Tom Axford

Lives in United Kingdom Midlands, United Kingdom
Joined on Aug 11, 2010

Comments

Total: 20, showing: 1 – 20
On article The Beginning of Photography: The Drama of 1839 (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

Marcelo Rojas: How about an article explaining how to make Daguerreotype and Cyanotypes? At best information is so scared around the internet to the point of where Daguerreotypes are so obscure, few people if anyone at all can still make them.

Legit its just Wet and Dry plate collodion or film negatives/sheets being used.
Not everyone has access to certain chemicals or even labs to develop film so the resurrection of alternative analogue processes would help a lot of people

https://www.dpreview.com/news/1895936545/video-how-to-safely-make-a-35mm-daguerreotype-at-home

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2021 at 16:23 UTC
In reply to:

Tom Axford: Unsplash isn't the only source of free photos. Wikimedia Commons has over 60 million photos and other media files that are all free to use, although it is restricted to media that relates to certain types of subject only.
I think we are still very much at the beginning of the development of freely available sets of images and other media.

Sounds a bit like sour grapes?

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2020 at 13:18 UTC

Unsplash isn't the only source of free photos. Wikimedia Commons has over 60 million photos and other media files that are all free to use, although it is restricted to media that relates to certain types of subject only.
I think we are still very much at the beginning of the development of freely available sets of images and other media.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2020 at 20:32 UTC as 12th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Arthur Stanley Jefferson: The added lighting, depth of focus and Photoshop on this image don't feel right to me. It stands out, it's an interesting shot, but there's just something about it that feels false or contrived to me. Just a gut reaction, no disrespect intended to the photographer.

I think one of the most remarkable things about that shot is being able to get close enough to these very rare wild monkeys to use a 24mm lens without them taking any notice. That certainly does lend a lot of credibility to the claim that he spent many days with them before he was able to get this shot.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2018 at 17:39 UTC
In reply to:

Arthur Stanley Jefferson: The added lighting, depth of focus and Photoshop on this image don't feel right to me. It stands out, it's an interesting shot, but there's just something about it that feels false or contrived to me. Just a gut reaction, no disrespect intended to the photographer.

I presume he is talking about the winning image by Marsel van Oosten.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2018 at 15:25 UTC
In reply to:

Arthur Stanley Jefferson: The added lighting, depth of focus and Photoshop on this image don't feel right to me. It stands out, it's an interesting shot, but there's just something about it that feels false or contrived to me. Just a gut reaction, no disrespect intended to the photographer.

Saying that it feels false or contrived IS disrespectful to the photographer, despite your denial. Might your 'gut reaction' be sour grapes?

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2018 at 13:29 UTC

Fascinating! Apart from the overexposure latitude and noise reduction, it would also have the advantage that the shutter could be implemented purely in software (firmware).
Many congratulations to Eric and co-workers!

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2018 at 14:13 UTC as 63rd comment
On article How I built a large-format (8x10) video camera (225 comments in total)
In reply to:

W5JCK: Clever and ingenious in the engineering aspects, but definitely not large format (8" x 10") video. If you point a FF or APS-C camera at a movie theater's screen and video record the IMAX movie being screened, that doesn't mean you shot IMAX format with your FF or APS-C camera, not even close. You are merely recording a projected set of images and are thus shooting video in your camera's format. Just saying. I can only imagine the actual size of the canister needed to shoot 8" x 10" video movies, and the physical size of the camera that could capture the images. Assuming of course you could ever manufacture 8" x 10" film into a giant roll with the ability to be fed through the camera at the proper and consistent speed.

It was clearly stated that he was not sure if it should be called large format or a large format adapter. I don't see that the exact name really matters if it is understood how his system works. He achieved his aim which was to obtain the narrow depth of field that can only be obtained with large aperture lenses (which usually means a very narrow field of view if such lenses are used on smaller formats).

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2018 at 17:28 UTC
On article Background blur and its relationship to sensor size (13 comments in total)

It is a great pity that dpreview doesn't make articles like this more prominent and easier to find on its website! Good article.

It seems to be little known that there is an even simpler way to estimate background blur size than the formula given below by falconeyes.

If you had included a ruler in your box of begonias when you took the example photographs and then measured the blur diameter against the ruler, for a background at infinity the blur diameter is always equal to the lens aperture diameter (i.e. focal length divided by F-number). This rule is true for all camera formats, all focal lengths, all subject distances, with no exceptions (except if the lens is such poor quality that it introduces significant extra blur due to poor optics, or if diffraction blur dominates).

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 14:13 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

Sea Hunt 2: I understand what 3D means but 4D? Sounds like a camera by Alberto Einstein.

Hank, If not time, then what else could it be? Time certainly will vary as they take the separate images.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 13:31 UTC
In reply to:

Sea Hunt 2: I understand what 3D means but 4D? Sounds like a camera by Alberto Einstein.

I presume the fourth dimension means time, as, indeed, according to Einstein.
The sensor pans around to give the wide field of view and also a time-varying picture of the scene, which also has the depth information (because the sensor position is changing). The resolution is pretty low, so I don't see it competing with still cameras at the moment.

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2017 at 11:52 UTC
On article Should You Use a UV Filter on Your Lens? (58 comments in total)
In reply to:

Gosman: I've always used filters but now that I have some pro style 2.8s, I'm getting new B+W filters. My question is: clear or UV? The clear Pro B+W is actually more expensive than the UV. Why is that? Do we really need UV now with digital cameras? Why not just clear?

I think clear protective filters are probably just as good or better. UV filters still seem to be more commonly available, however.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2016 at 10:51 UTC
On article Should You Use a UV Filter on Your Lens? (58 comments in total)
In reply to:

Supper Dave: I was reading earlier today that some of the lenses with drop in filters require a filter in place as part of the optical system.

That is true. A very few lenses are designed to be used with a filter in the optical path and for these lenses the image quality may be slightly reduced if the filter is omitted.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2016 at 10:47 UTC
On article Should You Use a UV Filter on Your Lens? (58 comments in total)
In reply to:

FouSurLaColline: I've been getting ghost images when shooting sunsets and sunrises. To the point where I got so frustrated. I found the culprit by accident. Took shots w/o the UV filter and Voila!, no more ghost images.

Usually ghost images are not a problem with landscapes as small apertures are generally used and that means that ghost images of the sun only occur if the sun is very near the centre of the frame. I'd suggest you reduce the aperture and the problem should go away.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2014 at 18:40 UTC
On article Should You Use a UV Filter on Your Lens? (58 comments in total)
In reply to:

Olive Branch: Tom,
Really enjoyed your article. I recently purchased a D7000 and a Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 lens. For a surprise a friend bought me a filter kit: Precision Ultra Optics 3 piece filter kit (multi coated) 100 series High Resolution Definition. The filters are UV, Polarizing, and FD.
Cost $99 and lists for $349.99. I'm not much in favor of filters, then again I'm not really against them.
Should I kept them or return and buy something else? Realize this is a loaded question, but I've been out of real SLR photography for many moons.
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks Olive

The only way I can think of is to take some test shots with and without the filter to see if they noticeably degrade your images.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2014 at 13:05 UTC
On article Should You Use a UV Filter on Your Lens? (58 comments in total)
In reply to:

Olive Branch: Tom,
Really enjoyed your article. I recently purchased a D7000 and a Nikon 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 lens. For a surprise a friend bought me a filter kit: Precision Ultra Optics 3 piece filter kit (multi coated) 100 series High Resolution Definition. The filters are UV, Polarizing, and FD.
Cost $99 and lists for $349.99. I'm not much in favor of filters, then again I'm not really against them.
Should I kept them or return and buy something else? Realize this is a loaded question, but I've been out of real SLR photography for many moons.
Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks Olive

Olive - thanks for your comment. I am not familiar with that brand of filters,but with a list price like that they are probably very good quality, and the discount price seems a bargain if you want the filters. Only you can say whether the Polarizing and ND filters will be useful to you (they tend to be more expensive than the UV filter, so the deal is not very attractive if you are not going to use them).
Regards,
Tom.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2014 at 22:10 UTC
On Article:7159310506 (2 comments in total)

I am all in favour of using UV filters to protect lenses, but unfortunately there are no filters that will reduce lens flare. In fact, filters may add to the flare and cause ghost images in certain situations. See my article "Should You Use a UV Filter on Your Lens?" (under "Camera and Photography Basics") for example images.

Posted on Jan 3, 2014 at 19:12 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Should You Use a UV Filter on Your Lens? (58 comments in total)
In reply to:

charmdesign: Which filters are considered to be 'good'?

I use Hoya HMC filters, but I think probably most multi-coated filters are ok. Hoya also make a range called 'PRO1 Digital' which are about twice the price. As far as I am aware the only significant difference is that they are in slimmer mounts.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2013 at 14:08 UTC
On article Should You Use a UV Filter on Your Lens? (58 comments in total)
In reply to:

nyer82: There's another question to consider. "Do you sometimes use a polarizer filter on your lens?" If the answer is yes, then you probably don't want to use a UV filter (at least for that photo outing).

Even if it's thin enough to work with the polarizer without vignetting, you're just adding to the chances of having visible dust on your images. Cleaning gets annoying really quickly. I really like using my circular polarizer, so I usually don't attach any UV filters.

Yes, I agree, if you use any other filter, then remove the UV filter first.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2013 at 19:23 UTC
On article Can computer corrections make simple lenses look good? (159 comments in total)

I think it is undoubtedly indicative of the direction in which the technology is moving.

The past forty years has seen the replacement of much electronics circuitry (e.g. in radio, television, and many other devices) by software, so perhaps we can look forward to similar changes in optics? Of course, it is not straightforward, but it wasn't in electronics either.

Forty years ago, if you asked an electronics engineer whether much of his job would eventually change into that of a software engineer, you would probably have received a flea in your ear!

Link | Posted on Sep 30, 2013 at 19:00 UTC as 72nd comment
Total: 20, showing: 1 – 20