marcio_napoli

marcio_napoli

Lives in Brazil São Bernardo do Campo, Brazil
Works as a Fashion Photographer
Joined on Mar 12, 2010
About me:

check it out my You Tube channel:
https://youtu.be/SIO0J3aqLVg

Aliens (acclaimed short film_near 700K views on YT):
https://youtu.be/aliscTnlsvg

Instagram:
@marcio_user

Comments

Total: 529, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

So glad you gave this little baby a loving home, this is by far the most important bit from this article.

A life has been saved, and offered love, care, protection, a home. Every ounce of love you offer this lovely dog, he'll give you back times 10.

Thank you for the lovely heart warming story :)

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2019 at 22:43 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply

That's just amazing, well done, really really well done!

Link | Posted on Oct 23, 2019 at 21:15 UTC as 30th comment

Didn't we have plenty of those already, inside cellphones? ;)

Link | Posted on Oct 22, 2019 at 18:23 UTC as 49th comment
On article iPhone 11 Pro sample gallery (DPReview TV) (146 comments in total)

I find disgusting a cellphone trying to be what it's not (fake bokeh, etc) and trying to appeal to an audience they're not what they think they are (hint: photographers).

In the fake-everything generation, this fits like a glove. How charming.

Having said all that, the IQ is beyond impressive for a cellphone, I'm being as honest as I can.

For a **cellphone**, it's beyond impressive.

But does it matter? Not at all in my opinion.

Good IQ is irrelevant here.

If you think you can be a "photographer" with this thing, that's a statement of how little effort you're willing to invest.

If all you're investing is carrying around a 100 grams device, with IQ that qualifies as great ***for a very small*** sensor, than awesome, that says it all what one wants to achieve as a photographer, the effort willing to be invested is minimal.

And for those using this, who never said they're photographers anyway, will that "good IQ for a small sensor" serve any further than snapshots and selfies?

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2019 at 15:36 UTC as 41st comment | 1 reply
On article Phase One IQ4 sample gallery (207 comments in total)

The price tag of this is absolutely gigormous, but let's put it in a very simple way to understand.

The 0.000000001% of photographers that actually NEED (I said NEED, not WANT, GAS suffering people), is the only people that at the same time need and CAN afford this level of gear.

And that's absolutely 100% fine.

This is meant for high end, highly paid commercial photographers like Annie Leibovitz, in the same way an Alexa 65 costs mountains of cash, but that's ok, those too are meant for the only people that actually NEED that level of IQ, Hollywood filmmakers.

Everyone else can't afford this babe, but that's 100% ok, everyone else doesn't really need this.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2019 at 20:38 UTC as 47th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: Obviously this is more in the domain of filmmaking than photography, but technology, creativity and high production value can be shared accross both worlds if wanted. Everything that applies to one field applies to the other just as well.

You know what could have saved photography as a profession? (yes, in the past tense, because it can't be saved anymore) Stuff like this.

This is something to showcase with proud, to make clients value what you do.

Not being proud of cr@p like shooting in a shed, or 1 light setup that so many "pros" love to show off these days with proud (really? proud of absolute minimal production value? Amazing)

If stuff like this is worth millions and far out of reach for essentially all photography businesses, then at least this is something to strive for.

If you aim for the stars, you may at least reach the sky.

Anywhere you fall in the middle of the road when aiming for this high level, will be better than those aiming for 1 light setup and sheds.

Kris, I completely understand your point, besides a photographer I'm also an amateur filmmaker.

Don't wanna sound arrogant, but I'm the master of improvisation. Since you've worked in a film school, you'll know the value of this short film.

I did the short below with 1 thousand bucks, all done by me except acting and music.

https://youtu.be/aliscTnlsvg

Shorts like these have earned me interview in national television in a prime Talk Show in my country, magazines, and smaller internet interviews.

I love extracting every ounce of the resources I've got, so I know your POV.

But even so, you can only achieve high standards if your goal is to emulate major things.

When you aim for the stars, you may reach the sky.

What I mean by that is: even if your resources are indeed limited, make they look like they aren't.

Make it look like you're doing major filmmaking (or photography).

Extract every ounce of what you got, multiply it.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2019 at 22:18 UTC
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: Obviously this is more in the domain of filmmaking than photography, but technology, creativity and high production value can be shared accross both worlds if wanted. Everything that applies to one field applies to the other just as well.

You know what could have saved photography as a profession? (yes, in the past tense, because it can't be saved anymore) Stuff like this.

This is something to showcase with proud, to make clients value what you do.

Not being proud of cr@p like shooting in a shed, or 1 light setup that so many "pros" love to show off these days with proud (really? proud of absolute minimal production value? Amazing)

If stuff like this is worth millions and far out of reach for essentially all photography businesses, then at least this is something to strive for.

If you aim for the stars, you may at least reach the sky.

Anywhere you fall in the middle of the road when aiming for this high level, will be better than those aiming for 1 light setup and sheds.

To both posters above, that's exactly part of my OP message, you cannot ever show your clients it can be done cheaply.

Quoting KrisAK: "they were charging a hefty premium for work that could much more readily be ****done with less tech****."

This part above. You must never allow your client to believe it can be done with less tech (or less budget, less expertise, less talent, less production value, etc).

Once the client figure this out, the market is forever destroyed, it will be a race to the bottom.

That's what's happening right now: clients have understood even a low end photographer can deliver results, as long as the client accepts lower and lower standards, and yes, they will. They always will.

So my original message actually meant: don't ever allow your client to accept a lower standard, by shoving down his throat great tech, great production value, great know how, great results.

Don't allow him room to cut corners by listening to the shed and 1 light guys.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2019 at 22:02 UTC
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: Obviously this is more in the domain of filmmaking than photography, but technology, creativity and high production value can be shared accross both worlds if wanted. Everything that applies to one field applies to the other just as well.

You know what could have saved photography as a profession? (yes, in the past tense, because it can't be saved anymore) Stuff like this.

This is something to showcase with proud, to make clients value what you do.

Not being proud of cr@p like shooting in a shed, or 1 light setup that so many "pros" love to show off these days with proud (really? proud of absolute minimal production value? Amazing)

If stuff like this is worth millions and far out of reach for essentially all photography businesses, then at least this is something to strive for.

If you aim for the stars, you may at least reach the sky.

Anywhere you fall in the middle of the road when aiming for this high level, will be better than those aiming for 1 light setup and sheds.

@KrisAK, here's a free pro tip for everyone here. Take it, it's free. Many years ago when I was a wannabe, I had a worshop with a national level renowned fashion photographer in my country.

I won't ever forget his words: "it doesn't matter if you plan on doing 1 light set up, it doesn't matter if it will take just 2 minutes to set it up.

You're more than a photographer now, you're in the show business. Never, ever make your job look easy to your clients' eyes.

Move tripods around, fire a multitude of strobes, set it up like a show, even if you knew from the start you were gonna use 1 light and a beauty dish. You're a show man now.

Make your client understand your knowledge is more deep than clicking a couple of buttons".

This is not coming from me, it comes from a renowned pro, although I've been in agreement with this my entire career.

Part of the reason pro photography is dead is because sooooo few photographers (pro or otherwise) have figure the importance of the above.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2019 at 02:41 UTC

Obviously this is more in the domain of filmmaking than photography, but technology, creativity and high production value can be shared accross both worlds if wanted. Everything that applies to one field applies to the other just as well.

You know what could have saved photography as a profession? (yes, in the past tense, because it can't be saved anymore) Stuff like this.

This is something to showcase with proud, to make clients value what you do.

Not being proud of cr@p like shooting in a shed, or 1 light setup that so many "pros" love to show off these days with proud (really? proud of absolute minimal production value? Amazing)

If stuff like this is worth millions and far out of reach for essentially all photography businesses, then at least this is something to strive for.

If you aim for the stars, you may at least reach the sky.

Anywhere you fall in the middle of the road when aiming for this high level, will be better than those aiming for 1 light setup and sheds.

Link | Posted on Aug 23, 2019 at 19:16 UTC as 31st comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

ravi pratap: MORE danger for big cameras !

@vmk01 and absquatulate: not turning this into a drama, but what about I show if I'm a photographer or not? Since I've been challenged

2011 portfolio:
https://youtu.be/OxmCdsqMdXA

Experience, production value, talents I have access, etc have all been largely upgraded in 7 years, so I have the rights to say I understand photography and am a photographer.

What's your portfolio like?

That said and out of the way, cosinaphile has put it in crystal clear terms.

Quoting him: "Its the times we live in, today aesthetic understanding and sophistication are at an all time low for our species,so lousy and avg shots are whats passing for good. The craft and the eye of great photographers does not resonate with the mass of people as it once did."

Do I need to say more? If 108 mp in a cell phone and the absolute garbage quality you get from it is what you consider worth defending, praising, and worth for proper photography, than what else can I say but quote cosinaphile's spot on comment?

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2019 at 21:18 UTC
In reply to:

ravi pratap: MORE danger for big cameras !

I'll "gently" leave you with my thoughts.

When that 41mp Nokia was new, I had a friend who bought it and bragged about its 41mp.

To put it in quick terms, she knew zero about photography, she didn't even know what megapixels actually meant, and cluelessly bragged about specs she had zero idea what were for.

Then I took some shots and looked at the RAWs. Garbage. Absolutely garbage on. every. single. level. as anyone would expect.

Yet, the clueless consumer buys it and brags about thinking he-she knows any better.

This is the market for such devices. People that don't know an ounce about actual photography, yet get easily impressed by nonsense like 108 mp on a tiny tiny sensor.

Aaaaaaaaand in case you ARE a photographer, you know garbage like this has zero relation with serious photography.

If you're indeed a photographer, you know you won't produce anything but snapshots with a cell phone, no matter how many specs they cram into that thing, it's a snapshot device at very best.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2019 at 06:47 UTC
In reply to:

ravi pratap: MORE danger for big cameras !

Only if you're not a photographer.

Because c'mon, shooting cell phone is not photography, it's button pressing, snapshots (being very, very generous in my words).

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2019 at 06:14 UTC
On article Sony a7R IV sample gallery (678 comments in total)

Thanks Sony, good job!!!!!!

Massively rounded, gigantic zero interest in this camera, but every new high mp release on the market pushes CCD MF backs down in price, I take that as awesome news.

Sony, keep doing what you do, a huge thanks from me.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2019 at 02:58 UTC as 74th comment
On article Fujifilm GFX 100 sample gallery (DPReview TV) (121 comments in total)
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: Hey Chris, I love you man, but some unfair s--- happened here.

When I first saw the model images (GORGEOUS btw), they wowed me, and I thought you did an amazing job (Chris was credited as the photographer).

Now that I watched the video, I saw those images were shot by Rene Michaud. Ok, Rene is credited now in the gallery, but he wasn't at first.

For those who have not seen the video or didn't check twice the gallery's credits, Rene got robbed from his credits, not fair... and what an amazing job he did. He certainly would love those credits.

As a fashion photographer, I took a bit of offense, as I imagine someone using my images and not crediting me... not exactly cool

But still love you man!

Hi Dale, I offered that criticism because for people that only checked images once, right after they were posted, these people would not have seen the correct credits, which would be unfair to Rene.

But at the same time, I could have imagined it was just a system goof or something like that, of course you guys would post the correct credits as always.

Needless to say, all images in this gallery are awesome, both Rene's and Chris's.

I watched the video later, and much appreciated you guys reviewing the GFX100 where it's mostly suited for, landscapes and fashion. Its strengths are beyond obvious for those types of photography.

Link | Posted on Jul 15, 2019 at 04:07 UTC
On article Fujifilm GFX 100 sample gallery (DPReview TV) (121 comments in total)

Hey Chris, I love you man, but some unfair s--- happened here.

When I first saw the model images (GORGEOUS btw), they wowed me, and I thought you did an amazing job (Chris was credited as the photographer).

Now that I watched the video, I saw those images were shot by Rene Michaud. Ok, Rene is credited now in the gallery, but he wasn't at first.

For those who have not seen the video or didn't check twice the gallery's credits, Rene got robbed from his credits, not fair... and what an amazing job he did. He certainly would love those credits.

As a fashion photographer, I took a bit of offense, as I imagine someone using my images and not crediting me... not exactly cool

But still love you man!

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2019 at 21:07 UTC as 12th comment | 3 replies
On article Fujifilm GFX 100 sample gallery (DPReview TV) (121 comments in total)

Allow me my troll comment of the week (and not exactly trolling to be honest).

Where are the usual bunch (some of them who took over the MF forum) who ALWAYS said, over and over again, countless times, ad infinitum "I see no benefits in smallish, minuscule, tiny, ridiculously small, microscopic 44 x 33 not-really-medium-format format".

Where are you guys now???

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2019 at 21:48 UTC as 24th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

AlanG: I had hoped that after going through all this trouble, the photographer had a special subject or concept in mind to make use of this medium.

I guess it may interest some that he is only illustrating a technique that has been used countless times in the past by thousands of photographers.

I couldn't let this pass. The same can be said for 99% of DPR user base.

After going through all the trouble of spending tons of money, acquiring pro level gear, one could imagine they have a special subject or concept in mind to make use of this medium.

Nope. Mostly shots of walls, backyards, and the most mundane subjects around.

This is partly a tongue in cheek, poking at your ribs comment, and partly downright serious.

I'll let you guys decide the percentage for which one. ;)

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2019 at 21:10 UTC
In reply to:

Photomonkey: "almost two thirds of users were amateurs"
A real truth of how the "pro" lines of any manufacturer stays alive.

Everyday I dream of making a come back, but I know what pro photography has become.

One of the most beautiful professions in the world is now reduced to a dangerous trap, a trap waiting for those naive who still believe they can make a living from their dream.

That's what it has become, and this is why Hasselblad is changing their focus to the amateur.

They know even the high end segment is already dying, and will be completely dead in no more than a few years.

Middle and low end pro segments are dead for some time now, maybe since 2012-ish or so.

But unfortunately, I doubt anyone cares.

Anyone who haven't seen this war up close and had their dreams crushed to pieces will ever care.

Sorry for the rant, just a little insight for what Moebus really meant with his statement.

There's just so much behind it.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2019 at 06:12 UTC
In reply to:

Photomonkey: "almost two thirds of users were amateurs"
A real truth of how the "pro" lines of any manufacturer stays alive.

My post will fall in the "who cares" category, but you guys describe the situation as casual. The real truth is ugly and depressing: the hobbyist, the amateur and the button presser (whatever order you call it) have murdered this profession.

Moebus just hinted at it. There's a gigantic black hole under his apparently casual statement.

I've been a pro for 10 years (no false modesty from me, I could have been one of the best in the State I operated, had I survived longer, maybe even one of my country's finest - really not joking). I've quit right before things became unbearable, and that was almost 6 years ago.

Nowadays 6 years later, I hear depressing stories all the time from those who stayed as pros which I still have contact, stories that could make grown men cry, of talented people who really deserved better, who can barely survive now.

And things were bad enough 6 years ago, you could define it as a war zone already back then.

I can't imagine how bad things are in 2019.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2019 at 06:04 UTC

I fail to understand how people get excited with this cr@p.

64 mp (***small***) sensor (don't even start me on that), all kinds of engineering tricks, processing tricks, etc etc etc, and no matter how you cut it, it still looks garbage at 100% as it has always been from small sensors.

This only reminds me when I played with RAW files from that 41mp Nokia, and yeah, pretty much 41mp of garbage (expected as always).

People will keep falling on the cellphone marketing B$ for how many more decades? Shouldn't it be obvious by now?

EDIT: if you're going to trash me on my "100% view" comment, have in mind everything under the sun looks good on small screens or at screen size view, just about every.single.thing.on.Earth.since.1997.

It doesn't take 64mp 2019 sensors to look good at screen size. My 2001 P&S compact already look "good" on screen size view.

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2019 at 04:47 UTC as 10th comment | 5 replies
Total: 529, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »