PLShutterbug

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

Comments

Total: 223, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

LightBug: Kodak please bring back Kodachrome processing, I got many rolls still in my possession.

Ah. An article about Ektachrome and he was adding K-Chrome to the mix and I missed it. Thanks.

Link | Posted on Nov 18, 2017 at 15:38 UTC
In reply to:

stevo23: Come on ya'll. Why all the hate? You know you want one.

Ya, ... well ... you caught ... ... ... no.

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2017 at 14:52 UTC
In reply to:

LightBug: Kodak please bring back Kodachrome processing, I got many rolls still in my possession.

What, you think they are going to make the film without a means to process it?

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 01:44 UTC
In reply to:

Graham Meale: I already have several uses for my old 35 mm film containers when I travel. Shampoo, pills, coins, and so on.

This doesn’t have anything to do with 35mm film canisters.

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

justinwonnacott: Seriously trivial and needles.

One letter...

Link | Posted on Nov 11, 2017 at 16:15 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: To be fair.... this project makes more sense than the Yashica faux film camera does. At least you don't have to buy extra fake film canisters to change ISO, and you can use lenses you already own.

But with SO MANY great film cameras selling for next to nothing today it looks like this entire project was designed for some school system in California that cannot buy used cameras. They require "new only" in order to spend more taxpayer money.

@DarnGoodPhotos: Nikon still sells two gas ... erm ... film models: the F6 and the FM10. The FM10 shows out of stock on their site, but it is there.

Just sayin’ ...

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 03:00 UTC
In reply to:

iAPX: Resolution: zero Megapixel :)

They are fun!

@Mistral75: In a film camera ISO range is still important because it tells you what the camera’s meter can handle. It really has nothing to do with the film’s ISO rating. If you want to push or pull you ignore the label on the box but if you want to meter your shots with the camera’s meter you need to set the ISO setting accordingly. If you want to meter for ISO 12800 and the camera’s meter doesn’t go that high then you have a problem - regardless of the film’s ISO rating.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 02:53 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Where were these guys when we needed them?

Maybe it's not so silly. When you buy something digital, its obsolete within a year or two. But analog is already obsolete, so the value and utility of the product won't depreciate over time.

When I bought my Nikon FM in 1979 (8?) it was obsolete within a year or two as well, replaced by the FM2. Then that was obsoleted by the next model, and then that was obsoleted...

The utility of a product does not necessarily decrease over time. Manufacturers improve, and the new models are better. That doesn’t make the model I bought less useful (I continued to use my FM for 10 years until it was stolen), but I appreciated that its replacement was more capable.

I still use my D90 occasionally, when I don’t want or need a 24mp image.

No one forces us to buy the new thing. The old thing almost always continues to be useful.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2017 at 21:12 UTC
In reply to:

mckracken88: yeah, "gamechanger" is something an apple reviewer would use. But i hate "narrative" more at the moment.
That aside, what is the game and why should it be constantly changed?

@Arca45Swiss: I’ve never been offered partial value for any obsolete Nikons, or my Hasselblad 500c when it was replaced, or my Dell laptop, or my old cars, or my table saw, or microwave oven, or ... pretty much anything.

Technology changes. That doesn’t obligate the creator of that technology to compensate you (in the form of a trade-in) for upgrading.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2017 at 20:11 UTC
On article Photo story of the week: Fire and Ice (181 comments in total)
In reply to:

deep7: I love the concept of "I was just passing by and saw a photo opportunity". Some of my best photos have come about like that but not from a boat sailing in an ice field!! Massive respect to the photographer just for being there but also for having the artistic eye, technical competence and control of the situation to get a shot like this.

I see some armchair experts below suggesting they could do better but no, they were not out sailing in Greenland. More likely they were safely tucked up in their beds asleep at the time. Getting award-winning images in their dreams...

The Ansel Adams photograph that was sold for the most amount of money at the time, “Moonrise, Hernandez, New Mexico” was like that. He was driving along the road, saw the possibility, set up his 8x10, got one exposure and by the time he flipped the back the moment was gone.

Sometimes “Once-in-a-lifetime” really is just that.

Beautiful image, here.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2017 at 01:24 UTC
In reply to:

Swerky: I still don’t understand how the camera phone relegates the compact camera to the trash bin. If I was in the market for such a camera I’d definitely prefer a dedicate photography tool to a phone. Completely different ergonomics and way of shooting. Powerful optical zoom and more capable flash. Seems to me the only real advantage of a phone is immediate social sharing...
Dunno if phones today have better image quality output than small sensor cameras.
But that’s only a personal opinion.

Well ... your opinion may be shared by those of us who frequent this site, but it certainly is NOT shared by the casual snapshooter.

If you think about it ... why did compact cameras come about anyway? Because the average Jane wanting a picture merely wants a reminder of “I was here,” not a wall-mounted work of art. Smaller has always been better for that crowd, and combining functions helped reduce bulk even more. Today’s smart phones do a great job there.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 19:49 UTC
In reply to:

DotCom Editor: Don't think this will work on my 5D Mark IV. Perhaps next these people should sell pre-exposed Compact Flash cards. They could start on the first day of April. Yeah, that's the ticket...

Ooh! Ooh! I’ll be happy to write-protect your card for you if you will ship it to me return post prepaid, with a $10 bill also enclosed.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 17:20 UTC

Wow. When I shot film, artifacts like this were met with horror and an immediate trip either to the repair shop or the dealer, depending on the value of the camera.

I cannot imagine anyone wanting to deliberately introduce light leak effects.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 17:16 UTC as 53rd comment | 1 reply
On article Hands-on with Zeiss Milvus 25mm F1.4 (119 comments in total)
In reply to:

surelythisnameisfree: “The Milvus will cost $2400 (but that's still a lot less than a new Leica Thambar).”

What is the point of this comment? Different mount, different focal length, different aperture, different use cases. There really is nothing comparable between the two lenses.

It’s like a mic drop.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 05:41 UTC
On article Hands-on with Zeiss Milvus 25mm F1.4 (119 comments in total)
In reply to:

ShatteredSky: So, still any complaints about the size and price of the new Olympus primes? (not that I don'tappreciate lower prices, weight and size)

M Jesper: color film does have layers, otherwise it would not be able to reproduce colors: anti-halation, color filter for silver one, silver one, color filter for silver two, silver two, color filter for silver three, silver three. Looking at the Bayer filter on Wikipedia, that design is actually just one layer of mosaiced RGB triads above the sensor, so it might be capable of rendering a more exact image than film with its multiple layers.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 05:36 UTC
In reply to:

photoaddict: Are you serious? That lens take horrible blurry pictures. It's really easy to photoshop. Just make the subject a little out of focus and then use Len blur and it will be just like that. Google the images taken with that len... it's really that bad. The bokeh is terrible. Nothing is focused. It's like seeing the world through a prescription eyeglasses.

@Lobbamobba: are you replying to me, or Photoaddict? The comment tracker thinks it is me.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2017 at 14:49 UTC
In reply to:

photoaddict: Are you serious? That lens take horrible blurry pictures. It's really easy to photoshop. Just make the subject a little out of focus and then use Len blur and it will be just like that. Google the images taken with that len... it's really that bad. The bokeh is terrible. Nothing is focused. It's like seeing the world through a prescription eyeglasses.

“... through a prescription eyeglasses.” ? Zillions of people (me included) look at the world through prescription eyeglasses ... generally an entire pair though, not just “a.”

Not sure what you are saying here ... care to amplify?

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2017 at 00:25 UTC
In reply to:

desertsp: Didn't an earlier announcement say that LR CC Classic would cease being updated this December, even if it continues to be available. Please correct me if I'm incorrect.

I am just another forum reader; I have no inside insights.

However I don’t think your “in any case” is accurate. Again, my understanding from reading: yes, after December you will need to buy a subscription-model version of LR. No, it need not be entirely cloud-based editing/storage. LR Classic will continue to allow a disk-based workflow.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 17:28 UTC
In reply to:

desertsp: Didn't an earlier announcement say that LR CC Classic would cease being updated this December, even if it continues to be available. Please correct me if I'm incorrect.

From my read there are CURRENTLY three LR products: LR6 (stand-alone), LR Classic (effectively LR Desktop by subscription) and this new Cloud-only offering.

The announcement article said LR6 will no longer be updated after December. Subscription-based LR Classic effectively replaces it if you want continuing updates.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 17:08 UTC
In reply to:

Najinsky: I just hope people heed the guidelines, especially those who believe rules don't apply to them.

There are few things more terrifying than the smell of hot smoke at 30,000 feet.

@Najinsky: I too have spent a lot of time flying, mostly in the US. I never see what you describe here, but have seen a few instances in developing regions. To me, it is people unfamiliar with flying.

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2017 at 05:19 UTC
Total: 223, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »