ecka84

ecka84

Lives in Lithuania Lithuania
Joined on Sep 18, 2009

Comments

Total: 1582, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Tungsten Nordstein: I agree with the observation below that it no longer looks like chicken and in that aspect falls short of being a good ad for the brand. I think they over-did the photoshop, and it would have worked better if it had been less art-directed looking and more 'ordinary', or hand-made. Food should be hand-made looking, less factory-made, as is becoming clearer and clearer in the current market.

Great PR for the Ogilvy & Mather agency, but not much else.

You make no sense. There is no problem.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2018 at 10:47 UTC
In reply to:

Tungsten Nordstein: I agree with the observation below that it no longer looks like chicken and in that aspect falls short of being a good ad for the brand. I think they over-did the photoshop, and it would have worked better if it had been less art-directed looking and more 'ordinary', or hand-made. Food should be hand-made looking, less factory-made, as is becoming clearer and clearer in the current market.

Great PR for the Ogilvy & Mather agency, but not much else.

I'm saying that it doesn't look over-done in PS. Because that look can be achieved by using proper lighting techniques.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2018 at 21:30 UTC
In reply to:

Tungsten Nordstein: I agree with the observation below that it no longer looks like chicken and in that aspect falls short of being a good ad for the brand. I think they over-did the photoshop, and it would have worked better if it had been less art-directed looking and more 'ordinary', or hand-made. Food should be hand-made looking, less factory-made, as is becoming clearer and clearer in the current market.

Great PR for the Ogilvy & Mather agency, but not much else.

It's all about the lighting. There's nothing wrong with it.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2018 at 13:58 UTC
In reply to:

Nothing new: I wonder if a good “traditional” macro lens (Sigma 105mm f/2.8 Macro or Vivitar Series 1) with bellows or extension tubes will offer similar results (2X magnification at comparable IQ). Of course, this setup is cumbersome and one will lose the ability fo focus to infinity but who needs it when shooting Ultra Macro subjects?

Well, I don't shoot Ultra Macro in a studio. So, when I'm in the "wild", many interesting things can happen fast and at longer than close-up distances. Like that weasel riding a woodpecker (real thing :) google it). "Infinity" only indicates the ability of the full focusing range, which you may not ever need for most things you are shooting, not only closeups. But if my Sigma with extension tubes could focus up to 10 meters, then it would be insanely convenient. I can (and sometimes I do) use a 2x TC to double the magnification without affecting the working distance (which makes it a 300mm F5.6 2x Macro with full focusing range), but then I'm sacrificing some image quality.

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2018 at 13:39 UTC

Very impressive optics. Specially the FF options.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2018 at 16:39 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

moimoi: It is definitely an "extraordinary" photo mostly due to the nature of this tragic and unfortunate event so I can understand how this photograph won. Technically however, the photo is not that good (colors are also quite mediocre). On a personal not, I much prefer the World Press Photo of the Year.

@Quantum Scientist
So why are you here? Put on your pink glasses and go watch some kittens and puppies.
Pictures like this one are showing us the reality we live in, the result of dangerously stupid people living among us. And higher quality, more detailed image would have stronger effect, cure ignorance better and "destroy pink glasses" more efficiently.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2018 at 12:40 UTC
In reply to:

moimoi: It is definitely an "extraordinary" photo mostly due to the nature of this tragic and unfortunate event so I can understand how this photograph won. Technically however, the photo is not that good (colors are also quite mediocre). On a personal not, I much prefer the World Press Photo of the Year.

99% sure :). RAW would have more detail, more color information and no typically destructive in-camera image processing, which is what gave it away. I could be wrong though. But the EXIF does say 1DXII + 70-200/2.8L'II @ F4, 1/640s, ISO200.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 20:13 UTC
In reply to:

moimoi: It is definitely an "extraordinary" photo mostly due to the nature of this tragic and unfortunate event so I can understand how this photograph won. Technically however, the photo is not that good (colors are also quite mediocre). On a personal not, I much prefer the World Press Photo of the Year.

That's how shooting JPEGs looks like when you have to crop. Even if you are using professional gear like 1D X Mark II with EF 70-200/2.8L IS II at ISO 200. Which is sad.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 19:31 UTC
In reply to:

Hello123: Everywhere I turn we seem to be to be saturated with violence and death.

More like the nature of the dumbest part of it.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 19:25 UTC
In reply to:

nicolaiecostel: You can barely understand what happens in this picture, it's more of a snapshot to me. The photo of the guy in flames running is miles better.

That's because of the lazy, mindless habit of viewing (and demonstrating) super tiny snapshots, that everyone will forget about just a few moments after seeing them on their phone screens. Not entirely your fault :)

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 19:23 UTC
On article Budget wide: Rokinon AF 14mm F2.8 FE sample gallery (67 comments in total)
In reply to:

mosc: Too much distortion. literally makes me nauseous. Venus Optics 12 and 15mm don't have autofocus but they don't make me sick either. The 12mm still blows my mind...

@mosc - Nonsense.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2018 at 13:25 UTC
On article Opinion: the Sony a7 III could be the new Nikon D750 (1228 comments in total)
In reply to:

twamers: Well in the UK the Sony is almost £300 more expensive than than the Nikon so the price referred to in the article (e.g. Sony cheaper) is not relevant at all. Of the 2 for me the ergonomics (grip, buttons etc) are so much better on the Nikon that the Sony wouldn't get considered as it is not nice or comfortable to hold (for me) despite the fact that it is no doubt a quality product. The D750 for its age is still spectacular.

What are you talking about? Canon ergonomics are the best. The front wheel is in the right place, near to the select buttons.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2018 at 13:32 UTC
On article Opinion: the Sony a7 III could be the new Nikon D750 (1228 comments in total)
In reply to:

NicoPPC: Humm. .. if one got the EOS 5D3 instead of the D750, could one prefer the Fuji X-H1 over the Sony A7III?

Why would you do that? The X-H1 is an APS-C camera. Why not the a6500 then?

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2018 at 21:35 UTC
In reply to:

ivan1973: Its easy to identify crappy photographers. Plenty of them in this thread. They complaint about equipment all the time.

OMG. Why are you, artsy-head wannabes, always trying to take over photography by mystifying it, making up superstitious myths about it (instead of learning how it actually works) and building a cult of ignorance around it?
This is technology. Photography is a tool. Not art. Art is just one of many things that you can do with it. Get over it!

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2018 at 12:08 UTC
In reply to:

ivan1973: Its easy to identify crappy photographers. Plenty of them in this thread. They complaint about equipment all the time.

@MyReality
You must be a rare specimen then. Congratulations.
Maybe in your reality things are different, but in this one anyone who makes a photograph is a photographer (sometimes it can be a monkey). The rest is semantics and wrong information.

P.S. I have no armchair. Does that make me rare too?

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2018 at 08:05 UTC
In reply to:

ivan1973: Its easy to identify crappy photographers. Plenty of them in this thread. They complaint about equipment all the time.

Really? What about this https://www.dpreview.com/news/4355020405/blackmagic-design-announces-pocket-cinema-camera-4k?comment=2660351455
?

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2018 at 07:49 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: So, typically, artists think that they themselves are bad photographers (bad in a bad way), but not as bad as everyone else :). Fortunately, photography is not art. It is a tool and an adventure. And the fact that photo-artists are trying to privatize it (haven't you noticed?) is just wrong, selfish and very bad actually. You don't have the right to dictate the rules of photography. It's like preaching about how everyone should use their own eyes and see the world (or not). This is madness (and fascism). Photography is evolving. And this is a great topic. Jamie is a decent youtuber and I really enjoy watching his videos. Even though I don't agree with him on many concepts. I think all five points are valid for everyone who's looking for his place in all this, but not so much for those of us who have found their ways already. Only number 4 is unquestionable. The rest become obsolete with time and experience.

"sometimes ..." - I'd say it's 99% of the time :). But in the end, who cares if it's art or not. Which is the point. I'm not an artist and I'm not planning to become one. However, I do love photography very much, simply because it gives me the ability to capture and collect some moments of my life, the way I'm seeing it. And all the artsy critics can go @!$% @#$%^&@#&*, instead of telling me that I'm doing it wrong :).
Don't get me wrong, but all this much popular artsy fakery is just worthless in many aspects. I mean, maybe it's fine for entertainment and making money. But it's a lie and deception and it has no long term value for me. I enjoy photographing reality. Otherwise, why not just buy a magazine and pretend that it's you on the cover. Silly, right? And it's even more silly when you realize that a half of that person on the cover is pure photoshop and the other half isn't much different from you.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2018 at 02:18 UTC
In reply to:

ecka84: So, typically, artists think that they themselves are bad photographers (bad in a bad way), but not as bad as everyone else :). Fortunately, photography is not art. It is a tool and an adventure. And the fact that photo-artists are trying to privatize it (haven't you noticed?) is just wrong, selfish and very bad actually. You don't have the right to dictate the rules of photography. It's like preaching about how everyone should use their own eyes and see the world (or not). This is madness (and fascism). Photography is evolving. And this is a great topic. Jamie is a decent youtuber and I really enjoy watching his videos. Even though I don't agree with him on many concepts. I think all five points are valid for everyone who's looking for his place in all this, but not so much for those of us who have found their ways already. Only number 4 is unquestionable. The rest become obsolete with time and experience.

"... wonderful it was" - Not for lachanophobic folks :). But, yes, food can be art. Despite that it can be considered cheating (just like nudity). Because we like food for other reasons.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2018 at 01:12 UTC
In reply to:

Eliot Kramer: I think a bit of a problem is the "good/bad" photographer.
Who is to decide who is bad and good?
Sales?
Customers?
Galleries?
Also, what is actually wrong with the effect as it relates to photography?
If a surgeon thinks he is amazing, does an unsafe surgery and kills you that is bad.
But if a photographer thinks he is amazing in his own mind but takes crappy pictures? Who cares? Since photography borders on art there is really no "good/bad" art problem here. An artist can think themselves amazing but not be able to sell like Picasso yet what is the harm of him/her thinking that they are Picasso in their own head?
This is not rocket science. We are not sending people to the moon/Mars in shoddily built rockets.

But we elect clowns to rule the world. Which is why it is broken.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2018 at 00:58 UTC
In reply to:

Eliot Kramer: Also, tastes change dramatically.
Amazing photographers now might be viewed as silly and useless 100 years from now.
Many of the "masterpieces" of years past are not that great these days as viewed through the lens of today's experience.
The bigger problem in my opinion is everyone telling everyone else what is great and not great and then piling on the same wagon and screaming great at something they don't actually like or understand but because everyone else thinks it is great they gotta say the same to be in the "in crowd".
There are so many SUPER AMAZING LIFE CHANGING photographs that everyone raves about that I don't see anything special about, a certain beginning of the century French photographer comes to my mind.

Exactly right.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2018 at 00:54 UTC
Total: 1582, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »