Macro guy

Macro guy

Joined on Jun 2, 2013

Comments

Total: 135, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

If you're not goimg to publish lens results with uncorrected data, there is no point in reviewing lenses. As the software gets better, all lenses wilk be pretty much the same. Lens correction in effect is smoke and mirrors allowing manufacurers to produce sub par optics and using the software to mask lens deficiencies.

Link | Posted on Jan 9, 2022 at 09:14 UTC as 26th comment | 1 reply
On photo Woman in a hat in the In The Style Of Saul Leiter (colour photography) challenge (2 comments in total)
In reply to:

contadorfan: I love this photo. The palette & dreamy composition is very Leiterish! Congrats on your fine photo.

Thanks! I had Leiter in mind when I took this photo even though that was quite a while before I entered the challenge. I'm surprised it did this poorly.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2021 at 01:56 UTC
In reply to:

David610: If it had rotating back like the Mamiya RB it would have been amazing. Otherwise, a Pentax 645 dual tripod socket would have been good.

Pentax 645 didn't exist back then. Neither did Mamiya 645.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2021 at 02:38 UTC
In reply to:

mastix: Weird article. I also did not understand an iota of what it was all about.

The article was about a way to use digital technologies to buy and sell vaporware.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2021 at 02:02 UTC
In reply to:

Macro guy: The only thing that the NFT proves is the ownership of the NFT. In other words, if I, as a photographer, create an NFT, I use a COPY of one of my images (any resolution at all) and create the NFT. Whoever buys the NFT, owns the NFT with the COPY of the image that I used to create it. NFT doesn't transfer the copyright, nor does it provide any assurances that other copies of that exact image won't be sold as printed images, as digital images or that they couldn't even be downloaded for free. The only thing that the NFT proves is that THIS particular COPY is owned by the NFT holder. There may be an infinite number of copies of that particular image floating out there, in cyberspace and hanging on walls in real space.

So... where's the intrinsic value? Without the intrinsic value, all we have is speculative trading. This is the Dutch tulip market all over again.

@Pantunes The certificate of a screen print signifies that THAT particular screen print was handled by XYZ. Provided that XYZ has some notoriety, the link to that notoriety has some value. What exactly does the NFT signify?

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2021 at 23:48 UTC
In reply to:

Macro guy: The only thing that the NFT proves is the ownership of the NFT. In other words, if I, as a photographer, create an NFT, I use a COPY of one of my images (any resolution at all) and create the NFT. Whoever buys the NFT, owns the NFT with the COPY of the image that I used to create it. NFT doesn't transfer the copyright, nor does it provide any assurances that other copies of that exact image won't be sold as printed images, as digital images or that they couldn't even be downloaded for free. The only thing that the NFT proves is that THIS particular COPY is owned by the NFT holder. There may be an infinite number of copies of that particular image floating out there, in cyberspace and hanging on walls in real space.

So... where's the intrinsic value? Without the intrinsic value, all we have is speculative trading. This is the Dutch tulip market all over again.

Speculative trading relies on the perceived value of others. That's why "hype" exists. It makes it seem as though there is value or more value where there is no intrinsic value.

A stamp, rare or not, has no value. However, a rare stamp has historical value and that of a unique object. Uniqueness has value. That's why a certificate of a silkscreen indicating that it was produced by XYZ has greater value - it's claiming unique space.

NFTs provide none of those. In fact, NFTs are simply vehicles for speculative trading. Package your digital "thing" into an NFT, put it out there, see what happens. The only ones who are not speculating and are engaged in real business are those collecting "gas". That's real money being paid to whoever for having come up with a platform. Happy days to them.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2021 at 20:03 UTC

The only thing that the NFT proves is the ownership of the NFT. In other words, if I, as a photographer, create an NFT, I use a COPY of one of my images (any resolution at all) and create the NFT. Whoever buys the NFT, owns the NFT with the COPY of the image that I used to create it. NFT doesn't transfer the copyright, nor does it provide any assurances that other copies of that exact image won't be sold as printed images, as digital images or that they couldn't even be downloaded for free. The only thing that the NFT proves is that THIS particular COPY is owned by the NFT holder. There may be an infinite number of copies of that particular image floating out there, in cyberspace and hanging on walls in real space.

So... where's the intrinsic value? Without the intrinsic value, all we have is speculative trading. This is the Dutch tulip market all over again.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2021 at 17:45 UTC as 67th comment | 24 replies
In reply to:

Macro guy: What exactly do Chris and Jordan do that requires them to take a "well deserved break?"

It's not 9-5, it allows flexible hours and they can work from home.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2021 at 20:48 UTC
In reply to:

Macro guy: What exactly do Chris and Jordan do that requires them to take a "well deserved break?"

@Giklab if they were to quit, what would they do? Get regular jobs? Pfftttt

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2021 at 18:49 UTC
In reply to:

Macro guy: What exactly do Chris and Jordan do that requires them to take a "well deserved break?"

It seems every day is a holiday for those two.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2021 at 17:56 UTC

What exactly do Chris and Jordan do that requires them to take a "well deserved break?"

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2021 at 16:34 UTC as 45th comment | 10 replies
On article DPReview TV: Great episodes you may have missed! (21 comments in total)

Funny enough, after having watched this video about the videos that nobody watched, I STILL have no desire to watch any of those videos. Go figure.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2021 at 18:21 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

thxbb12: I guess it means that Yongnuo has managed to reverse engineer the RF protocol?
If so, they seem to be the first 3rd party manufacturer to have achieved it.

I would venture to guess that the lens uses EF protocol and the control ring commands have been reverse engineered to provide the same functionality in a lens as third party adapter manufacturers are providing in their adapters.

Link | Posted on Jul 5, 2021 at 23:22 UTC
In reply to:

Macro guy: An interesting exercise in the pointless.

I'm all for pushing oneself further. However, there's pushing the boundaries to achieve something new and original and there's doing things the hard way just for the sake of doing things the hard way. This video falls into the latter category.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2021 at 21:34 UTC
In reply to:

Macro guy: An interesting exercise in the pointless.

@cosinaphile

If we are pursuing a goal of achieving an image, we use tools appropriate to achieving said goal. At any given point of technological development, there is a set of tools that enables us to achieve certain images in the most efficient way. Sure, we can go the inefficient route and beat ourselves in the chest of having achieved a result using a set of tools that are not well suited for the job.

However, if the goal is to achieve the end result, then that's what we should be concentrating on, not the process. Basking in the process negates the artistic endeavor because then it becomes about the process, not about the final image. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, not in the making.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2021 at 22:24 UTC

"We certainly take our photography serious here at DPReview,", but not your grammar,.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2021 at 21:34 UTC as 18th comment
In reply to:

Macro guy: An interesting exercise in the pointless.

If you notice my initial comment, I said that it's ridiculous to shoot wildlife with a 4x5 camera to begin with. ON TOP of that, shooting it on a Polaroid is completely ludicrous. The Polaroid is a cherry on top, it's not the cake.

Photographers who use large format to photograph wildlife do so just because they can, not for any practical or sane reason.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2021 at 20:07 UTC
In reply to:

Macro guy: An interesting exercise in the pointless.

If he's putting out a video and monetizing that video, then he's indeed doing for me. It's me and others like me watching the video that puts money in his pocket.

However, it's not just the video itself, it's also the fact that DPReview picked it up and put it on the front page. They used a wrong title, I think.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2021 at 04:21 UTC
In reply to:

Macro guy: An interesting exercise in the pointless.

I had watched the whole video.

Re: results vs personal experience, what's the point of creating images if the end result isn't worth looking at? Enjoying the process is great, but within the context of creating quality, meaningful work. The process alone is empty, at least when it comes to photography. We create images and we share these images with others. Think of it as cooking. You can certainly enjoy cooking, but if the end result isn't edible, then the process is meaningless.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2021 at 17:49 UTC
In reply to:

Michael Berg: As someone else commented, there are more efficient ways to photograph birds. But I get why a guy like Hofstätter does it this way. If you look at his other work on Youtube, you understand that for a complex, creative person like him the process is what makes the final product unique. Where else can you find a polaroid that was made like that? Nowhere.

I don't own medium format cameras, I don't print lithopanes, I don't particulary like swans or analog photography. But I sure as heck subscribed to his channel - how can you not?

I disagree with that completely. I think that the end result is the only thing that matters. Everything else is fluff.

Link | Posted on Jun 23, 2021 at 11:02 UTC
Total: 135, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »