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


Total: 105, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Sezano: Rich what do they charge for the bike?

Lovely, lovely video. More please!

The steel fork with the Kirk Pacenti crown is simply beautiful, and I would bet it rides smooth as butter... especially on large volume tires like that. Sure a carbon fork might smooth things out on a road bike built for speed with high pressure low volume tires, but steel forks are great on bikes like this. You can attach racks and accessories to them and never be concerned about catastrophic failures.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2018 at 06:40 UTC
In reply to:

breschdlingsgsaelz: The photos look nice, but the bike - a horrible hipster machine. Nothing against gravel bikes - I use Cyclocross bikes with fender+rack mounts for 15 years now (though they were not called "gravel" back then).

But this bike looks really ugly. The stem! The Fork! The pedals! Ugly as hell! The single chainring setup also does not look very gravel compatible - too big for heavy climbs and too small for fast flats.

Ah well. Beauty is in the eye of the beer-holder. At least it does have a drop bar on not those horrible Mickey-Mouse Style Handlebars the fixie hipsters used to mount on their "bikes".

The steel fork with the Kirk Pacenti crown is the prettiest part of the bike in my opinion. I’m glad @Richard Butler went with that over the carbon fork option. It’s a very unique crown that looks great even on the lug-less frame. I prefer lugs, but the more I look at these photos the more I like the frame and the build. It’s a nice mix of modern and classic features with some beautiful details. I’m also a fan of the 650B wheel size. Love the handlebar bag as well. Post some more photos when you get it fendered!

I really enjoyed the photo series and the video. The X-E3 sure is a lovely little camera.

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2018 at 05:56 UTC

I finally joined Instagram earlier this year. I know it got its start as a hipster vintage filter app, but I thought it had grown past that by now. I can’t believe it is still restricted to a few aspect ratios (although I guess it started as just 1:1). I also can’t believe you get no control over cropping and that you can’t view photos full screen. As bad as Facebook is, at least it’s better at actually displaying photos. How in the world did this become such a popular photo sharing app?

Link | Posted on Feb 13, 2018 at 21:34 UTC as 1st comment
On article Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III Review (598 comments in total)
In reply to:

MFiftysomething: No USB charging: that is just plain lazy Olympus, it is 2017 not 2007 why make a small camera perfect for travel that then need a big charging brick and mains cable?

I always have a backup battery, and the olympus charger is tiny. I have never wished that I could plug my E-M5 (or any of my Nikon bodies) to charge. In fact i broke the LCD on my P&S camera because it got knocked off the table while it was plugged in. I always throw a fresh battery into the camera while the empty battery is on the charger.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 15:51 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M10 Mark III Review (598 comments in total)
In reply to:

davids8560: Trouble for me is I use higher-end models. I'm spoiled. I advise even total newcomers to buy high-end models if they're really serious about getting into photography, even if high-end model feature sets bewilder them at present. This model is a stepping-stone. Let's just get one that's made wholly for experienced users, and grow into it.

I don't know... I've owned high end cameras and lenses for many years (mostly Nikon and Olympus). I usually advise newcomers to avoid high end bodies and save some money to invest in quality lenses. A lot of photographers need little beyond manual controls and a good sensor, but in the end it depends on what you want to shoot.

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 15:46 UTC
In reply to:

anvilsname: I remember when Photoshop cost $600.

Now it's $10 a month, and I get Lightroom and cloud storage?

Seems quite fair...

That gets you only 20 GB of cloud storage though (or a TB of Lightroom storage, but no Photoshop). If you want Photoshop, LR, and 1 TB of cloud storage the price is $19.99 a month. That's still pretty reasonable though.

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 19:31 UTC

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.


Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 16:30 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (394 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 181st comment | 2 replies
On article Throwback Thursday: the Nikon D80 (247 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 67th 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) (261 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
Total: 105, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »