Guido FORRIER

Lives in Belgium Brugge, Belgium
Works as a photographer (retired)
Joined on Jan 17, 2007
About me:

sony a7R , batis 25 , 85 sony FE 55mm , zeiss distagon 35mm , schneider xenon , xenar
epson 3800 , capture one , iMac 5K etc...

Comments

Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

USN Squid: If one wants to argue purely on technicalities, film still provides much higher resolution than a high-end full-frame DSLR.

Effective theoretical resolution for Fuji Velvia 50: 175 Megapixels:

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

Ken Rockwell's numbers are correct. They are confirmed by several other websites answering the same question.

Next question: can the human eye actually see the difference between 42 - 50 Megapixels (high-end full-frame DSLR's) and 175 Megapixels. The answer is "No". Not even for people who have the Tetrachromacy mutation.

I have nothing against Ken Rockwell but I did not look at the date of his statement :2008 .Now we are 2020 = quite difference ! I apologize for my writing .

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2020 at 19:11 UTC
In reply to:

USN Squid: If one wants to argue purely on technicalities, film still provides much higher resolution than a high-end full-frame DSLR.

Effective theoretical resolution for Fuji Velvia 50: 175 Megapixels:

https://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/film-resolution.htm

Ken Rockwell's numbers are correct. They are confirmed by several other websites answering the same question.

Next question: can the human eye actually see the difference between 42 - 50 Megapixels (high-end full-frame DSLR's) and 175 Megapixels. The answer is "No". Not even for people who have the Tetrachromacy mutation.

Ken Rockwell denies the fact that my Digital camera has NO AA filter and can achieve a resolution of 240.8 megapixels !( Sony A7RIV High Resolution Composite) . Besides Velvia has a very limited dynamic range of just four or five stops (digital 14 stops) .

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2020 at 18:31 UTC

I am scanning old negatives and the only ones I like are the rolfilm negative . the camera was mostly a Rolleiflex 2.8 G . Optics were superb .... but the result of scanning the films is not up to the results of my Sony A7RII with Zeiss glas .
A long time ago I was experiencing with special techniques as gum print . I took a lot of work and messing up with poison chemicals . Now I can print on prepared drawing paper with the pigments of my Epson large format printer .=very creative and good for
nature . Digital opens a whole world , but you have to explore it .

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2020 at 18:15 UTC as 88th comment

i was in Goerlitz tn June : there is nothing that shows any relation with the old Meyer optic company . this company is totally forgotten after "die Wende "
Bad Kreuznach reminds me SCHNEIDER Kreuznach .
https://schneiderkreuznach.com/en
Guido

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2019 at 18:27 UTC as 16th comment
On a photo in the Sony a7R IV sample gallery sample gallery (1 comment in total)

a raw would show more dynamic range and the sky and the building on the very right side will show more detail =wait for "capture one " .

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2019 at 21:27 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

FoxShutter: Looks like whoever criticized Zenit or anything else that’s Russian or soviet ,have no clue what they are talking about. Perhaps they just read “something “ “somewhere” or got a 5$ finding from a thrift store that calls “camera “ There are many examples that prove different and the most interesting and photography related examples would be the Jupiter 11 lenses and LOMO LCA cameras . The rights to manufacture the former was sold to Chinese who still produce them and sell to a great success , for hundreds of dollars, on B&H ( on backorder ) and through Lomography stores.
I own several soviet cameras and lenses and all of them , despite their age , are like new and produce excellent images.

thats right but it is about the optics . they were reasonable good . do not forget that in the meantime technics in Russia are also improving .
https://rostec.ru/en/news/shvabe-optics-to-help-in-environmental-nature-studies/
https://rostec.ru/en/news/zenit-and-leica-present-a-joint-production-camera-in-cologne/

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2019 at 21:36 UTC
In reply to:

FoxShutter: Looks like whoever criticized Zenit or anything else that’s Russian or soviet ,have no clue what they are talking about. Perhaps they just read “something “ “somewhere” or got a 5$ finding from a thrift store that calls “camera “ There are many examples that prove different and the most interesting and photography related examples would be the Jupiter 11 lenses and LOMO LCA cameras . The rights to manufacture the former was sold to Chinese who still produce them and sell to a great success , for hundreds of dollars, on B&H ( on backorder ) and through Lomography stores.
I own several soviet cameras and lenses and all of them , despite their age , are like new and produce excellent images.

about LOMO :
https://astromart.com/auctions/astromart-auctions/telescope-catadioptric/show/12-f45-lomo-maksutov-newtonian-quartz-110th-optics

https://www.urania.be/urania/overons/infrastructuur

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2019 at 13:41 UTC
In reply to:

Biowizard: Shame it's only for Sony. As someone who started out in 35mm photography on a Zenit E camera, I know just how good its lenses could be. And now:

"fully manual without any electronics inside" - YAY!!!
"constructed entirely of glass and metal" - DOUBLE YAY!!!

I'm sick and tired of lenses requiring firmware updates, having communications problems with their host cameras, and so on. Wonderful that someone is producing ACTUAL lenses again!

Brian

https://www.ebay.com/itm/ZENITAR-M-50mm-f-1-7-M42-Russian-Lens-Zenit-KMZ-made-s-n-847806/173827296409?hash=item2878ea0c99:g:D4EAAOSwh0Ncgh-4

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2019 at 13:29 UTC

Russian optics , body parts ( Rostec) Chinese (ore also Rostec) electronics and Sony sensor , assembled in China ?
looks good to me . i think , and i am pretty sure , the relaunch of the Zenit has to do with the Western politics to bash and isolate Russia . This country wil more invest in their civilian market , using the expertise of the their weapon industry . Russia can live without the west and in a "splendid isolation " .
"In 2014, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev put his support behind the initiative to resume production."
"Rostec is a Russian state corporation established in late 2007 to promote development, production and export of hi-tech industrial products for civil and defense sectors. It brings together about 700 entities which form 14 holding companies: eleven holding companies operate in the defense-industry complex and three are involved in civil sectors."

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2017 at 20:50 UTC as 110th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Guido FORRIER: i still have a mf camera but will never use it again . no film anymore . developing film is bad for the environment . slide film has very low DR . digital 35 mm surpasses 35 mm film in resolution , dynamic range and color .
film is not for ever . maybe kodakchrome last longer than ekta , but the support and the emulsion degrade .
digital is simply digits and can be duplicated for ever without any loss . when a storage device is no more available :copy it to an new device/computer system .
film is already processed and you can not go back to the original : digital raw can be also processed in camera ( who knows) but you have always the "original " .
and so on ...(scratches , film not flat ...)
i used film and enveloped it all myself for more than 35 years , so i know something about the pitfalls .
i suppose younger people will buy it as they never used film and will find it "cool" to, go back to the artisanal way .

Guido

haha like myself . but i still have and use the studio strobes = it is all about light.
the enlargers , the thermaphot machines etc... lay still in a storage , unusable and not sellable .
"THERMAPHOT products are being constantly developed to the latest state of the art. They are therefore subject to modifications without notice. As of: September 1998" yes : 1998!
http://www.thermaphot.com/us/acp/pdf/acp252.pdf

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 22:40 UTC
In reply to:

Guido FORRIER: i still have a mf camera but will never use it again . no film anymore . developing film is bad for the environment . slide film has very low DR . digital 35 mm surpasses 35 mm film in resolution , dynamic range and color .
film is not for ever . maybe kodakchrome last longer than ekta , but the support and the emulsion degrade .
digital is simply digits and can be duplicated for ever without any loss . when a storage device is no more available :copy it to an new device/computer system .
film is already processed and you can not go back to the original : digital raw can be also processed in camera ( who knows) but you have always the "original " .
and so on ...(scratches , film not flat ...)
i used film and enveloped it all myself for more than 35 years , so i know something about the pitfalls .
i suppose younger people will buy it as they never used film and will find it "cool" to, go back to the artisanal way .

Guido

that is so but bringing back old polluting films to the market will not change that .
more smart phones also replaces a lot of dslr's . the reason is that taking photo's is now , for a lot of people , related to the social media and not to pure photography . how much selfies are flying around in the ether ? and "polluting" the air with G3,G4 and coming G5 . that is not the fault of digital photography .

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2017 at 22:09 UTC
In reply to:

Guido FORRIER: i still have a mf camera but will never use it again . no film anymore . developing film is bad for the environment . slide film has very low DR . digital 35 mm surpasses 35 mm film in resolution , dynamic range and color .
film is not for ever . maybe kodakchrome last longer than ekta , but the support and the emulsion degrade .
digital is simply digits and can be duplicated for ever without any loss . when a storage device is no more available :copy it to an new device/computer system .
film is already processed and you can not go back to the original : digital raw can be also processed in camera ( who knows) but you have always the "original " .
and so on ...(scratches , film not flat ...)
i used film and enveloped it all myself for more than 35 years , so i know something about the pitfalls .
i suppose younger people will buy it as they never used film and will find it "cool" to, go back to the artisanal way .

Guido

what people like or dislike , film or digital is not my concern . indeed every medium has his benefits . my personal view is that not all photographers know what you van achieve with digital . they even did not explore the film world .
i made B/W prints , experiment with all kind of developers , all kind of papers .
i also tried brom oil , gum , selenium and gold toning ...
now i can print color on baryta paper , on self made water color paper end so on without using chemicals and with a much more predictable result .
about keeping prints in the dark : i prefer them hanging on the wall .
the paper i print digitally can be last for 250 years or more . This papers are the same baryta papers , now without silver emulsion but printed with pigments . remember that the goal for carbon prints was to conserve the prints much longer than with the silver process .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_print
i made carbon prints myself .

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 18:46 UTC
In reply to:

Guido FORRIER: i still have a mf camera but will never use it again . no film anymore . developing film is bad for the environment . slide film has very low DR . digital 35 mm surpasses 35 mm film in resolution , dynamic range and color .
film is not for ever . maybe kodakchrome last longer than ekta , but the support and the emulsion degrade .
digital is simply digits and can be duplicated for ever without any loss . when a storage device is no more available :copy it to an new device/computer system .
film is already processed and you can not go back to the original : digital raw can be also processed in camera ( who knows) but you have always the "original " .
and so on ...(scratches , film not flat ...)
i used film and enveloped it all myself for more than 35 years , so i know something about the pitfalls .
i suppose younger people will buy it as they never used film and will find it "cool" to, go back to the artisanal way .

Guido

make copies on a new device and an new medium , again and again , and again : no loss of data . digital is abstract ,is mathematics .
http://passyworldofmathematics.com/mathematics-of-photography/
http://www.maths.manchester.ac.uk/~higham/talks/digphot.pdf

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 16:18 UTC
In reply to:

Guido FORRIER: i still have a mf camera but will never use it again . no film anymore . developing film is bad for the environment . slide film has very low DR . digital 35 mm surpasses 35 mm film in resolution , dynamic range and color .
film is not for ever . maybe kodakchrome last longer than ekta , but the support and the emulsion degrade .
digital is simply digits and can be duplicated for ever without any loss . when a storage device is no more available :copy it to an new device/computer system .
film is already processed and you can not go back to the original : digital raw can be also processed in camera ( who knows) but you have always the "original " .
and so on ...(scratches , film not flat ...)
i used film and enveloped it all myself for more than 35 years , so i know something about the pitfalls .
i suppose younger people will buy it as they never used film and will find it "cool" to, go back to the artisanal way .

Guido

look here :
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/35799053
but also :
http://www.silverfast.com/highlights/kodachrome/en.html
you need a very good filmscanner to exploit the dynamic range = not so cheap !
and my sony A7R has also 14 stops at a fraction of the price you will pay for a scanner , film , developing.
"Billions of digital photos will be lost during the next 100 years unless they are actually printed. "
euh ..color .pigment print on acid free paper wil last for +/- 80 years
http://www.canson-infinity.com/en/print-longevity-wilhelm
digital is simply bits : pure mathematics and not material . you need only to copy this bits on newer material support . this support ( cd, drives ...) are not for ever but you can copy as much as you like without loosing data : data are only 0 and 1 in a binary system :
https://www.mathsisfun.com/binary-number-system.html
in fact you could simply write the raw file as a sequence of binary numbers on acid free paper .... wel at least a small one

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 14:18 UTC

i still have a mf camera but will never use it again . no film anymore . developing film is bad for the environment . slide film has very low DR . digital 35 mm surpasses 35 mm film in resolution , dynamic range and color .
film is not for ever . maybe kodakchrome last longer than ekta , but the support and the emulsion degrade .
digital is simply digits and can be duplicated for ever without any loss . when a storage device is no more available :copy it to an new device/computer system .
film is already processed and you can not go back to the original : digital raw can be also processed in camera ( who knows) but you have always the "original " .
and so on ...(scratches , film not flat ...)
i used film and enveloped it all myself for more than 35 years , so i know something about the pitfalls .
i suppose younger people will buy it as they never used film and will find it "cool" to, go back to the artisanal way .

Guido

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 23:04 UTC as 88th comment | 24 replies
In reply to:

Guido FORRIER: a good photo needs no words . photography has his own language and this photo says : i am bored , when can i go to play football ?
terrible light technique , flat .... the only interesting in this photo is the look ( can i go now,) of the boy and this is not the merit of the photographer .

my two grandsons will have the same face expression : come on grandpa , are you finished ?
no problem to capture that . the new sony camera's can already "see" a face expression ( laugh) and capture it without the help of the photographer .
light ? simpel outdoor photo in dull weather and washed background .
i d'int say that the photo is a failure , but it is far from a winner to me .
and yes i am a photographer and i like a lot of portraits from the middle ages until now . but i am not a member of a network of art gurus , so i am wrong!!!!

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2016 at 17:42 UTC

a good photo needs no words . photography has his own language and this photo says : i am bored , when can i go to play football ?
terrible light technique , flat .... the only interesting in this photo is the look ( can i go now,) of the boy and this is not the merit of the photographer .

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2016 at 10:19 UTC as 57th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

breivogel: As is pointed out in the article, the stage 2 compression (a run length encoding process) is the one to create artifacts near high contrast edges. This is the part the worries me the most - it might well interact with USM and cause issues similar to Jpeg near edges (i.e. "mosquitos").

I think Sony sticks to compression mostly out of stubbornness and the need to save face. There is no excuse NOT to give the user the option of uncompressed RAW on any camera that offers RAW. Other than larger file sizes (and maybe slower writing). Let the user decide what they prefer. Sony could still offer compression as an option, like Nikon.

As to Sony not doing firmware updates, they do sometimes (like the improved CODEC in the RX10m1). Certainly anyone with A7xxx should complain to Sonny support asking for them to do an update.

I believe that DPR, by escalating attention to the issue, has done us a service and perhaps will get Sony to act.

stubbornness and the need to save face is probably a part of the Japanese culture . I hope some people can hack the software to implement full 14mb .
indeed DPR has done us a service

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2015 at 20:33 UTC
On article 10 Photo Editing Programs (that aren't Photoshop) (354 comments in total)
In reply to:

Danny: Corel Paintshop Pro should go OSX, it will be a golden move if they did. They are clearly the best complete replacement for PS.

and why not "after shot" for mac :
http://www.corel.com/corel/product/index.jsp?pid=prod4670071&cid=catalog20038&segid=6000006

Link | Posted on May 18, 2013 at 12:51 UTC
On article 10 Photo Editing Programs (that aren't Photoshop) (354 comments in total)

i see also that a lot of Corel software is available for Mac .
example :
http://www.corel.com/corel/product/index.jsp?pid=prod4670071&cid=catalog3540066&segid=6000006

Link | Posted on May 18, 2013 at 12:44 UTC as 113th comment
Total: 22, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »