dprived prev

dprived prev

Joined on Jul 5, 2012

Comments

Total: 456, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

couldn't shopping online from the original maker (in this case Canon cameras and accessories) via their official website solve stupid problems like this? (or are there counterfeit 'official' websites of famous brands too?!)

yes, i know, enforced marketing policies do not let even the original manufacturers of certain highly-in-demand items be the sole suppliers of their own products, and of course selling via third party dealers can also bring about more profit especially when the latter is able to buy wholesale from the company, hence a mess like this we see at times ...

but there must be other solutions to this problem ... at least reputable retail stores and established photography shop chains shouldn't fall victim to such scams when buying directly from the original company, thus offering genuine items to the end purchasers ...

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2021 at 08:30 UTC as 7th comment
In reply to:

dprived prev: that man's left eye sample looks really good after being upscaled by this 'new' tool ...

but the point is, it's from an MF photo file that's already super-hires by default ... any samples showing this tool's miraculous results on a say, 16MP APS-C size sensor by any chance? (don't think so!) ;-)

well ... i've been stuck in similar situations too: a client sends stamp size digital files of images whose originals can be truly fine and in super large size after i search and find them elsewhere on the Internet myself ... but i'm sure you agree that a stamp size image of say 100x200 pixels, no matter how fine in quality, resolution and color depth, can NEVER EVER be enlarged to say 1000x2000 pixels looking good as well ... i don't think even this SL proggie here can do such a miracle!?

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2021 at 07:58 UTC

that man's left eye sample looks really good after being upscaled by this 'new' tool ...

but the point is, it's from an MF photo file that's already super-hires by default ... any samples showing this tool's miraculous results on a say, 16MP APS-C size sensor by any chance? (don't think so!) ;-)

Link | Posted on Mar 29, 2021 at 09:21 UTC as 9th comment | 3 replies
On article SanDisk introduces 128MB SD card (1 comment in total)

yes, i know it's TOOOOOO LATE for commenting here ... but i got a used but in really good shape camera plus some extras (lenses, flash etc) at a very low price and one Canon 128MH card yesterday ... searching around to find out why it says MH instead of MB (and haven't found a good answer for it yest btw!) i came across this page ...

man, in two decades, first of all, no manufacturers even make these anymore! and secondly, a 128GB card of the same design and size can be purchased as low as $20 and maybe less! go figure ... :D

there are some 128MB cards to be found on ebay and similar places though ... anyone wants one? ;-)

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2021 at 11:12 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

Andrew Higgins: Such a shame that Pentax are a brand/manufacturer who have fallen from their 'glory years' as this K-3iii is clearly a well designed, pro' spec camera.

true that ... but Pentax isn't the only one ... besides, let's consider great brands such as Contax or Minolta that are totally gone! especially Contax, which was one of the best in its class and category! Minolta had a slightly better fate though as Sony bought it ...

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2021 at 10:15 UTC

where is that little window that tells us how many people have this, how many want it and how many had it already? ;-)

(asking for a curious friend who always wondered why there are some people on DPreview's lists who claim they have had a camera or lens whatever that's not even produced yet?!) :D

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2021 at 10:04 UTC as 4th comment
On article Are mechanical film cameras better than electronic? (376 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jim222: Pentax Spotmatic
Mechanical silk
I love to hear your shutter run...

Seriously, I have been using Canon DSLRs since the original Rebel, but I keep my old Canon F1 on my bedroom bureau. Every now and then I pick it up and fire off a one or two second exposure just to hear that sweet gear train and shutter. I might even fire off several mock exposures to feel the precision of the shutter release. Squeezing the shutter button down until it is just a hair from releasing and then the tiniest bit more for the softest shake free release.

in fact, if we have some old (as well as new) cameras, electronic or fully mechanical, digital or film or whatever that we seldom use, it's a good idea to fire their shutters away (as well as turn their lenses focus knobs etc) to let their various mechanisms work once a while in order to prevent 'clogs' ... (that's pretty much the same with a car or bike or other mechanical devices that are left unused ... they'll last longer this way rather than when untouched!)

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2020 at 09:00 UTC
On article Are mechanical film cameras better than electronic? (376 comments in total)

the only major reason a camera with a fully mechanical shutter mechanism is more favorable over one having an electronically controlled shutter mechanism is that the former one DOES work without a battery while the latter's shutter control is either totally unusable, or, at its best, it's limited when there's no battery inside the camera! otherwise, an electronically-controlled shutter mechanism is actually more advanced as well as more accurate thus better than a fully mechanical one ...

then comes the lightmeter thing that requires a battery to work ... the point is experienced photographers can still do quite a lot of work without a lightmeter, and even with a TTL lightmeter, there may still be unavoidable exposure errors especially when using fully automatic cameras UNLESS the photographer knows how to tackle such issues ... all in all, there was a time even camera lightmeters didn't need a battery to work really! and yes, they weren't very good lightmeters ... :-)

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2020 at 08:56 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

MILC man: @cdembrey - "That's how to get into pro video, with little money spent."

look at the crippled specs:

"Headphone output - Unavailable" https://www.sigma-global.com/en/cameras/fp-series/specifications/

it has a stereo minijack input, but no headphone jack to monitor the audio? that's not a pro feature set, audio is 50% of the presentation.

how can we have "blackS" (in plural) when there's only 1 single black at the end of the spectrum of both tones and colors?!? really? or am i missing something here?

Link | Posted on May 23, 2020 at 01:50 UTC

this is not a new idea as most other comments here also agree and it's not much of a 'real' digital camera either ... fine, but think of the possibilities for many photographers, from totally amateur ones to enthusiast and even up to the super pro who either have some old but still working film camera bodies that they can now put to some good use, even if it's just for fun, or they can just buy those bodies ...

the only problem here though, would be the limitations of camera bodies that cannot accept a back easily because if we are to cut the back door out of the camera for good so this device fits, then that's not such a good idea really! not for me at least anyway ...

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2020 at 09:38 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

dprived prev: great ...

but that's also the problem with 'heavy' image-editing using Photoshop or any program: at least 15 minutes spent on each photo to achieve some fancy effects ...

now imagine you have at least 1000 photos to be treated in such a manner, each photo requiring different approaches to color-change or whatever the 'effect' we want to apply to it ...

simple basic math:

1000 photos × 15' each = 15`000 minutes total / 60' in an hour = 250 hours or more than 10 full 24-hour days!

and since we can't work for more than 12 hours a day (not including the breaks) really (unless we're going to commit suicide or something by overworking our bodies, and minds?!) such a huge project would take how long?

you do the math here please!

btw, the very well recorded (pro lighting and good quality sound and all) tutorial shown here, although quite fine in its own respect, suffers from one big flaw most similar ones do: starting with a handsome (or often not so handsome!) speaker artist talking directly into the camera lens (as if we're watching news on tv or something?) with a boring lengthy introduction narrative and then getting into the main subject, showing how things are actually done ...

videos with the reverse approach are more successful imo: show some before/after side by side samples of the final image results first and then if the viewers are interested, they'd be more than happy to go on watching the show off (teaching of) how it's done too! (and no need to show the instructor's Hollywood-star nice looking face really! some videos don't even use VO btw ... only some plain maybe animated text and some suitable low-volume background music + a little appropriate sound effects can do the job well enough ...)

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2020 at 09:22 UTC
In reply to:

bookman100: Things have changed significantly over the years. I worked at a large studio in NYC in the late 1960's. About 50% of what we did was food photography for packaging. Swanson, Snowkist etc. It was mostly 8x10 transparency photography. Besides having several stylists on each shoot we also has at least one lawyer employed by the company. The laws at the time said the images had to reflect the reality the buyer would experience. You couldn't produce images that were impossible for the home user to duplicate. It looks like that went out the window since then.

good points ... there are still similar laws and rules applicable to commercial photography even today ... but you're also right that it's kind of 'easier to cheat' these days than it was in the past ... (comparable to how 'easier' digital imaging has taken over 'more complex' photographic emulsion on film materials and processes ...)

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2020 at 09:12 UTC
In reply to:

Shiranai: Not a really good way to do this, it makes it look unreal, cause it overwrites every tonal variation to the ones in the linear gradient. But pixels don't have uniform colors, some pixels even in a pink lipstick might be slighty blue-ish, slightly green-ish and so on.
There are easier ways to do this which look more realistic.

point well taken ... but apparently that's the idea here: to turn a realistic photo into looking non-realistic ... or hyper-realistic ... or ... to 'change' things for a 'different' look ...

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2020 at 09:08 UTC

great ...

but that's also the problem with 'heavy' image-editing using Photoshop or any program: at least 15 minutes spent on each photo to achieve some fancy effects ...

now imagine you have at least 1000 photos to be treated in such a manner, each photo requiring different approaches to color-change or whatever the 'effect' we want to apply to it ...

simple basic math:

1000 photos × 15' each = 15`000 minutes total / 60' in an hour = 250 hours or more than 10 full 24-hour days!

and since we can't work for more than 12 hours a day (not including the breaks) really (unless we're going to commit suicide or something by overworking our bodies, and minds?!) such a huge project would take how long?

you do the math here please!

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2020 at 09:06 UTC as 4th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

dprived prev: fine test and well done too! but i believe the best way to do such a test would be to print photos of the same images at the maximum size the sensor can handle and then compare the printed images side by side in a well lit room with standard 'exhibition' lighting! video, no matter how high-res, cannot do justice on even the best of medium to large size monitors as conversion of a still digital photo to video kills a lot of detail anyway!

or, give us the original image files in RAW format, if possible, so we can download and compare them ourselves on our own monitors! :-)

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2020 at 05:36 UTC

fine test and well done too! but i believe the best way to do such a test would be to print photos of the same images at the maximum size the sensor can handle and then compare the printed images side by side in a well lit room with standard 'exhibition' lighting! video, no matter how high-res, cannot do justice on even the best of medium to large size monitors as conversion of a still digital photo to video kills a lot of detail anyway!

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2020 at 05:34 UTC as 1st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

dprived prev: test

sorry had to make the 'test' comment as the page didn't let me post the actual, longer, comment!

here:

aside from all the other criticisms others have (so rightly!) made in their comments, couldn't almost any bike out there do similar things when equipped with similar extras shown here?!

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2020 at 05:26 UTC

test

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2020 at 05:04 UTC as 3rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

jonby: Great to see some development in this area. Multigrade IV is a quality paper and I'm sure this will be just as good if not better.

I used to use AGFA Ortho film in 35mm to produce positive black and white slides from black and white 35mm negatives. It worked great, with deep, rich blacks, beautiful grey tones and very fine grain. You could control contrast pretty well by varying development time. Not quite sure whether this film will have the same characteristics, but would be good to have the ability to work in this way again.

this was Agfa Cine Positive film material, a product no longer available i think, and it wasn't found in regular photo stores of the time, since it came in 1000' rolls only and you had to purchase it from Agfa itself directly, or from vendors that did have them for cinematographic uses ...

it's a totally different beast compared to 'regular' films starting @ ISO-25 for example, such as certain B&W films like Kodak's Panatomic-X negative film (IS0-32) or the fabulous now discontinued Kodachrome films (ISO-25 and ISO-40) none to be found anymore!

even Agfa's own B&W Diapositive (slide) film (ISO-32, processed by Agfa's own labs via postal order, similar to the Kodachrome) is no longer around! (a great film btw!) the Agfa Cine Positive film was marked @ ISO-03 by default but you could 'pull' that down; or 'push' it up to ISO-25+ ... that is, if you can still find it! it's similar to working with lith film so to say, albeit when making it to produce full-tone panchromatic images ...

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2019 at 22:16 UTC
In reply to:

jonby: Great to see some development in this area. Multigrade IV is a quality paper and I'm sure this will be just as good if not better.

I used to use AGFA Ortho film in 35mm to produce positive black and white slides from black and white 35mm negatives. It worked great, with deep, rich blacks, beautiful grey tones and very fine grain. You could control contrast pretty well by varying development time. Not quite sure whether this film will have the same characteristics, but would be good to have the ability to work in this way again.

i did the same for a while long ago in the 1970s ... also used Agfa Panchromatic B&W ISO-0 (yes: ISO zero!) Cine Positive Film for similar purposes in the 1980s ... and did reversal-processing on the latter material as well, producing amazing B&W slides with full tonal range and rich blacks! such slides are so fine-grained they can be projected on largest movie theater screens with minimal fall-off in image quality! i really want to do that AGAIN!

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2019 at 06:08 UTC
Total: 456, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »