Klaus dk

Klaus dk

Lives in Denmark Virum, Denmark
Works as a IT developer
Joined on Oct 6, 2006
About me:

To protect my pictures from unsolicited editing, I have removed all references to my work.

Comments

Total: 59, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Marksphoto: nothing will outperform a quality lens.

Your answer would have been more correct if you had left out the last six words. My understanding of physics - as well as many other things - is limited, and I know.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 22:07 UTC
In reply to:

Marksphoto: nothing will outperform a quality lens.

With a limited understanding of physics, one will assume that the only possible way to get a certain result is by using the already know methods.
Thus, before the Wright brothers flew in a machine heavier than air, some scientists were convinced that such a machine would not fly.
Likewise, you seem to think that the only way to focus light is a "quality lens". Suppose the contraption outlined in the Harvard pages quoted actually does what it is said to to, you either have to change your definition of "quality lens" to include said contraption, or look rather silly.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2016 at 23:31 UTC
In reply to:

Marksphoto: nothing will outperform a quality lens.

An no machine heavier than air can ever fly.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 09:47 UTC
In reply to:

cdembrey: The truth is that for most things, image-quality DOES NOT MATTER.

It doesn't matter on Social Media, the BIGGEST consumer of photos, by far. It may matter to all of those wildlife/fine-art photographers who sell a few prints on smugmug.

@cdembrey: Exactly. The affordable "good enough for pro" cameras are here already. I'm not saying we could not dream of higher sensitivity, more pixels, less weight and sharper glass, but we're close enough to say "it's not the camera, it's the photographer".

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2016 at 08:53 UTC
In reply to:

cdembrey: The truth is that for most things, image-quality DOES NOT MATTER.

It doesn't matter on Social Media, the BIGGEST consumer of photos, by far. It may matter to all of those wildlife/fine-art photographers who sell a few prints on smugmug.

I honestly do not think high quality ("pro") photography will disappear. If it was only a matter of getting good enough affordable cameras, it would have disappeared years ago. The skilled photographer who can see, compose, connect, and light will survive.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2016 at 14:08 UTC
In reply to:

daniel gautreau: Made in China! I had the Mark III, dropped it, (not from very high) & it completely fell apart! I now shot with Fuji!

Drop 100 of each camera from the same hight and see how many of each brand survive. Statistics 101.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2016 at 10:41 UTC
In reply to:

kierenlon: I've recently started printing again. It's a slower but much nicer sharing experience passing around a deck of 7x5 prints. Sadly film and print is on it's way out out with social media sharing.

By all means. So much for dialogue.

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2016 at 06:30 UTC
In reply to:

kierenlon: I've recently started printing again. It's a slower but much nicer sharing experience passing around a deck of 7x5 prints. Sadly film and print is on it's way out out with social media sharing.

Well, if the purpose of printning is to pass 5 by 7" prints around, then the way they were made is of less significance. Sadness over the loss of photosensitive paper and film I do not share. Toxic chemicals and difficult to control, no thanks.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 16:10 UTC
In reply to:

kierenlon: I've recently started printing again. It's a slower but much nicer sharing experience passing around a deck of 7x5 prints. Sadly film and print is on it's way out out with social media sharing.

But you can still print your digital photos on nice, thick paper. Photosensitive paper that must be exposed and developed in a darkroom is not the only option.

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2016 at 01:48 UTC

This is close to being every APS-C portrait photographer's wet dream, and you have one! picture of a person in the gallery. Excuse me, but what were you thinking?
Can you confirm the rather pronounced chromatic abberation?

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2016 at 21:27 UTC as 7th comment
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (362 comments in total)
In reply to:

0rton: What I'd really like to see is a manufacture simply create a digital Super 8mm cartridge. Create a cartridge with a sensor in the place where the film plane would normally be and have it take pictures/frames activated by the pulldown claw in the camera. It would universally function in any vintage camera and "reanimate" entire generations of otherwise retired camera hardware.

petepictures: why not just use paper and pencil to get that ultra-personal look and feel? You could even get colour pencils.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2016 at 13:09 UTC
On article Kodak revives Super 8 with part-digital cine camera (362 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aroart: Any one know why they call it supper 8. when its so mini..lol... Long live the Bohemian film makers...

Franco: mm, not cm. 5.79 cm x 4.01 cm is close to the original 645 format.

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2016 at 13:06 UTC
On photo Catnip Catastrophe in the That Darn Cat challenge (1 comment in total)

Who ... me?

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2016 at 10:50 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

SmilerGrogan: Since this is an America site, it would be of more reader service to use nomenclature that reflects the usage patterns of the bulk of your readership. In America the term used is generally "AC power" or "house current" rather than "mains." In US parlance, "main" is generally reserved for the large-diameter water and sewer pipes that are buried in the street. Also "ground" is the preferred usage rather than "earth" when discussing the part of a circuit that carries current to a rod embedded in our planet.

Since when was this an American site? It was born in Great Britain and is now based on both sides of the Atlantic.
"Two great nations divided by a common language"
When will you guys go metric like the rest of the civilised world?

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2015 at 19:32 UTC
In reply to:

Klaus dk: Could someone please explain to me why it is so important to criticise everything with a Leica logo? Leica's pricing policy clearly states that Leica wants to be in a class for themselves, where the financially less endoved need not go.
Let the wealthy spend fortunes on Leica gear if they please and it makes them happy. This is not what rocks the foundation of society.

... and if you are so damn smart, why aren't you rich yourself?

PS - just for the record, I have no wish to own a Leica.

Who says I'm not? And is my opinion worth less if I am?

Link | Posted on Aug 26, 2014 at 17:27 UTC
In reply to:

Klaus dk: Could someone please explain to me why it is so important to criticise everything with a Leica logo? Leica's pricing policy clearly states that Leica wants to be in a class for themselves, where the financially less endoved need not go.
Let the wealthy spend fortunes on Leica gear if they please and it makes them happy. This is not what rocks the foundation of society.

... and if you are so damn smart, why aren't you rich yourself?

PS - just for the record, I have no wish to own a Leica.

Guess I just repeted a common quote. I don't think there's much correlation either.
I was referring to those members who can see they can get similar IQ for less money elsewhere, and need to tell the rest of the world how smart they are.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2014 at 21:08 UTC

Could someone please explain to me why it is so important to criticise everything with a Leica logo? Leica's pricing policy clearly states that Leica wants to be in a class for themselves, where the financially less endoved need not go.
Let the wealthy spend fortunes on Leica gear if they please and it makes them happy. This is not what rocks the foundation of society.

... and if you are so damn smart, why aren't you rich yourself?

PS - just for the record, I have no wish to own a Leica.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2014 at 12:18 UTC as 30th comment | 6 replies
On article Flashpoint Budget Studio Monolight Review (45 comments in total)
In reply to:

electrophoto: Quote: "While portraits are not my thing (I like product photography because the subjects don't speak or have opinions)"

Thanks... that made my day!

Electrophoto, I also found the reasoning behind preferring product photography funny, and I too value humour and good writing skills.

It is sad but true, however, that the success of humour depends on both language and frame of reference, so it has to be treated carefully.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2014 at 14:47 UTC
On article Flashpoint Budget Studio Monolight Review (45 comments in total)
In reply to:

Klaus dk: Frequently questions about creating a small, low budget, home studio for portraits are asked on the forums, so the idea of testing entry level strobes is really good.

Usually, strobes are recommended for portrait photography because they provide power, speed and low heat dissipation, things that are irrelevant for product photography. It is generally accepted that continuous lights are cheaper and better for product photography because the photographer can immediately see the results of every little change in the lighting.

Why then, would DPR choose a reviewer, who shoots products and does not care for portraits, for this review?

The resulting review suffers from this, since two severe shortcomings of these strobes in portrait photography are not mentioned: the unability to mount modifiers other than those with a shaft, and the very narrow power variability of the strobes. A 300 Ws strobe used as a main will necessitate a narrow aperture and give no room for using DoF creatively.

Mike,
Since I have strobes, I also now and then use them for product photography, but a low budget solution for product photography would most probably be based on CFLs, LEDs or incadescents.

As for portrait photography, you failed to mention the consequences of the limited selection of modifiers and of the limited power range (DoF control).

You cannot expect beginners to anticipate such problems, so in a review targeting entry level photographers, mentioning them is even more relevant.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2014 at 14:36 UTC
On article Flashpoint Budget Studio Monolight Review (45 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jim Salvas: There are a couple of important things missing from this review.

For instance, a 75W modeling lamp sounds useless for portrait work. Was it?

How do you -- or can you -- attach a softbox or any light modifier other than the umbrella?

luigibozi: Perhaps, but any Profoto modifier will be more expensive than the kit, so a strobe with a Bowens S-mount and cheap modifiers would be a better solution.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2014 at 13:41 UTC
Total: 59, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »