Stuart001

Stuart001

Lives in Australia Fremantle, Australia
Works as a Lecturer, Visual Artist
Joined on Oct 20, 2011

Comments

Total: 49, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

steelhead3: $500 annual for welcome kit and an insurance program for a studio and landscape camera?

You forgot about the personalised FPS Card. That alone must be worth $249.50 per year.

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 15:06 UTC
On article Alpha-better: Sony a9 versus a7R II (506 comments in total)
In reply to:

sebbe: I want to buy one just to have a camera without a black out in the most exciting moments.

If that is all you want, you should buy an X-Pro2 and use the OVF!

Link | Posted on Apr 26, 2017 at 15:02 UTC
In reply to:

Lensmate: Good fun, but nothing new, as Banksy had been doing this sort of thing since the 90's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banksy

.. and Banksy learned from Blek le Rat ...
But I have to concur with Juck - there's quite a difference between the two: the main similarity seems to be a simple juxtaposition of ideas, and in that they were both beaten by Marcel Duchamp.
The photos are great, by the way. Novel and humorous without being overly fussy. Excellent and refreshing stuff!

Link | Posted on Apr 4, 2017 at 10:15 UTC
In reply to:

Mr R Adams: For me, mirrorless occupy an awkward middle ground. The smaller models are outperformed by SLR’s but despite been smaller, are still too big to pocket. The larger models perform well but are just as large and heavy as an SLR by the time you add a lens.

Nikon 1’s concept was excellent and a perfect application of mirrorless tech, bring moderate performance to a small package as a sort of sidearm to the SLR. It's shame it's execution was confused. If they made a twin dial camera in the guise of an FE or S2 without the insane price they ask for the V3 it would be the perfect everyday camera to fill the gaps between my D750 shoots.

@Mr R Adams. Actually the X-Pro 2 IS a 'serious' camera, and it's rugged and weather proof to boot. It's not that breakable - it is the camera of choice for a number of photojournalists who tend to abuse cameras quite a bit. Its build quality is every bit a good as the D800. But I take less lenses because the photographic experience is different. It reminds me more of using my Olympus OM1s and OM2 and prime lenses, all of which I bought new in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and all of which I still own! I know this may sound ridiculous, but whenever i take the Nikon I feel that I have to take everything, just in case. With the Fuji, it just seems the me, the camera and a couple of lenses will get everything done that needs to be done.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 10:40 UTC
In reply to:

Mr R Adams: For me, mirrorless occupy an awkward middle ground. The smaller models are outperformed by SLR’s but despite been smaller, are still too big to pocket. The larger models perform well but are just as large and heavy as an SLR by the time you add a lens.

Nikon 1’s concept was excellent and a perfect application of mirrorless tech, bring moderate performance to a small package as a sort of sidearm to the SLR. It's shame it's execution was confused. If they made a twin dial camera in the guise of an FE or S2 without the insane price they ask for the V3 it would be the perfect everyday camera to fill the gaps between my D750 shoots.

Mr R Adams wrote"For me, mirrorless occupy an awkward middle ground. The smaller models are outperformed by SLR’s but despite been smaller, are still too big to pocket. The larger models perform well but are just as large and heavy as an SLR by the time you add a lens."

As a D700/D800 user I thought so too until I bought an X-Pro2. After quite a bit of traveling last year with a D800, 16-35 f4, 24-70 and 70-200 f2.8s, and Sigma 24 and 35mm f1.4s, I struggled under the load while my wife waltzed around with her Olympus OMD 5 MkII. I got so tired of dragging everything around I lashed out and bought the Fuji X-Pro2, 16-55 and the 23 and 35mm f2s. What difference, Photos are fun again. I'll keep the D800 for sure - the IQ is certainly better - but it's only marginal. But the Fuji rig is QUITE a bit lighter. I heard rumours that Nikon were planning a mirrorless body to take the lens range, but it's the lenses that weigh a ton.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2017 at 10:11 UTC
In reply to:

james s. kennedy: I'll stick with LN M-3, M-6 classic, my lightly care-worn M2, and my battered, but functionally perfect M-4. But the M-10 looks great, and the sample photos were impressive. I am 80, and my wife, who doesn't know an f-stop from a doorstop, pledges that all of my 200+ film cameras will be $5 each when I go f/512.

Can I give your wife my email address?

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2017 at 09:47 UTC
In reply to:

VadymA: Checked their website, liked the Before images better than After. On the same topic - I suppose 50 years from now there will be filters simulating digital camera look, so shouldn't we appreciate the authentic output of our cameras now, instead of hiding it behind fake and cheap camouflage until suddenly it becomes a "cool" filter on someone's app?

I agree. There's an ongoing contradiction in photography at the moment. We all have to have the latest and best cameras and smartphones, but then are all convinced to buy apps to make them look like crappy cameras and film from the 1960s. I still use film at times, and have film cameras from the 1960s (and from most of the decades from 1900 - 2000) but I want my digital images to look like digital images, and my film images to look like film images.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2016 at 06:41 UTC
In reply to:

Bernie Ess: Well, I am not too impressed. The price is beyond reasonable, the pixel count is a bit more than twice of what my a7rII gives me. When I look at the files at 100%, nothing of what I see is so exceptional after all. It just looks like any high end DSLR theses days at 100%, just more of it. a7rII with a premium lens can shoot detail that is "pixel sharp" at 100%, and I can deeply dig into the shadows without noise penalty. This here is similar, just larger (sensor surface), Colour doesn't impress me.

I may be wrong but the older CCD files were nicer...

... but it can come in handy as a hammer.

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2016 at 09:39 UTC
In reply to:

JaapVerbeek: If only Adobe could at long last include my Nikkor 16-35mm F4 in the lens profiles...

Only one as far as I know, and I have it too. If I look at a NEF or a DNG image the option for that lens is there, but if you convert an image to a tiff or jpeg (like if you process the image in PS) the option can disappear. This shouldn't matter because the original lens profile would have been used to process the raw image.
I've never worked out why the options change.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2016 at 09:59 UTC
In reply to:

Kelvin L: I use a 4x5 field camera, and have been constantly on the lookout for an affordable digital alternative with the same lens movement versatility. I like the look of this system (and it's priced sensibly for what it is), but unfortunately it seems more useful for product/macro than location work.

I have a Nikon D800 body, and it seems like Canon is the way to go for a decent range of tilt-shift lenses - a significant investment for a total system swap and 3 TS lenses. Thus the continued use of the Wista field camera.

Sooner or later the 4x5 film supply will dry up and I'll have to take the plunge. Perhaps someone enterprising in Japan (or Kickstarter) can come up with an affordable dedicated wideangle capable flexbody-type digital for the masses - 4/3 format perhaps?

To Kelvin: Don't give up your 4x5. I have feeling that film will be a bit like vinyl--just when you thought it was gone, it will come flooding back. An Italian company, Ferania, are just making plans to restart manufacturing film--8 & 16 mm movie, 35mm, 4x5, 5x7, and 8x10. It will still be a year or so, but it's a start! Have a look at http://www.filmferrania.it/ Even Kodak are talking about reintroducing Super8, and it could just be short step to more!

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2016 at 09:33 UTC
In reply to:

Photo Pete: Shhh! Don't tell the Full Frame fanboys that their Full Frame is a cropped sensor.

In the days of film (which I still use) no one talked about 'full frame' when referring to any size of film camera. In fact people only really used the term 'frame' when referring to roll film, either 35mm or 120.

Some cameras, however--e.g Olympus Trip--WERE referred to as 'half frame'. They predated 110, and used half of a 35mm frame and so could take 72 images on a roll of 35mm/36 exposures. The cameras took vertical images when the camera was horizontal. So if we take this as the starting point, a 'full frame' would therefore be 35mm.

Larger formats were sheets, not 'frames' because the terminology came originally from the film industry and therefore only applied to roll film, 35mm in particular.

And a sensor can't really be a 'crop' sensor--its size is its size. 'Cropping' is what is done after the image is taken. The only time the term 'cropped sensor' should be used is when you choose to omit some of the pixels available to you, like selecting a different image ratio.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 06:49 UTC
On article Adobe Camera Raw 9.2 adds local dehaze (60 comments in total)
In reply to:

AllanW: If they EVER add localised HSL I'll be in heaven!

I agree with this one. Something that Adobe should consider!

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2015 at 23:26 UTC

While regrettable, this is seems to be a logical consequence of the absolute ubiquity of the camera in the 21st century. Couple this with the apparent 'right' everyone seems to believe they have to 'monetise' everything they do on Facebook and YouTube. It was inevitable that people who make work in 'public' places (the buildings, the public art, people's faces, etc) would start to push back.

Pro-photographers have long had to get permission to use places in a city, so that's nothing new.

But it's not really the city councils, governments, architects and planners who are responsible for the rules, even though they are the ones introducing them. If you want to blame anyone, blame the people who feel that it is their right to make money off anything that moves. They are killing it for the rest of us.

Sign the petition. It's not much, but it's all we've got.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2015 at 09:15 UTC as 41st comment | 1 reply
On article Readers' Showcase: Rodger Kingston (52 comments in total)
In reply to:

Klaus Weber: Seeing the content of such books, I always wonder regarding the model releases from the people shown. I am about to publish my own book about Belgrade, and for some photos I am not sure if I should dare to publish them.

I guess you did not ask for an release of the persons you made photos of, e.g. photo 4 here? You just take the risk?

As far as I know personality rights are still only for commercial use.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2015 at 09:58 UTC
On article Readers' Showcase: Rodger Kingston (52 comments in total)
In reply to:

Klaus Weber: Seeing the content of such books, I always wonder regarding the model releases from the people shown. I am about to publish my own book about Belgrade, and for some photos I am not sure if I should dare to publish them.

I guess you did not ask for an release of the persons you made photos of, e.g. photo 4 here? You just take the risk?

I believe that in most cases/jurisdictions a model release is only needed if the image is to be used for 'commercial purposes'. This does NOT mean that you can't sell the image as an art print--that should be ok, as would publication in a photographic book. If you were intending to sell some of the images to Belgrade City Council to be used as publicity shots, or to Coke for an advertisement, THEN you would need a model release.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2015 at 13:00 UTC
On article Readers' Showcase: Rodger Kingston (52 comments in total)
In reply to:

Naveed Akhtar: These are all great photos Rodger, perfectly exposed and composed!
Also inspiring is the fact, that they are taken from a relatively small sensor camera. I always believe for good photography it needs (ordered in preference):
1. Good eye/ hands
2. Camera body
3. Lens/ Sensor combination
4. Post processing
Your 1,2 and 4 are so good that the overall impact balances out slightly weaker 3, quite easily.

Hi Samuel
Thanks for clearing that up.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2015 at 12:56 UTC
On article Readers' Showcase: Rodger Kingston (52 comments in total)
In reply to:

Naveed Akhtar: These are all great photos Rodger, perfectly exposed and composed!
Also inspiring is the fact, that they are taken from a relatively small sensor camera. I always believe for good photography it needs (ordered in preference):
1. Good eye/ hands
2. Camera body
3. Lens/ Sensor combination
4. Post processing
Your 1,2 and 4 are so good that the overall impact balances out slightly weaker 3, quite easily.

In fact if the dates on the images are correct, there are only three images (1, 4 & 5) that could have been taken with the Fuji, because the photographer says he started using the camera in 2012. So what's the story here? The photographer (whose work is great, by the way) isn't really claiming anything except that he now uses the Fuji. So could DPRs writers/editors explain THEIR claim that the book was made with this particular camera? ("...the baby X-series offered everything he needed for a self-published book of photography") when it is plain that the book is no such thing?

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2015 at 02:50 UTC
On article Adobe celebrates 25 years of Photoshop (366 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stuart001: I can't believe people are so negative about something that no one is forcing them to use. Does anyone still use 3Mp cameras? Dial up internet? A mobile phone powered by a 6volt, wet-cell battery? Watch VHS movies?

Subscription-based, downloadable software is inevitable. Why? Because we now have the means to quickly transfer large amounts of data over the Internet. We don't need to put it on CDs or DVDs any more. And the subscription model is actually cheaper than the old method of buying PS 4,5 or 6 and Lightroom, unless you are happy updating just once a decade and using outdated software.

Some of the new things in PS CC are terrific. Access to camera raw as a filter within Photoshop by itself saves me hours per week, and more than pays for the annual subscription. This is true even if you are not a pro, unless you value your own time at zero.

Don't like it? Don't buy it. Or invent something better. (And I don't work for Adobe, and I'm not a hip young tech head-I'm almost 60.)

Howaboutraw: The point is the same. The 3mp camera was once the industry standard. It no longer is. Times move on, and the delivery of content--software as well as media content such as tv shows and movies--is changing, just as camera technology has changed and continues to change. Early digital cameras were replaced by those with better sensors etc and we moved forward. No one now wants a 3mp camera. In the near future few people will want disks. Many don't need them now.

In 1977 I was a civil design draftsman in a government agency (water supply). I was seconded to a position working with other agencies to digitise cadastral and construction information. I worked with sewerage and drainage agencies, gas and electricity suppliers, telecommunication companies--anyone who had services buried underground. We used large tape-based mainframes in climate-controlled and dust free rooms. The single trial project took over a year. I have been involved with computers in some way since.

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2015 at 23:12 UTC
On article Adobe celebrates 25 years of Photoshop (366 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stuart001: I can't believe people are so negative about something that no one is forcing them to use. Does anyone still use 3Mp cameras? Dial up internet? A mobile phone powered by a 6volt, wet-cell battery? Watch VHS movies?

Subscription-based, downloadable software is inevitable. Why? Because we now have the means to quickly transfer large amounts of data over the Internet. We don't need to put it on CDs or DVDs any more. And the subscription model is actually cheaper than the old method of buying PS 4,5 or 6 and Lightroom, unless you are happy updating just once a decade and using outdated software.

Some of the new things in PS CC are terrific. Access to camera raw as a filter within Photoshop by itself saves me hours per week, and more than pays for the annual subscription. This is true even if you are not a pro, unless you value your own time at zero.

Don't like it? Don't buy it. Or invent something better. (And I don't work for Adobe, and I'm not a hip young tech head-I'm almost 60.)

Howaboutraw: Your last couple of replies demonstrate that you have completely missed the point I was trying to make. There is a cycle of change that you seem not to understand.

Improvements in hardware lead to improvements in software that lead to improvements in hardware... and TIMES CHANGE. When Photoshop was bought on disk, the company kept upgrading as new technologies meant that they could do new things. Now they can upgrade more cheaply, and customers can access the upgrades more quickly. Putting software on DVD is no longer necessary as we have fast internet speeds.

You childishly say "You don't appear to know much about PhotoShop, computers, internet connections or digital cameras". How do you know WHAT I know? (I began working with computers in 1977) And you say earlier "My laptop is likely faster than your computer." Maybe. Maybe not. But so what? It's as stupid as a photographer saying, "I know more about photography than you because I own a Leica."

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2015 at 09:58 UTC
On article Adobe celebrates 25 years of Photoshop (366 comments in total)
In reply to:

Stuart001: I can't believe people are so negative about something that no one is forcing them to use. Does anyone still use 3Mp cameras? Dial up internet? A mobile phone powered by a 6volt, wet-cell battery? Watch VHS movies?

Subscription-based, downloadable software is inevitable. Why? Because we now have the means to quickly transfer large amounts of data over the Internet. We don't need to put it on CDs or DVDs any more. And the subscription model is actually cheaper than the old method of buying PS 4,5 or 6 and Lightroom, unless you are happy updating just once a decade and using outdated software.

Some of the new things in PS CC are terrific. Access to camera raw as a filter within Photoshop by itself saves me hours per week, and more than pays for the annual subscription. This is true even if you are not a pro, unless you value your own time at zero.

Don't like it? Don't buy it. Or invent something better. (And I don't work for Adobe, and I'm not a hip young tech head-I'm almost 60.)

Howaboutraw: My point about 3mp cameras and dial up is that some people are extremely conservative and reluctant to change, especially when they feel they have a 'right 'to something simply because they have been using it for a while. Software used to be supplied on disk because it was the only way to do so. Now it's not. It really is as simple as that.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2015 at 00:12 UTC
Total: 49, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »