rkny

Lives in United States United States
Works as a Retoucher
Has a website at http://50f2.com
Joined on Mar 23, 2006

Comments

Total: 23, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

Sony has done a lot with the A Series cameras. But one thing they’ve never done is make it a camera I want to hold. It’s sharp edged, boxy, and unattractive. It doesn’t make me want to pick it up, get to know it, fondle it, use it, or try to make it an extension of my eye.

Back in the film days, I felt very much the same way about Olympus’ OM system. I didn’t like the designs. They felt strange and unintuitive in my hands. It always seemed like they were trying to look professional with their designs, but few pros actually used them. I feel that way about the Sony A series too. Call me a design snob, but an object’s form and function are intimately linked and have the power to inspire.

Link | Posted on Nov 27, 2017 at 21:59 UTC as 8th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

rkny: It's a cute trick, but ultimately not very different from just using hue/sat or curves, and not really what I'd call an intuitive solution. I'd much rather move sliders while seeing actual colors.

There are a lot of different ways to skin the same cat in Photoshop. It's all just math applied to pixels. This trick really just amounts to using a different key to open the same door.

Ps I also don't like that it's a destructive technique. By making a selection and changing levels on the structural channels of the image, you are committing to the edit permanently. Want to go back to the original color? You're out of luck, because you've changed the channels directly, instead of using an editable/removeable adjustment layer.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2017 at 04:20 UTC

It's a cute trick, but ultimately not very different from just using hue/sat or curves, and not really what I'd call an intuitive solution. I'd much rather move sliders while seeing actual colors.

There are a lot of different ways to skin the same cat in Photoshop. It's all just math applied to pixels. This trick really just amounts to using a different key to open the same door.

Link | Posted on Jun 1, 2017 at 04:11 UTC as 9th comment | 8 replies

The underwater housing looks pretty sweet for $329...

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1289597-REG/sony_mpk_urx100a_underwater_housing_for_rx100.html

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 16:29 UTC as 61st comment
On article Merry Christmas II you: RX1R II sample gallery updated (138 comments in total)

Half the comments say it's too expensive. The other half say the IQ sucks.

If the camera were (impossibly) priced at $500, ALL the comments would be positive.

People here seem to only respond to breathtaking post card photos taken with dirt cheap cameras with hyper real jpeg engines. Everything else supposedly sucks.

The fact remains, as it did with the original RX-1; a full frame compact with a fast Zeiss lens for $3K is a BARGAIN. On the other hand, if all you shoot is cats and rainbows for Facebook, of course it will seem overpriced, because anything larger than a 1" sensor with an f3.5 mega zoom lens is completely overkill for you.

To me these images, banal as they may be, look like 35mm Ektachrome 100 slides from 20 years ago, which is about the highest compliment you could pay to a jpeg in 2015.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2015 at 06:10 UTC as 22nd comment
On photo ZAB_2969_Zabukovec_2013 in RobertZ_si's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

?

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2015 at 03:37 UTC as 1st comment
On photo ZAB_2944_Zabukovec_2013 in RobertZ_si's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

?

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2015 at 03:37 UTC as 1st comment

Was hoping to see a dramatic improvement in low light noise vs the RX1. It does seem to have improved, in the underexposed areas of processed files, but not dramatically. I'm still seeing sizable grain/noise and even a few hot pixels that my RX1 doesn't display.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2015 at 21:33 UTC as 40th comment | 3 replies
On article Light L16 packs 16 cameras into a single portable body (398 comments in total)
In reply to:

rpm40: LOVE the concept. I hope the results hold up. This type of ambitious thinking has the potential to really change things. So much potential, as long as the processing power is there to back it up.

What are you smoking AprilW?

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2015 at 21:26 UTC
On article A lot to like: Real-world Leica Q gallery posted (341 comments in total)

This place is hilarious. They post real world examples of cats and barns and people complain the pictures suck. They post professional post processed photos and people "well of course it looks great; it was shot by a pro and post processed".

News flash. Cat and barn pictures ALL suck. From EVERY camera. And if you spend $4K on a camera and don't spend time processing your RAWs, you just blew $4K.

If you can't look at unprocessed RAWs and see a camera's potential, or can't look at processed RAWs and see a camera's potential, you can't see, period. So stop slagging cameras that are over your budget, and way over your head.

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2015 at 03:09 UTC as 43rd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Impulses: $1,000 huh... Looks like the G7x, LX100, et al haven't provided quite enough competition to the RX100 line, Sony keeps bumping the price every year. Way to dash my hopes of picking up a cheaper V when the IV came out Sony... Tho the GM1 had diminished my lust for it to a certain extent already. Maybe they'll launch what I'd really like, a cheaper/slimmer stripped down RX90 (RX1000?) sans flip screen, EVF, hotshoe, etc.

It's called the RX100, and it's still completely awesome. Grab one while you can.

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2015 at 17:52 UTC
On article Show us your best shot of 2014 (101 comments in total)

Sure is funny to see so many banal, unoriginal, uninspired shots, from a community overrun with pixel peeping, gear obsessed perfectionists.

Some nice stuff scattered throughout, but on the whole, people here need to focus less on equipment and megapixels and more on seeing.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2015 at 03:34 UTC as 6th comment
On article 10 essential time-saving Photoshop tips (87 comments in total)

Wow. Is there there another site on the internet with a more pompous, arrogant, rude, and self centered community than dpreview?

These tips are great starters. If you don't know them, use them. If you do know them, STFU.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2014 at 21:33 UTC as 22nd comment | 1 reply
On article Richard Franiec creates custom grip for Panasonic GM1 (46 comments in total)

I wouldn't stick this onto a leatherette surface. I can't imagine there won't be an issue removing it. Removing it from a metal surface is one thing...

Having had a Franiec on my RX100, I much preferred Sony's own textured rubber version to Franiec's cold scratchable painted metal version.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2014 at 18:24 UTC as 5th comment | 1 reply
On article Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows (1391 comments in total)
In reply to:

ScottRH: Nice and useless.

Why would anyone even bother typing this comment? Go take some pictures you dolt.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2013 at 16:36 UTC
On article Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows (1391 comments in total)

How much is the motor drive? ;D

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2013 at 16:34 UTC as 70th comment | 5 replies
On article Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows (1391 comments in total)
In reply to:

vFunct: Mirrorless cameras are junk. They're like cell-phone cameras, with their visual preview lag, but they're not as useful as cell phones because they aren't pocketable.

There are only two useful camera classes: dSLRs and cell phones. Everything else is a useless compromise that isn't as good as either.

There are absolutely NO professionals that use mirror less cameras at a press event. Every press photographer uses either a Nikon or Canon, while the writers use iPhones.

Mirrorless cameras aren't as good as an dSLR or a cell phone, and therefore nobody uses them.

They are junk toys.

All baseless uninformed posts are junk.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2013 at 05:16 UTC
On article Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows (1391 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sad Joe: The marketing for this new camera has been outstanding - Nikon should be proud of their UK or US based marketing team....I switched (mainly) into Canon some years ago but this is the 1st new Nikon that has ticked my boxes (and I don't even know its spec!) as regards marketing image - I want to be that man with a bag of primes and my Nikon DF in my hands. I look forward to the Canon reply - say what lets call it the DF 1....!!

@Henry, please enlighten us, oh wise one, as to what camera the smart people, like you, have purchased, and how you came to know about said camera, since you are so clearly impervious to marketing. And while you're at it, let's see some of your photos, so we can all see just how well your marketing-free camera performs. Or maybe you're just one of those people who hangs around the bus station but never rides the bus...

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2013 at 21:10 UTC
On article Retro Nikon 'DF' emerges from the shadows (1391 comments in total)

Retro styled cameras are marketed toward those old enough to remember, or young enough to revere, cameras that were not based on trendy, sculpted ergonomics and designer racing stripes. The utilitarian simplicity and purity of purpose in the design of older cameras speaks to some people's desire to make photographs with a similar simplicity and purity of purpose. Whether they actually achieve that goal by buying a retro camera is obviously debatable. Clearly some do and some don't.

Regardless, that anyone would bother complaining about a camera company's desire to cater to the retro market is baffling. I'm not even sure anyone can sanely rationalize a complaint. Strong sales of retro cameras serve to bolster the company's coffers and allow for even more R&D into the next line of trendy sculpted racing stripe cameras. Duh?

If you are vocally averse to retro styled cameras, you are either bored, high, ignorant, or possibly all three. Retro cameras are win win for everyone.

Link | Posted on Nov 3, 2013 at 20:59 UTC as 109th comment | 4 replies
On article Is Instagram 'debasing photography'? (291 comments in total)

I think Instagram is doing the exact opposite of debasing photography. I think it's championing it. It's widening the appeal of photography and getting people who otherwise may have never discovered photography to think about it as an expressive medium, and to get satisfying results without $5000 worth of equipment and hours spent in a darkroom or fiddling in Photoshop.

Instagram is also getting people to take pictures more creatively, For any given photo, there is often one Instagram filter that suits it best. Which filter looks best is a critical visual decision that the average person has never been faced with, and when they choose the right filter, they get satisfying results. This is because they're unconsciously mimicking the look of photos they've seen before. It's like casually humming along to a tune and discovering you can actually sing pretty well. Instagram can be rewarding, and that reward can fuel the pursuit of better photographic technique. Win win.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2012 at 03:53 UTC as 104th comment | 1 reply
Total: 23, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »