hotdog321

hotdog321

Lives in United States Houston, United States
Works as a Photojournalist
Has a website at http://hartleyphotos.com
Joined on Feb 9, 2009
About me:

Craig Hartley is an editorial photographer based in Houston, Texas.

I am a three-time Pulitzer nominee and serious photojournalist. I was a staff photographer for the Houston Post until it was nuked by the Hearst Corporation in 1995. Bitter? Nah!

These days I offer cutting-edge digital photography and transmitting services for editorial, public relations, corporate and graphic arts clients.

AWARDS: Bachelors, Masters degrees in Photojournalism. First place National Headliners, two first place from Associated Press, first place from United Press International, participant Missouri Workshop & Poynter Institute.

Comments

Total: 94, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Wow! It was worth it.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2021 at 18:06 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

hotdog321: Mistake #1: shooting film. I spent half my career shooting tens of thousands of rolls of film. The creamy perfection of modern digital is better in every way.

Mistake #2: UV filters do nothing for film. I once tested various UV and haze filters at 9,000 feet for a magazine article. Nada. Nothing. No reduction of haze.

Mistake #3: using an older film camera with a mechanical (not electronic) shutter. The springs will almost certainly be loose and the shutter speed can be badly off.

Mistake #4: if you insist on shooting slide film, choosing the wrong color balance (tungsten vs. daylight vs. others.)

Mistake #5: shooting old film. Old film becomes less sensitive and can fog.

Mistake #6: verify there is no dirt, hair or broken film fragment when you open the camera back.

Mistake #7: failing to rewind before opening the back of the camera.

Mistake #8: camera handling. Just like digital. Frame in camera, crop carefully. Pay attention to the light.

. . . . and I've run out of space.

Yeah, I used to freeze my film, too. But that only works to extend its life. Eventually the stuff loses sensitivity and fogs, especially the high speed stuff like your 1600.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2020 at 18:58 UTC
In reply to:

hotdog321: Mistake #1: shooting film. I spent half my career shooting tens of thousands of rolls of film. The creamy perfection of modern digital is better in every way.

Mistake #2: UV filters do nothing for film. I once tested various UV and haze filters at 9,000 feet for a magazine article. Nada. Nothing. No reduction of haze.

Mistake #3: using an older film camera with a mechanical (not electronic) shutter. The springs will almost certainly be loose and the shutter speed can be badly off.

Mistake #4: if you insist on shooting slide film, choosing the wrong color balance (tungsten vs. daylight vs. others.)

Mistake #5: shooting old film. Old film becomes less sensitive and can fog.

Mistake #6: verify there is no dirt, hair or broken film fragment when you open the camera back.

Mistake #7: failing to rewind before opening the back of the camera.

Mistake #8: camera handling. Just like digital. Frame in camera, crop carefully. Pay attention to the light.

. . . . and I've run out of space.

Yup. Me, too. First-time film shooters would be well-advised to steer clear of 120 film. It comes with a whole raft of problems beyond 35mm.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2020 at 17:40 UTC

Mistake #1: shooting film. I spent half my career shooting tens of thousands of rolls of film. The creamy perfection of modern digital is better in every way.

Mistake #2: UV filters do nothing for film. I once tested various UV and haze filters at 9,000 feet for a magazine article. Nada. Nothing. No reduction of haze.

Mistake #3: using an older film camera with a mechanical (not electronic) shutter. The springs will almost certainly be loose and the shutter speed can be badly off.

Mistake #4: if you insist on shooting slide film, choosing the wrong color balance (tungsten vs. daylight vs. others.)

Mistake #5: shooting old film. Old film becomes less sensitive and can fog.

Mistake #6: verify there is no dirt, hair or broken film fragment when you open the camera back.

Mistake #7: failing to rewind before opening the back of the camera.

Mistake #8: camera handling. Just like digital. Frame in camera, crop carefully. Pay attention to the light.

. . . . and I've run out of space.

Link | Posted on May 8, 2020 at 16:12 UTC as 104th comment | 6 replies
On article DPReview TV: Canon 1D X Mark III for video (96 comments in total)
In reply to:

hotdog321: What the hell happened to the color/contrast at 1:20?

Thanx! Amazing camera.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2020 at 21:48 UTC
On article DPReview TV: Canon 1D X Mark III for video (96 comments in total)

What the hell happened to the color/contrast at 1:20?

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2020 at 20:16 UTC as 25th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

wfb-foto: I wonder what would happen if a drone hit the inlet of a turbine. Would it burst?

I saw some video where they shot whole frozen turkeys into a jet inlet with almost no effect. Then I've seen others where the engine was trashed. That said, this drone impact on the wing is pretty serious.

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2018 at 13:03 UTC
On article Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus Review (221 comments in total)
In reply to:

hotdog321: I recently upgraded from the S5 to the S9 Plus. I haven't used the camera a great deal, but it is clearly superior in every respect. Overall operation is snappier, the OS is more advanced and the display excellent. I like the bigger screen for video and GPS. I overlooked the wireless charging in my purchase decision, but I'm surprised at how much I enjoy the high speed wireless charging for my car and bedside. The S9 Plus has tremendous battery life--I've never come close to running halfway down in a single day.

The S9 Plus also sports removable storage via a microSD card, decent water resistance, a real earphone jack, but NO user-replaceable battery like the old S5. The curved screen is really more of a gimmick than anything and Bixby and dedicated Bixby button is a waste and should be user-programmable for Google. In all honestly, I wish Samsung would just introduce an advanced S5 with a snappier processor, screen and camera--it would sell a ton.

I think these devices have about "hit the wall" in regards to wowser tech--maybe 5-10 years from now someone will come up with true 3D or death rays. I think there would be a real demand for a powerful common sense smartphone.

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2018 at 15:44 UTC
On article Samsung Galaxy S9 Plus Review (221 comments in total)

I recently upgraded from the S5 to the S9 Plus. I haven't used the camera a great deal, but it is clearly superior in every respect. Overall operation is snappier, the OS is more advanced and the display excellent. I like the bigger screen for video and GPS. I overlooked the wireless charging in my purchase decision, but I'm surprised at how much I enjoy the high speed wireless charging for my car and bedside. The S9 Plus has tremendous battery life--I've never come close to running halfway down in a single day.

The S9 Plus also sports removable storage via a microSD card, decent water resistance, a real earphone jack, but NO user-replaceable battery like the old S5. The curved screen is really more of a gimmick than anything and Bixby and dedicated Bixby button is a waste and should be user-programmable for Google. In all honestly, I wish Samsung would just introduce an advanced S5 with a snappier processor, screen and camera--it would sell a ton.

Link | Posted on Jun 21, 2018 at 18:53 UTC as 48th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Debankur Mukherjee: Will this version of 70-200 get stuck....My Nikon version got stuck and both the focus and zoom ring works when in hot weather only.........what is the cause ?.....

I agree. I'm a Canon user, but I shot with Nikon for a time and they are great cameras.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2018 at 19:18 UTC
In reply to:

hotdog321: Hm, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS III appears almost identical to the II. The weight is greater (3.17 pounds as opposed to 2.9 pounds--groan). Close focusing (3.94 feet) and focal lengths are identical. At first blush the greatest real world difference appears to be in increased price tag, increased weight and a "III" painted on the barrel.

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is very sharp and resistant to flare. I have zero interest in upgrading, though someone upgrading from an earlier version might consider the III "just because."

I largely agree, though not as fiercely. I think the primary reason for the 70-200 f/2.8L IS III is to get a price bump. I don't think any II owners are interested in the III--the II is just that good.

As an aside, I think Canon would do well to start concentrating on reducing the weight of these high-end beasts. I constantly read threads of those complaining about the weight, even going so far as to switch to mirrorless or buying the f/4 version. I'm a pro and I carry the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II constantly, but I would seriously consider upgrading to a lens that is 1/3-1/2 the weight if they can maintain the robust nature and image quality.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2018 at 14:54 UTC
In reply to:

hotdog321: Hm, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS III appears almost identical to the II. The weight is greater (3.17 pounds as opposed to 2.9 pounds--groan). Close focusing (3.94 feet) and focal lengths are identical. At first blush the greatest real world difference appears to be in increased price tag, increased weight and a "III" painted on the barrel.

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is very sharp and resistant to flare. I have zero interest in upgrading, though someone upgrading from an earlier version might consider the III "just because."

Thanks for the head's up. I wonder if one site is factoring in the weight of the tripod collar and the other doesn't.

You're sure right about the f/4 version. It was well past time for this lens to be updated. LOTS of folks object to hauling around the hefty f/2.8.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2018 at 14:05 UTC

Hm, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS III appears almost identical to the II. The weight is greater (3.17 pounds as opposed to 2.9 pounds--groan). Close focusing (3.94 feet) and focal lengths are identical. At first blush the greatest real world difference appears to be in increased price tag, increased weight and a "III" painted on the barrel.

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is very sharp and resistant to flare. I have zero interest in upgrading, though someone upgrading from an earlier version might consider the III "just because."

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2018 at 12:31 UTC as 63rd comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Debankur Mukherjee: Will this version of 70-200 get stuck....My Nikon version got stuck and both the focus and zoom ring works when in hot weather only.........what is the cause ?.....

I'm a photojournalist working in Texas and it gets plenty hot here. I've owned and heavily used the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 version 1, 70-200 f/2.8 IS and now the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. I've never had a lens "stick," ever.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2018 at 12:16 UTC
In reply to:

hotdog321: I honestly don't know how the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II can be significantly improved other than to make it lighter and less expensive (HA!) Maybe a 1.4X insert? But that would be mind-mindbogglingly expensive. Some minor tweak to the optics are likely to be invisible in real-world terms.

Sure, the f/4 version is due for an upgrade, but a 70-200 f/2.8L IS III sounds like a giant money suck on a lens that doesn't need upgrading.

The 70-200 f/2.8L IS II is carried by almost every Canon pro on the planet. A wide angle on one body and the 70-200 on the other covers me on 95% of every assignment I've ever shot. Maybe they will make it 60-210 or add macro ability, which would be useful. Shrug. I'm keeping mine.

Link | Posted on May 19, 2018 at 12:12 UTC

I honestly don't know how the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II can be significantly improved other than to make it lighter and less expensive (HA!) Maybe a 1.4X insert? But that would be mind-mindbogglingly expensive. Some minor tweak to the optics are likely to be invisible in real-world terms.

Sure, the f/4 version is due for an upgrade, but a 70-200 f/2.8L IS III sounds like a giant money suck on a lens that doesn't need upgrading.

Link | Posted on May 16, 2018 at 13:07 UTC as 18th comment | 7 replies

Astonishing! It appears to weigh the same as Canon's phenomenal 11-24 f/4L, but has a f/2.8 aperture. It also appears to have a removable lens hood (though I'm not sure that is a great idea with that bulbous front element.) Could be a real game-changer for those shooting starry landscapes if the edges are decent. Price? Performance? Hmm. Looking forward to seeing more information on this bad boy.

Link | Posted on Feb 8, 2018 at 17:05 UTC as 39th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

hotdog321: Man, this just reinforces my decision decades ago to become a photojournalist instead of a wedding photographer. I would far rather go with police into a crack house at midnight than shoot a wedding. Seriously.

Now THAT sounds like fun! "The bride and groom look winsome wearing matching handcuffs."

Link | Posted on Jan 13, 2018 at 23:02 UTC
In reply to:

hotdog321: Man, this just reinforces my decision decades ago to become a photojournalist instead of a wedding photographer. I would far rather go with police into a crack house at midnight than shoot a wedding. Seriously.

Yeah, in all honesty it is a lot of fun. Note that I go in BEHIND the police, tho.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2018 at 16:38 UTC

Man, this just reinforces my decision decades ago to become a photojournalist instead of a wedding photographer. I would far rather go with police into a crack house at midnight than shoot a wedding. Seriously.

Link | Posted on Jan 12, 2018 at 15:34 UTC as 36th comment | 6 replies
Total: 94, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »