Stuart001

Stuart001

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

Comments

Total: 41, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
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 38th comment | 1 reply
On article Readers' Showcase: Rodger Kingston (53 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 (53 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 (53 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 (53 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
On article Adobe celebrates 25 years of Photoshop (366 comments in total)
In reply to:

razadaz: Reading through the replies here I cannot believe how many people support Adobe and want to give it more money, extolling the virtues of endless rental payments. Do these people go shopping for the highest price they can pay for their groceries, sell their houses so they can rent them instead, or argue that their job is paying them too much? It is common sense for software users to look for cheaper alternatives and help keep the price down, rather than support a company that has already made a vast fortune out of its customers. Adobe is not a charity, is does not need your financial support.

A cheaper alternative is fine. The problem is finding something that does all that Photoshop does, as efficiently and as well. Unfortunately there is nothing. There are programs that do some things but not others, and nothing that is the complete package. If you find something that works for you, then fine. But don't assume that just because I use Photoshop that I am somehow deluded.

Link | Posted on Feb 21, 2015 at 00:00 UTC
On article Adobe celebrates 25 years of Photoshop (366 comments in total)

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.)

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2015 at 07:11 UTC as 26th comment | 12 replies
On article On point: Steve Vaccariello's dance photography (79 comments in total)
In reply to:

TyphoonTW: 'I do not touch my dance work with Photoshop. Never!'. Dxo Optics + Paintshop Pro confirmed?
Anyway nice shots!

...or a studio assistant does it for him.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2015 at 10:56 UTC
In reply to:

Stuart001: Is it just me, or is this perhaps the single most stupid, simple-minded, muddle-headed, narcissistic idea ever invented?

Ah, Cane
I feel quite sorry for you if you think that not liking a dumb idea means one is 'old'. 'Age' is not a determinant of maturity. One can be immature at any age, a fact clearly demonstrated by your apparent excitement over what is a rather sorry piece of completely useless technology.

Link | Posted on Jan 30, 2015 at 06:30 UTC
In reply to:

Stuart001: Is it just me, or is this perhaps the single most stupid, simple-minded, muddle-headed, narcissistic idea ever invented?

You're going to be fun to look at with your shirt off when your first pack of 'Picattoos' arrives.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2015 at 06:01 UTC

Is it just me, or is this perhaps the single most stupid, simple-minded, muddle-headed, narcissistic idea ever invented?

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2015 at 05:43 UTC as 7th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Thomas Kachadurian: The question isn't do people buy magazines. The question is do advertisers buy space. The answer is less and less every day. If I sell a canon camera why should I buy an ad in SI when I know I can buy an ad on DPR and get directly to my customers.

A good point Thomas, but it is possible to have an add-on program on a browser (such as AdBlock+) which stops ads from being displayed. I don't see ads on most sites that I visit.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2015 at 05:18 UTC
On article UK Landscape Photographer of the Year winners announced (127 comments in total)
In reply to:

Prixnobeldefoot: Some of the pictures are interesting.
However, I find it sad that none of those have a "natural" look.
I know Photography is a visual art, but I feel that nowadays people tend to value more visual effects than content, you have to make it appealing to the most people possible. It has to pop out...

Like #3, let's give them a sunset, some flowers, add some contrast and saturation and done. It's well executed but it's s been done a million times. I find it rather cliché.

I like #1 and #7 because they're intriguing in a way.

As an another academic, I agree with you Mr Craw!. 'Art' is not just something that is pleasant; nor it necessarily something that is provocative or controversial. It needs more. It needs to be based in ideas and in the communication of those ideas. To this end it IS often challenging and difficult because that is what it is supposed to be. It is not art BECAUSE it is controversial but being so does not negate its value as 'art'. I would like to know if the photographer who 'had a wee' on his film was Andres Serrano and his 'Pis$ Chr$t'? If so I suggest ThatCamFan has a good read about what Serrano was trying to do with his work, but unfortunately it takes far longer to try and understand it than it does to simply dismiss it. I have seen some great photos of flowers and bugs that COULD be art, but not that many. Most of them are simply decorative photos of flowers and bugs. (And it's not a photography thing - most paintings aren't art either.)

Link | Posted on Nov 17, 2014 at 04:45 UTC
Total: 41, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »