be it. That's half the fun.

Uncalled for nastiness, fine, curb it--but otherwise, let the debaters debate.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2012 at 03:43 UTC as 262nd comment
In reply to:

JackM: These forums are some of the meanest on the internet. You should prohibit anonymity. Make everyone register with a facebook, linked-in, myspace, twitter, or G+ account, or their own professional photography website.

But this probably makes too much sense.

Glad I'm not the only one that things the OP's idea is a bad one.

To me, anonymity is one of the beautiful things about the Internet. I absolutely LOVE being able to come in here & debate things with unbridled passion. I am not trying to be MEAN, but there are recent trends in photography I'm passionately opposed to (iPhone "photography," video & still convergence) and I like being able to share my opinion without holding back.

And yes, those who disagree with me, they should be able to oppose my opinion with all the passion they have in them without having to be "fake nice" because of this real name nonsense. I have to "play nice" enough as it is in the real world, I (and I think others too) need somewhere I can go & passionately debate my ideas without being censored. It's not like we have a whole bunch of "I found a new way to make money" or "my boyfriend & I discovered the secret to losing weight" spam posts in here. Let people debate behind the aliases.

Link | Posted on Sep 28, 2012 at 03:24 UTC
In reply to:

BiggerDiggler: This site is compelled to review iphones (and when I write this, I mean smartphones in general) for the most important reason: Their portability has caused political revolutions and upheavals like no other imaging devise in history. No news gathering organization could DREAM of matching the impact of thousands of ordinary people videotaping world-changing events.

The insular, self-centered, moss-backed world of professional photography - a breed that I predict will be thoroughly extinct in five years - has let us all down in a big way by comparison. Hence the real reason for the expressed resentment of iphones. iphones have demonstrated that the emperor of professional photography has no clothes.

If this site wishes to survive, it will continue to discuss iphones, and ALL smartphones for that matter.

"Restrictive gate-keeper of images?" Well YEAH, of images they TOOK and spent time and effort creating, not snapping. Besides, people have been free to make their own images for years. "You press the button, we do the rest" was not a concept created 5 years ago, but over 100 years ago.

90% of people are happy with frozen foods, but for those who want the fresh-homemade stuff, it's not good enough. Same goes here.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2012 at 02:50 UTC
In reply to:

BiggerDiggler: This site is compelled to review iphones (and when I write this, I mean smartphones in general) for the most important reason: Their portability has caused political revolutions and upheavals like no other imaging devise in history. No news gathering organization could DREAM of matching the impact of thousands of ordinary people videotaping world-changing events.

The insular, self-centered, moss-backed world of professional photography - a breed that I predict will be thoroughly extinct in five years - has let us all down in a big way by comparison. Hence the real reason for the expressed resentment of iphones. iphones have demonstrated that the emperor of professional photography has no clothes.

If this site wishes to survive, it will continue to discuss iphones, and ALL smartphones for that matter.

Look, I get it--you believe (not think, but believe) professional photography is made up of a bunch of snooty, snotty, arrogant, stuck-up, cold, heartless, brainless, talent-less, inspiration-less, bland, cooky-cutter, uninspired, insipid, "we sell it in 2 colors--black & black" types. I get it.

Phone cameras are the best thing since the wheel. Nikon--fold up your tents. Why did you introduce the D600? Who needs it--we've all got iPhones. Goody! Canon--pack it in. You're irrelevant now. Good luck with printers. Pentax--by by! Sony--what were you thinking buying Konica/Minolta instead of focusing solely on your Xperia smartphones? Olympus/Panasonic--why are you messing around with micro 4/3rds. DSLR quality in a compact CAMERA? Too late!

And, oh yes--professional photographers are SO yesterday.

That's funny. Professional photographers seem to be thriving around here. So are all of those companies.

I guess not everyone has drunk from your batch of Kool-Aid. Thank goodness. ESD.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2012 at 00:11 UTC
In reply to:

BiggerDiggler: The comparison between an iphone and an instamatic is false. The iphone is a far superior snapshot camera than an instamatic. It is much better than a disposable 35 mm camera. Lets be accurate where this camera fits before we demolish either it, or DSLR's.

It is likely better than 95 percent of the last big gasp of autofocus low- to medium quality electronically-controlled 35 mm point and shoot cameras, circa 1998. It has about as good if not better imaging quality than a Samsung 35 mm point and shoot I bought for backpacking, that proclaimed itself to have a "Carl Zeiss" lens and electronic whiz bang wizardry of the time like "fuzzy logic."

In fact in the hands of an untrained photographer, an iphone or any smartphone will get much better results than could be gotten with ANY 35 mm camera. Oh, how I wish I would have had an iphone rather than the motley collection of instamatics and lightweight 35 mm cameras that were in existence 30 years ago!

You got it, in terms of "the UNTRAINED photographer." I am NOT an untrained photographer--I'm not a professional, but I'm not an untrained photographer either. I like tools that are commensurate with that. I am not interested in what the untrained use. I wish them no ill will, but I don't give a rip what they like, & to insinuate that an iPhone can run with a Nikon D3 is beyond mental insanity.

And comparing its ability to a Nikon D3 is like comparing frozen pizza to that made fresh in a highly-regarded pizzeria. Hey, I like DiGorno, it raised the bar for what frozen pizza can taste like (can we say Jeno's?), but it still is no match to fresh-made from a pizzeria, and comparing them would be an insult to the real thing. There's no difference here.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2012 at 23:28 UTC

"We never aimed to make a professional mirrorless system, that was never our goal."

BIG mistake, Nikon, BIG mistake. Already your D5100, excellent though it is, gets let use than my Olympus micro 4/3rds do, because they give excellent image quality in a smaller package. If you guys would get your head out of your rear posterior and make something more enthusiastic-centered (heck a "digital Nikon SP" would be wonderful), I would've stayed with you.

But you appear to be so concerned about cannibalizing your DSLR sales that you're losing people who don't see the mirrorless models as glorified point & shoots.

LRH

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2012 at 20:25 UTC as 46th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

sigamhsoupw: This is a very weird point we have reached to say at least... More and more "photography news" about iphone cover the first page of dpreview so often, that it started getting annoying. IF and only if, iphone was a pure camera phone (get my hint?) then I wouldn't have a problem. But this unjustified hype over apple's I-can-do-everything-but-nothing-I-do-is-really-something device becomes more than suspicious.
There are thousands of sites for smartphones, we really dont need dpreview trying to convince us that iphone is a good camera. It's not. Period. Please get back on track doing what you do best. Covering the amazing world of photography...

Saying that the iPhone being the #1 camera of use is a reason for an enthusiast site like DPreview to cover them is like saying that McDonald's being the #1 fast food chain in the world is a reason for a site/magazine devoted to Culinary art to talk about them every 2.5 milliseconds.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2012 at 18:03 UTC
In reply to:

madeinlisboa: It's because of these toys that photography is becoming a joke. Comparing these pieces of crap with cameras is offensive for anyone who's life income depends on (real) photography.
If you want good pictures and little space in your travel gear, get a p&s. I can't even imagine why people waste so much money in a toy.

I can't stand anymore this iCrap disease spreading even in photography sites. Time to forget dpreview and move to real photography sites.

"Be humble & learn." That's my point exactly. People using smartphones thinking they're photographers ought to learn how to work a REAL camera, read some books about lighting & composition and "golden light"--and THEN get back to me. The people I respect are ones who learned on cameras like the Pentax K1000 or even a Nikon D40--you know, something REAL, and made efforts towards learning lighting etc, as opposed to just doing the "Hipstomatic" preset on their phone & thinking it makes them some-BODY.

A D3000 & D5000 may not be the ultimate, but at least they're DSLRs. And hey, if someone can outdo me even if they're using a smartphone, by all means--but then, it would beg the question, if you're THAT good, what in the world are you doing using a smartphone instead of a DSLR in the first place? You don't see LeBron James playing basketball in flip-flops. You don't see Tiger Woods golfing with wooden sticks. You don't see Michael Phelps swimming in an above-ground pool. What gives?

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2012 at 15:29 UTC
In reply to:

AnHund: It is possible to take very nice images with camera phones in good light and in the right hands, not doubt about it. But unlike the iPhone there is a lot of camera control options in some Nokia phones like Lumia 800 etc., but don't expect miracles except maybe from the the new Nokia 808 PureView which seems to be a lot better than the rest.

Personally I would never be satisfied with a camera phone alone, due to bad ergonomics and limited use except in good light. But then again a lot of people are satisfied with phone images - probably the same type of people that were perfectly happy with a Kodak Instamatic in the 60s.

See, that's the thing. To me, a camera phone is this decade's version of an Instamatic, & when it was Instamatic vs a 35mm SLR, actual photographers wouldn't be caught DEAD with an Instamatic. It wasn't a matter of being "snotty" about the snapshooters, it was fine for them--great, but if you were someone with aspirations for serious or even hobbyist photography, you got a tool commensurate with those aspirations--Pentax K1000, Nikon FM etc, and you used that sort of thing & ONLY that sort of thing.

It also used to be if you were a photographer but didn't bring a camera, you could be chided "you didn't bring your camera? You're a PHOTOGRAPHER for Pete's sake." I think it's a valid point myself. I understand about personal & play-time, & DSLRs are bulky, but there's always mirrorless or (say) a Sony RX100. I'm just a hobbyist, but if I forget to bring my Olympus E-PM1, that's on ME to be more of the mindset to make sure I have it with me. Sorry, but using a camera phone is beneath me.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2012 at 15:05 UTC
In reply to:

madeinlisboa: It's because of these toys that photography is becoming a joke. Comparing these pieces of crap with cameras is offensive for anyone who's life income depends on (real) photography.
If you want good pictures and little space in your travel gear, get a p&s. I can't even imagine why people waste so much money in a toy.

I can't stand anymore this iCrap disease spreading even in photography sites. Time to forget dpreview and move to real photography sites.

The thing that I think (madeinlisboa) is getting at, & I agree with, is the "blurring of lines" between snapshooting vs photography, & how you're called a "dinosaur" or an "elitist" for saying that those who seriously persue their craft & take it seriously are different than the "clickers" who expect to just point & shoot and get a masterpiece, they don't even TRY to learn the basics.

As that lady said in "Working Girl" to her friend who was working in a new job that was perceived as being over her head--"sometimes I dance in my underwear, that doesn't make me Madonna." Exactly. Someone who's put effort into learning techniques, how to work REAL gear & knows some basics is on a whole different plane than "hipsters" pointing & clicking with a phone.

I make good food in my kitchen with "quick & easy dinner bags," but I show RESPECT to those who labor & make everything from scratch. The same applies here. Show some RESPECT to someone who actually knows how to use a REAL camera.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2012 at 14:18 UTC
In reply to:

madeinlisboa: It's because of these toys that photography is becoming a joke. Comparing these pieces of crap with cameras is offensive for anyone who's life income depends on (real) photography.
If you want good pictures and little space in your travel gear, get a p&s. I can't even imagine why people waste so much money in a toy.

I can't stand anymore this iCrap disease spreading even in photography sites. Time to forget dpreview and move to real photography sites.

Other than the misspelling of "who's," I couldn't agree more with (madeinlisboa), and I'm only a hobbyist. What is so ridiculous is these people that want to have their work analyzed right alongside a professional & to be on equal footing with them, but yet they make it clear they have no interest in learning any techniques, and call you an "elitist" because you think there's a difference between snapshots & true photography.

That is a complete insult to the art. It really is. Can you imagine me trying to have people analyze my food, which I've microwaved from a "dinner in a bag" Stouffer's thing I bought at WalMart Supercenter, against people who've been to culinary school & take the time to make everything fresh & from scratch? That would be a total insult to their craft. Have a little respect for people who actually KNOW what they're doing. No we're not all chefs, but have a little respect for those who in fact ARE, or are at least pursuing that route the best they can.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2012 at 13:22 UTC
On article Adobe announces Photoshop Elements 11 (68 comments in total)

I'd consider this as an update to my Photoshop CS (yes I have the ORIGINAL Photoshop CS), but Elements doesn't support 16-bit TIFFs, and when I shoot RAW, I convert to 16-bitt TIFF, do all of my edits there, and then once I'm 100% done I convert to JPEG, no sooner.

I know Elements can't include all of the Photoshop features, it's just too bad because 16-bit TIFF support is the only thing, for me anyway, that it's missing.

LRH

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2012 at 05:16 UTC as 32nd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

pumeco: Seriously, does anyone know of a global filter that runs in your browser and is capable of filtering-out whatever you specify?

For example, I want to filter-out Apple and any other name related to their products, so that browsing the web appears as if they do not exist. If it spots an ad, blog, tag, keyword, or in fact anything that would bring-up anything to do with Apple or their products, it would block it?

Is there such a tool available?

I'm truly sick of seeing and reading about iPads, iPods, and iPhones everywhere I look. It's like a disease that is ruining my enjoyment online (seriously), and I feel like I have the right to go about my life without being subjected to it.

It's like having an irritating fly whizzing around my head all the time.

I've even had to unsubscribe from a software/hardware developer recently because they stopped making real hardware with buttons and sliders, and started all this Apple touch-device crap instead.

Can't stand being subjected to it.

I agree completely. The 2 things that bug me (a) as you alluded to, people starting to design certain aspects of their products based on how Apple does it, when I CAN'T STAND how Apple does it (non-replaceable batteries for one) and (b) people acting as if every single thing that exists is because Apple invented it. I fully expect people to start declaring that Apple invented oxygen & the wheel. I even have made my personal page that of Calvin (of Calvin & Hobbes) urinating all over Apple. I'm looking into having T-shirts printed with that one it as well. I really am sick & tired of people being so hypnotized by everything they do & say.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2012 at 04:04 UTC
In reply to:

larrytusaz: "Smartphones are a different type of brush for painting photos." What a dope! A box of crayons in a coloring book is more like it.

As a comparison: I think cooking should be fun, I have no desire to spend hours in the kitchen making everything from scratch and learning how to grow my own tomatoes in a garden & make my own flour from scratch. I LIKE it that you have quick & easy options, and I use them. Moreover, I eat the food & I enjoy it, I don't care how many cooking "purists" scoff at my "dinner in a bag" solutions. Not all of us are cut out for all of that, and it doesn't mean we should settle for yucky tasting food just because we don't all wear white hats and aprons & didn't graduate from culinary school.

But I'm not delusional enough to think I'm a chef, and I have no argument with those who seek to keep the distinctions obvious. I see no difference here.

(oselimg) I think you misinterpreted my posts. I agree with you. Yes, I I have no doubt that cooking is a very creative profession & calling them "purists" is most definitely an insult. I completely AGREE with you. That's my point: the same thing applies to photography. With cooking: I know people who aren't even chefs but they make everything from scratch, grow their own vegetables, they make an art form out of what they cook. I would never insinuate that me cooking Stouffer's in a zapper is equal to what they do, that it's "just another tool." I respect them for trying to learn how to make it from scratch & would never insult what they do by acting like I can just stroll into the kitchen, not having even tried to learn anything real, & just toss Stouffer's in the zapper & act like it's the same thing they're doing. That's an insult to all the effort they've put into trying to do in achieving excellence doing it that way.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2012 at 00:16 UTC
In reply to:

larrytusaz: "Smartphones are a different type of brush for painting photos." What a dope! A box of crayons in a coloring book is more like it.

As a comparison: I think cooking should be fun, I have no desire to spend hours in the kitchen making everything from scratch and learning how to grow my own tomatoes in a garden & make my own flour from scratch. I LIKE it that you have quick & easy options, and I use them. Moreover, I eat the food & I enjoy it, I don't care how many cooking "purists" scoff at my "dinner in a bag" solutions. Not all of us are cut out for all of that, and it doesn't mean we should settle for yucky tasting food just because we don't all wear white hats and aprons & didn't graduate from culinary school.

But I'm not delusional enough to think I'm a chef, and I have no argument with those who seek to keep the distinctions obvious. I see no difference here.

There's always mirrorless or a Sony RX100.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2012 at 20:39 UTC

"Smartphones are a different type of brush for painting photos." What a dope! A box of crayons in a coloring book is more like it.

As a comparison: I think cooking should be fun, I have no desire to spend hours in the kitchen making everything from scratch and learning how to grow my own tomatoes in a garden & make my own flour from scratch. I LIKE it that you have quick & easy options, and I use them. Moreover, I eat the food & I enjoy it, I don't care how many cooking "purists" scoff at my "dinner in a bag" solutions. Not all of us are cut out for all of that, and it doesn't mean we should settle for yucky tasting food just because we don't all wear white hats and aprons & didn't graduate from culinary school.

But I'm not delusional enough to think I'm a chef, and I have no argument with those who seek to keep the distinctions obvious. I see no difference here.

Link | Posted on Sep 24, 2012 at 20:26 UTC as 71st comment | 6 replies
On article Photokina 2012: Interview - Stephan Schulz of Leica (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

John Tran: How very Leica. Pompous and out of touch.

I now use a Nikon D800 for the shots I couldn't get on 4x5.

(ZEROrhythm) My head is quite the much in the normal location, thank you very much. Obviously the camera DOES matter--else, why would Leica even exist? Heck, why was a Nikon D40 even necessary, much less a D800 and D600, if the camera doesn't matter?

As for "common" people--more power to them, but they're not photographers anymore than I'm a chef because I know how to heat Stouffer's "Meal in a Bag" on a stove for 7 minutes on medium-high.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2012 at 01:49 UTC
On article Photokina 2012: Interview - Stephan Schulz of Leica (195 comments in total)
In reply to:

CameraLabTester: " It's good, because it refreshes the image of Leica, to make cameras that are really used by professionals."

That was one generation ago, when photography was an exclusive club.

Today's generation is totally irrelevant to the past nostalgic way of doing things.

The cheapest DSLR today would look like it came from Mars had it shown up 40 years ago.

The gap and demarcation line between the elite photography gear ownership and the common mans brownie has been totally eradicated in the digital era

That is the reason why Jurassic brands who missed the boat will turn to bling and sparkling decor instead of image performance.

.

If the "line" has been eradicated, here's to bringing it back--and obliterating any force that would blur that line. I LOVE that line, and I love this man & Leica as a company for making that line bolder. That line is there for a reason, and people ought to respect it more.

I (to say nothing of well-accomplished professionals) didn't learn how to work an SLR--a manual-focus one like the Pentax K1000 no less--as well as practice composition & lighting, only to have some pimple-popping iPhone "photographer" come along & insult those who actually put some effort into it and have the decency to use a REAL camera in their craft (even if it's something like a Sony RX-100 or micro 4/3rds). What they're doing is the equivalent of someone plopping a can of Spaghettios in a paper bowl, nuking it for 90 seconds, and then calling themselves a "chef." Get real.

If that's "snotty" and "arrogant" or whatever, so be it. I say we need MORE of it.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2012 at 19:49 UTC
Total: 449, showing: 241 – 260
« First‹ Previous1112131415Next ›Last »