kb2zuz

Lives in United States United States
Works as a Digital Imaging Techician
Joined on Jun 6, 2006
About me:

Specializing in Fine Art reproduction, color management, retouching, printing, and
digital asset management.

Other jobs I've held in past lives, in no particular order:

Studio and Location Shoot Photo Assistant
Digital Tech
Equipment Rental
Photographer
Photo Lab Technician (Dip & Dunk Film processing)
Durst Lambda and wide format inkjet operator
Retoucher
Design/Layout
Educator
Inkjet Printing R&D

Comments

Total: 84, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Scott Eaton: While K25 in 35mm and the short lived 120 variants provided good enlargement and projection potential nobody does optical / reversal printing anymore which will require you to scan it. Spent enough years trying to get decent commercial scans from Kodachrome, and while it can be done it requires a precisely exposed slide that's underexposed proportionally with increasing contrast. I'll take 120 Provia - thanks.
So, once again what are you going to do with a box of Kodachrome other than try to take pictures of it with a digital camera (scanner)? Nothing. Just another distraction for hipster contrarians who prefer to walk around with ancient cameras and bad mouth digital while stroking their precious Lecias, but don't actually take pictures. IMO, if Kodak wants to bring back a legacy emulsion you can actually do something with I suggest RG25. At least existing minilabs can print it.

To scan Kodachrome, commercial scanners can be problematic as Kodachrome has a very different infrared absorption characteristic which made things complicated, but it can be done.

And yes while there are hipsters nostalgic for something they never used. It is worth noting that Kodachrome has a unique spectral response, which made for color separation that other film, digital sensors, and filters just do not replicate.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 21:12 UTC
In reply to:

Mariano Pacifico: I really thought Kodak is dead like Nikon.

Kodak didn't have the sales to support the size of the company that they once were. They were large corporation doing research on a nearly unrivaled level. They were basically the Google of their time.

It's not that no one was buying film. It that film was not selling enough to support a company that big. The restructuring was scary and painful but there is definitely enough interest to keep a smaller company alive. Fewer lines of film, less research of new lower grain film, less research of random tangential or unrelated products, but just putting out what they have.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 21:06 UTC
In reply to:

gravis92: 1/20 people here plan to shoot film next year. I'm not sure how many unique visitors DPreview gets over the course of a few months, but 5% is a lot in sheer numbers especially considering that nearly every one of these people for sure have at least one digital camera. And I would doubt that DPreview visitors are any different than visitors to other sites. Kodak is onto something. Make a product at a profit that 1/20 people in the entire photography market would buy...and likely continue to buy on a regular basis? Id say that's a win. Especially since it takes literally no r/d, just restart the old machines and get the distribution network restocked.

Of course they still make film, but this drums up even more interest and attracts attention to their existing products. The fact that they still make porta, etkar must mean they are breaking even, or at least not bleeding money.

5% "plan on shooting film" what percentage of those will actually shoot film?

Of those what percentage will shoot color instead of B&W?

Of those what percentage will shoot Chrome instead of Negative?

Of those what percentage will be willing to shoot on a process that is so difficult to develop you would likely need to send it to one specific lab that would be the only lab that processes it?

Don't get me wrong, I love me some Kodachrome... but unlike Ektachrome it's not a simple "just restart the machines" (which actually it wasn't because they have to source new base material as Kodak demolished that plant) in the case of Kodachrome, it's also making chemicals and assisting a lab in calibrating one of the weirdest development lines I've ever seen.

Link | Posted on Jan 11, 2017 at 21:01 UTC
In reply to:

Wye Photography: It's good software. Hasselblad should open it up to other camera makes.

@HowaboutRAW yes it's free (want to guess how many copies I have installed around the studio?). And yes it has basic support for other camera RAW files (on Mac at least, because they're leveraging the OS's built in RAW support). But they're not going to add full support for other cameras that they make no money on for free. So they'd have to charge for that. And if you're going to charge, now they'd be competing with companies that have been doing so for a lot longer and have a larger install base, larger support, and simply have more experience making software people want.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2016 at 18:55 UTC
In reply to:

CreeDo: is this software maybe a customized version of DXO optics pro, or maybe somehow they collaborated on it? It looks so similar. Maybe everything has that user interface now. Pretty nice software actually, certainly looks more useful than DPP.

No they've taken design cues from other programs over time. Phocus 2 looked a lot more like Lightroom, now they're copying CaptureOne more (which DxO looks a lot like).

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2016 at 19:23 UTC
In reply to:

Wye Photography: It's good software. Hasselblad should open it up to other camera makes.

The problem is no one is going to pay for Phocus. If they were they'd buy Lightroom or DxO or CaptureOne or a bunch of other programs that have some level of name recognition.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2016 at 19:22 UTC
In reply to:

karlkk: Hasselblad has yet to be observed in use by somebody.

I got two in the studio here. Both get used every weekday.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2016 at 19:18 UTC
In reply to:

alcaher: how much does it cost to produce a Medium Format size sensor?

A lot of it depends on the actual sensor and also ordering in bulk brings things down quite a bit. This sensor is 44x33mm and it is being used in a large percentage of medium format cameras today... Both bring the price down drastically compared to 54x40mm sensors that are not as popular.

This new-ish CMOS sensor is by Sony and is using similar technology to what they do in their full frame and APS-C sensors. Previously all medium format sensors were CCD and made by Kodak or DALSA and most people assume that those were designs that were left over from government contracts that expired.

For the longest time Medium format sensors tended to be 10 years behind the times. Now they're about 4-5 (the ISO performance is on par with the D7000/D800 and they don't have phase detect autofocus built into the sensor like the latest full frame sensors in the Sony A7 line). Exciting times, the only downside is the sensor is pretty small for medium format (0.79x "crop" from 135 format)

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2016 at 21:53 UTC
On article Medium-format mirrorless: Hasselblad unveils X1D (1179 comments in total)
In reply to:

AgntMichaelScarn: What's the equivalence of fuller frame to full frame?

This sensor is .79x crop factor from 135 or 135 is 1.266x of this.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 21:36 UTC
On article Medium-format mirrorless: Hasselblad unveils X1D (1179 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wild Light: This is baaaaad for Leica

Yes a blip on the M's radar. A range finder is a completely different camera. If you're looking for an M you're not even considering this. People who get the S do not buy the M and people who buy the M are not looking at the S. This may be competition for the S, but they have a way to go with lenses. The only thing this really will shut down is the SL line and maybe down the road have an impact on the S line if they improve their lens lineup.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 21:34 UTC
On article Medium-format mirrorless: Hasselblad unveils X1D (1179 comments in total)
In reply to:

historianx: Delicious! Interested in the battery power, as this is the one hangup with MILCs. Still, this is a game-changer.

Battery is a concern. My more immediate concern is the AF. The sensor does not have Phase Detect AF points, so we're back to contrast detect AF like we were in the very early days of Mirrorless. And with the bigger/heavier lenses it could be pretty slow... we'll have to see how it performs in the field.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 15:08 UTC
On article Medium-format mirrorless: Hasselblad unveils X1D (1179 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wild Light: This is baaaaad for Leica

Maybe bad for Leicas SL line... maybe. But a blip on the radar for the M line and Hasselblad has a long way to go to catch up to the S line (Leica has a decent range of lenses at this point as opposed to 2).

Different cameras for different needs/uses.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 15:05 UTC
On article Medium-format mirrorless: Hasselblad unveils X1D (1179 comments in total)
In reply to:

Steven-T: Just watched the Hasselblad live presentation. This X1D is not for me. The sensor size is 1.68x FF 35mm. A Hassy V 6x6 film is 3.63x times FF 35mm film size. I want at least a 6x45 sensor size, 24mp is fine with me. The two XCD lenses are extremely slow, considering the much smaller image circle coverage. I want at least f/2.8 or faster. I am using three f/2.8 V lenses for my film Hassy V, covering a much larger image circle. Bokeh? What's Bokeh! Guess I need to wait longer for the next "whatever brand" . . .

The 1.68x is in area. Going by that metric full frame is 2.35x larger than Nikon/Sony APS-C. If you translate into the more commonly used "crop factor" based on diagonal. We're talking a 0.79x crop factor (or 135 is a 1.266x crop from this sensor). It's a really negligible difference for the hit you take in availability of wide aperture lenses. If you want Bokeh. 135 format is where you want to be. You can get plenty of f/1.4 lenses. With Canon you can get some f/1.2 or f/1.0 lenses. If you go Leica you can get f/0.95 lenses.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2016 at 15:03 UTC
In reply to:

jonny1976: then pentax will come out with a 100 million camera 645z2 that will cost 8000 euro.

Due to the change in the masking on the sensor, they get a lot more noise (those masked pixels are used to reduce noise). As a result the pentax as a much higher noise floor, and the darkest couple stops is just noise and not useable information. The article states that DXO has not tested it, but having talked to people who've used it, it does not have the same useable dynamic range as the Hasselblad or Phase cameras.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2016 at 17:52 UTC
In reply to:

gonzalu: Why is this still not implemented by default into every single camera by now? I mean seriously? I can get a FREE Android or iOS device that has FAR MORE functionality than a dSLR that costs hundreds or thousands... Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, 3G, 4G, LTE, full functioning software, apps galore, etc. etc. Why are cameras still hobbled ???

<rant mode off />

The comments about freezing were more the comparisons to phones having "apps galore." Phase and Hasselblad does have Wifi in some cameras. But they are not perfect implementations and do sometimes need the connections reset.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2016 at 18:29 UTC
In reply to:

gonzalu: Why is this still not implemented by default into every single camera by now? I mean seriously? I can get a FREE Android or iOS device that has FAR MORE functionality than a dSLR that costs hundreds or thousands... Bluetooth, Wi-Fi, 3G, 4G, LTE, full functioning software, apps galore, etc. etc. Why are cameras still hobbled ???

<rant mode off />

Because some photography jobs/gigs actually will not let you bring a radio transmitter into the shoot.

Because adding wifi makes the camera significantly more expensive not due to the electronics but because of the regulatory hoops a company has to jump through to get a radio transmitting device approved for every country they want to sell it in.

Because the same reason car electronic systems are always years behind smart phones... it's ok if your phone freezes up for 5 seconds, it's not cool if your car does. Many photographers (including myself) would be more upset if their camera froze up as often as their Android or iOS phone. So features are limited and over engineered for maximum uptime.

Because in the end most people with wifi enabled cameras never use the feature, and those that do only play with it little here or there.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2016 at 22:20 UTC

Could you guys do a shootout/comparison between this and the CamRanger?

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2016 at 22:15 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
Total: 84, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »