Bobthearch

Bobthearch

Lives in United States Raton, NM, United States
Works as a Technician
Has a website at http://ratonphotos.com/
Joined on Dec 30, 2009

Comments

Total: 2094, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: Fantastic article. But like others have said, the ability to use custom picture profiles is one of the best features of both NX-D and Canon DPP.
People smarter than I have created all sorts of useful profiles including a very convincing Tri-X and a not-bad Kodachrome.

For jpeg shooters, the ability to load custom presets into the camera is a powerful feature, one that Adobe cannot touch.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2021 at 04:22 UTC
In reply to:

tedolf: This is total BS. The prevailing party in a Copyright case gets their attorney's fees awarded to them IF they have a registration which pre-exists the infringement. The problem is, most photographers don't bother to register their copyrights until after there is an infringement. The registration process needs to be simpler and cheaper.

This a is a return to common law copyright infringement and that was a mess.

Tedolph

$250 for a "database" of up to 750 photographs. Comes out to thirty-three cents per image.
Unless I'm missing something, I don't see how that's unreasonable.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2021 at 01:29 UTC
In reply to:

marc petzold: I don't know the Focal Length of the old Lens, but this one here is 31mm @F9 only, the old Sprite original was with 3 Speeds, F8, F11, F16 Aperture, albeit without Flash. ;-)

Ilford should sell this new Sprite-II for 19.95 USD, but then, i would guess, they won't make any kind of Money with it. The Miniscus Lens is for sure a Plastic Lens.

Yeah, I'm swimming in Minolta SLRs that are infinitely better cameras.
But that's not really the point. :)

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2020 at 20:24 UTC
In reply to:

DrCastle: It would be even more attractive if it came with a roll of their superb HP5+.

That would be a great promo, include a roll of 'free' film + developing with each camera.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2020 at 20:23 UTC
In reply to:

jnd: This would be great Lomography camera. But from Ilford? Come on, even my first camera, the cheapest point and shoot from Canon https://global.canon/en/c-museum/product/film196.html had at least 3 element lens and couple stops of range of auto exposure.

But what did that cost, adjusted for inflation?

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2020 at 20:20 UTC

At $35, at least it's not a financial scam like so many other photography-related novelties.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2020 at 20:16 UTC as 4th comment
On article Hähnel launches lantern diffuser speedlite accessory (149 comments in total)

I'd pay $10 for a tiny one of these to fit on the pop-up flash.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2020 at 15:35 UTC as 47th comment
On article Hähnel launches lantern diffuser speedlite accessory (149 comments in total)
In reply to:

MartynasMartynas: People portraits could not be flatter

The people photos aren't good at all. I think a pop-up flash or speedlight set to fill could have done better.
But for the still life avacado and mushroom shots, it looks good.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2020 at 15:34 UTC
On article Hähnel launches lantern diffuser speedlite accessory (149 comments in total)
In reply to:

The_WB: I'll wait for the "cheap knockoff" sequel at Amazon.

Stay tuned, it will be coming soon.

Looking forward to it, if if folds up similarly.

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2020 at 18:46 UTC
On article Hähnel launches lantern diffuser speedlite accessory (149 comments in total)

The lighting is ok, and I like how it folds up. I don't care about the colored filters though.
Since I happen to like mushroom photos, I'd be inclined to give this a try if was $12 and didn't require purchasing additional mounting hardware.

Link | Posted on Dec 6, 2020 at 18:25 UTC as 66th comment
In reply to:

Josh152: Before anyone else makes ignorant comments about the post work that was done to these read this

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/darkroom-composites/

And this

https://fstoppers.com/post-production/how-photos-were-edited-darkroom-days-2994

"good is subjective so your opinion is your opinion"

Of course it's objective. Otherwise the contest judges could measure it and determine a winner based on scores, like basketball.
Yep, my opinion. I doubt anyone regularly writes article comments expressing someone elses' opinions.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2020 at 16:59 UTC
In reply to:

Georgescanvas: The pictures are great. The winning shot is enjoyable to look at but I really don't understand the obsession amongst photography circles with wide angle landscapes.

Landscapes are about the only time I use wide-angle. You can get a more complete view of the landscape, and wide angle distortion is less obvious in open natural scenery shots.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2020 at 00:46 UTC
In reply to:

Josh152: Before anyone else makes ignorant comments about the post work that was done to these read this

https://www.ilfordphoto.com/darkroom-composites/

And this

https://fstoppers.com/post-production/how-photos-were-edited-darkroom-days-2994

It's not the act of making software adjustments that's at issue. It's over-processing to the point that the photo no longer looks good, or more specifically with regards to landscape / nature photography, it no longer looks natural.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2020 at 00:43 UTC
In reply to:

cSalmon: these contests should not be promoted by a site dedicated towards photographers. The rights grab is ludicrous, not only do the contestants give unlimited usage to any of the sponsors but also allows the contest to license the images to anyone. Basically making this a way for the organization to have free stock content that they can make money off of all the while the contestants pay for entry.

While I understand the CYB clause. The organization could show support for the photographers by forwarding any additional licensing requests (outside the contests showings) back to the actual photographers. And limiting how the corporate sponsors can use the images with a required byline. But they Don’t!

Dpreview should be ashamed of promoting contests that clearly take advantage of both adult photographers but also the children Entrees who have now been taken advantage of and we readers should call them on it.

The copyright remains the property of the photographer.
The contest sponsors and promoters, even when sub-licensing, may only use the images for purposes related to the contest.
The winner gets $10,000. Other prize winners get $1,000 or $500.
Seems fair enough to me.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2020 at 19:32 UTC
In reply to:

JavaJones: Wow, the JPG compression just destroys these images at full-size viewing. What a shame. It's like that on the original website, too. You'd think a photography contest would do a better job presenting their winners.

I'm sure they didn't want the website bogged down with 20MB files.
But they could have used a much lower resolution without the compression. Would have looked so much better.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2020 at 07:21 UTC

An excellent set overall, some really special photos in there. The winner is wonderful, and "Drama at the Lighthouse" is absolutely epic.
But there were two that came across as cheesy and fake, the night photo and the turbines. Sorry.

Link | Posted on Nov 6, 2020 at 07:19 UTC as 44th comment
In reply to:

Bobthearch: I'd love to have a Pentax, and test their reputation for ruggedness and weather resistance. But not at that price.
Bring back the K-S2 and throw in a couple lenses for $450.

@KingKenny
Those are over $500 used, and you don't even get a lens for that.
The K-S1 was literally priced under $500 and came with two lenses.
That was a while back. My memory's not that great but I make a post about it at the time:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4003093

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2020 at 22:16 UTC

I'd love to have a Pentax, and test their reputation for ruggedness and weather resistance. But not at that price.
Bring back the K-S2 and throw in a couple lenses for $450.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2020 at 23:24 UTC as 37th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

BigBen08: Looks like fun to play around with. I'm sure the kids would enjoy it. But I'd have to send the film out for development, not sure it's worth the money.

For ten bucks you can do the same with a digital camera.
It's good not to spend money on film; shooting at f/333 is a bit of trial-and-error. :)

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2020 at 02:42 UTC
In reply to:

(unknown member): Skink makes a pinhole for a Copal #0 Shutter. I'd use it to turn my Toyo 4x5 into a pinhole camera.

Skink also make pinhole body caps. https://skinkpinhole.com/wp/ Use one on your Nikon F100 for a Full Frame Film Pinhole, or put it on Your Nikon D850 for a 45 megapixel Digital Pinhole. 8-0

"I also have some teeny tiny (less than 1/16") drill bits..."
Depending on the sensor size, you need the hole about 0.3mm, ideally with very smooth rounded edges.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2020 at 02:39 UTC
Total: 2094, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »