rpm40

rpm40

Lives in United States Buffalo, NY, United States
Joined on Sep 22, 2005

Comments

Total: 478, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

captura: Mostly nonsense in many cases.

Sure sounds that way.

Link | Posted on Jan 7, 2018 at 02:31 UTC
In reply to:

captura: Mostly nonsense in many cases.

How do you know it’s a witch hunt? You don’t. So why do you assume?

Link | Posted on Jan 6, 2018 at 03:44 UTC
In reply to:

anticipation_of: Good. Sexual assaulters should be punished. It’s one of the worst crimes there is, and it’s insane that it’s so widespread and that perpetrators get away with it more often than not. He should be investigated, and if the evidence is compelling then he should be tried, and if convicted he should be imprisoned. It’s a crime, and not a minor one.

If you really think most of these women have truly consensual sex in those circumstances, you must have never heard of extortion. There is a difference between wanting to do something, and feeling you have no other choice.

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2018 at 14:13 UTC
In reply to:

captura: Mostly nonsense in many cases.

What is? Do you mean allegations of sexual assault generally? I do not find it so hard to believe that men often act on sexual urges toward women that aren't reciprocated. Why would such a claim offend you personally?

Link | Posted on Jan 4, 2018 at 14:08 UTC
In reply to:

Sezano: what's the consensus on the one camera to have out of all of these?

One that takes AA batteries and SD cards would be my vote. There are boatloads of old Canon A series cams floating around that can be had for a song if you want to play around. I got my nephews two of them for $20 and didn't need to worry too much if they broke them in short order (they did).

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2017 at 17:33 UTC
In reply to:

Ab Latchin: This should be a lesson in how detached dpr members are from successful mass market ideas.

Still a stupid idea.

Link | Posted on Nov 29, 2017 at 01:47 UTC
On article Ugly Places, Pretty Photos: A portrait shoot at Lowe's (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Although I'm just a hobbyist, I've been at it for 30+ years. Apparently I've been doing this too long. I say this because this sort of thing is an anathema to me and I have no respect for alternating points of view on it.

It has ALWAYS been explained to me for the longest time that you seek out the best, you NEVER and I mean NEVER deliberately choose suboptimal conditions on purpose as some "challenge." Excellence is the goal.

If you, DESPITE your efforts, end up in suboptimal conditions & you accept the challenge of making the best of it, then by all means. However, you NEVER & I mean NEVER go out of your way to "dumb down excellence" as it were by DELIBERATELY forgoing better conditions as some sort of "challenge." You seek out the ideal background, lighting, equipment, time of day, manner of dress for the model, EVERYTHING. That's always how it's been and it's how it should ALWAYS be. Period. "Times/ideas change," you say? In my book, how I learned it is how it should ALWAYS be.

So you don't love photography, you love gear. Nothing wrong with that, I'm sure many others on this site feel the same way. No harm in that. But to say with total certainty and to the exclusion of all other opinions, that there is no value in a creative endeavor or different approach to photography seems, to me, extremely narrow-minded. If you're in it for the gear, own it. If you're in it for the fun, lighten up a little and try something new.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2017 at 21:02 UTC
On article Ugly Places, Pretty Photos: A portrait shoot at Lowe's (40 comments in total)
In reply to:

larrytusaz: Although I'm just a hobbyist, I've been at it for 30+ years. Apparently I've been doing this too long. I say this because this sort of thing is an anathema to me and I have no respect for alternating points of view on it.

It has ALWAYS been explained to me for the longest time that you seek out the best, you NEVER and I mean NEVER deliberately choose suboptimal conditions on purpose as some "challenge." Excellence is the goal.

If you, DESPITE your efforts, end up in suboptimal conditions & you accept the challenge of making the best of it, then by all means. However, you NEVER & I mean NEVER go out of your way to "dumb down excellence" as it were by DELIBERATELY forgoing better conditions as some sort of "challenge." You seek out the ideal background, lighting, equipment, time of day, manner of dress for the model, EVERYTHING. That's always how it's been and it's how it should ALWAYS be. Period. "Times/ideas change," you say? In my book, how I learned it is how it should ALWAYS be.

Yuck.

Link | Posted on Nov 25, 2017 at 03:01 UTC

This is going to bomb so, so hard.

Link | Posted on Nov 19, 2017 at 01:29 UTC as 46th comment
On article Sigma's new 16mm F1.4 will cost $450, ships this month (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: Useful, cheap lens for Sony. Not so useful for M43, as there is already a 15mm f1.7, a 17mm f1.8, and pancake 20mm f1.7, all of which are smaller, lighter, relatively cheap, and extremely sharp.

@Mike99999 DXOmark's overall rating for the Olympus and Panasonic are both higher than the Canon from your example. There is more to consider than sharpness wide open.

That said, I owned the f1.7, it was decent wide open but not the sharpest, I agree. But it shaped up very nicely stopped down to f2.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 15:27 UTC
On article Sigma's new 16mm F1.4 will cost $450, ships this month (359 comments in total)
In reply to:

CosminMunteanu: Quite big, compared to already good 15mm f:1.7 Summicron even if only half a stop faster but without aperture ring.
Seems to be like a crop dSLR designed lens, like Sigma's other combo: the 30mm f:1.4. The mirrorless version is bigger than the dSLR one even if is rated as C (contemporary) and not as Art.

What makes you say the Sigma will have better transmission than the Olys?

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 15:18 UTC
In reply to:

mwsoft: I'm Patrick, the developer of Focos and MaxCurve, 25 years software engineer. Thank you all for loving my new app. Here I can answer some questions.

1, Focos is based on dual cameras on iOS 11. So it only runs on iPhones having dual cameras, it means you need the 7+/8+/X.
2, It really takes picture with depth data, so your original photos will be saved with 3D data.
3, It renders depth photos with bokeh effect by every distance layers, not a simple gradient blur or selection blur.
4, I'm making a new version for one-time purchase. Next week you may get the pro version with lifetime access without monthly subscription.
5, Focos can't be searched very well in App Store because App Store uses "Focus" automatically to replace the keyword you input and the result is all about focus. But you may search "Focos camera" to find this app in App Store.
6, A whole bunch of new features will be added into Focos in the future updates.

You may contact me via support(at)focos.me. Thank you.

The app is great!

I think that a one time purchase for the pro version is a good idea, or one-time in app purchases- both would be preferable to subscription model.

Hopefully, Apple can straighten out the auto correct of Focos, it could potentially cause quite a bit of difficulty for people finding your app.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2017 at 22:28 UTC
In reply to:

Activatedfx: "Focos" doesn't show up in an App Store Search. Search for "MaxCurve", then go to the Developers page, where you can find and install "Focos".

Worked, thank you!

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2017 at 20:29 UTC

I can't find it in the App store? it looks great and I'd like to try it. Does anyone have a way they can share? Apparently you can share downloaded apps by copying the file-

On a Mac, this folder is at Music -> iTunes -> iTunes Media -> Mobile Applications
On Windows, it's located at My Music -> iTunes -> iTunes Media -> Mobile Applications.

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2017 at 14:32 UTC as 13th comment
In reply to:

Sezano: Can anyone tell me with some degree of authority, what’s the correct pronunciation of bokeh?

Like "okay". Bo-kay.

...okay dokay? ;)

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2017 at 14:23 UTC
In reply to:

Sir Nick of High Point: My personal opinion: For better or worse, this is the future of photography.

I think he had it right in the original post. Once the digital approximation is close enough to the real thing, and easier to achieve, how many people will do it the old fashioned way? Its the same thing people said about digital vs. film- how many people, other than special cases, still shoot much film? Every advantage of larger formats (previously film) can and will be replaced by better electronics. Smaller, cheaper, less moving parts, etc. Might as well embrace it! Maybe the old ways will fade, but you can learn, experiment and play with the new as they evolve. Different, but still fun!

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2017 at 14:15 UTC

What is that thing in the top? Is the kid swinging a bird around?

Oh, and the con artist's "new work" is terrible.

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2017 at 18:53 UTC as 41st comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

JT26: This is pretty awesome, if only they brought out a camera like this with fixed 28 or 35mm lens in a tiny both with a 20mp sensor. Smaller version of RX100 without a zoom, I would take it everywhere.

Try the Canon g9x, it's probably small enough, it's f2 at wide angle, and you still get a zoom. If not, there's always that weird Dxo camera thingy..

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2017 at 02:59 UTC
In reply to:

justmeMN: From a marketing standpoint, I would think that 16MP would be a tough sell. These days, even 1" sensor compacts have 20MP.

The consumers buying the entry models are more impressed by the megapixels, but a higher end, enthusiast buyer probably understands the more subtle advantages of that higher end model, whether its the better build, viewfinder, etc.

Personally, I want to see the manufacturers' high end models pushing the envelope on technology, and trickling down to the lower models. To me, purposely hamstringing your entry models to protect sales of your higher models is just admitting you can't do any better.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 20:37 UTC
In reply to:

ShaiKhulud: It's actually quite tempting. I would love to use compact 1 inch camera with my DJI drone.

Why is that the case?

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2017 at 20:32 UTC
Total: 478, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »