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: 96, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Adobe Lightroom CC 2015.10 and ACR 9.10 now available (64 comments in total)
In reply to:

Samuel Jessop: I get alarmed by reports of bugs in Lightroom. I'm running v5.7 which is super stable, but am now considering Capture One when I upgrade to a newer camera body.

@Samuel Jessop It's decently fast most of the time... work on a few machines. Mac Pro's (trash cans), maxed out 27" iMacs, occasionally MacBook Pros. A lot of Phase One IQ180's but the occasional D800 shot.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2017 at 21:28 UTC
On article Adobe Lightroom CC 2015.10 and ACR 9.10 now available (64 comments in total)
In reply to:

d3xmeister: I wonder how in the world in 2017 Panasonic is still not relevant enough to Adobe to support color profiles and advanced lens correction.

I'm pretty sure they don't support lens corrections because I'm fairly sure Panasonic (and Olympus) do it in camera

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2017 at 03:39 UTC
On article Adobe Lightroom CC 2015.10 and ACR 9.10 now available (64 comments in total)
In reply to:

left eye: Adobe please update ACR for CS6.

I need Fuji GFX .raf support, currently I'm converting all my .raf to .dng; workable but somewhat of a pain and it's doubling the amount of files I'm storing!

They have said they were done with CS6 updates. They supported it for 5 years. You have multiple options (obviously some are more appealing than others):

1) Don't shoot RAW

2) Use the free Adobe DNG converter and manually convert your RAWs to DNG that will work in ACR

3) Use Lightroom.

4) Use another program like Capture One Pro.

5) Get the CC license.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2017 at 03:37 UTC
On article Adobe Lightroom CC 2015.10 and ACR 9.10 now available (64 comments in total)
In reply to:

Samuel Jessop: I get alarmed by reports of bugs in Lightroom. I'm running v5.7 which is super stable, but am now considering Capture One when I upgrade to a newer camera body.

Capture One is good, but not bug free.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2017 at 03:33 UTC
On article Adobe Lightroom CC 2015.10 and ACR 9.10 now available (64 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jim Evidon: I have found it disappointing if not distressing that Adobe has consistently overlooked the many legacy lenses that most LR users have. There is a whole raft of Leica M mount lenses from Zeiss, CV, and Leica/Leitz that do not appear in their collections of lens profiles. Just because the users of these lenses are considered traditionalist or maybe just old fashioned doesn't mean that they enjoy the laborious and time consuming process of resorting to Adobe's Lens Profiler. Adobe seems to be both blind and deaf or maybe they just can't be bothered.

It's not because they're blind or deaf, but because:

1) there are 1000's of legacy lenses and each of of them have to be tried on 100's of cameras... If you don't want to do the lens profile creator for 1 lens on 1 camera, the guys at Adobe having to do it for thousands to millions of combinations?

2) Because it will have limited use. How many people have a Type 4 50mm Summicron from the 80s (not the current Type 6 or the Type 5 from the 90s or the 3 others dating back to the 50's) on a Canon 6D. Furthermore the average user expect detection to be automatic but Lightroom can't know what lens you used without electronic connections and metadata

3) Because they wouldn't work. The lens corrections take into account the lens, the focal length (if a zoom), and the aperture. Those legacy lenses have no electronic connection so LR doesn't know what lens, what zoom (if applicable), or what aperture was used.

You can also use the Lens Profile Downloade and see if others made profiles.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2017 at 03:33 UTC
On article Adobe Lightroom CC 2015.10 and ACR 9.10 now available (64 comments in total)
In reply to:

stelioskritikakis: still no new features..
HSL panel could implemented with brushes/radial/grad
bad sharpness engine

Yes but keep in mind the last time they drastically expanded the number of sliders for local adjustments, Lightroom's performance dropped drastically.

Also there is the question of UI... the local adjustment panels are already getting a bit unwieldy and adding that many more sliders would make it a mess. They should redesign the local adjustment pallets entirely before doing so.

Link | Posted on Apr 14, 2017 at 03:23 UTC
In reply to:

Shlomo Goldwasser: When I look at this, I'm like: I want it. But when you think about it there are not that many things to film in slomo that are not gimmicky. You could film your cat jumping or attacking or a watergun squirting. This is cool once or twice, but it hardly warrants a three layer sensor specifically made for this functionality.

I can only think of two frequent uses for this: sports and adult industries.

It's not just for slow-mo. It also means a camera phone or go pro will be better at taking still shots at high shutter speeds without the image being distorted from the rolling shutter. Also has potential for other applications like using the video to capture info for a 3D model, etc.

Link | Posted on Feb 7, 2017 at 20:02 UTC
On article DPReview and the TWiT Network team-up to talk cameras (24 comments in total)
In reply to:

ovatab: let's discuss if "analog" is proper term for photo-chemical process

Photo-chemical photography, silver-halide photography... they're all legitimate terms. If I'm talking in response to a general statement of Digital vs _____ I generally say "film" but will occasionally use Analogue as that's the term people are used to. If I'm dealing with more knowledgable people, then I'll typically fall back on more specific terms like silver-gelatin or chromogenic, but those will be specific to the topic and not as broad as "analogue" or "film".

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2017 at 20:02 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.

Looks as if Kodak agrees: https://www.dpreview.com/news/3940089589/hopes-of-kodachrome-relaunch-put-on-ice Kodachrome is not likely in the near future due to the infrastructure requires.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2017 at 13:55 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.

Exactly... that's why I take "Looking into it" as just that "looking into it" running numbers. But in the end I doubt there is enough interest to justify the process.

They could do it in 1935 because it was the only option for color and therefore had a pretty big marketshare. It comes down to if there is enough people to justify the costs of 1) making the film 2) making the chemicals 3) setting up and running or supporting a lab to develop the film 4) marketing and distribution etc. Parts 2 & 3 make the proposal a lot more difficult than reviving Ektachrome.

It's not impossible, but I'm not holding my breath.

Link | Posted on Jan 20, 2017 at 21:11 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.

@gravis92 I am completely aware there are several labs that still process, slide film, the E-6 process. That's what Ektachrome uses. You can even get the chemicals and do it by hand yourself. I've done it. I've also run dip-and-dunk E-6 lines.

The issues is there are ZERO labs left on the PLANET that run the K-14 process (which is what Kodachrome requires and is a DRASTICALLY different process than E-6 and extremely complex). For a while Dwayne's Photo in Parsons, Kansas, USA was the only lab anywhere to develop Kodachrome. They killed that line in 2010.

It's not a matter of oh you'll have to wait a week to send it out to a lab that runs E-6, it's that there is NO LAB ON THE PLANET that develops Kodachrome anymore. If you have a roll of Kodachrome left, you can develop it as Black and White, that is your only option.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2017 at 18:54 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.

@gravis92 I have no doubt they've run the numbers and expect Ektachrome to be successful, which is why they're doing it. "Looking into" is running the numbers, which they should do, but I'm pessimistic on how feasible Kodachrome will be, largely because of the complexity of the K-14 process and that no one on the planet is doing it right now. There are several E-6 lines still in existence and you can do it at home if you want, so Ektachrome is an easier sell, Kodachrome requires a very complex development process. Unless they plan on making a new E-6 film and calling it Kodachrome, but that wouldn't have the same colors. Though I think as long as they popped, most people wouldn't know any better. If they wanted to sell Kodachrome as is, they'd have to invest not just in manufacturing the film but supplying a lab materials for development, which is problematic.

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2017 at 17:02 UTC
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
Total: 96, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »