VENTURE-STAR

Joined on Jul 24, 2010

Comments

Total: 192, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

VENTURE-STAR: For me, the Ryan Kelly picture is completely spoiled by the out of focus person blocking an important section of the subject matter. I'd suggest that many of us coming onto DP Review could produce exactly the same series of pictures without trying any harder in that situation. This was essentially nothing more than being in the right place at the right time. The Refugee pictures in Myanmar represent photo journalism at a very high level, Great work telling a story. That's what it's all about!

Not too many prizes, but a few front pages and I've earned a reasonable living over the years. How about you? An armchair expert by any chance? The picture in question is a one-off and that's about the sum of it. In the same place all you have to do is pull in the subject matter and keep pressing the shutter release. Maybe you think otherwise, but I have been in similar situations and know from experience that producing this flawed image will have been far less difficult that something truly outstanding like the Oswald shooting in Dallas, which showed skill and perfect timing with a one-chance camera. In fairness, I'm not saying the image isn't interesting, but it doesn't deserve first place IMHO!

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2018 at 12:47 UTC
In reply to:

VENTURE-STAR: For me, the Ryan Kelly picture is completely spoiled by the out of focus person blocking an important section of the subject matter. I'd suggest that many of us coming onto DP Review could produce exactly the same series of pictures without trying any harder in that situation. This was essentially nothing more than being in the right place at the right time. The Refugee pictures in Myanmar represent photo journalism at a very high level, Great work telling a story. That's what it's all about!

No it's not. I've been doing it for years. I assume this particular article will mainly be of interest to the kind of people who earn a living taking snaps, not someone who grabs a chance picture with a phone perhaps once in their lifetime and has no real photography skills.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2018 at 21:51 UTC
In reply to:

Hello123: Everywhere I turn we seem to be to be saturated with violence and death.

@Quantum - Interesting to see this picture has had such an effect on you. Isn't that the point of all this? So, 95 percent of our planet is wonderful and peaceful then? If only! I'm afraid that the sepic tank you visualise, obviously filled with evil, intelligent apes is much bigger than you seem to appreciate.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2018 at 10:39 UTC

For me, the Ryan Kelly picture is completely spoiled by the out of focus person blocking an important section of the subject matter. I'd suggest that many of us coming onto DP Review could produce exactly the same series of pictures without trying any harder in that situation. This was essentially nothing more than being in the right place at the right time. The Refugee pictures in Myanmar represent photo journalism at a very high level, Great work telling a story. That's what it's all about!

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2018 at 10:30 UTC as 2nd comment | 4 replies

Ha, ha. A little late for an April Fools Day joke isn't it?

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2018 at 11:49 UTC as 22nd comment
On article Canon introduces EOS Rebel T7 with updated 24MP sensor (107 comments in total)
In reply to:

VENTURE-STAR: Very good of Canon to sell this camera with the old lens and not the superior STM version. They must have a warehouse full of these old optics to get rid of. You'd probably be better off buying a budget Nikon SLR if you're starting from scratch.

The difference between a full frame SLR and a cheap entry level model is so wide that it is rather expecting something for nothing to consider one as a backup. As you will know the build quality and performance between the top end pro SLRs and the entry level models is massive. The same goes with the top end lenses. You also have issues with accessories and batteries. For me, two similar spec SLRs are essential to work with, although I do actually carry a Canon S120 which has given me several chance pictures for news stories and I like something small in my pocket all the time which will outperform any phone. As for a plastic SLR backup, I'll pass thanks.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2018 at 14:02 UTC
On article Canon introduces EOS Rebel T7 with updated 24MP sensor (107 comments in total)
In reply to:

VENTURE-STAR: Very good of Canon to sell this camera with the old lens and not the superior STM version. They must have a warehouse full of these old optics to get rid of. You'd probably be better off buying a budget Nikon SLR if you're starting from scratch.

Thermidor, I think you are completely missing the point here. Yes there are a few issues, that's nothing new. But you're not looking at this from the perspective of an occasional amateur user wanting to upgrade from a compact or a phone and they are the target buyers. They only need one additional lens to cover most applications and will not start an expensive system. Cheap plastic SLRs like the Nikon D3400 or this new Rebel are aimed at a specific market and not experienced amateurs or semi-pros.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2018 at 11:11 UTC
On article Canon introduces EOS Rebel T7 with updated 24MP sensor (107 comments in total)
In reply to:

VENTURE-STAR: Very good of Canon to sell this camera with the old lens and not the superior STM version. They must have a warehouse full of these old optics to get rid of. You'd probably be better off buying a budget Nikon SLR if you're starting from scratch.

Just a couple of points. Thermidor - There are plenty of very affordable Nikon AF-S lenses, that are pretty good value and a match to budget Canon optics.

Karroly - Having used Canons with a fair number of different recent lenses , including the 18-55 Mk II and the STM version, I can say that the STM is significantly better. Optically, the lens cells - said to be made by Sigma produce a very similar quality on both of the standard budget zooms. The STM is quieter, faster and the front of the lens doesn't rotate. The STM also has slightly better build quality for a lens made from quite a lot of polycarbonate.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2018 at 23:45 UTC
On article Canon introduces EOS Rebel T7 with updated 24MP sensor (107 comments in total)

Very good of Canon to sell this camera with the old lens and not the superior STM version. They must have a warehouse full of these old optics to get rid of. You'd probably be better off buying a budget Nikon SLR if you're starting from scratch.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2018 at 10:48 UTC as 27th comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

VENTURE-STAR: Wish I could see some point to this. The last time I shot a roll of 35mm and processed it was 2005. Never regretted moving on and have no wish to go backwards.

Woodzy, I am unaware of any Wedding Photographers who still use film, or who would want to. Perhaps they do where you live, who knows? The most capable photographers tend to go for full frame digital and being able to produce high quality images almost immediately has been an absolute revolution for most of these small businesses. Wedding photography is skilled professionalism, where you generally stick to a well proven shooting formula. The method of recording a wedding has actually not changed at all since the majority of photographers shot it on medium format. But it's certainly not photojournalism! If you have a good working method that clients like, you stick to it. Digital is today's tool used by nearly every wedding pro concerned about repeatable quality and making a living from their work. Film has zero advantage in this situation and it's not cost effective to use.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2018 at 10:38 UTC
In reply to:

VENTURE-STAR: Wish I could see some point to this. The last time I shot a roll of 35mm and processed it was 2005. Never regretted moving on and have no wish to go backwards.

If you want to use film, that's entirely your choice. Whether or not I can see any point in it, doesn't actually matter much. Yes, you can order film from Amazon and a few other places online. However, most of the small camera stores have vanished since the turn of the century. Toronto used to have a cluster of superb camera stores with brilliant staff. Probably better than anywhere you might visit in NY or LA. You could pick up almost any accessory made for a Pentax 6X7, a Hassel or a Linhof over the counter. Now much of this is gone. At one time you could go into drug stores and pick up a couple of rolls of Tri-X 35mm, if you ran out. That's gone, along with the quick processing But if you want a cheap SD card, just visit the local supermarket. The world has changed and to the best of my knowledge there are no longer any proper film cameras in production by any major manufacturers.

Film technology reached the peak of its development in the late 90s and now belongs to the past.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2018 at 00:46 UTC
In reply to:

Tom Holly: I shoot plenty of film. Tmax400 mainly. High iso should be left to digital in my opinion. High iso film is grainy junk.

So you shoot "professionally" with 110 format film? Are you serious? I was unaware that it had been available for a decade or two, but used as professional film? Don't tell me, you prefer it to Minox? Are you just trolling for the sake of it?

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2018 at 18:54 UTC
In reply to:

VENTURE-STAR: Wish I could see some point to this. The last time I shot a roll of 35mm and processed it was 2005. Never regretted moving on and have no wish to go backwards.

Davinator, in the real world of today, not many pro photographers are using film. I realise you believe you have an answer for everything, but the reality is that most people who earn their living from photography use digital equipment for most of their work. The days of being able to walk into a local camera store and buy film are long gone if you hadn't noticed. Things have changed. Personally, I couldn't care less if people want to use film, but as I said originally, I cannot see the point. Is that answer okay with you?

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2018 at 18:49 UTC
In reply to:

VENTURE-STAR: Wish I could see some point to this. The last time I shot a roll of 35mm and processed it was 2005. Never regretted moving on and have no wish to go backwards.

SirHawkeye - it's not an issue of not liking or not caring for film. Prior to digital reaching an acceptable quality, I shot tens of thousands of images on film - there was no alternative - and I have been in the business for decades. None of that really matters. But the world has moved on. All modern business is geared to digital and film is effectively dead and won't be making a return. It is now essentially material for art students and amateurs who think they can be more creative by using it. I'm not shouting about digital, just stating facts about the tools currently available. For me, digital and the improvements to lenses seen in last decade or so, have been a massive step up in almost every respect. If you are a half decent photographer, you will be able to demonstrate creative work irrespective of the equipment and using film tends to be a current fashionable thing that amateurs think will set them aside from the mainstream.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2018 at 11:23 UTC
In reply to:

VENTURE-STAR: Wish I could see some point to this. The last time I shot a roll of 35mm and processed it was 2005. Never regretted moving on and have no wish to go backwards.

Davinator - seeing the point is actually quite relevant to my way of thinking, not yours. There is still a professional market for movie film, but most serious photographers earning a living from their trade, consider film a things of the past, with no commerical value.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2018 at 02:08 UTC
In reply to:

Dylthedog: B&W Film eh?

Next thing you know vinyl records will make a comeback...

Still laughing and I do have more than a passing knowlege of this technology, which belongs to the last century and has nothing of real value to offer.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2018 at 01:58 UTC

Wish I could see some point to this. The last time I shot a roll of 35mm and processed it was 2005. Never regretted moving on and have no wish to go backwards.

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2018 at 22:46 UTC as 12th comment | 48 replies
In reply to:

Dylthedog: B&W Film eh?

Next thing you know vinyl records will make a comeback...

Makes me laugh when I see - digitally remastered for a vinyl disc! What is the point in wasting money on this clumsy archaic technology? I hated it when there was nothing else. The pressings were dreadful more often than not. Awful! Maybe I'm just too old to care :-)

Link | Posted on Feb 24, 2018 at 22:43 UTC

Sony is a significant shareholder in Tamron, so why is this such a big deal?

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2018 at 12:18 UTC as 40th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Deanaaargh: I would really like it if we could include area for all sensors in these types of announcements. especially as terms like 1/2.7" 1/1.3"... do not accurately represent the size of the sensors. Furthermore the sensor area is what is of ultimate significance when it comes to things like DR.
I know it is relatively simple to calculate the values for myself, but it still represents a bit of unnecessary obfuscation to someone trying to compare formats. I do appreciate the inclusion of the diagonal measurements.

Totally agree. Maybe it's also time to stop using inch sizes for things like monitors. These days, Imperial measurements are a real pain and should be scrapped by all manufacturers.

Link | Posted on Feb 3, 2018 at 01:09 UTC
Total: 192, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »