photolando

Lives in United States Orlando, United States
Works as a Photographer
Joined on Jul 29, 2001

Comments

Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14
On article Profoto launches collapsible OCF Beauty Dish (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

gazza73: Or you could just get the much better broncolor beauty box?

http://www.bron.ch/broncolor/products/light-shapers/showproduct/beautybox-65/?cHash=68079c6e20187134a61f0be63faca144#.Vt4D0cfy6EI

Ok. I'll give you half credit. Ha!

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2016 at 12:19 UTC
On article Profoto launches collapsible OCF Beauty Dish (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

gazza73: Or you could just get the much better broncolor beauty box?

http://www.bron.ch/broncolor/products/light-shapers/showproduct/beautybox-65/?cHash=68079c6e20187134a61f0be63faca144#.Vt4D0cfy6EI

The word you are looking for is "foldable". But you still have to insert the rods into a speedring on both. And you don't have to take rods out of soft boxes or these BDs when you pack them up. I never have. I leave them in. I just unfold it, insert the rods in the speedring. Done. It's pretty easy and takes no time at all.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2016 at 15:31 UTC
On article Profoto launches collapsible OCF Beauty Dish (33 comments in total)
In reply to:

gazza73: Or you could just get the much better broncolor beauty box?

http://www.bron.ch/broncolor/products/light-shapers/showproduct/beautybox-65/?cHash=68079c6e20187134a61f0be63faca144#.Vt4D0cfy6EI

The Bron is not collapsable? Why is it made of soft material and use rods and a speeding (like a softbox) if it weren't collapsable? Unless I am missing something it looks as collapsable as this Profoto.

Link | Posted on Mar 8, 2016 at 14:22 UTC
In reply to:

dash2k8: 'Give me a wall, a window and a reflector, and I'm home free,' says Bambi Cantrell, 'Don't feel like you have to have every single tool that's made to get good pictures.'

I understand the sentiment here, but that's really over-simplifying things. What about makeup? Props? You can't just stick a bride in front of the wall-window-reflector and produce excellent bridal images. I think the editor of the article did not do the interview justice by presenting only part of the quote.

I totally disagree. Bambi's work is amazing but just don't take her word for it. Look at the work of homelike Joe Buissink. I've never known him to use anything BUT his cameras/lenses. Never uses flash. Heck, never uses reflectors. He finds moments as the appear to him. A lot of wedding photographers shoot like this. Look up Kevin Mullins.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2016 at 12:02 UTC

I wish all camera AND flash brands would just add a USB port so we can use external battles to power our equipment without having to buy special devices like this. No offense Tether Tools.

Do they really make THAT much money from their battery sales? Heck, just also offer USB type batteries or rebrand a current external battery. It would be nice to not have to replace batteries during a long days shoot. Especially if the trend is going to the mirrorless system which eats up batteries.

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2016 at 15:36 UTC as 3rd comment | 3 replies
On article Fujifilm announces development of EF-X500 flash (85 comments in total)
In reply to:

phazelag: Optical not radio wireless! This is 2015. What a waste of talent and time. No good radio wireless is why I haven't invested in a lot of brands.

I'd rather keep it all separate. If the radio part goes out, then you have to send the whole flash in. IF you want to get it fixed. Keep to things like PWs and you just get another PW. If this Fuji unit is a quality p product, I'd get it in a heartbeat over the cheap Yongnou pieces of garbage that don't have a very long lifespan with busy shooters. But that's just my opinion. For now, my old Metz on Auto words just fine.

Link | Posted on Jan 16, 2016 at 01:14 UTC
On article The travel photography of HDR guru Trey Ratcliff (235 comments in total)
In reply to:

lookingforclarity: Give HDR a break!

We don’t see in B&W but many of us like to view photos that way.

If HDR is fake.......is B&W?

I like color, B&W and a well done HDR. Trey’s are well done.

Photogrpahy is not fake. It is what it is. A photograph. It is a real thing. I can hold a photograph. It's real. It's not "reality". Nothing excpet, well, realty is. Music on a CD is not reality. It's a recording. But it's not fake. It IS a real recording. It is what it is.

Link | Posted on Aug 12, 2015 at 01:04 UTC
In reply to:

PowerG9atBlackForest: Does it matter what it says on the tin as long as you are happy with what is in?

No. It shouldn't. But I think some might want to know; "Is it worth paying extra for something that "really" isn't made by Zeiss, just "approved" by Zeiss? And just because it is, is it REALLY better than the Sony (or whoever) version? At least enough to notice in the end use? Maybe it is. I don't know. I have never used or owned any of these.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 12:24 UTC

It's a pretty novel idea. However I can't stand the soft/clothlike bouncers. I've tried them all. My favorite is still the (hard) Demb Flip it. I use it everyday with corporate events. Maybe no difference in light quality but I just like it better.

Link | Posted on Jul 29, 2015 at 23:01 UTC as 11th comment
On article BPG image format aims to replace JPEGs (204 comments in total)

I've been shooting jpegs most of my pro career. I have never once had a problem with "jpeg artifacts". I've sold 24"x30" and have seen larger made from jpegs. They look fantastic. And yes, I shoot raw as well if I feel it is needed so lets not start that stupid amateur argument.

Maybe this is aimed at pixel peepers because I've yet to hear anyone really complain all that much about the look of a jpeg image. Ever!

Link | Posted on Dec 16, 2014 at 10:52 UTC as 33rd comment | 6 replies

I'm sad to read this. I love my 58 AF. It's "auto" setting is more accurate than any ETTL on my Canon 600EXRT! And even it's own ETTL. I mean it's like 95% dead on!! Pretty sad when an old school "auto" flash setting beats some new fangled ETTL system that is rarely accurate. If ever.

It's a shame more people don't give them a try. Canon's flashes have never been anything great. Nikon can't seem to make anything right the first time out. They just get it out there then create a x10 version.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2014 at 00:50 UTC as 48th comment | 2 replies
On article Beginner's guide: shooting high-key at home (72 comments in total)

Nice shots but not one of them is "high key". Subjects on a white background? Yes. High Key? No.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2014 at 13:10 UTC as 15th comment
On article Never lose your lens cap again with HACkxTACK (165 comments in total)

Next item? The HackxTack Finder. In case you lose your HackxTack. Which is probably sitting right next to your lens cap. Ha!

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2014 at 22:18 UTC as 86th comment | 1 reply

I'm just curious. Does not some copyright issues apply here? I realize perhaps all of the original photographers are dead but I can't imagine the current copyright holders of say Karsh's Einstein or Churchill would agree to such a thing. I see some are available for purchase as prints or posters! Really?

This person got a license to not only sell these original works of art but was allowed to change them?

I know everyone on here (and every other photo forum) has a hissy fit when they post about others retouching their work. And we're a bunch of nobodies! lol

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2013 at 12:10 UTC as 99th comment | 4 replies
Total: 14, showing: 1 – 14