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: 381, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I won Photoshop CS2 way back, have stuck with it. I did try later versions but I prefer the cleaner interface and decided that many of the new features were unnecessary if you really put the effort into becoming something of an expert using the core functionality in the way that your images needed.

Then along came Lightroom and I hated it. Regardless of potential interest in any of its features, I turned it down because catalogs were alien to my thinking, still are.

I stopped using Adobe's free Acrobat reader because it was too bug ridden, was constantly being updated, still crashing regularly. Now I use one of the earlier versions of Foxit, which still works properly and is uncomplicated. I use a separate RAW processor so I do not need an update to CS2.

Everything Adobe now is complicated, overblown, costly and they can go to hell. When Photoshop became subscription, the writing was on the wall. What other people are now saying about Adobe does not surprise me. They are sharks.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 16:10 UTC as 236th comment | 6 replies

I do not think Leica owners will be interested in using vaseline, when instead they can fork out £5095/$6495. More madness as with Meyer and others, but you cannot be surrprised that Leitz is also aiming to cash in.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 06:00 UTC as 41st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Spectro: You don't want to reduce light pollution in la, crime rate would go up. Drive out to the country if you want to see the milky way.

@Spectro "I think you posted to the wrong thread, this one is about crime rate, a little OT from your comment."

LOL

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 12:16 UTC
In reply to:

Spectro: You don't want to reduce light pollution in la, crime rate would go up. Drive out to the country if you want to see the milky way.

Sorry for all the typos, but I expect you can manage to fathom out what is wrong and what I meant to say!

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 22:43 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: Wow. I'd love to see all this and would gladly go on my next summer holiday to a place where it is possible. Maybe I will. Please tell me alternative places, bearing in mind that I live in London, England.

Maybe photographing it shows more here than possible to the naked eye. Can you tell me if that is the case? I have seen lots of spectacular night skies in still photos of various galaxies and the areas nearby where there are enormous clouds of whatever. Is that only possible in photos with long exposures or with merges to effectively up the apparent ISO, or can one see all this with the naked eye and good quality 8 X 40 binoculars?

From Britain you see only a few starts. I have seen more from Italy and a lot more from the USA, but nothing remotely like this.

Herve J. Thanks for the link and very interesting info there. In particular, I did not realise Google Earth had a light pollution view. I have it installed.

[Sorry of I am hogging too much with my replies, but already I have a number of useful responses after having first commented above.]

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 22:07 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: Wow. I'd love to see all this and would gladly go on my next summer holiday to a place where it is possible. Maybe I will. Please tell me alternative places, bearing in mind that I live in London, England.

Maybe photographing it shows more here than possible to the naked eye. Can you tell me if that is the case? I have seen lots of spectacular night skies in still photos of various galaxies and the areas nearby where there are enormous clouds of whatever. Is that only possible in photos with long exposures or with merges to effectively up the apparent ISO, or can one see all this with the naked eye and good quality 8 X 40 binoculars?

From Britain you see only a few starts. I have seen more from Italy and a lot more from the USA, but nothing remotely like this.

Funny you mention Inverness, @krmuir. See what I said about that below in reply when @Spectro said you don't want to reduce light pollution in la, crime rate would go up. Drive out to the country if you want to see the milky way.

Now I have yet another reason to visit Scotland as often as possible.

As I recall Muir is a good Scottish name. so do you have the benefit or living in or near the Highlands?

I'd love to do so myself, but the distance from London does not stop me driving up there on holiday. In May I stayed in Callander for a short trip, expecting it to be tame compared with the best parts I have seen over about eight visits. And while Skye in particular is very beautiful. even the less spectacular venues in the Highlands are pretty good too. On land that is, but I gather looking up at night too!

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 21:56 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: Wow. I'd love to see all this and would gladly go on my next summer holiday to a place where it is possible. Maybe I will. Please tell me alternative places, bearing in mind that I live in London, England.

Maybe photographing it shows more here than possible to the naked eye. Can you tell me if that is the case? I have seen lots of spectacular night skies in still photos of various galaxies and the areas nearby where there are enormous clouds of whatever. Is that only possible in photos with long exposures or with merges to effectively up the apparent ISO, or can one see all this with the naked eye and good quality 8 X 40 binoculars?

From Britain you see only a few starts. I have seen more from Italy and a lot more from the USA, but nothing remotely like this.

Thanks @AstrStan. What a pity. I was getting quite excited! A few days ago, there were lots more stars visible looking east from North London than usual; maybe twenty!

I usually look at the might sky out of my bedroom window before I go to sleep. Even when the sky is clear and light pollution lower than usual, I usually see only three or four stars in my field of view. Occasionally, one dot actually is a planet like Venus and I marvel that some of the planets are so bright even from light reflected from the sun back to us, in the case of Venus from 152 million miles away.

Also thanks @brettmeikle. As the Highlands are my favourite place in Britain for the scenery, where I often go on holiday, I will stay up and check out the sky there! For a guy who lives down under, you sure know my neck of the woods.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 21:40 UTC
In reply to:

Lee Jay: Oh, heck yeah!

We shouldn't just get away from light pollution, we should reduce it. Look to Flagstaff, AZ for a guide.

@Lee Jay Oh, heck what? I have been to Flagstaff and it was better than near home anywhere in England for the night sky, but still pretty tame really.

Better from the Lowell Observatory, which I visited there one night. I was lucky to see Saturn but unlucky that the rings where just a straight line as they were in our plane of vision.

It was very blurry, as a result of which I decided not to get my own telescope. Better to see what Cassini captured or photos from NASA and other leading edge equipment for anything in space.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 21:25 UTC
In reply to:

Spectro: You don't want to reduce light pollution in la, crime rate would go up. Drive out to the country if you want to see the milky way.

From what you say, I ought to be ever so grumpy as I sleep terribly badly and have done for years, ever since I retired. Getting old, or being old already (you decide which at 73) I still manage to be cheerful but I would be hugely more cheerful if I could see all this in the heavens!

Its no accident that my interest in photography is landscapes and I especially like mountain scenery. If not for two grown up children nearby in London, England, I'd be off and live somewhere like Inverness. There I would still have the benefits of the city but be near enough every day to be off into the Scottish Highlands, by far the best scenery there is in Great Britain.

I prefer to be and to see the natural world, most of mountain scenery and maybe when you give me the lowdown, the night sky like in this video, It is marvellous what main has achieved on this planet but at a cost, for examples slicks of plastic as large as Texas, and several of them...

Give me nature any day.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 21:09 UTC

Wow. I'd love to see all this and would gladly go on my next summer holiday to a place where it is possible. Maybe I will. Please tell me alternative places, bearing in mind that I live in London, England.

Maybe photographing it shows more here than possible to the naked eye. Can you tell me if that is the case? I have seen lots of spectacular night skies in still photos of various galaxies and the areas nearby where there are enormous clouds of whatever. Is that only possible in photos with long exposures or with merges to effectively up the apparent ISO, or can one see all this with the naked eye and good quality 8 X 40 binoculars?

From Britain you see only a few starts. I have seen more from Italy and a lot more from the USA, but nothing remotely like this.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2017 at 20:56 UTC as 25th comment | 16 replies
On article Nikon's official D850 lens recommendation list (310 comments in total)
In reply to:

daddyo: Be sure to add in the cost of a gym membership. :-)
If you had all that gear, it would indeed be an impressive system.

I'd want a caddy. He can go to the gym if he likes. Why should I?

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 21:04 UTC
On article Nikon's official D850 lens recommendation list (310 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joe Huckleberry: Aren't they just trying to sucker some folks into believing that if you don't have these lenses then your D850 is not going to perform up to par, so, you better break out the credit cards and load up on these?

No. They are trying to say don't buy the D850 unless you are prepared to spend a fortune on lenses they claim are good enough to go with it. I think their recommendations are going to lose them sales, not increase the tally. Idiotic.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 21:02 UTC
On article Nikon's official D850 lens recommendation list (310 comments in total)

I do not believe that 46mp is necessary for normal people making prints up to two feet wide so I do not aspire to a D850, the size and weight making it of no interest to me whatsoever, let alone the cost.

However, it is nice to know that the 20mm f/1.8 I bought with a D610 a year ago today 11th October 2017 is up to snuff without those high prices for the other lenses. They are too high for anyone who wishes to keep his expenditure on amateur photography under control. The 20mm is the lens I use all the time now, as I almost exclusively shoot landscapes and street scenes.

In any case, I would not want any of the other recommended lenses for the D850 even if they cost no more than the 20mm. They are just too big and heavy for use where wide apertures are not necessary. I rarely shoot wider than f/8.

There ought to be a range of f/4 lenses just as good but smaller, lighter and less costly than those on the list.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 20:49 UTC as 115th comment

In a word, daft, but maybe there are also people daft enough to buy it.

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 22:33 UTC as 152nd comment | 1 reply

Soon Gillingham cases will be worth more than their contents. I once had one of their mid-size bags and the quality was great, but the weight was awful so I disposed of it. Even then it was pricey but now Gillingham are going over the top like with those throwback lenses from Meyer and others.

These prices are unconscionable. I would be happier if the wealthy were not so extravagant, except with their contributions to reverse the accelerating inequality between the rich and poor.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2017 at 10:48 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
On article The 7 Commandments of Great Photo Walks (126 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: What does the author do if it is a beautiful morning. Leave his girfriend or the wide angle lens behind? Also, I suggest his foremost constraint in most cases ought to be to confine himself to the path. The mountain rescue do not like to be called out needlessly.

I have another rule, not to be too intent on taking pictures. In many cases a beautiful scene does not make a good picture, so let yourself enjoy it even if that is the case. Fairly often on a walk, my camera does not even leave the bag for that reason but I still appreciate the walk. I prefer not to look for good pictures but let them find me, albeit with an alert eye and mind to see them when they present themselves.

breadbin, actually I agree with you, but you do need to be careful it is safe. When there are dangers, it is not always obvious.

Actually I was intending to make fun of the OP, whose article is silly IMO. Dare I say that I think a lot of the articles are nowadays. I would prefer few and far between, the real meat and none of the scraps. But then, you may disagree with me and I have been rebuked for saying so too persistently.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2017 at 19:43 UTC
On article The 7 Commandments of Great Photo Walks (126 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: What does the author do if it is a beautiful morning. Leave his girfriend or the wide angle lens behind? Also, I suggest his foremost constraint in most cases ought to be to confine himself to the path. The mountain rescue do not like to be called out needlessly.

I have another rule, not to be too intent on taking pictures. In many cases a beautiful scene does not make a good picture, so let yourself enjoy it even if that is the case. Fairly often on a walk, my camera does not even leave the bag for that reason but I still appreciate the walk. I prefer not to look for good pictures but let them find me, albeit with an alert eye and mind to see them when they present themselves.

However it is a good idea to move around where you think something worthy is lurking nearby, the need for the mountain rescue notwithstanding.

[Out of time so could not add this to the original entry.]

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2017 at 14:45 UTC
On article The 7 Commandments of Great Photo Walks (126 comments in total)

What does the author do if it is a beautiful morning. Leave his girfriend or the wide angle lens behind? Also, I suggest his foremost constraint in most cases ought to be to confine himself to the path. The mountain rescue do not like to be called out needlessly.

I have another rule, not to be too intent on taking pictures. In many cases a beautiful scene does not make a good picture, so let yourself enjoy it even if that is the case. Fairly often on a walk, my camera does not even leave the bag for that reason but I still appreciate the walk. I prefer not to look for good pictures but let them find me, albeit with an alert eye and mind to see them when they present themselves.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2017 at 14:27 UTC as 19th comment | 5 replies
On article Yashica is teasing a comeback to the camera market (299 comments in total)
In reply to:

keepreal: The Yashicamat was a nice 2-1/4" twin lens reflex, if you could not afford a Rollei. Otherwise, IMO nothing else they made was up to the competition.

I am referring only to cameras branded as Yashica.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2017 at 06:07 UTC
On article Yashica is teasing a comeback to the camera market (299 comments in total)

The Yashicamat was a nice 2-1/4" twin lens reflex, if you could not afford a Rollei. Otherwise, IMO nothing else they made was up to the competition.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2017 at 22:50 UTC as 55th comment | 2 replies
Total: 381, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »