AlanG

AlanG

Lives in United States Silver Spring, United States
Works as a Photographer
Has a website at www.goldsteinphoto.com
Joined on Mar 3, 2003

Comments

Total: 1207, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

The ergonomics of using large lenses on that seem terrible. And if they are telephoto usability will be pretty poor.

I really like the idea of the Sony one that uses their E mount lenses. That is really useful for remote applications such as a drone... where the bulk and weight of a VF and LCD are not needed. But beyond that a regular Sony APS body is not much heavier or bulkier and the usability hand held is much better. Plus you don't need a phone.

Link | Posted on May 10, 2018 at 21:22 UTC as 69th comment

DJI owns Hasselblad so I'd expect to see a much better integrated similar camera/copter combo from them. Good flight redundancy and collision avoidance would also be nice to have when flying a $40K+ camera.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2018 at 18:07 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

ByFrenchy: I started professionnal photojournalisme in 78’s , working for a newspaper they use Rolleiflex , I still own one and never understood why the owners of this trade do not make a digital one !

Rollei did sell versions of its 6x6 SLRs that used various digital backs. They had an alliance with Sinar and Leaf to market the Hy6.

They were early to the digital scene with a scan back for their cameras.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2018 at 23:49 UTC

Finally after 90 years of development Rollei reached the pinnacle.

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2018 at 03:58 UTC as 62nd comment
In reply to:

nachos: Lighting evolves pretty slowly; no need to return only 8 months later with the same products as before.

Yes, I still have a lot of Balcar lighting that cost about $20K 20-30 years ago. They still do the job very well. I have migrated to Alien Bees because they are smaller and lighter and have a very good wireless remote control. Now that I shoot on 35mm instead of 4x5 I shoot at larger f stops and don't need so much power either.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2018 at 15:32 UTC

I haven't been to Photokina but my experience at the NYC Photo Expo since the early 80s may be similar. At one time that show featured every type of pro gear... strobes, heavy duty studio stands, view cameras and special lenses, darkroom, backgrounds, specialized grip and shooting platforms. Later when digital first came in, it was also the place for high end digital cameras, scanners, and software demos. This show was pretty much the only place I could see this gear plus some manufacturers had show discounts.

Now all of this has changed. Few are even interested in "pro" gear like that, and we can learn most of what we need about gear and software on the internet. The last time I went to the show I was pretty disappointed and found I could see way more interesting stuff by going to B and H Photo.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2018 at 15:28 UTC as 38th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

AlanG: From my point of view as a long time architectural photographer, every one of these has a major design flaw.... their long basic shape. They may be fine for a portrait shooter but are difficult to hide and place in the spaces I shoot in.

The compact square shape of the Paul Buff Alien Bees and Einstein units are better for me. (FWIW I have about a dozen Balcar and other units that have this long shape and rarely use them any more.)

Additionally the Paul Buff units have a radio remote control system that speeds up my work so much that I couldn't work without something like that. And I also like their Vagabond battery packs since I may not be able to run an AC cord to the light or want to place it outside.

Also... Paul Buff is in Tennessee (US made) and they send out parts and make repairs quickly and at very reasonable prices. It only cost $45 to replace a plastic housing I cracked when the head fell 10 feet onto concrete. (The unit still worked.) An AB flash tube costs $35 whereas Bron flash tubes start at about $200.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2018 at 13:52 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: From my point of view as a long time architectural photographer, every one of these has a major design flaw.... their long basic shape. They may be fine for a portrait shooter but are difficult to hide and place in the spaces I shoot in.

The compact square shape of the Paul Buff Alien Bees and Einstein units are better for me. (FWIW I have about a dozen Balcar and other units that have this long shape and rarely use them any more.)

Additionally the Paul Buff units have a radio remote control system that speeds up my work so much that I couldn't work without something like that. And I also like their Vagabond battery packs since I may not be able to run an AC cord to the light or want to place it outside.

I am well aware of the ABs and Ultras. I have 4 AB 1600s 3 WL3200s, 1 WL 2400 and a older 1200. They use the same reflectors as my Balcar 1600ws strobes. (I have 6 1600ws PSU4 units and 4 500WS PSU4 units.)

So with the same reflectors and soft boxes as my 1600 ws Balcars, I tested the 640WS AB 1600s to be the same brightness as the Balcar 1600s. The AB's are much lighter and more compact. I do not have any ABs weaker than 640ws.

My lighting gear is selected and modified to my needs to light interiors and move the gear quickly and I feel it is ideal as is.

Using Balcar reflectors is important. 45 degree throw 7 inch reflectors fitted with excellent Lowel DP barn doors. (Most 7 inch reflectors have a much wider throw.) They can hold Balcar grids and Lowel screens.

Also 12 inch reflectors, unique Balcar softboxes.

Shooting via TTL is not useful to me. I work tethered using 4 or more lights. I adjust each light via the radio remote.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2018 at 13:35 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: From my point of view as a long time architectural photographer, every one of these has a major design flaw.... their long basic shape. They may be fine for a portrait shooter but are difficult to hide and place in the spaces I shoot in.

The compact square shape of the Paul Buff Alien Bees and Einstein units are better for me. (FWIW I have about a dozen Balcar and other units that have this long shape and rarely use them any more.)

Additionally the Paul Buff units have a radio remote control system that speeds up my work so much that I couldn't work without something like that. And I also like their Vagabond battery packs since I may not be able to run an AC cord to the light or want to place it outside.

FWIW I made my own reflector that fits on the strobe at a 90 degree angle. This allows the head to be set up vertically in line with the stand but throws the light forward. I shaped it to have a wide throw to light the width of a room with minimal light going on the ceiling. It is about 12 inches by five inches and the White Lightning X2400 fits inside of it for easy storage.

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2018 at 01:28 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: From my point of view as a long time architectural photographer, every one of these has a major design flaw.... their long basic shape. They may be fine for a portrait shooter but are difficult to hide and place in the spaces I shoot in.

The compact square shape of the Paul Buff Alien Bees and Einstein units are better for me. (FWIW I have about a dozen Balcar and other units that have this long shape and rarely use them any more.)

Additionally the Paul Buff units have a radio remote control system that speeds up my work so much that I couldn't work without something like that. And I also like their Vagabond battery packs since I may not be able to run an AC cord to the light or want to place it outside.

The Vagabond battery is a separate AC-DC inverter unit that the AC units plug into. For 800ws AC/DC heads capable of a lot of flashes per charge, the Paul Buff units are pretty compact and light. They are inexpensive and have worked well for me on thousands of projects.

The pack and head systems are good too... especially if the heads are small. But what I found was that when I had Speedatron, Ascor and Balcar systems that the heads were about as big and heavy as my Alien Bees are.

Since I am shooting 35mm format, I generally don't need the power from larger units that I needed when shooting large format film because I can use larger apertures now. Generally I can light interiors with a few Alien Bees and get f8 without even using full power. I used to carry about 10,000 - 20,000 watt seconds of strobes with me on a typical job.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2018 at 23:05 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: I guess using filters is lost on the intended target market.

Since they are C41 films why wouldn't a lot of the intended color shift be dialed out when the printer tries to make a neutral color balance correction?

By use the negatives, you mean scan them? If so, at that point you could pretty much make any image look any way you want using scanning software or simple tools in almost any imaging software.

You may as well be using a digital photo to start with at that point.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2018 at 21:19 UTC

From my point of view as a long time architectural photographer, every one of these has a major design flaw.... their long basic shape. They may be fine for a portrait shooter but are difficult to hide and place in the spaces I shoot in.

The compact square shape of the Paul Buff Alien Bees and Einstein units are better for me. (FWIW I have about a dozen Balcar and other units that have this long shape and rarely use them any more.)

Additionally the Paul Buff units have a radio remote control system that speeds up my work so much that I couldn't work without something like that. And I also like their Vagabond battery packs since I may not be able to run an AC cord to the light or want to place it outside.

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2018 at 21:13 UTC as 15th comment | 10 replies

I guess using filters is lost on the intended target market.

Since they are C41 films why wouldn't a lot of the intended color shift be dialed out when the printer tries to make a neutral color balance correction?

Link | Posted on Mar 27, 2018 at 15:35 UTC as 35th comment | 3 replies

There are many ignorant people purporting to be photographers.

Learn and organize.

https://www.asmp.org/resources/about/history/

Link | Posted on Mar 26, 2018 at 21:29 UTC as 18th comment | 1 reply
On article Russian drone pilot pushes his tiny drone to 33,000ft (362 comments in total)

There probably isn't much to do in Siberia.

Link | Posted on Mar 23, 2018 at 19:45 UTC as 75th comment
In reply to:

Peiasdf: Why would you need door-off? The only reason seems to be those "shoe selfie" as everything else can be done just shooting through an open window.

I have flown in copters that have an open window in the seat opposite the pilot. It does not give as wide a view as having a door off but is a lot warmer on cold days.

Follow this link and then click on the "Aerial Photography" tab to see how Bussman Aviation sets up helicopters for professional aerial video and still photography.

https://www.heloflights.com/

Note that they have a window "photo hatch" and also "Spare Air" emergency breathing devices.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2018 at 13:04 UTC
On article RIP Canon's Chuck Westfall, 1952-2018 (71 comments in total)

A very nice man gone too soon.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2018 at 17:14 UTC as 63rd comment
In reply to:

David610: If these flights are only over water that is one thing. If not then shouldn't cameras also be tethered? Who would Like a D5 with a Sigma Art Lens to fall on them. Even worse a Nokia brick phone. I still think aircraft maintenance is also an issue. Clearly the harness was fit for purpose.

It isn't just dropping a camera on someone's head. Something could fly out the door and impact the tail rotor with devastating results.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2018 at 15:20 UTC

When news of this crash flashed on TV I immediately thought of my best friend who is a top aerial shooter who frequently flies in NYC.

But when they said there were 5 passengers I knew it couldn't be him because he would never shoot from a crowded copter.

And when I saw those harnesses, I could not imagine anyone could equip a helicopter with something so obviously impossible to get out from in an emergency. No HEED bottles either and no real training or practice for ditching. They mostly fly over water on those flights.

I don't care what their business model was or how many ignorant people were willing to fly harnessed that way, this is criminal.

Link | Posted on Mar 20, 2018 at 05:04 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

vockman: The real issue here is an overcrowded helicopter and the harnesses. I have shot from helicopters with doors off many times but only once when packed with other photographers. This leads to a lot of jostling inside and aggravation that one shooter has the best spot and everyone else is getting second rate shots. The harnesses encourage more leaning out even though the wind really makes the camera unstable. And of course there is a higher risk of equipment falling out of the helicopter. In all my other helicopter shoots I was the only shooter that mattered and sometimes brought one friend along for the ride or to shoot for a little for fun. This allows me to stay in my seat belt, pull a little away from the open doors, working comfortably with a lot of space and in the rare occasion where the helicopter obstructed a shot asking the pilot to circle around again. The type of helicopter shown above is safer with just one or two photographers in it.

I should add that this all changed for me several years ago when I started shooting from drones. I have only flown in a helicopter for skiing since then.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2018 at 00:14 UTC
Total: 1207, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »