Roland Karlsson

Lives in Sweden Stockholm, Sweden
Works as a Programmer
Joined on Feb 23, 2002
About me:

Collector of K-mount and M42 stuff. Main camera K-1. Also interested in camera technology, e.g. Foveon. Also interested in computer based image analysis and transforms.

Comments

Total: 1970, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Silly!

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2016 at 21:44 UTC as 43rd comment
On photo Route 163 in the Best use of wide open spaces challenge (13 comments in total)

A classic photo! The shadow att the "bottom" of the valye adds to the picture very much. Good catch!

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 09:37 UTC as 6th comment
On article Sony announces FE 50mm F1.4 ZA prime lens (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: I am a bit annoyed. In the 1960-1990ies they could make small and nice 50 mm F1.4. Or even smaller and nice 50 mm F1.7. Small jewels. I am mainly thinking about the Pentax M, K, F and FA lenses, and actually also the M42 Takumars.

OK - the big monsters of today are better - much better. But, with today's computers and exotic glasses and aspheric lenses, you are bound to be able to make much better small lenses than yesterday's small lenses. Even better small jewels. And those small things could, of course come at a lower price than the monsters of today.

But, no, big and expensive. That is it. Or zooms. And more zooms.

I mean - an improved FA 20 mm F2.8? Not bigger, but much better. Sounds possible! Or maybe F4, if that is easier? Then it might even have a 49 mm thread.

And when they are at it - maybe also the mechanical quality of the Takumars? I mean, they are 50 years old. I mean, 2016 it should be easy and cheap to make what they did 1960?

Yes, I might be wrong. They might have to be monsters. But, I assume that a 50 mm F2 can be made smaller than this. Moreover, back lit sensors are much more independent of incident angle. maybe we shall totally change to BSI, so we have more freedom designing lenses.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2016 at 09:14 UTC
On article Sony announces FE 50mm F1.4 ZA prime lens (293 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: I am a bit annoyed. In the 1960-1990ies they could make small and nice 50 mm F1.4. Or even smaller and nice 50 mm F1.7. Small jewels. I am mainly thinking about the Pentax M, K, F and FA lenses, and actually also the M42 Takumars.

OK - the big monsters of today are better - much better. But, with today's computers and exotic glasses and aspheric lenses, you are bound to be able to make much better small lenses than yesterday's small lenses. Even better small jewels. And those small things could, of course come at a lower price than the monsters of today.

But, no, big and expensive. That is it. Or zooms. And more zooms.

I mean - an improved FA 20 mm F2.8? Not bigger, but much better. Sounds possible! Or maybe F4, if that is easier? Then it might even have a 49 mm thread.

And when they are at it - maybe also the mechanical quality of the Takumars? I mean, they are 50 years old. I mean, 2016 it should be easy and cheap to make what they did 1960?

@simon - sure an F1.4 lens was exotic and expensive back then. But, take an F2 lens instead, or F1.7, that was standard on Pentax.

@rubberdials - yes, there are some problems with sensors and incident angle that makes the lenses bigger for digital. But, the very good built in lenses in Sigma dp cameras shows what is possible. OK, those lenses are slow, but if that is necessary to make small lenses, ill take that.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2016 at 07:43 UTC
In reply to:

keepreal: I was in awe at Zion National Park and took many successful pictures there. But somehow I felt no camera truly could do justice to the place. At home I decided to use two shots taken about a mile apart and combine them. Even though this is not my best result, I felt this captured the atmosphere of the place rather better than other efforts and see no problem if pictures rather than photographic records are what you are after.

You can see the result at http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3894780139/photos/3302685/ where the red rock in the background and the sky were from one frame, the rest of the scene from the other. Have a look at the image in the other available sizes with your browser set to full screen; on mine "large" works best. Unless you do so, the image at the link does not quite look right, at least not on my monitor.

This was to a competition where you were supposed to combine two images. So - in that context it was OK. But, it looks kind of like a holiday picture, so I would be surprised to find that this has been made.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2016 at 22:47 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: We have authentic, visually improved, staged and altered images. No hard boundaries.

* Authentic is when you just point your camera at something you see and then use the OOC JPEG unaltered or just using standard settings in your RAW converter.
* Visually improved means that you increase contrast, fix white balance, cropping, etc. Maybe even clone away dust or some unimportant seagulls in the sky. Maybe.
* Staged means that you somehow plan the scene. It includes portraits. And it also includes redoing something that actually have happened. Many historical scenes are staged. Sometimes staged scenes is a lie, like two enemies smiling and shaking hands.
* Altered means that you change something in the image so that it has changed what really was photographed. Like moving that pyramid.

Bump! I think I did put some thinking into my post(s). Any thoughts?

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2016 at 22:44 UTC
On article Sony announces FE 50mm F1.4 ZA prime lens (293 comments in total)

I am a bit annoyed. In the 1960-1990ies they could make small and nice 50 mm F1.4. Or even smaller and nice 50 mm F1.7. Small jewels. I am mainly thinking about the Pentax M, K, F and FA lenses, and actually also the M42 Takumars.

OK - the big monsters of today are better - much better. But, with today's computers and exotic glasses and aspheric lenses, you are bound to be able to make much better small lenses than yesterday's small lenses. Even better small jewels. And those small things could, of course come at a lower price than the monsters of today.

But, no, big and expensive. That is it. Or zooms. And more zooms.

I mean - an improved FA 20 mm F2.8? Not bigger, but much better. Sounds possible! Or maybe F4, if that is easier? Then it might even have a 49 mm thread.

And when they are at it - maybe also the mechanical quality of the Takumars? I mean, they are 50 years old. I mean, 2016 it should be easy and cheap to make what they did 1960?

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2016 at 22:30 UTC as 19th comment | 11 replies

One more reason why not buying iPhones

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2016 at 13:41 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

Gatoraied: I had my own darkroom back in the early 60's and worked as a commercial photographer. I sent all color work to Rochester and only did my B&W's. Film was 35mm, 620, 120. Did lots of dodging and burning which worked quite nicely. When seeing Adams' multi light & toggled enlarger/projector light array I thought " Ahhh, thats how he did it!". Of course never using 8x10 negatives the thought never crossed my mind but it was brilliant!. For years many of us in the business knew Adams manipulated his photographs but could never quite nail down how it was done. Of course anyone who worked photography knew getting Adams kind of exposures were next to impossible and just thought he performed some magic in the darkroom but never realized that using that toggled lighting was one of his creations. Interesting to know the rest of the story. BTW, I wonder if National Geographic will purge all of Adams' photos from their archives?

Yes, one of the more impressive things I have seen was Irvin Penn and his giant platinum prints. Fantastic gradiation and blackness and sharpness on a matte high quality medium. Also carbon printing, and the related Woodburytypi, have aesthetic qualities that silver printing lacks. For a little more rough look, we also have gum printing. etc etc

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2016 at 11:45 UTC

Nice. The microwave trick I missed. So, I had to try to compensate for the flattening when the print dried.

I had a normal vertical machine, with the easel om the desk top. A color machine with some halogen lights. In a way it looks more comfortable to have a horizontal machine. You can then make larger prints and have larger negatives. But - you also need a larger room. And gravity is not your friend - you need those magnets to hold the paper. Rails with electric motors, that was above my ambitions.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2016 at 22:16 UTC as 28th comment
In reply to:

Gatoraied: I had my own darkroom back in the early 60's and worked as a commercial photographer. I sent all color work to Rochester and only did my B&W's. Film was 35mm, 620, 120. Did lots of dodging and burning which worked quite nicely. When seeing Adams' multi light & toggled enlarger/projector light array I thought " Ahhh, thats how he did it!". Of course never using 8x10 negatives the thought never crossed my mind but it was brilliant!. For years many of us in the business knew Adams manipulated his photographs but could never quite nail down how it was done. Of course anyone who worked photography knew getting Adams kind of exposures were next to impossible and just thought he performed some magic in the darkroom but never realized that using that toggled lighting was one of his creations. Interesting to know the rest of the story. BTW, I wonder if National Geographic will purge all of Adams' photos from their archives?

I decided quite early. Diffusion! Condenser show al dust! Besides, I used multi grade paper and did not want to use no multi grade filters. Then I needed a color machine. So ... diffusion. Started with a cheap condenser machine though. And fighted against the dust. Ouch!

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2016 at 22:08 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: We have authentic, visually improved, staged and altered images. No hard boundaries.

* Authentic is when you just point your camera at something you see and then use the OOC JPEG unaltered or just using standard settings in your RAW converter.
* Visually improved means that you increase contrast, fix white balance, cropping, etc. Maybe even clone away dust or some unimportant seagulls in the sky. Maybe.
* Staged means that you somehow plan the scene. It includes portraits. And it also includes redoing something that actually have happened. Many historical scenes are staged. Sometimes staged scenes is a lie, like two enemies smiling and shaking hands.
* Altered means that you change something in the image so that it has changed what really was photographed. Like moving that pyramid.

Just a clarification - some art are considered true to the subject, like Ansel Adam's landscapes. They are obviously improved, but I would be surprised, and maybe upset, if they were altered to picture something else. Like adding a moon.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 12:30 UTC
In reply to:

Roland Karlsson: We have authentic, visually improved, staged and altered images. No hard boundaries.

* Authentic is when you just point your camera at something you see and then use the OOC JPEG unaltered or just using standard settings in your RAW converter.
* Visually improved means that you increase contrast, fix white balance, cropping, etc. Maybe even clone away dust or some unimportant seagulls in the sky. Maybe.
* Staged means that you somehow plan the scene. It includes portraits. And it also includes redoing something that actually have happened. Many historical scenes are staged. Sometimes staged scenes is a lie, like two enemies smiling and shaking hands.
* Altered means that you change something in the image so that it has changed what really was photographed. Like moving that pyramid.

Personally I think that if you do staging or altering it shall be obvious that it has been, or might have been, made. Or maybe it shall be unimportant, but then it borders to improve. I do not think you shall talk about art vs non art. I think it is enough if it is obvious - and if it is obviously art - then it is obvious that some altering might have been made.

NOTE - that for some kind of photography, not even improvement is OK. For astro photography is noise reduction maybe a nono. So also for medical photography. Noise removed might be important information.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 12:23 UTC

We have authentic, visually improved, staged and altered images. No hard boundaries.

* Authentic is when you just point your camera at something you see and then use the OOC JPEG unaltered or just using standard settings in your RAW converter.
* Visually improved means that you increase contrast, fix white balance, cropping, etc. Maybe even clone away dust or some unimportant seagulls in the sky. Maybe.
* Staged means that you somehow plan the scene. It includes portraits. And it also includes redoing something that actually have happened. Many historical scenes are staged. Sometimes staged scenes is a lie, like two enemies smiling and shaking hands.
* Altered means that you change something in the image so that it has changed what really was photographed. Like moving that pyramid.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 12:23 UTC as 6th comment | 3 replies

One question - what is that green "laser" ray in the COSRAY image?

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2016 at 16:15 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply

Sure it is futuristic - it is from 2106 after all :)

Me likes those images very much!

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2016 at 16:10 UTC as 8th comment
On article Pentax K-1 real-world sample gallery (143 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: The sad thing is, in 5 to 6 years ppl came out, claiming that the K-1 is vintage and ancient tech, and one can't make decent images with it...

I hope the best for Pentax, that their K-1 would outsell the D8x0, and they'd develop an semipro level FF (24 MP) with the same features, to compete with the D750 & 5D Mk. III(IV then later)

Pentax truly deserved it, their K-1 gets the most out of this 36 MP Sony FF Sensor tech from 2012. Togehter with their unique features, and much cheaper price compared to the D810, the K-1 should being accepted onto the market very well - if one isn't already onto the Nikon train.

Hmmm .... anyone claiming that you cannot take good images with old cameras?

There was a period when digital cameras had VGA sensor size. Yes, that was cr@p. But, other than that?

What is happening now is that the cameras gets better and better and if you want to buy a new camera you do not look back. That I agree on. But, you can still make fantastic pictures with a K-5 or older cameras not to talk about film cameras ... even if those are bit too complicated and tedious for most modern photographers :)

Of course, this makes your older cameras worthless if you want to sell them. That sux, but it is a sign of the time.

Link | Posted on Jul 2, 2016 at 12:38 UTC
On article Fotodiox releases new LED studio-in-a-box (49 comments in total)
In reply to:

Auricom: Can I make one myself and save the cost of buying one like this one?

It all depends on what you need. This box is probably very handy and well thought out and built out of stuff the buy in large quantities. So, if you need something that is equivalent, it will cost and take some time to do, if you can do it at all. I would not try, if the reason was to save a part of $100. But, if you like doing stuff - why not?

But, if you only want to make a permanent studio, then you might do something out of cardboard. You still need the LED and its driver though. Anyhow, this is probably the el cheapo solution.

Link | Posted on Jun 30, 2016 at 20:38 UTC

Looks to be a very nice camera. Perfect size.

I do not like the look of the lens though. Very little glass for that big can. Maybe it is tele centric and the rear lens is huge?

EDIT:

Nope, the rear lens is small also. So, it is not tele centric. Probably is a very good lens anyhow. Hmmmm, 45 mm F/3.5. Not as bad as I thought.

They also have a 90 mm F/3.2. That's better.

/Roland

Link | Posted on Jun 27, 2016 at 21:45 UTC as 40th comment
In reply to:

AndersSJ: Has anyone tried to scan the negative and reproduce the Adams' darkroom work in Lightroom - or another photo editing software?

Interesting question. I guess - but might be wrong - that they do not dare. The risk is that it is too easy or someone comes up with a better result. Then the magic is decreased.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2016 at 09:33 UTC
Total: 1970, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »