eyefuse

Lives in Finland Finland
Works as a Videographer, Photographer, Graphics Design
Joined on Aug 4, 2006

Comments

Total: 26, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

legokangpalla: I mean apart from image hosting what's the use for it anyway? Most photographers are going to keep RAWs for editing later and large groups of RAW files can be easily loss-less compressed if they are not going to be accessed anytime soon.

This is great for all kind of online design and visual content. Mobile bandwidth and KB restrictions in webdesign are pain in a world where everyone wants more large images and visual content.

Better JPEG compression basically means that those photographers with their RAW's can actually display their work in larger and better quality to the masses.

Link | Posted on Dec 4, 2015 at 08:04 UTC
In reply to:

eyefuse: Now pack this tech into a full sized pro body with more battery, metal and a-mount and take my money!

I won't accept that! I NEED a worthy replacement for my A900 to go with all my Carl Zeiss - and I always skip one generation of hardware. I want a bulky beast housing that feels like a tank and weighs about the same as the medium lenses. :)

If Sony delivers, I buy. Price is not an issue.

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2015 at 20:40 UTC

Now pack this tech into a full sized pro body with more battery, metal and a-mount and take my money!

Link | Posted on Jun 10, 2015 at 18:09 UTC as 302nd comment | 7 replies
On article Lytro announces Illum light field camera (349 comments in total)

Lot's of potential for video work - making images come to life in presentations, demos and slideshows.The features make it easier to do things that usually take days in aftereffects. For traditional photography it doesn't really do much - but that's not the point, I guess. :)

Link | Posted on Apr 23, 2014 at 12:03 UTC as 22nd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Daniel Lauring: These are nice shots. I agree that there is a particular formula/technique, which emphasizes a separation of the subject and background, that includes Photoshop (not that that is a bad thing.)

You get a little of this effect when you use fill flash/off camera lighting, which looks to be used in some of these.

The other thing I'm seeing is a uniform blurring of the background...not linearly related to distance as you might expect or actually see with just the camera alone from shallow depth of field. In other words, you would expect details in the far background, like the treeline to be almost unrecognizable, given that things closer have so much blur. The weeds/flowers in the foreground have the same blur as the treeline. This suggests the background was masked and a uniform blur added. Possibly even a second picture was taken, at a smaller aperature, blurred and then added to the original.

If you can't spot this kind of basic photoshop cut & copy patching and blending - you have no right marvel about the skills of the photographer. There's people out there who think they can learn to take such images out of the camera...

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2014 at 09:35 UTC
On article Hands-on with the GoPro Hero 3+ Black Edition (7 comments in total)

The 4K is a "joke" ... 12FPS isn't usable video - but at least they can put the 4K sticker on the package and keep marketing.

1080p 60fps, on the otherhand is excellent!

Unfortunately I just updated my hero2 to a hero3 last summer.. just before this 3+ version came out... so none of my battery/lcd/case parts will fit this new one.

Let's wait for the 4 - with 4K @ 25fps... :)

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2014 at 08:58 UTC as 2nd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Daniel Lauring: These are nice shots. I agree that there is a particular formula/technique, which emphasizes a separation of the subject and background, that includes Photoshop (not that that is a bad thing.)

You get a little of this effect when you use fill flash/off camera lighting, which looks to be used in some of these.

The other thing I'm seeing is a uniform blurring of the background...not linearly related to distance as you might expect or actually see with just the camera alone from shallow depth of field. In other words, you would expect details in the far background, like the treeline to be almost unrecognizable, given that things closer have so much blur. The weeds/flowers in the foreground have the same blur as the treeline. This suggests the background was masked and a uniform blur added. Possibly even a second picture was taken, at a smaller aperature, blurred and then added to the original.

All of what you described is true - it's her style and a very skillfully used.

However, as you can see, the foregound (with leaves) is the same in #1 and #12, which means that she has added a layer of defocused ground to both images to emphasize the shallow DOF, that is not from the original image. Leaves are also cloned and mirrored in #1.

I'm all ok with the PP and tend do similar montage stuff myself (hence also spot it easily).

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2014 at 15:34 UTC

Lovely images! I really like her style.

Not to be cynical or anything but image #1 and #12 have the same OOF foreground, slightly differently placed. #1 also has cloned and mirrored leaves to the right. It takes a photoshopper to spot a photoshopper. ;)

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for PP! People just need to know that this kind of magnificent art doesn't come straight out of a camera.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2014 at 21:59 UTC as 167th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

eyefuse: Interesting photoshop paintings! I like the colors and feel - even if many are composed afterwards in photoshop, rather than real shots.

#12 for example is nice, albeit obvious that the road scene has been added to the foreground with the boy and dog. Lot's of cloning and smoothing going on.

It takes a photoshopper to spot a photoshopper...
If you look at the first image (boy touching dogs nose) and compare the foreground (with leaves), with the foreground in the 12th image (boy and dog looking away), you see they are the same - added afterwards to the photo. In the first you also see that its the same leaves twice, mirrored on the right hand side.. and so on.

I'm all for PP, so don't get me wrong - I just want people to understand that this kind of fantastic stuff isn't pure photography (beginners deserve to know that they can't get this kind of material out of their cameras).

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2014 at 21:52 UTC

Interesting photoshop paintings! I like the colors and feel - even if many are composed afterwards in photoshop, rather than real shots.

#12 for example is nice, albeit obvious that the road scene has been added to the foreground with the boy and dog. Lot's of cloning and smoothing going on.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2014 at 12:50 UTC as 250th comment | 4 replies

The 5c is hardly aimed at competing with cheaper androids and WP.. it's only $100 less than the 5s.. !? Still premium price i'd say.

No idea why prices in US are told as operator deals? If I understood correctly the 5c costs $599 and the 5s $699, when you actually buy one.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2013 at 06:07 UTC as 69th comment

Any mention of when one could expect the Sony version?

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2013 at 07:34 UTC as 104th comment
In reply to:

eyefuse: I think the price is more likely supposed to be $1799.. At least my local retailer here in Finland sells it for 1499,90 €...

799$ would have been crazy anyway! :)

If this is the case then it's superb! And I hope that the local resellers will update the prices here too!

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2013 at 07:28 UTC

I think the price is more likely supposed to be $1799.. At least my local retailer here in Finland sells it for 1499,90 €...

799$ would have been crazy anyway! :)

Link | Posted on Jun 14, 2013 at 06:53 UTC as 114th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

eyefuse: Interesting deal.

But did you notice that it looks like a Sony CarlZeiss design. New style?

By "we", you mean the people who have time to read 110 comments and then write "wise" commets at other peoples first impressions?

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2012 at 20:20 UTC

Interesting deal.

But did you notice that it looks like a Sony CarlZeiss design. New style?

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2012 at 19:33 UTC as 29th comment | 3 replies
On article Evolution of an image (123 comments in total)
In reply to:

aardvark7: With regard to aesthetic merits, each to his own and one can't argue.
As to success, that goes hand in hand with individual taste too.

However, the essence of this article seems to have been missed by all but one who commented.

The author talks of perserverance and illustrates that by mentioning the number of visits to a site. To me, this is not perserverance, but rather making use of the opportunity.

99.9% of all photographers will not have the luxury to make such trips, even if they had the desire. It may be too expensive or they have other calls on their time. It is simply not an option and the only way they get 'the shot' is by lucky chance of being there at the appropriate time in the first place.

Any time the subject comes up as to the most important thing in photography, I always say 'Opportunity' and this article demonstrates exactly that.

Give most the opportunity and even a basic camera and there would be bucketloads of quality shots. Most simply don't get the chance.

You have a good point. But there are also different types of landscape photography. A good photographer can always seize the opportunity and utilize the situation as good as possible - especially a photojournalist or travel photographer. But there's also those who really want to paint that perfect image - who take their time - and who visit places again and again to look for that mental image they have envisioned and want to capture.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2012 at 12:12 UTC
On article Evolution of an image (123 comments in total)

Very good and interesting read. Especially the sense of time and effort comes across beautifully with the multiple shots with different lighting conditions. I posted the article to some beginning photographers, that I know love shooting landscapes, but who tend to grab shots here and there and then spend the time searching for that perfect look in PS instead.

That aside, I have to agree that the tonemapping is a bit rough to my liking. The images, especially the latter ones, are starting to look a bit like computer renderings - I guess it's the foreground that looks too flat. A little less tonemapping, or blending these with the original at 50% would look more natural to my eye.

I love the final composition though. Now you just need to wait for those flowers to bloom and some more dramatic lighting next year. :)

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2012 at 11:12 UTC as 35th comment

You know you're completely out of the trends and current jargon, when the topic of this news makes absolutely no sense to you??! :D

Link | Posted on Mar 28, 2012 at 12:15 UTC as 6th comment
Total: 26, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »