John M Roberts

Lives in United States Portland, OR, United States
Works as a Professional Photographer
Has a website at www.jrobertsimages.com
Joined on Dec 21, 2007

Comments

Total: 74, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

John M Roberts: Some comments here where they prefer the shot with the van on the flats over the shot of texture just below it by Rejesh. Wow, what different levels of aesthetic appreciation.

"Dull, lazy stylistic trope... banality" So I thought you must have some quite impressive work yourself to show for such a critique but couldn't find any samples. Maybe the vehicle tracks makes it clear to your perspective but seems more clinical to mine. I've seen images with tracks that in deed move me but this isn't one of them. To each their own.

Link | Posted on Mar 17, 2017 at 22:53 UTC

Some comments here where they prefer the shot with the van on the flats over the shot of texture just below it by Rejesh. Wow, what different levels of aesthetic appreciation.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2017 at 04:58 UTC as 21st comment | 3 replies
On photo Water drop in the water drop challenge (24 comments in total)

Great shot! It'd be fun to see a photo of your setup.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2017 at 04:00 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to:

jadot: I love Elinchrom. I've always had their lights, from EL500's through to packs, and The Quadra when it first came out. These 1200s look awesome.

I'm not going skydiving any time soon, though. It's just not my thing.

I wish that just once a lighting or camera company would make a promo video that wasn't showcasing how you can use the gear on your extreme sports day out. Granted, it's pretty mind blowing that you CAN shoot in this kind of situation, but it's not something that I can relate to, and I'd bet that the majority of Elinchrom's customer base probably don't either.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I'm not the only photographer who shoots with lights that doesn't jump out of aeroplanes or off the side of a mountain on a regular basis.

I feel totally inadequate.

If I'm watching the same video, it didn't seem to show much of how to use it under the conditions found in the photo above it. I see a hard light on the left of the free faller and less light on their right side while being backlit by the sun. I don't see how it was lit. Where was the light coming from, held by other divers which would be an accomplishment or was this a composite. I found the video lacking quit a bit in information to the example shot.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2017 at 02:56 UTC

Having high expectations for any company like Nikon to come out with jaw dropping products for an anniversary is fantastical. Technology doesn't develop according to such. Should they have delayed some releases just to make a splash? Right!

Doing a cosmetic limited addition to commemorate an anniversary is a practical, cost efficient move. I myself don't give a hoot. These aren't like coins where you incase them in proof plastic for your collection. They are computers with great depreciation.

If I am to be critical of their celebration attempt, it's not because of being disappointed by them not having miraculously release some new fangle- jangle product. It's that they just didn't offer up a limited time discount on their existing product line to their customers. Then I bet few would be criticizing here.

Yep, this all clearly shows Nikon is going down the tubes folks. Better switch systems soon before most catch on.

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 17:38 UTC as 52nd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

aftab: Some are wondering about the cameras used.

1. 5Ds
2. D810
3. No exif
4. D 750
5. 5D III
6. 7D
7. 5DsR
8. D4
9. D7100
10. D7200
11. D7200
12. D810
13. No exif
14. No exif
15. EM-1

Many thanks for your information. An incredible shot. In my early teens I had taken diving lessons but my dad said he could afford either a regulator or a camera, but I couldn't have both. I chose the camera. I regret not having pursued the underwater world but still have had an amazing venture above in my career. By the way, what was the iso and shutter speed?

Link | Posted on Feb 22, 2017 at 06:35 UTC
In reply to:

aftab: Some are wondering about the cameras used.

1. 5Ds
2. D810
3. No exif
4. D 750
5. 5D III
6. 7D
7. 5DsR
8. D4
9. D7100
10. D7200
11. D7200
12. D810
13. No exif
14. No exif
15. EM-1

Thanks. I'm even more interested in the lenses, types of housing, strobe configuration and more lighting information. I did appreciate much of the description when given.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2017 at 18:11 UTC

I thought I was seeing grand prize winning images throughout the 15. It's an environment offering fresh perspectives due to it's challenges and wonders. No Yosemite Ansel Adams type tripod markings. I'm hoping more recognition will be given to the protection of the seas due to it's beauty and importance of sustaining life though out our planet.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2017 at 18:08 UTC as 7th comment

I would prefer to have the same choice I had with my X-E1, either black or silver for the same price. I like the look and maybe it's more resistant to aesthetic ware but that certainly will have little impact on resale value for it's still a computer loosing value quicker than any ware resistant characteristics could offer. Therefor the cheep silver finish would be just fine.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2017 at 21:42 UTC as 14th comment

I still have a freezer full of 5x7 Velvia to which I'm sure I will not use up. I too had decades career with film. For me what digital now offers in spontaneity and opportunity so outweighs any aesthetic differences film offered.

I have to admit that after a venture of shooting my Wisner view camera, and it was a pain to deal with, when I got the film back from the lab and viewed it on the table, the wow factor surfaced. I'd say that was all worth it. But now with digital available I just hardly bother to consider the cumbersome ordeal of operating that system again.

Just recently I was out shooting at dusk about ready to pack it in when the deeply submerged sun cast a bit more color while I noticed a group of geese composed perfectly to which I pumped up the iso so as to freeze their action for a wonderful conclusion to the outing. No way would I have caught that with this new Extachrome. I am hopeful that this trend will continue to maybe add value to my film stock.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 00:31 UTC as 92nd comment
In reply to:

vscd: THUMBS UP!! But bring back the Kodachrome, it's way better. Fuji took the crown over Kodak E6 a lone time ago ;)

Why is Kodachrome way better? Not sure what you mean by then saying Fuji took the crown over Kodak E6. You mean took the crown over Kodak's Extachromes? I believe both Velvia and Extachromes were processed in E6. The pumped up situation of Velvia pushed Kodachrome to the side. Kodak had the greatest longevity after being processed.

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2017 at 00:13 UTC
In reply to:

James Pilcher: Kodachrome would have been a better choice.

Also Kodachrome lost it's popularity to Velvia. The pluses for Kodachrome was its longevity but the pumped up color saturation of Velvia and other transparencies seemed to outweigh the benefits of Kodachrome.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 23:57 UTC
In reply to:

CannonDave: Back in the day we abandoned E6 because of the expense of EPA and silver recovery issues. Today, I'd need a good, dust free scan to carry on with the work flow in Photoshop. Give me Velvia (neg. film) and a good professional color printer.

Most neg. film were processed C-41.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 23:53 UTC
In reply to:

gravis92: I just about bought a 50 roll crate of expired stuff, thank goodness I passed haha.

If it has been stored in the freezer or refrigerator you might save a bundle. Test a roll out.

Link | Posted on Jan 5, 2017 at 23:42 UTC
In reply to:

migus: tantalizingly beautiful!

and yet, no hires pics, nor exposure data, anything to teach the rest of us... :-(

The article states the use of ND's and sometimes over 2 minutes exposure. That seems to give plenty of usable information even if you were shooting film only. Now with digital, you can figure out a pleasing result in no time so I don't really see the need for much technical information here.

Link | Posted on Jan 2, 2017 at 19:17 UTC
On article 2016 DPReview Readers' Best Shots: People (93 comments in total)

I enjoyed seeing all of them having some favorites. I don't get the need from those needing to be so critical. I kind of wish those that are would share their amazing shots so I can be even more elated.

Link | Posted on Dec 31, 2016 at 19:25 UTC as 35th comment
On article Flickr reveals its top 25 photos of 2016 (190 comments in total)
In reply to:

Clint Dunn: Am I the only one here tired of seeing photos of the lone tree at Wanaka??? It's like everyone in the last few years have shifted from shooting Mesa Arch to lone tree at Wanaka or the same bloody waterfall in Iceland. It's hard to be original these days and I include myself in that statement.

Elements and weather conditions can change allowing for more esthetically pleasing images of a familiar scene which I'd enjoy seeing, experiencing and even sharing. Maybe we need another Earth.

Link | Posted on Dec 19, 2016 at 23:54 UTC
In reply to:

snapa: Some people simply have more money than sense. If you have nothing better to do with $400k then to spend it on an almost useless camera, you have more money than you deserve to have. Will the person who bought it actually use the camera, or just put it on a shelf to admire it? Either way, what a complete waste of money.

If you feel they don't deserve it then be happy that some of it was conned away from them by offering a stupid little old camera. Now others have some of the wealth.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2016 at 07:15 UTC
In reply to:

Sirandar: It is not very clear from this article.

Did these people enter the restricted area with the premeditated intent to induce significant damage to Yellowstone's Grand Prismatic hot spring or to photograph it illegally? Some natural areas are so fragile that it is impossible to not do significant damage, but even then intent and result are important.

Also, was significant damage done?

This information is worth reporting.

In the last case highlighted by Dpreview in Pacific City, Oregon, the persons involved trespassed a natural zone with the expressed purpose to destroy a natural landmark because they had previously trespassed there and injured themselves. Repeat offenders with intent. They also thought their destruction was so important they filmed it

Please take advantage of the links provided in this thread which will show the callous disregard these individuals have to further their fame and gain. Their egos need to be humbled and and the least is a huge fine to wipe out any gain the have received. Just check out their wake boarding behind their huge RV in Berlin. These guys need to be checked and those supporting their cite need some education. Life isn't all about "look at me man."

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 20:18 UTC
In reply to:

badi: "The filmmakers" .... common DPR, i know you are just trying to make headlines sound impressive, but some jerks recording their irresponsible acts or their acts of vandalism, in my book at least, are definitely not filmmakers. Also i don't think you should credit them with such a title, even if that attract more clicks on the article.

Many who don't have English as their native tongue will frequent this cite. I consider this when I see incorrect phrasing and spelling. I was born into the English language and I'm far from being grammatically correct and can't imagine if I were to participate in a forum foreign to my language. Nothing wrong with politely pointing out a correction though.

Link | Posted on Nov 8, 2016 at 20:06 UTC
Total: 74, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »