sean000

Lives in United States Bellingham, USA, United States
Works as a Technology - IT Support
Joined on Feb 16, 2005

Comments

Total: 99, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

I'm a little late in reading about this, but I signed the petition. I have been using Silver Efex Pro at least as far back as 2009. I originally paid $170 ($199 minus a promo discount) and later paid $99 to upgrade to version 2.

Over the years I have made many large black & white prints on a variety of papers that I processed with Silver Efex Pro. I have loved that software for both the ease of previewing a lot of different B&W looks, and also for the precise control you get when it comes to fine-tuning a B&W image. I've tried demos of other products. Technically you can get the same results with just about any software, but nothing I have tried is as easy or as fun to use.

When Google announced they had purchased Nik and would give the suite away, I knew it wouldn't last too many more years. I was glad to try all the other products in the suite, and found the Color Efex Pro Contrast filter to be incredibly useful.

Sean

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 16:30 UTC as 1st comment
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (392 comments in total)

I remember having a keen interest in taking photos at a young age (in the late 1970's and early 1980's). I used a Kodak Instamatic 110 film camera. My parents must have liked what they saw, because they bought me a waterproof Minolta 110 film camera that I took some underwater shots with. I loved that camera. I can still remember the horror I felt when the seal failed and I ended up with a camera full of lake water. As I got older I shot a little with my dad's Nikon 35mm SLR.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2017 at 17:27 UTC as 179th comment | 2 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: the Nikon D80 (245 comments in total)

Memory lane? I still shoot with a D200 (which is of the same generation)! :-)
Full disclosure: My primary camera is an Olympus OM-D E-M5 (which probably isn't too many years from a memory lane retrospective itself). But I still have some older Nikon telephotos (80-200mm f/2.8 and a 300mm f/4) that I shoot from time to time with the D200. It's still going strong and I have some 13x19 prints it produced hanging on my wall.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 16:25 UTC as 65th comment | 1 reply

One of my friends likes to throw parties. Sometimes at her parties she will set up a photo station with some costume items and props, and this camera. All the guests take home a fun little print of themselves. Seems a great use for a camera like this.

I wanted to buy something like this for my 6-year-old, but the cost per photo would quickly add up since she can fill up the memory on her toy digital camera very quickly :-)

Link | Posted on Dec 28, 2016 at 16:52 UTC as 23rd comment
On article Post-Photokina polls - Tell us what you think (198 comments in total)

The sensor size is not always what makes or breaks a camera. I will take a smaller sensor with an excellent lens(es) and controls over a bigger sensor with an average or mediocre lens. But really it comes down to the skill of the photographer and what you need to capture with the camera. For some shots, sensor size will matter more than it does for others. When I have friends ask me for my opinion on a good enthusiast starter kit, I usually recommend something with interchangeable lenses so they can experiment with wildly different perspectives and capabilities. Whether they want interchangeable lenses or not, I recommend that they at least get a camera with excellent manual controls and a good viewfinder. Rather than worry about differences in sensors too much, focus on the lens quality and the things that make shooting with camera a joy or a pain: Controls, viewfinder, whether it's something you can comfortably carry around when you want to have it with you, etc.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2014 at 19:40 UTC as 52nd comment
On article Adobe launches Lightroom for iPad (130 comments in total)
In reply to:

dlkeller: First a monthly payment to watch TV, at least if you want to see many sports programs. Fees to use my phone with a lot of extra fees for a smartphone with aps. Then fees to get on the internet through a provider. Photoshop is now on the cloud with a subscription basis, now LR on your tablet joins the necessity for cloud fees. Some Windows applications are now a monthly fee on the cloud and I suspect very soon the newest Windows will only be on a cloud subscription basis. These things are really starting to add up!

Now that we subscribe to Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon Prime, Evernote Premium, Smugmug, and a broadband Internet connection... I definitely get what you're saying. However, our subscriptions still add up to significantly less than we used to pay for cable TV service (not to mention a landline). I am afraid we are actually in a sweet spot right now, where those of us willing to subscribe to small services like these are getting a pretty good deal. It won't be long before we have micro-subscriptions for everything. Companies like Comcast own so much, they will figure out how to get their money one way or another :-D

Link | Posted on Apr 8, 2014 at 21:25 UTC
On article Snapseed features creep into Google+ for Android app (12 comments in total)

Ever since Google bought Nik I've thought, "They're going after Adobe." Pretty soon Google photo tools like Google + with Picasa will be more powerful and competitive with Lightroom. For photography enthusiasts Lightroom has the edge for now, but Picasa and Google + are improving and becoming increasingly attractive to photography enthusiasts. Meanwhile Adobe's subscription based licensing is driving away some long-time customers. I still can't imagine leaving Lightroom, but I'm keeping an eye on Google. For people who don't need some of Lightroom's more powerful features, and who just want Snapseed like features and a free way to organize and share photos that look great online... why wouldn't they use Google +? Oh yeah, because all their friends and family are on Facebook ;-)

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2014 at 17:07 UTC as 4th comment | 1 reply

The geek in me really likes stuff like this, but the photographer in me loves cameras. A dedicated camera is sometimes an elegant work of art that represents an ideal combination of form and function. This? Not so much.

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2014 at 23:42 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

lolopasstrail: Quite innovative of Nikon. A camera with far more megapixels than the vaunted Olympus EM-1, weighing less than the Olympus EM-1, complete with a new collapsible zoom, all for less than half the price of the EM-1 body alone.

Add the advantage of direct SLR viewing, a wide range of low cost used lenses (save wide primes), fast autofocus, and this is a shot across the bows of mirrorless.

Look at the evolution of the DSLRs- they are becoming smaller, lighter, and retain their overall competency at an affordable price. It's no wonder they are gaining market share over mirrorless.

For the last few years we've constantly heard bloggers and forum posters proclaiming the death of the DSLR. The DSLR begs to differ, and wonders which segment is really dying.

This may not have the features of the EM-1, but it has gone beyond the 16MP ceiling, and arguably gives up nothing in picture-taking ability or photo quality, at a more attractive price point.

"Innovation?" What would that add?

I shoot both Nikon and Olympus. I would much rather use the EVF of the EM1 (or my E-M5) than the small OVF of this camera. The extra megapixels will be lost on the target market for this one. Most people don't need that many megapixels. I might actually consider one to use as a landscape camera. Too bad it won't AF with my AF-D lenses, but that won't matter for tripod use. As for many other advanced features, the EM1 is a lot more camera. There is more to a camera than megapixels, and more to a camera system than a single body and a kit lens. I own both m4/3 and Nikon lenses, and I can tell you there is a major difference in portability.

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2014 at 10:26 UTC
On article Want to remember something? Don't take a photo (183 comments in total)

I'm not buying it. I have much more detailed memories of places I have been when I have photographed the place. I like to explore the places I go with a camera, and in the process I feel like I see things most people don't. Sometimes my wife will look at a detail shot of a place we went together, and she won't remember that detail. I always do. I remember it vividly. But photographers see in ways casual snap shooters do not. When a photographer takes a photograph, there is more thought put into it... so perhaps this study rings closer to true for casual snap shooters. I think there is also a time for photos and a time to be present in the moment. If you are too busy taking photos to be part of the scene instead of an observer, you won't remember as much.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2013 at 07:29 UTC as 45th comment
On article High-end pocketable compacts roundup (2013) (266 comments in total)
In reply to:

Piciul: For me, the best is Olympus XZ-10. None of those presented here has a bright aperture at the long end, and, at normal ISO, the IQ of the cheaper Oly is similar (from RAW), despite the sensor size.
But, again, Dpr ignored it. or maybe is the sixth hidden camera:

"Here are the six models that will make your smartphone jealous:
•Canon PowerShot S120
•Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100
•Fujifilm XQ1
•Nikon Coolpix P330
•Panasonic Lumix DMC-LF1"

We have an XZ-10, along with an OM-D E-M5. Even with a pancake lens attached, the E-M5 is not truly pocketable (well... large coat pockets perhaps). The XZ-10 is, and it's a delightful camera to use. My wife loves it because it fits in her purse, has the same touchscreen features as my E-M5 (which is actually quite useful when photographing the kids), and it has that Oly JPEG engine that usually produces excellent results right out of camera. It's also extremely responsive and focuses quickly in low light. If you want a touchscreen in a camera this size, as well as a bright lens, it's the only game in town.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2013 at 21:35 UTC
On photo Autumn in Georgia . Still Life in the Pumpkins challenge (1 comment in total)

This is a lovely arrangement, but the shallow depth of field is distracting to me. I would have rated it higher if the watermelon, pumpkin, and pomegranate were in focus as well as the rest of the fruit. Maybe crop the upper left corner out of it as well.

Link | Posted on Nov 23, 2013 at 19:13 UTC as 1st comment
On article Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM' (551 comments in total)
In reply to:

REDred Photo: Just to reiterate from another post:

Retro look is not the same as retro function. I love my OM-D but it is certainly NOT in the category of simple to operate like old school cameras. Manual control of a camera is not as simple as putting an M on the dial and letting the "poor old fools" muck about with whatever they want. A camera that is designed for manual operation is one that puts manual control at the very forefront of its design philosophy... With true manual focus that is actually a smooth mechanical helical coupled with a precision focus screen... Dedicated manual controls for key operations that never change no matter what mode the camera is in. When a wood carver picks up a chisel, he doesn't have to turn it on and make sure its in the right mode and set several settings before begining his work... A simple tool alows one to think about what he wants to do with it... and then simply do it...without interface barriers.

@T3 wrote: "So you're saying that you're currently using a camera that scrambles and resets all your modes and settings every time you turn it off and on again?"

I don't think he is saying that at all, and that is certainly not the case with the OM-D E-M5. It retains your settings just fine from power cycle to power cycle, and you can configure custom setting banks just like on my Nikon D200. My D200 certainly has more switches and dials dedicated to important functions than my E-M5 does, but once I got used to the E-M5 I found it to be an excellent creative tool that is very efficient to use. But I get what Redred Photo is saying. Even my D200 requires you to dive into the menus a bit, and the dials may change functionality depending on the mode. It is not designed to be a fully manual camera, and there is something wonderfully simple about dedicated dials for ISO, Shutter Speed, Aperture, a focusing split prism, and all that. Sometimes such simplicity would be welcome. Sometimes

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2013 at 04:40 UTC
On article Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM' (551 comments in total)
In reply to:

sean000: Interesting that they chose to use a moody video to market a camera that doesn't shoot video. Aside from that, I am intrigued as a long-time Nikon shooter. The price tag is going to keep me away though. I have wished for a digital FM for a long time, but I thought the idea would be that it could be a little smaller, just the basic features... and a LOT cheaper than their full-featured FF cameras. Now I'm scratching my head wondering, "How could I justify this when a D600 costs half the price?"

Perhaps the details will answer that question, but I have a feeling that this camera is intended for folks who have more money to spend on style than I. You would think that a camera that has a stripped down feature set, focused more on ergonomics and basic controls rather that high-performance features, would cost less than even the D600.

I'm sure you are right. There are a number of high-end cameras on the market these days that are expensive, stylish, and... while excellent for certain types of photography... are not as versatile as less expensive models. They are niche products, and some of them sell quite well despite competition from less expensive cameras that provide similar features and performance. If Nikon finds the market for the DF to be more limited than they thought, the price may come down. Or it could be that this is intended to be a limited edition collectible. Nikon and others have made those before. It's a good way for a brand to maintain legendary status for the future.

Link | Posted on Oct 28, 2013 at 00:08 UTC
On article Nikon video hints at long-desired 'digital FM' (551 comments in total)

Interesting that they chose to use a moody video to market a camera that doesn't shoot video. Aside from that, I am intrigued as a long-time Nikon shooter. The price tag is going to keep me away though. I have wished for a digital FM for a long time, but I thought the idea would be that it could be a little smaller, just the basic features... and a LOT cheaper than their full-featured FF cameras. Now I'm scratching my head wondering, "How could I justify this when a D600 costs half the price?"

Perhaps the details will answer that question, but I have a feeling that this camera is intended for folks who have more money to spend on style than I. You would think that a camera that has a stripped down feature set, focused more on ergonomics and basic controls rather that high-performance features, would cost less than even the D600.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2013 at 20:21 UTC as 59th comment | 2 replies
On article Battle of the Wi-Fi Cards: Eye-Fi vs. Transcend (184 comments in total)
In reply to:

DaytonR: Very informative review :)

I wish the review had included the E Z share card & the Toshiba`s Flash air card ....

I have a Toshiba Flashair card that I got for free with an Olympus rebate when I bought my wife an Oly XZ-10. It is the only WiFi card I have owned. Like the Transcend, it is a shoot now, browse later card. First you enable the card's Wifi using the camera settings, and then you open an app on your device (she uses an iPad) to browse and transfer files. So far it has worked really well. I think the Eye-Fi certainly gives you more connectivity options for automating transfers, but I usually transfer bulk files using a card reader (into Lightroom) and I only use the WiFi option when I just want to transfer one photo (shooting RAW+JPEG) so I can quickly share that photo on Facebook or Google+.

Link | Posted on Aug 29, 2013 at 19:25 UTC
On article Facebook introduces shared photo albums (15 comments in total)
In reply to:

neo_nights: One thing that facebook needs URGENTLY is a less agressive compression algorithm. It's impossible to post ANYthing there that it isn't affected by heavy compression artifacts.

I agree. I often complain to my wife about how some photos don't look as good on Facebook as they look on Smugmug or Google +. She doesn't really see a difference, and I'm sure most Facebook users don't either. As far as social networks go, Google + is much better for photographers. Unfortunately my family and friends refuse to leave Facebook's lame party :-p

Link | Posted on Aug 27, 2013 at 05:45 UTC
Total: 99, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »