Gloomy1

Joined on Jan 20, 2013

Comments

Total: 27, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

Many years ago I worked for IBM and marvelled at a 64bit ferrite core memory card. Not for its capacity but for the beauty of its construction with an array of tiny toroids with separate read and write wires looped around each ring. Since I am obviously ancient the exact memory capacity may have been more, but 64bits does ring a bell. Ken

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2022 at 10:41 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
On article Sony a7 IV review (2349 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: Can anybody explain why in 2022 pro-level cameras costing thousands of dollars continue to ship with low-res LCD screens, when even budget phones under $200 have HD+ screens? I assume there must be a good reason...?

"Edgar in Indy" power consumption is related to the screen brightness and resolution that is the relationship. Ken

Link | Posted on Apr 5, 2022 at 13:47 UTC
On article Sony a7 IV review (2349 comments in total)
In reply to:

Edgar_in_Indy: Can anybody explain why in 2022 pro-level cameras costing thousands of dollars continue to ship with low-res LCD screens, when even budget phones under $200 have HD+ screens? I assume there must be a good reason...?

Hi Edgar I would assume that it is power consumption. My A7R4 screen is much brighter than my phone screen even when the phone is at max brightness. My D810 screen is dimmer still. If camera screens were brighter they would use more power and the number of shots, always a bragging point, would decrease. I prefer a bright screen and all day shooting over either dim crisper screen or crisper screen and fewer shots per charge. It would be nice to have everything but, as in many things in life, we can't. Ken

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2022 at 12:46 UTC
On article Landscape Composition - Part 2: Balancing the weights (122 comments in total)
In reply to:

BackToNature1: For me personally, all this focus on what's an great Composition is what has gotten photography going in the Wrong Direction. Why, because in spite of what one may hear, What's an great Composition is literally the most subjective part of photography.

Folks just need to psych analysis themselves far more as opposed to passing judgment on the abilities of others. That's mostly what I am seeing here. Which was not much different then the topic on the MF format look as opposed to to other formats. Do you folks.

Because the resultant image is 2 dimensional.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2022 at 21:01 UTC
On article Roundup: Six Large Tripods For Heavy Duty Use (122 comments in total)
In reply to:

tedwill48167: This review is very timely for me. I'm attending a photo workshop in February in Iceland. My struggle is the weight of the tripod vs the load the tripod can handle. I heard great things about the Colorado Tripod Company and their series 2 and 4 tripods, but their products are on backorder.

These six seem to be ideal for my purposes. I need a good weather proof tripod to be used with an SL2 and several longer heavier lenses. Anyone have any experience with the six tripods reviewed here in adverse conditions?

I have the XLS version of the Gitzo. The only problem in 3 years is getting the joints frozen and stuck until I could get back to a warm car. I had 2 legs in deep water above the bottom joint. Although the water was still flowing the air temperature was well below zero so when the tripod came out of the river the water in the joint threads froze solid and couldn't be adjusted. Probably would happen to all the tripods. Knowing this I extend the thinnest legs fully if they are going into cold water so only that joint could freeze allowing the tripod to still be adjusted. I suspect Iceland could have the same types of temperatures as the English Lake district on an extremely cold December. Ken

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2021 at 19:34 UTC

I waiting for the Panasonic version. Ken

Link | Posted on Jun 22, 2021 at 08:42 UTC as 19th comment

I have one of the original Prvke 25L and have the following observations. I have never had any form of leak and I live in an extremely wet area in the NW of England and frequently photograph in Scotland. The roll top is excellent, takes approx 2s to get into the bag and seal it up again. The top roll top section is separate from the camera and I use it for jackets, food etc. The main section opens with a zip and allows easy acces to the camera and lenses. Mine has problems, attaching anything other than a very small and lite tripod is near impossible. My version has a side loading facility and it is too small to get a Sony A7R4 with 24-105 out through it and it would be better to have another outside pocket instead. It is comfortable with well padded straps and waist belt. Lots of straps to attach wet clothing, umbrellas to the outside. Definitely the best bag I have used. I did get mine on special offer at approx £120. Ken

Link | Posted on May 10, 2021 at 17:18 UTC as 40th comment
In reply to:

Duncan Moffat: I think paying to enter a competition is a massive red flag. I know some apparently reputable competitions charge an entry fee (some with the stated goal of reducing frivolous entries) but there are enough free competitions that I would personally skip the paid ones entirely.

It's not like there is no money in running a free competition. Take the wildlife photographer of the year that they host at the Natural History Museum in London every year - the prize is sponsored, the competition is sponsored and the exhibition of the winners at the end is sponsored and sells tickets. They also sell postcards, calendars, backpacks etc.

Even small free competitions on Instagram can make money for the organizer. I just ran an end of year photo competition on one of the accounts I run. It resulted in thousands of comments, thousands of new followers and increased website traffic. That is worth a considerable amount of money to an online business.

Duncan, Wildlife Photographer of the year charges £30 to enter. It is however a legitimate contest or seems to be to me. Other legitimate contests also charge fees like Landscape Photographer of the Year. Whether the kudos gained from doing well is worth the fee is up to the individual photographer. Not all free contests are as innocent as they seem as some seem like a trawling exercise to get hold of images for free. Ken

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2021 at 13:45 UTC
In reply to:

Ron Zamir: Does it REALLY make any big and significant change and improvement over the older free version of Google?

Win 10 The free versions work perfectly with Photoshop cc 2020 and Lightroom after you have installed them in the correct location. Ken

Link | Posted on Jun 4, 2020 at 13:16 UTC
On article Video: 20 couples poses in under 10 minutes (35 comments in total)

I found it instructional and probably treated it as intended ie some ideas about variations on standard poses. I didn't see it as an opportunity to critique the photographer who had successfully brought it down to my level. Fill lights and reflectors would probably have complicated the video and confused the message. The next time I am photographing friends I will try and remember some of the things shown and it may just improve my images. Will it turn me into a superstar "people" photographer? of course not but that was never the intention. Ken

Link | Posted on Jan 28, 2020 at 11:38 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

J A C S: What was the point of that sunset landscape? Under-exposed with lifted shadows so that nobody can tell why the end result is so horrible, wrong focal plane, wrong aperture for a landscape, and a lens not so great for such a demanding task? Not to mention the wacky colors, but this is Sony...

Nature wants its 0.5 GB back.

Rishi To set my mind at rest. I take it from looking at the images and reading the more "on subject" replies that to get the best from the 16 shot pixel shift mode that you need:
A stable tripod and cable release
A better lens than this Tamron, it may be that top knotch primes are the only thing to use.
No wind to move foliage.
f5.6 or wider, does this mean that the effects of diffraction become more noticeable at a wider apperture?
Depth of field at these resolutions is noticeably less than what has been thought. Do we actually need to calculate things with a much smaller circle of confusion? If this is the case do we need to think about focus stacking? The thought of 16 shots times 2 or 3 may hang my laptop up for a while.
Whether I need a 19,000 pixel wide shot of a landscape is a different question.
Ken

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2019 at 16:18 UTC

Inverse square law, the clue is in the name.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2019 at 16:48 UTC as 24th comment
In reply to:

panther fan: What is the advantage of square filters comoared to circular ones?

Circular ones should work just as well if not better for pure ND and polarization filters.

And for graduated ND filters, why are people still using them if the exact same effect can be achieved in post with far less hassle and better results since you have more control over strength, placement and most importantly having the option to adapt to not straight horizons and objects?

It is almost always the case that the sky is the brightest element so placing the grad is simple. If the foam from the breaking wave is as bright or almost as bright then don't use a grad. I regularly use lightroom/ ACR grads sometimes to boost shadows where I have placed a real grad.

My bottom line is to get more into the camera although with a fairly modern FF camera it is not as necessary as it once was. For most instances dynamic range is more than adequate but I regularly shoot against dramatic light and can start to see noise intruding. Of course using filters increases the chances of flare and I am willing to live with that and find that a magazine makes a fairly good lens hood in most cases but the mantra of I can do it in lightroom with a single exposure runs the risk of images that are not as good as they could be. We may have to agree to differ and thanks for the reasoned discussion. Ken

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2019 at 22:56 UTC
In reply to:

panther fan: What is the advantage of square filters comoared to circular ones?

Circular ones should work just as well if not better for pure ND and polarization filters.

And for graduated ND filters, why are people still using them if the exact same effect can be achieved in post with far less hassle and better results since you have more control over strength, placement and most importantly having the option to adapt to not straight horizons and objects?

I can't reply to your reply so. I agree that I can bracket but with moving water it can be difficult. Rivers at exposures beyond 1/50s are no problem but incoming waves are just a pain unless you go for the milky no detail look. I don't know what classical stacking is, although I may well do it and call it by a different name.

Bottom line, if it works for you then great. I spent several years with an Olympus 410 where every image was bracketed and I found it a pain. Cheers Ken

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2019 at 20:54 UTC
In reply to:

panther fan: What is the advantage of square filters comoared to circular ones?

Circular ones should work just as well if not better for pure ND and polarization filters.

And for graduated ND filters, why are people still using them if the exact same effect can be achieved in post with far less hassle and better results since you have more control over strength, placement and most importantly having the option to adapt to not straight horizons and objects?

I use grad ND filters because it allows me to get more light into my camera. Yes I can mimic the effect and control it better in lightroom but if I use a real 2 stop ND grad I can increase my shutter speed by approx 2 stops. This is more than the difference between APSC and full frame or FF and digital medium format.
Of course it s more effort and expense but if my carefully and accurately exposed image on an APSC camera can produce results as good as or better than a FF camera then it is worth it for me. I use a Nikon D810 and am trying to get the best it of it that is why I use grads. Square instead of screw in, it is just easier when stacking large value ND filters and polarisers. ND on first and it is difficult to see the changes when the polariser is turned, polariser on first and screwing on the ND may well change the polarising angle. I have tried step up rings and one set of filters and have many images with hard vignetting in the corners. Ken

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2019 at 18:45 UTC
On article Why brand market share shouldn't matter to you (529 comments in total)

Richard I am disgusted, how dare you produce an article full of common sense and reasoned comments. Ken

Link | Posted on Mar 11, 2018 at 13:09 UTC as 134th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Mike Davis: Pixel-shifting increases pixel counts without increasing the sensor dimensions. The diameter of Airy disks at the sensor plane will not shrink for any given aperture and wavelength of light, just because you started pixel shifting to quadruple the number of captured MP.

Pixel-shifting is great for increasing the resolution in the final print without increasing the print dimensions, but if you try to increase enlargement factor, you'll be increasing the size of the Airy disks in the final print, unless you open the aperture proportionately, to compensate the increase in enlargement factor.

In other words, if you're happy with the print resolution you're getting with 100 MP from this size sensor, you'll have to open up two stops to make a print that's twice as large, for the same desired print resolution and viewing distance. How does shooting at f/4.8 (instead of f/9.6) to avoid inhibiting a desired print resolution of 5 lp/mm in a 360 dpi un-resampled print sound?

Mike a good point. My days of studying Maths and Physics are way in the past but your conclusion would seem to only hold true if diffraction is the factor limiting the resolution. The work needed to calculate the increase in resolution using this technique could be beyond my ability to calculate but is certainly beyond the time that I am willing to give to it. If the intended use of this camera is photographing flat art objects in highly controlled conditions then the use of f4.8 would seem not to cause any problems. If some rich landscape photographer thinks that this is the answer to producing "better" images then I am sure that they are in for an expensive and often frustrating lesson. Ken

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2018 at 15:19 UTC

I could never afford such a camera but I was interested in the comments about lightroom choking on such large files so... I imported a 34 shot pano from a D810 35,298px by 14,431 px into lightroom and it works quickly with little or no lag. Trying to apply a Nik filter in Photoshop is quite a different matter, lots of coffee and patience. Using smart objects one soon exceeds TIFF file limits so the seamless photoshop to lightroom interface stops being seamless. Before anyone asks, Do I need such a large panorama? NO Will I ever print it at a resolution that warrents this size? NO. Can I crop multiple very high res images from it? YES. Ken

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2018 at 15:49 UTC as 75th comment | 1 reply

I look from a far distance. I would not like to live in a place where I was constantly falling over groups of phootgraphers blocking up the paths etc. However looking at the posted image, why do photographers want to go and take images here? Is the posted image just a poor shot or is the rest of the area so terrible that this is a good location? A good place to live probably but a location for photography? Ken

Link | Posted on Dec 23, 2017 at 00:11 UTC as 15th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Gloomy1: Most of the images, in the now published book, are what most would call landscapes. The winners, like lots of winning images in competitions, are at the edges of what most would call landscapes. This could be something to do with judges looking at hundreds of lovely landscapes and picking things that are different. The photographers are in the most part amateurs. If you search for landscape photographer of the year 2017 some of the British newspapers have more images that look more like traditional landscapes. Hope that this helps. Ken

Gosh thanks for that quietrich. Now perhaps I can go and take better images. On a less sarcastic note a definition of photography that only examines what is there and not how you feel about it takes a very limited viewpoint. It would look like quite old fashioned viewpoint about only showing what is in front of the camera. Could it be that Wikipedia may not have the best definition, perhaps they should ask Charlie Waite to update it? Ken

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 23:59 UTC
Total: 27, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »