kodachromeguy

Lives in United States Vicksburg, United States
Works as a Retired and free
Has a website at worldofdecay.blogspot.com
Joined on May 5, 2007

Comments

Total: 180, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

maxnimo: I still have dozens of boxes of slides, but most of the images have faded terribly. I'm glad I digitized them many years ago even though the image quality is far below anything from a modern digicam.

The software that runs the scanner can also make a big difference re. calibration and options. Try SilverFast - it is expensive but really flexible.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 16:27 UTC
In reply to:

WGVanDyck: Frankly, I never thought analog was dead. I have been shooting film since ... well, forever. Today, I shoot B&W, develop it, and scan the negatives. I suspect that most of the concerns over Ektachrome fading will be a non-sequitur because most users will also scan the developed slides. Scanned slides will be easier to share/print, and virtually all labs offer scanning at the time of processing. That can help solve most of the longevity issue. Unfortunately, even the best scanners don't reproduce the beauty of a well exposed and developed slide as seen on a lightbox or projected onto a screen.

While Kodachrome was a great film, and I truly loved it, you still had some color issues to deal with when shooting. And, even though it resisted fading over time, I have scanned and restored many old Kodacolor slides that developed some sort of ugly fungus spotting over the years, as do some other films. Kodacolor was not a perfect film, but then I have never found a film that was.

Thank you - a voice of reason. If you are a serious photographer, you use the media and tool that lets you achieve the look that you are trying to achieve.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 16:22 UTC
In reply to:

Hanoise: Digital has its advantages. BUT, there will always be a difference to the truth of raw art and talent. Photography has progressed to a photoshop standard. The talent in most part of photography lies (didn't spell it wrong) in how well an image can be manipulated on a computer screen....
Analog has always and will always spearate the pros from the pro wana-be's.
People complain about the cost of developing etc, but the reality is, in life, if you want the best PAY FOR IT! or keep quite, and keep manipulating that wrongly exposed, poorly composed, semi-blurred, noisy and pixelated, sorry excuse as 'pic' on your pc.....

Pros for digital (both audio and visual):
- cheap
- easy
- widely available to the consumer unartistic masses
- guilt free shutter clicks/replay presses
- got lucky pics all over the web??

Cons:
- severely compressed
- lacks artistic initiative
- easily manipulated
- reproduced too easily
- gear becomes rapidly obsolete

Film/records pros:
- truely raw uncompressed quality both sound and visual
- truthful honest talent required only (consumers would see this as a con)
- light sensitive molecules have far for resolution and depth then the Much dopier square less intelligent pixel
- artist is able to much more to the image BEFORE, during and after the click of shutter/ record button.
- multiple film types available, only one Sony sensor type available.
- requires photographer to stop and think and actually appreciate the moment.

Cons:
- requires funding, so cuts out the smart phone happy ppl
- ppl start realising that selfies aren't worth the money.
- requires more effort and more time and more energy and more artistic creativity. Something the masses don't have generally.
- not many ppl are willing to learn the true art of photography.
- impatience with not being able to see your image in less than 0.025 of a second.

I welcome the analog not because I disregard the digital, but because I use both equally as much and I can see the difference....

I will always love my 5DSR and xt-2, but I love my Xpan and 1Dv and Fuji medium formats much more :)

Wow, interesting summary. "- requires photographer to stop and think and actually appreciate the moment." Very true, but I am waiting for the typical comments from the film haters to follow.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 03:25 UTC
In reply to:

cloneimaging: I recently started shooting medium format this year. I tell ya my photography and knowledge developed more in 10 months than the previous 8 years of just shooting digital.

Thank you for noting that. Working slowly, measuring the light, needing to THINK about each and every exposure - you certainly do learn along the way. And the development of the craft is rewarding. Of course with digital, you can spray and prey and hope you got some meaningful pictures.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 00:44 UTC
In reply to:

Jylppy: USD 2000 !!! Ridiculously expensive m43-camera. Way overpriced. And weights roughly the same as Full frame Canon 6D camera. So what was all the talk about "carrying bulk"?

Oh, no, here's the "ridiculously expensive" stuff again. Didn't we hear the same noise about the new Olympus camera and the Fuji X-T2? Better check out Leica.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 03:20 UTC
In reply to:

Peiasdf: The mag is right. Portfolio can be faked but full frame camera and full frame lenses cannot be faked. You want a photog that's invested and successful in his trade so he can afford the $3000 bodies and thousands in lenses and accessories.

Even if a Canon/NIkon photog is as inapt as his m4/3 and Fuji X counterpart, at least he have more to work with in Photoshop to fix bad photos.

This is a rather doofy argument in support of "full-frame" cameras. Uncle Joe may be rich enough to buy "full-frame" cameras but may not know how to use them well. "More to work with" means more pixels?

Link | Posted on Jan 3, 2017 at 17:20 UTC
In reply to:

bobn2: If too many photographers shoot the bride with a cannon it's going to put up professional liability insurance more than a little

Won't the husband be shooting the bride with his Cannon after the wedding?

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2016 at 03:16 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Farace: When idiots opine, trouble follows...

You mean at the wedding preparation, or here at DPreview?

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 19:24 UTC
In reply to:

Gesture: Guess it rules out Hasselblad's new medium format camera.

Many of these pretentious nitwits have absolutely no idea what a Hasselblad or a Leica are. Ah, but Canon or Nikon - they recognize those names. So that means they must be good. Ergo, the photographer using them must be good. (Scientific method at work here.)

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 23:47 UTC
In reply to:

HowaboutRAW: Wonder what Tiffani, or more likely the editor+reporter, would think is a "pro turntable" for playing records?

You think Tiffani has the slightest idea what a turntable is?

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 23:39 UTC
In reply to:

Photomonkey: So, more ignorance in the wedding client field. Nothing new.

Wedding photography is profoundly challenging because every job is a new client.
They need to be educated, coddled and nurtured to sign the contract. Then the photographer expends massive effort to plan, organize, and execute the shoot on the Big Day, all the while keeping the various miscreants happy.
Then post processing and delivering the huge job and dearly hoping for happiness and referrals.
THEN you have to do this all over again after you have been trolling for a new client.

You don't even have time to go to the bar and strut about telling everyone who will listen that you are a professional photographer. Then of course you miss out on the fistfights over your wanky Fuji camera. ;)

You mean you can't you strut about with your giant "Cannon" and and impress the crowd at the bar?

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 23:35 UTC
In reply to:

edward de bruyn: What a big joke, from my experience this is absolute nonsens, don't even know why I reply to such incredible nonsens...
There is nothing about this or other brand, colors, DR and IQ !
It's the eye and the knowledge of the guy behind the camera who makes the right picture, whatever he uses.
Sorry if they don't understand this....

You are right, but never forget, there are an awful lot of really stupid people in the world. And many of them are brand/pretension-conscious, so they really might base their choice of a wedding photographer on the brand name camera that he used. Sigh...

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 23:29 UTC
In reply to:

Favorable Exponynt: to get rid of the kit lens

Unless it is the Fuji 18-55mm lens. That one is a winner.

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 03:48 UTC
On article Our favorite gear, rewarded: DPReview Awards 2016 (271 comments in total)
In reply to:

LaurenceSvirchev: Every once in a while I take a look at the comments....then I stop looking at them for 6 months hoping that some level of maturity would be reflected in them. DPReview people spent a lot of time hashing over the Awards categories and came to some conclusions. These are conclusions I can mull over, but the readers' comments rarely help in decision-making over what gear I need or even desire. It's the specifications that count firstly, and the opinions of DPReview reviewers second. Distant third are readers' comments. It's just too much work wading through the rants and slags (some people writing just to be heard).

Comments pertaining to photography? Where, here?

Link | Posted on Dec 27, 2016 at 15:39 UTC
In reply to:

M Chambers: As a photographer I carry a camera. As an American I carry a gun. This is why I'd never go to Russia, I can't legally carry a gun there and I'd hate to find myself the situation of this photographer.

Is this for real? And what does carrying guns in Russia have to do with the article? You realize, I hope, that Turkey is another country....

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 20:28 UTC
In reply to:

mxx: Thank you to all the people who complain about the bad quality of the photo. It is really unprofessional and cannot excused. After all these years the bad quality of the pictures of the JFK shooting still gives me sleepless nights. Don't know why the press used them at all.

Watch out. Many of the readers might not get it.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 13:46 UTC
On article Sigma releases price and availability for sd Quattro H (369 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ababus: Sigma makes such alien machines, I don't understand who are these cameras aimed at?

How about serious photographers who work methodically and want top image quality?

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 04:00 UTC
On article Gear of the Year: Richard's choice - Fujifilm X-T2 (172 comments in total)
In reply to:

SETI: Water-painter of the year!

Which means what?

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2016 at 14:52 UTC
In reply to:

Everythingis1: The more time goes on the more I realize why full frame and ASPC are still the standards for normal shooting. The depth of field just in that nice middle ground, not to much, not to little. If m 4/3's is considered limiting with its DoF than surely Medium format is also.

@Androole, what is wrong with tripods? Thousands of the world's accomplished photographers use tripods.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 02:14 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1322 comments in total)
In reply to:

MShot: Fantasy photography. Like fantasy football. No need to actually play the game. Just look at the roster and call the game. No need to watch it. Soon the DPR tests will be so good nobody will ever have to try a camera or take a take photo. We can just read the specs and comments and decide.

That is already standard practice here.

Link | Posted on Dec 3, 2016 at 23:13 UTC
Total: 180, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »