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: 103, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Is the GN 33 meters or 33 feet?

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2017 at 18:00 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Terkwoiz: Not sure why everyone hates this lens and idea so much. If the build quality is decent I'd be interested. The thing is tiny - that's the main point. You can pop it on and have some fun walking around the city. It's waaaay smaller than any regular ff 35mm lens - especially legacy lenses with an adapter. I own the fe 35 2.8 and I would still be interested in grabbing this.

The main problem is the ridiculous price. I guess that is where it could be considered a scam. I'd pay $150 for it. Maybe.

Pick your argument and stick with it. "It should work perfectly decently on a cheap a6000 body" vs "an apsc Fuji is totally missing the point once again." An a6000 has an APS-C sensor. So wouldn't using that lens on an A6000 by your rule be "missing the point"?

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 17:19 UTC
In reply to:

Terkwoiz: Not sure why everyone hates this lens and idea so much. If the build quality is decent I'd be interested. The thing is tiny - that's the main point. You can pop it on and have some fun walking around the city. It's waaaay smaller than any regular ff 35mm lens - especially legacy lenses with an adapter. I own the fe 35 2.8 and I would still be interested in grabbing this.

The main problem is the ridiculous price. I guess that is where it could be considered a scam. I'd pay $150 for it. Maybe.

You realize IQ is the sum of the entire system. And a lens with poor IQ on a great sensor will not give you great quality. The lens is soft. The lens has heavy vignetting. At f/8 you're forcing the sensor to loose over 16 times the amount of light an f/1.8 lens on point and shoot has, requiring longer shutter speeds or 4 stops higher ISO.

Considering this is a $500 lens to be paired with a full frame camera that will likely cost thousands, you're approaching the cost of an RX-1which will be smaller, or for a much more reasonable cost you can get something like a Fuji X-100.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2017 at 05:59 UTC
In reply to:

Terkwoiz: Not sure why everyone hates this lens and idea so much. If the build quality is decent I'd be interested. The thing is tiny - that's the main point. You can pop it on and have some fun walking around the city. It's waaaay smaller than any regular ff 35mm lens - especially legacy lenses with an adapter. I own the fe 35 2.8 and I would still be interested in grabbing this.

The main problem is the ridiculous price. I guess that is where it could be considered a scam. I'd pay $150 for it. Maybe.

I'm not hating it, I always point out that there are a huge range of lenses because different people have different needs.

That said there are a number of reasons why I don't see it being as useful for me.

First is any many lenses can be set to f/8 and taped to a hyper focal distance including a kit zoom or pretty much any 35mm prime lens. So that makes the biggest advantage the size.

If size is important a point-and-shoot or maybe even a camera phone is going to have some advantages in terms of size and weight. Now yes the smaller sensor in these cameras won't have as large photosites and will not be as great in low light as a full frame camera. But you're also going from an f/2.0 or wider lens on these smaller format sensors to f/8 on this lens, cutting the amount of light by 1/16th.

Fixed focus lens is not a new concept, it was very popular in the film days. But the cameras that used them tended to be point and shoots or disposable cameras.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2017 at 04:26 UTC
In reply to:

digitalzohar: Would it be better to use a laser (laser pointer) instead of LED? How does the mm of the telephoto relate to size of room?

No the laser is collimated, meaning it doesn't spread to cover the entire mirror. It would light one point in the mirror, which will not back-light the subject as desired. A point light source (which is what Schilren needs) will start from a single point but spread outward to cover the entire mirror and give a complete backlight.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2017 at 18:28 UTC
In reply to:

hammarbytp: All you need is a Telephoto, LED, a razer blade and ... a optical grade concave mirror.

Yep, who hasn't got a optical grade concave mirror lying around somewhere...LOL

Is the mirror truly spherical and do you know the radius of the curve? The issue is it's not the quality of the glass but rather the shape/curve that is important.

Link | Posted on Jun 19, 2017 at 18:26 UTC
In reply to:

ovatab: circular polarisers are too cheap to consider as alternative solution

You are assuming they are not already, and assuming you know more than teams of engineers and imaging specialists. Polarizers only block polarized light. If the reflection is from they sky at 90 degrees from the sun, it will be strongly polarized and you can use a polarizer to cut that reflection. But if it's diffused (say by a cloud) or if it's not at 90 degrees to the sun, there will not be as much polarized light for a cpl to cut out.

Also, if you insist on using a polarizer assuming the cameras don't have a phase detect af system, you would need to use CPL, a standard linear polarizer would have the same effect, just cost less because it doesn't need the quarter wave plate.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2017 at 22:17 UTC
On article Adobe Lightroom CC 2015.10 and ACR 9.10 now available (65 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 (65 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 (65 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 (65 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 (65 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 (65 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
Total: 103, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »