keepreal

keepreal

Lives in United Kingdom Enfield, United Kingdom
Works as a Retired, was Information Technology Manager
Joined on Mar 24, 2007
About me:

Amateur with a passion for pictorial photography of more than fifty years. Likes to communicate and learn from others with expert knowledge, especially if they also live in the real world, have galleries or links to really good photos and put their camera to good use.

Comments

Total: 307, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

keepreal: The earth does not go around the sun as it does because it follows the laws of gravity. The earth goes around the sun as it does and we invented schema to describe it, to make it more intelligible to the human mind.

Likewise, there are no rules of composition or, if you wish to disagree with me, that's my rule. Not that I am denying that certain compositions work better than others, so guidelines rather than rules may be useful if one lacks an innate sense of what works and what does not.

Not wishing to be prejudiced, I did look briefly at the first video but only very briefly because three minutes was enough geometry for me. I am not saying that the approach is a waste of time, almost twenty six minutes to be exact, but nature has a habit of putting things into places beyond our choosing and before we take a photograph, we do not use a bulldozer or whatever else first.

So I will continue to manage without the geometry, choose my viewpoint intuitively, where I can, and afterwards...

"But - what all this has too do with HCB and composition, I have not the slightest idea."

Everything. There are no laws, except in the heads of people who invent them.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2017 at 06:06 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: The earth does not go around the sun as it does because it follows the laws of gravity. The earth goes around the sun as it does and we invented schema to describe it, to make it more intelligible to the human mind.

Likewise, there are no rules of composition or, if you wish to disagree with me, that's my rule. Not that I am denying that certain compositions work better than others, so guidelines rather than rules may be useful if one lacks an innate sense of what works and what does not.

Not wishing to be prejudiced, I did look briefly at the first video but only very briefly because three minutes was enough geometry for me. I am not saying that the approach is a waste of time, almost twenty six minutes to be exact, but nature has a habit of putting things into places beyond our choosing and before we take a photograph, we do not use a bulldozer or whatever else first.

So I will continue to manage without the geometry, choose my viewpoint intuitively, where I can, and afterwards...

That was not my point. The earth going around the sun or, for example, hit a billiard ball violently so that many others move does not need laws to happen. We need laws to understand them, man made laws that fit what we observe and enable us to anticipate other, similar events.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2017 at 20:18 UTC

It is a well known fact that Henri Cartier-Bresson used an Albalda viewfinder on his Leica and had it modified. Normal ones just show lines to mark the rectangle for the field of view, maybe with additional indications to allow for parallax error close up. He also had a special camera body that took frames 24mm x 33.9mm (ratio 1:√2).

His viewfinder had the extra lines for dynamic symmetry and it was just about possible to see tiny bits of the actual subject through the spaces left in between.

Cartier-Bresson is often considered a genius in his street, oops I nearly said field, because he has such wonderful reflexes he could sense when to press the shutter release ahead of the event, so that by the time the short delay occurred before the exposure was taken, the subject had moved into the position he had anticipated. I doubt if even a 100m world class sprinter has reflexes to match that.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2017 at 17:15 UTC as 75th comment | 1 reply

Another thought is that there are no straight lines in nature, so the grid should have been made up with curves. They could not be circular, either, because that is a special case of an ellipse or whatever, so therefore unnaturally regular.

I often notice how beautiful the asymmetrical balance of a tree and its branches can be. Really! Which laws of composition do they follow, Mr Tavis Leaf Glover?

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2017 at 17:01 UTC as 78th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

mostlylost: This article is nothing more than a marketing vehicle for the author.

In this world there are a few geniuses, people who understand or create what is beyond us. We then may learn something new and profound, interesting or useful. In that regard, most of us are, through lack of choice, sheep and there is nothing wrong in that where there is no alternative.

And then we have these guys trying to make a reputation or a buck, having nothing to say but willing to make fools of themselves by saying it anyway. Trouble is there is an awful lot of them. And an awful lot of fols who take them seriously and do not reckon the king's new clothes.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2017 at 16:49 UTC

The earth does not go around the sun as it does because it follows the laws of gravity. The earth goes around the sun as it does and we invented schema to describe it, to make it more intelligible to the human mind.

Likewise, there are no rules of composition or, if you wish to disagree with me, that's my rule. Not that I am denying that certain compositions work better than others, so guidelines rather than rules may be useful if one lacks an innate sense of what works and what does not.

Not wishing to be prejudiced, I did look briefly at the first video but only very briefly because three minutes was enough geometry for me. I am not saying that the approach is a waste of time, almost twenty six minutes to be exact, but nature has a habit of putting things into places beyond our choosing and before we take a photograph, we do not use a bulldozer or whatever else first.

So I will continue to manage without the geometry, choose my viewpoint intuitively, where I can, and afterwards...

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2017 at 16:36 UTC as 89th comment | 6 replies

Up until now I have been using just one cabin size case which is only just big enough for my DSLR and three lenses. So, as most airlines allow a camera as a separate additional item, my MFT and two lenses go in small holdall over my shoulder.

I have had no choice but to consign my binoculars to checked in luggage, so as well as a very well padded case for it, I pack that in between socks and underwear, so far without mishap.

However, in future I am going to book premium economy and depending upon the airline and where to, that allows two cabin size cases instead of the usual one and a bit more leg room.

Another alternative where a second cabin case is not allowed is to fit out a cabin sized case for cameras and lenses, plus the binoculars but minus the holdalls and put the holdalls in checked in baggage, with other stuff inside them that goes in that suit case anyway.

As a last resort, I will choose where I holiday partly based upon where I can have the cabin luggage I need.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2017 at 19:52 UTC as 113th comment
On article Throwback Thursday: Adobe Lightroom 1.0 (124 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Maybe, they will have a throw back Thursday for the latest version and get to it soon.

If the option with that and other software was to keep files in the PC type directory hierarchy, allowing you to move files and subdirectories around with no side effects and you were not forced to use catalogs, even I might have been interested. After all, it does have some good points.

Greybalanced, after mulling on your last contribution here, I think perhaps you are saying that inter-activity is supported if you trigger everything first from within Lightroom. If so, I take your point. Still, that is not what I want to do.

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2017 at 08:57 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Adobe Lightroom 1.0 (124 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Maybe, they will have a throw back Thursday for the latest version and get to it soon.

If the option with that and other software was to keep files in the PC type directory hierarchy, allowing you to move files and subdirectories around with no side effects and you were not forced to use catalogs, even I might have been interested. After all, it does have some good points.

greybalanced, it is clear you know what you are talking about, so I bow to your knowledge on this. However, I only understand what you are saying up to the point that you are contradicting my claims about Lightroom. I would have to understand a lot more to be able to apply what you say and, since I cannot, my claims in actual practice persist.

I would want to be able to do things including naming of new versions of files in and outside of Lightroom and have everything visible wherever changes are made regardless. Since I can see how to do this any more than when we started, I can only conclude that some guys can do it but, without a Masters Degree in file organisation, I cannot and never will. I can do without the complications that Lightroom imposes, even if it works and for me therefore it doesn't.

I do not have this problem with any other software I use for image processing and that's the difference.

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2017 at 05:11 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Adobe Lightroom 1.0 (124 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Maybe, they will have a throw back Thursday for the latest version and get to it soon.

If the option with that and other software was to keep files in the PC type directory hierarchy, allowing you to move files and subdirectories around with no side effects and you were not forced to use catalogs, even I might have been interested. After all, it does have some good points.

graybalanced My impression is you are overlooking certain factors.

It is unrealistic that, maybe over several weeks, I have my memory card at hand. My first step is to copy all the files to my hard drive and then clear it.

I want to keep my original files in the directories I assign them to and use other software on them and keep in a working directory until finished independent of which software(s) I have been using.

Say I had a file processed in Lightroom and then other software, even the other way around, then want the output from any of that software renamed to differentiate eg N103102.nef to N103102@LR_V1.tif etc so I can go back and reprocess from part way if I want to. I keep such files in a separate working directory, so if I want to go back I have only that directory to go and look for them. That is how I always do my work.

I cannot then go back into Lightroom should I want to do more work there and expect to find the revised file(s) without rebuilding the catalog. QED

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2017 at 08:49 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Adobe Lightroom 1.0 (124 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: Maybe, they will have a throw back Thursday for the latest version and get to it soon.

If the option with that and other software was to keep files in the PC type directory hierarchy, allowing you to move files and subdirectories around with no side effects and you were not forced to use catalogs, even I might have been interested. After all, it does have some good points.

The files for images from a quality camera are pretty big. So, Greybalanced, being able to copy them into Lightroom and having to is not acceptable. Nor is only being able to track changes to the file structure within it. Part of the reason is that I use other image processing software and would want to continue to do so.

I find the standard computer file structure quite satisfactory and want to keep to it universally, but I can appreciate that other people mat not agree about that.

Maybe a common reason people like the catalog is that digital encourages them to take zillions of shots, rather than reason out what is going to work before they press the shutter release. On a 23 day trip to SW USA I visited several key sites like Zion, Bryce and the Grand Canyon and, excluding extra frames for exposure bracketing, only took 100 shots. However, about 75% were really successful and I think "overkill" is justified with a large succession of frames only for action photography.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 06:33 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Adobe Lightroom 1.0 (124 comments in total)

Maybe, they will have a throw back Thursday for the latest version and get to it soon.

If the option with that and other software was to keep files in the PC type directory hierarchy, allowing you to move files and subdirectories around with no side effects and you were not forced to use catalogs, even I might have been interested. After all, it does have some good points.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 20:36 UTC as 19th comment | 12 replies

Most people in most countries are decent enough, whatever the kind of political regimes governing their countries. Isn't it a pity that a few scum spoil it for so many?

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 20:29 UTC as 24th comment
In reply to:

HenryDJP: While I do not know (or will pretend to know) Leica's financial health status, I cannot see how they are going to continue to survive catering to an extremely niche amount of consumers. When an aspiring photographer that wants to go "pro" for his business or a photographer that is a diehard enthusiast, the 2 major brands that will come to mind are Nikon and Canon. Sony's name may come up in 3rd, followed by Olympus and possibly FujiFilm. Leica just isn't in the top ten for consideration.
I've bought many cameras for years but needed to get a couple of pro cameras for my business. I've always known of Leica but was not going to pay for it, period. The camera body's are insanely too expensive when glass is first and foremost the most important along with the photographer's skills.
During sporting events, Nikon and Canon are used only. That's enough to tell you that Leica is not the preferred camera for pros.

When all is said and done, one thing is clear. And that is that the Leica name no longer has or deserves the reputation that once made it the cameras of choice to those who could afford it.

Hasselblad film cameras in the medium format were as highly regarded as Leica was for 35mm. If Hasselblad has managed to prosper with digital, then Leica too ought to have done so.

Furthermore, if Leica is owned by just two shareholders, that is a very unhealthy situation. Each will have had too much sway. So maybe that has something to do with it.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 20:19 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: The picture of the volcano is excellent and those looking at the Rembrandt is beautiful, but none of the others - just the usual only somewhat better than usual mediocre stuff, even if technically some are well taken. Many, in fact, IMO have nothing to do with the kind of material you would expect in a Nat Geo magazine. Strange that they are getting into this. But then, discretion these days is only a historic phenomenon.

Amazing to capture it, no doubt about that. Bur so what? I do not think it is an outstanding picture.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 13:41 UTC
In reply to:

yahoo2u: If Nikon go APSC/FF mirrorless with an adapter for the DX/FX lenses, i'm in.

If Nikon go FF mirrorless with a range of lenses, where bodies and lenses are ALL small and lightweight, then I might regret recently buying my D610 but only then. Partly depends upon the EVF. I do not like EVF at all, even the best, and that is not likely to change.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 07:51 UTC

The picture of the volcano is excellent and those looking at the Rembrandt is beautiful, but none of the others - just the usual only somewhat better than usual mediocre stuff, even if technically some are well taken. Many, in fact, IMO have nothing to do with the kind of material you would expect in a Nat Geo magazine. Strange that they are getting into this. But then, discretion these days is only a historic phenomenon.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 07:29 UTC as 28th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

keepreal: If camera manufacturers did not release a new camera as frequently as they have done since the digital era started, maybe they would not have lost their focus. In the film era, we had little or none of this and that was better for both customer and manufacturer.

True technological progress is incredibly fast, but do we really need to keep up with the best possible and change our equipment when that best gets better? For most of us, I think not but many consumers think the ability to make huge images of top quality a requirement even when they never do so.

They are conditioned into this largely because of marketing strategies that brainwash materialistic people into ill considered purchases.

As a senior citizen, most visiting DPR are not, I could be accused of seeing the past through rose coloured spectacles. My vision is good enough that my conclusions do not rely upon any such assistance, both meanings intended.

In short, Nikon has been chasing the buck, not coherent progress.

At the crazy prices now demanded for the better equipment, what you say is true, but not if the market returned to sanity. Unfortunately that is not going to happen.

It is not just the prices. The size and weight of most camera bodies and many lenses is ridiculous. Digital ought to have been used to create the opportunity for equipment to get smaller and lighter as well as better than with full frame 35mm film. Yet even many lenses for MFT are huge. Old lens designs are being issued by companies like Meyer, extortion being crowd funded for no good reason other than enough of the public are stupid enough to encourage it. Even Leica has joined the bandwagon and owning a recent model is an exercise in snobbery, no longer in superior quality.

The industry is totally out of control.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 07:15 UTC

If camera manufacturers did not release a new camera as frequently as they have done since the digital era started, maybe they would not have lost their focus. In the film era, we had little or none of this and that was better for both customer and manufacturer.

True technological progress is incredibly fast, but do we really need to keep up with the best possible and change our equipment when that best gets better? For most of us, I think not but many consumers think the ability to make huge images of top quality a requirement even when they never do so.

They are conditioned into this largely because of marketing strategies that brainwash materialistic people into ill considered purchases.

As a senior citizen, most visiting DPR are not, I could be accused of seeing the past through rose coloured spectacles. My vision is good enough that my conclusions do not rely upon any such assistance, both meanings intended.

In short, Nikon has been chasing the buck, not coherent progress.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2017 at 22:01 UTC as 44th comment | 5 replies

if anyone thinks this is a defacto dell advertisement, as cosinaphile suggests they might, they should take into account experiences like mine.

I used to have a Dell desktop and a notebook.

One of the switches on the monitor for the desktop jammed, so would not work after just a few months. Things like that can happen but they sent me two replacements in succession. Neither functioned on first switching on. Furthermore, they were not new but from their repair department. I complained very vocally and was relieved finally to be given a new monitor. But I should not have been put through this.

On the notebook, there was no hard drive, 16 gb of flash memory. That failed three months after the warranty expired but they replaced it free. However, the replacement failed about nine months later.

After that, I will never ever buy anything Dell. You might wish to take my experiences into account.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 21:15 UTC as 318th comment | 3 replies
Total: 307, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »