PLShutterbug

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Dec 30, 2010

Comments

Total: 72, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article A photographer's intro to the world of video (99 comments in total)

One issue not mentioned is lens zoom and focus smoothness. I find it very difficult to get a smooth zoom from my still lenses ... Maybe the more expensive lenses solve this but the ones I use all tend to jerk a bit as I zoom.

I never had this issue with video or film movie cameras.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2016 at 18:03 UTC as 8th comment | 4 replies
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (802 comments in total)
In reply to:

Earth Art: What year will it be when camera companies stop using the letter "D" to let us know the product is one of those new digital doohickies? LoL

Or is the fascination with the D some sort of Freudian subplot?

Perhaps when no one makes film cameras anymore. Nikon still makes the F line so a D line is very apt. Similar with Hasselblad.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 01:01 UTC
On article Hands-on with Hasselblad X1D (802 comments in total)
In reply to:

Phileas Fogg: Interesting camera. Still pricey for me, especially with lenses. But it's time all 'pro-grade' cameras put at least flip up and down screen. My OMD EM-1 is imo a pro grade camera and I like the flip up and down screen options I have with it.

The nice thing about an articulating screen is that you can do very low angle shots without contorting your body. I too wish more serious cameras had them.

Link | Posted on Jun 24, 2016 at 00:59 UTC
On article Hasselblad to announce 'game changer' next week (456 comments in total)
In reply to:

villagranvicent: Classic... Another gazillion "sarcastic" jokes about the RX100 and Nex-7 rebadges that has been said for the same guys over and over again. I wonder how many of you have actually seen/touch/use one of those prior to talk crap?

What exactly did you get out of your Hasselblad-badged Sony that proves the naysayers wrong?

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2016 at 01:13 UTC
On article Samsung announces ruggedized Galaxy S7 Active (36 comments in total)
In reply to:

PLShutterbug: I work for a rugged computer manufacturer. MIL STD-810G means basically nothing since manufacturers have wide latitude in implementing the standard.

My son has the S6 Active. He dropped it from a short height and there was a small ding in the lower left corner of the case, it stopped charging and AT&T said the ding voided the warranty.

Unless manufacturers are willing to back up their claims with real warranties that reflect the "active" intent and their advertising, these phones must still be treated as if they are fragile.

Ah. Apologies, I see that you said that.

My wife and I recently got S7s and she got an Otterbox. So far, so good.

Link | Posted on Jun 15, 2016 at 03:19 UTC
On article Samsung announces ruggedized Galaxy S7 Active (36 comments in total)
In reply to:

PLShutterbug: I work for a rugged computer manufacturer. MIL STD-810G means basically nothing since manufacturers have wide latitude in implementing the standard.

My son has the S6 Active. He dropped it from a short height and there was a small ding in the lower left corner of the case, it stopped charging and AT&T said the ding voided the warranty.

Unless manufacturers are willing to back up their claims with real warranties that reflect the "active" intent and their advertising, these phones must still be treated as if they are fragile.

WetCoast, you miss my point.

The S6 Active is advertised as meeting a spec that is supposed to mean it can withstand rough treatment, yet the manufacturer refuses to allow any claims due to the advertised use.

Why should one have to buy a case to protect something that is advertised as already having that protection built in?

Link | Posted on Jun 12, 2016 at 19:06 UTC
On article Samsung announces ruggedized Galaxy S7 Active (36 comments in total)

I work for a rugged computer manufacturer. MIL STD-810G means basically nothing since manufacturers have wide latitude in implementing the standard.

My son has the S6 Active. He dropped it from a short height and there was a small ding in the lower left corner of the case, it stopped charging and AT&T said the ding voided the warranty.

Unless manufacturers are willing to back up their claims with real warranties that reflect the "active" intent and their advertising, these phones must still be treated as if they are fragile.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2016 at 23:49 UTC as 10th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Zigmont: I like the no filter photo better than the weird one with the filter. Just because a slow shutter is good doesn't necessarily mean a moribund shutter is better.

You're missing the point. There are things you can do with an ND filter that you cannot do without. Some users want such a filter - this is just one option.

Your opinion of that photo is not relevant to the discussion - and neither is mine (which is that I like the way the water looks in the filtered photo).

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2016 at 20:27 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo808: I always thought that my trusty polariser is the one filter they'd never be able to emulate but here we are.

You can't stop progress.....

Well, no you didn't. You said, "the only reason to use a circular polarizer is if you use an SLR camera."

If you use a camera and its TTL metering system is not optical, or you are manually focusing, then a linear polarizer will work fine.

If you use any kind of camera with optical TTL metering or autofocus then you must use a circular polarizer rather than a linear polarizer if you want either system to function.

Merely saying that you use circular polarizers with SLR cameras is inaccurate at best and misleading at worst.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2015 at 19:35 UTC
In reply to:

Hugo808: I always thought that my trusty polariser is the one filter they'd never be able to emulate but here we are.

You can't stop progress.....

Roland,

"The only reason to use a circular polarizer is if you use an SLR camera."

Not correct. Circular polarizing filters were developed for use with autofocus systems and in-camera meters. Linear polarizers were used for decades on SLR cameras.

Link | Posted on May 15, 2015 at 18:42 UTC
In reply to:

techjedi: Hopefully this will reduce the price of traditional coated lenses.

Techjedi I, you said "lenses" in your original post. I think that is what the respondent replied about.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2015 at 19:04 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: Look more like painting to me. The subjects looks like artwork of the time instead of real scenery or person.

In that time exposures were typically made until an image appeared on the plate, so you would expect that look. It took several years past Niepce's first photos until the latent image phenomenon was discovered.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2015 at 19:58 UTC
On article A closer look at the Nikon Coolpix P900 megazoom (194 comments in total)
In reply to:

maxnimo: I'd love to see a camera just like this, but with a 2 inch sensor.

A million dollars for a 1,200mm lens? Wow, I thought Canon was expensive but that is ... Wow.

Link | Posted on Mar 3, 2015 at 17:47 UTC
On article BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs (204 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scotts Photographs: The reason jpeg alternatives have such a rough time, IMHO, is that the majority of casual camera buyers (even those who buy DSLRs) and smartphone owners understand and like jpeg. They're happy with it... it does the job well enough. You can chatter at them all day long about lossless compression and bit depth and they just don't care. They can't tell the difference between a jpeg and another file format, just as most people can't tell the difference between 100/200/300 dpi prints. So, kudos to the programmer for developing something superior, but good luck getting it adopted as a replacement to the very popular, non-threatening, familiar jpeg, which is part of a whole universe of devices and software dedicated to it.

Sorry to pick a nit, but I doubt whether even 1% of casual users know what JPG is, much less understand or like it. They just know that when they hit the button, out pops a picture. They neither know nor care beyond that.

They only use it because it is ubiquitous, not due to preference.

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 05:29 UTC

"The iPhone will probably be available separately."

Ba-Ding!

Nicely done!

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2014 at 20:28 UTC as 43rd comment | 1 reply
On article Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup (91 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sir Nick of High Point: Most all color negative film has a red mask layer, so isn't it already color shifted in a way? If I tried scanning these negatives, how would I know how to properly adjust the color curves for the mask layer?

Thanks!

The orange layer is there to facilitate more accurate color, not to shift away from accuracy.

If I remember correctly, scanner software has algorithms to account for the layer so you end up with a digital scan without the red shift.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 17:28 UTC
On article Tune in to DPReview Live this Thursday and Friday (238 comments in total)

This Thursday and Friday October 11-12 ... 2018?

This Thursday is the 9th, not the 11th.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2014 at 00:09 UTC as 70th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

vFunct: The person responsible for the creation owns the copyright. Photography equipment "operators", like this monkey, do not own copyrights.

If that were the case, then the assistants of high-end photographers would own the copyright to the photos, instead of the photographers, who normally act as directors. Most high-end photographers have assistants hold the camera and operate them and take the actual shot, instead of of the photographer themselves.

This is also why the NFL owns the copyright to their work, instead of the cameraman.

The big mistake people make is assuming photography is the art of operating cameras. It actually involves much more than that, including planning, production, styling, lighting, post-processing, etc..

It's very amateurish to consider photography as only taking pictures.

Just read up and vFunct, you're right about employee/employer relationship in regards to copyright. My apologies.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 01:16 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Spy meets and befriends simple person, spy gets said person to push the button for photo of forbidden military base......who gets charged???

Paparazzi outside celebrities place ......gets passing kid to climb tree and push shutter for pic in breach of law....who gets charged??

How is legal liability relevant to this discussion?

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 01:11 UTC
In reply to:

JackM: Right, so when I carefully setup every parameter on my camera (an expensive one which I was only able to purchase by selling photos) and then hand it to someone to take a pic of me and my family, I had nothing to do with it?

Well ... you had everything to do with the metering and possibly the focus. You still don't automatically own the copyright just because the camera belongs to you.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 01:10 UTC
Total: 72, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »