iae aa eia

iae aa eia

Lives in Brazil Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Works as a English school coordinator and EFL teacher
Joined on Jan 13, 2011
About me:

I was born in João Pessoa, Brazil. I lived in a few other cities in three neighboring states in the northeastern region before moving to where I currently live, about 1,300 miles away down south. Back then, photography was not offered at colleges and universities, and I never got a higher education. I tried to get in the AirForce—they offered the career of aerial photographer (don't know if they still do)—but I could not get in because they detected a health problem. I tried to work with social photography, and shoot a couple of birthday parties and some portraits, but I wasn't successful. I liked the experience, but I had never been a very social person and the few clients I got had been with the help of my mother.

I was living by myself and in a different city, and I was not able to prospect any clients by myself or get any indication from the few folks I had done work for. I was just to shy to ask for indications. I had some issues related to lack of perseverance. I was constantly feeling down since my later teenager years. I ended up giving up and working with motorcycle sales, an area in which I was also unsuccessful because it had to be socially more engaged as well, but I thought that it was going to work just because I liked motorcycles. After, I found an opportunity to work at those 1-hour photo labs/shops as a minilab operator. Now I was able to do a better job, probably because I didn't need to have high social skills. I worked isolated most of the time. As a minilab operator, I was considered one of the best at all the places I worked at, thanks to the fact that I loved photography, read a lot of technical literature, and learned how to operate and maintain those machines from very good folks. One of them had worked at a Kodak laboratory for more than a decade and opened a photo lab along with two other business partners, and it was the first photo lab I worked at. The other one was a Noritsu consultant/technitian.

I started to get socially more engaged after I got involved with the church of Christ. If I was as socially engaged as I was after 2 or 3 years attending church and doing volunteering work when I started shooting, the story would have been different. Since I got involved with church, I have been often in contact with Americans and my English improved considerably.
It was because of that that I had my first opportunity to teach English, helping some classmates at a course I was attending in which English was an asset. My classmates noticed that I liked teaching and taught well, and they encouraged me to be an English teacher.

After about six years working at at least four schools, I got the opportunity to have my own business, an English school franchise for private classes. This opportunity was offered me by the current company I had been working for as a teacher for two and a half years, but only if I moved to a pretty far city, where I live now. My current hometown is cooler and drier (I had terrible headaches in the Northeast because of the heat and higher humidity), it's also good for business, a little more developed, the fried and cooked food is amazing (except baked stuff, nothing special), and the accent is among the nicest in Brazil (if not the nicest).

INITIAL INTEREST IN PHOTOGRAPHY
The first camera I've ever shot with was my mother's Kodak Instamatic 177XF, in the 80's; I used to disassemble and assemble it quite often. The first contact I've ever had with photography literature was still in the 80's, when the husband of a distant relative of mine gave me a photography guide composed of two magazine-sized and four less-than-letter-sized books. Each one of the magazine-sized books was divided into many sections, like cameras, lenses, flashes, framing, darkroom, techniques, pro-photographers' galleries, etc; and the other four books focused on specific photo subjects. Only photos and commentaries in them. One was about people, the other was about women, another one, about nature, and one about architecture. I loved that kit. Decades later, already late 2000's, when I was able to understand English much better, I could compare them with many other guides and I realized that they were quite complete and technically accurate. Really good stuff for Brazilian standards. It was probably the translation of an American guide.

In 1993, I was living in a city called Natal. I was riding a bicycle when I decided to stop at a newsstand located at a supermarket for a quick look at the magazines, as I used to do. I wasn't looking for anything in particular and didn't intend to buy anything, but while I was browsing, I saw that beautiful red glossy cover magazine with lots of SLRs on it, standing on the top shelf. It was the December's 1993 edition of Petersen's PHOTOgraphic magazine. I was in awe, thinking, "Wow, look at that!" (in Portuguese, of course). I had never seen such an appealing cover (uncommon to Brazilian magazines at that time) and that rich content in terms of equipment. I decided to buy a compact Collins Gem Eng-Port Port-Eng dictionary and a calculator in the same week I bought that magazine, and spent the whole month trying to translate most of the magazine's content and converting feet to meters, inches to mili/centimeters, and pounds and ounces to (kilo)grams, and even dollars to royals (our currency, or 'real/reais' in Portuguese)—well, I started doing currency conversion from 1996 onward, as there was no 'real' in 1993, but only a temporary, transitioning currency in 1994, and I was still not interested in currency conversions by 1995). I continued to buy issues of that magazine for the next 6 months. At first, equipment ads, gear guides and articles, and shopping catalogs where the sections I read the most.

FIRST JOB IN PHOTOGRAPHY
In 1996, I was living in Guarabira, in the neighboring state, and the owners of a photo shop in Natal called me and invited me to move back there and work as a minilab operator. That was my first job. I knew the folks there because they didn't have access that kind of magazines and I used to go there to show them to them and talk about photography, and we enjoyed that a lot and we became friends. While I was working there, and SLR-wise, I had the chance to handle (not only, but more extensively) some very nice cameras like the Nikon F3 and FM2, Minolta Maxxum 9xi and X-370, and quite a large variety of Pentaxes, like the K2000, ME, and P30t. There were other cameras from same said brands and other brands, like Vivitar and Yashica. Canons were rare; I don't know why. I can't really remember handling a single SLR, except compacts. But, two brands I wanted so much to have an opportunity to see live were Contax, Ricoh, and Zeiss. I just drooled over seeing pictures Contax bodies and Zeiss lenses. Even one or two of Contax compacts. I also wish I had seen more Olympuses' SLR's. I also drooled over its µ-II.

I'M GONNA ADD MORE LATER.

Comments

Total: 283, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

iae aa eia: One interesting thing about bright lenses on medium format is that the bokeh still looks different than using an equivalent on an FF. Not the amount, which will be the same, but something related to the perspective. You can make people, for instance, look like miniatures without the need for a tilt-shift lens or of applying digital TS effect (well, digital TS to make a miniature of a person standing up while still maintaing the whole body in focus is difficult; requires selective editing).

No, man. Physics is not wrong. You need a smaller aperture lens on medium format to produce the same amount of bokeh of a full frame format lens, and because the aperture is smaller on the medium format, the bokeh effect is more uniform across the frame, and there is also less vignetting as well.

In order to achieve the same amount of vignetting of the medium format lens, you gotta have stop the full frame format lens down to the same aperture, but the bokeh effect will diminish, but will be as uniform as in the MF lens.

Now, if you want to replicate with the FF lens the same amount of bokeh of the MF lens, you'll have to bring the subject closer to the lens, but doing that the subject will appear bigger in the picture, so you have to make the subject be proportionally smaller.

That's why you get more of a miniature effect when you use an MF lens. It's hard to understand, but it's a practical result and not theoretical as you guys suggest.

Link | Posted on May 9, 2017 at 00:55 UTC
In reply to:

iae aa eia: One interesting thing about bright lenses on medium format is that the bokeh still looks different than using an equivalent on an FF. Not the amount, which will be the same, but something related to the perspective. You can make people, for instance, look like miniatures without the need for a tilt-shift lens or of applying digital TS effect (well, digital TS to make a miniature of a person standing up while still maintaing the whole body in focus is difficult; requires selective editing).

Aside from the pictures with shallow DoF, trying to guess the format based on fore-and-brackground-focused picutres is one of the dumbest things there is. It's not about belief. It's a fact. And I guessed more than 90% of them (the ones with shallow DoF) correctly.

"The only thing different on medium format, is that the lens may have less distortion itself cause of the larger elements [what?... facepalm] and mostly larger focal range you can use [oh my... easy man]."

Link | Posted on May 6, 2017 at 01:08 UTC
In reply to:

iae aa eia: One interesting thing about bright lenses on medium format is that the bokeh still looks different than using an equivalent on an FF. Not the amount, which will be the same, but something related to the perspective. You can make people, for instance, look like miniatures without the need for a tilt-shift lens or of applying digital TS effect (well, digital TS to make a miniature of a person standing up while still maintaing the whole body in focus is difficult; requires selective editing).

As I said in the beginning, I have never written nor talked about this, and it was difficult to start it and elaborate. Showing charts is useless. It has nothing to do with that.

The larger the front element (or group) of a lens compared to the sensor, the more vignetting and irregular corner bokeh there are. What happens with a larger format is that you are able to get the same amount of bokeh, but it will be more uniform throughout the frame and there will be less vignetting too, and that's because the front element (or group) is not proportionally as large in relation to the sensor. The result matches that of a macro lens shooting close to the subject, because macro lenses have small apertures, so even at their largest aperture, the bokeh effect is more uniform and the vignetting is lower.

Link | Posted on May 5, 2017 at 02:33 UTC
In reply to:

iae aa eia: One interesting thing about bright lenses on medium format is that the bokeh still looks different than using an equivalent on an FF. Not the amount, which will be the same, but something related to the perspective. You can make people, for instance, look like miniatures without the need for a tilt-shift lens or of applying digital TS effect (well, digital TS to make a miniature of a person standing up while still maintaing the whole body in focus is difficult; requires selective editing).

Now, take a fullframe format 75mm lens (for example) with an aperturre of only 3.5 and take a picture of a playmobil mimicking the photos you posted above. Will the bokeh produced be uneven and there will be strong vignetting as in the pictures you showed me, or will be even and with less vignetting like the ones I posted?

I wish I could find one subject photographed with an FF format with a standard lens and with a medium format also with its standard lens, but the latter with a twice as a small aperture so that you could see with your own eyes what I mean.

It's possible to see that by comparing the ones I posted and yours, but you still don't seem to notice the difference.

The technical page you posted has nothing to do with what I was describing. As I said, I had never elaborated on this (and English is not my native language), so it's pretty hard to explain that well the technical aspects of it.

If I find more stuff to better illustrate what I mean, I'll post here.

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2017 at 04:39 UTC
In reply to:

iae aa eia: One interesting thing about bright lenses on medium format is that the bokeh still looks different than using an equivalent on an FF. Not the amount, which will be the same, but something related to the perspective. You can make people, for instance, look like miniatures without the need for a tilt-shift lens or of applying digital TS effect (well, digital TS to make a miniature of a person standing up while still maintaing the whole body in focus is difficult; requires selective editing).

Yes, it produces the same amount of bokeh and thus also the miniature effect, but a medium format whose standard lens is 100mm (again, to make calculations easier) can produce the same amount of bokeh if the 100mm has an aperture of 2. This means that this lens won't produce the same amount of irregular bokeh, you know, when the bokeh starts to get uneven toward the edge of the frame and also there is strong vignetting. Since the 100mm doesn't need to have such a wide aperture, there is less vignetting and the bokeh is more uniform from corner to corner.

When you look at a photo and see great bokeh uneveness and vignetting, you can guess the aperture is very large. When you get the same result but with more eveness, you don't really thing the aperture is that large, but how can the aperture not be that large and still you get that amount of bokeh?

Link | Posted on Apr 30, 2017 at 04:36 UTC
In reply to:

iae aa eia: One interesting thing about bright lenses on medium format is that the bokeh still looks different than using an equivalent on an FF. Not the amount, which will be the same, but something related to the perspective. You can make people, for instance, look like miniatures without the need for a tilt-shift lens or of applying digital TS effect (well, digital TS to make a miniature of a person standing up while still maintaing the whole body in focus is difficult; requires selective editing).

CONTINUE... If you just use the 100mm to shoot the cat 6 feet away, it will appear the same size as when shot with the 50mm, but you will be able to see it looking like a miniature cat. As I said, it's hard to explain, but this is not theory and there are many samples that prove that.

Even theoretically speaking, this is clear. Just imagine that, using both lenses to shoot the cat, the farthest light ray will make a less angled travel on the 100mm on the bigger sensor. It's as if the fact that the same bokeh is achieved with a smaller aperture on the large format made the bokeh look like produced by a tele, more uniform, even though the focal is standard, and the tele effect, on the standard, works like a macro lens.

Just take a look at those two samples I posted and you will clearly see this slight miniature effect on the subjects. You can achieve the same bokeh using a twice as bright lens on an FF, but you just cannot achieve the same slight miniature effect.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2017 at 03:23 UTC
In reply to:

iae aa eia: One interesting thing about bright lenses on medium format is that the bokeh still looks different than using an equivalent on an FF. Not the amount, which will be the same, but something related to the perspective. You can make people, for instance, look like miniatures without the need for a tilt-shift lens or of applying digital TS effect (well, digital TS to make a miniature of a person standing up while still maintaing the whole body in focus is difficult; requires selective editing).

I have never elaborated on this, so it is a little difficult to explain. Let's say the standard land for a medium format is 100mm, just to make calculations easier. A 50mm ƒ/1.0 will produce the same brightness and amount of bokeh that the 100mm ƒ/2 would. Ok, we all agree on that.

But, the ration of the larger sensor versus, let's say, the size of a mouse, for instance, is smaller, perhaps reaching somewhere to 1:1, while the ration of the smaller sensor will be 1:2. I don't know how to explain that perfectly, but this influences on the general perspective.

It's as if you would get the same result in terms of perspective (depthness or something) by using that 50mm on the FF format to take a picture of a cat 6 feet away and by using that 100mm (on a medium format whose standard lens is 100mm) to take a picture of a dog (which is twice as tall as the dog) 12 feet away.

Link | Posted on Apr 29, 2017 at 03:23 UTC
On article Sphere of frustration: Nikon KeyMission 360 review (202 comments in total)
In reply to:

belle100: "Nikon, Mission Abort. I repeat, mission abort. Go back to DL immediately. Over!"

I don't agree they should abort it. 360 video-photography is a very important market and it has to do with a company like Nikon to be in it. They just need to fix the software. It shocks me how difficult, how long this is taking.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 21:56 UTC
On article Sphere of frustration: Nikon KeyMission 360 review (202 comments in total)
In reply to:

CopCarSS: Wow, I don't think I've read a negative review on this site in at least 10 years. Anyone can earn a gold or silver rating at DPR. It takes special talent to get a 2.5 star rating. Way to go, Nikon!

What shocks me is to read that the software issues don't seem complicated to solve. Why is Nikon taking so long to solve something I think they already had an idea after the first month of sales and folks reviewing it? I would perhaps understand if there was a problem in the hardware. And they killed the DL cameras. Someone must be sabotaging Nikon.'

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 21:48 UTC
In reply to:

iae aa eia: One interesting thing about bright lenses on medium format is that the bokeh still looks different than using an equivalent on an FF. Not the amount, which will be the same, but something related to the perspective. You can make people, for instance, look like miniatures without the need for a tilt-shift lens or of applying digital TS effect (well, digital TS to make a miniature of a person standing up while still maintaing the whole body in focus is difficult; requires selective editing).

Wrong. It seems like a crop and, yeah, the amount of bokeh will be the same using equivalente lentes (brighter on FF), but the lens design is different at different focals and thus the perspective will be different. I understand more about that than you. It's not like superminiature. Well, check out these two samples. This slight miniature appearance cannot be acheived equally the smaller the sensor is. Something quite logical. It's as if looking at a person and an ant. The size of your retina compared to a person's size is very small, but compared to an ant it is very big, so the smaller the ration sensor/subject, the more miniature effect is achieved, even if a significant but not strong effect.

http://dominik.ca/forumposts/photos/dog_bokeh2.jpg

https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2013/07/tintypewedding-1.jpeg

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 03:20 UTC

One interesting thing about bright lenses on medium format is that the bokeh still looks different than using an equivalent on an FF. Not the amount, which will be the same, but something related to the perspective. You can make people, for instance, look like miniatures without the need for a tilt-shift lens or of applying digital TS effect (well, digital TS to make a miniature of a person standing up while still maintaing the whole body in focus is difficult; requires selective editing).

Link | Posted on Apr 27, 2017 at 03:16 UTC as 11th comment | 19 replies
In reply to:

iae aa eia: Bright super/ultra wideangle lenses for small sensors (4/3's half way there) makes little sense. If it were, for example, ƒ/3.4-4.8, the designed could be simplified a little, amd/or the number of elements could be decreased, and the price would be lower, the quality would remain, and nothing would be missed in terms bokeh, since it makes little effect and is rarely useful in this kind of lens.

With every other new camera, high ISO values get less and less noisy, counterbalancing the issue of the smaller aperture. Putting aside other features and quality factors unrelated to the optics, and even bulkiness (which helps giving this lens its professional appeal), there's no reason to choose it in place of the 9-18. Perhaps you just can't make a 9-18 with such a small aperture range look and feel professional enough with those small and few elements.

Link | Posted on Apr 21, 2017 at 02:31 UTC

Bright super/ultra wideangle lenses for small sensors (4/3's half way there) makes little sense. If it were, for example, ƒ/3.4-4.8, the designed could be simplified a little, amd/or the number of elements could be decreased, and the price would be lower, the quality would remain, and nothing would be missed in terms bokeh, since it makes little effect and is rarely useful in this kind of lens.

Link | Posted on Apr 20, 2017 at 02:41 UTC as 6th comment | 3 replies
On article Light's L16 camera is in final stages of testing (305 comments in total)
In reply to:

Triplet Perar: I have made a design for a three lens camera, 28, 50, 75, but this is truly crazy. Although, I can recognise great potential. What is required in this, though, is the superior lens design, adequate sensors and image processor. Otherwise, it is not worth it; one great zoom can beat this if the those three lack in any department.

If the practical resolution and noise is anywhere above 50% close to that of an average entry-level DSLR and the price is around the same, it'll be worth it. A regular zoom would only beat it (considering its design purposes) if it came with an at least 1" sensor and the zoom lens were also folded.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2017 at 05:06 UTC
On article Light's L16 camera is in final stages of testing (305 comments in total)

I think it will not be a good choice for close selfies in low light environments. The doubt of to which lens to look at will likely result in blurred irises and pupils.

Link | Posted on Apr 16, 2017 at 04:36 UTC as 43rd comment
On article Nikon D7500: What you need to know (533 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: "The camera's shutter is rated for 150k shots and now features a shutter monitor, which automatically adjust shutter speeds to keep them accurate."

Yeah, I think I heard and read about many people complaining about imprecise shutters in recent years, and adding a monitor is really awesome. Also, 150k? My jaw dropped on the floor and I can't put it back.

Oh man, my jaw had just been screwed back onto place before you said that.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2017 at 02:21 UTC
On article Nikon D7500: What you need to know (533 comments in total)

"The camera's shutter is rated for 150k shots and now features a shutter monitor, which automatically adjust shutter speeds to keep them accurate."

Yeah, I think I heard and read about many people complaining about imprecise shutters in recent years, and adding a monitor is really awesome. Also, 150k? My jaw dropped on the floor and I can't put it back.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2017 at 13:56 UTC as 81st comment | 2 replies
On article Sigma sd Quattro H real world samples gallery (107 comments in total)
In reply to:

iae aa eia: The color depth Foveons produce is unparallel. Sigma has proved it time and again. No camera beats it. Multilayered sensors to the masses NOW!

Yeah, perhaps color space is more appropriate to say. You feel like the image is more real, the colors more penetrating. I don't know, it's something very different that reminds me of film. Everything looks more real. It beats any other camera either for portrairts or anything else. I worked as a minilab operator for a few years and was trained by Kodak and Noritsu folks, and, well, in my opinion, nothing beats it.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2017 at 16:02 UTC
On article Sigma sd Quattro H real world samples gallery (107 comments in total)

The color depth Foveons produce is unparallel. Sigma has proved it time and again. No camera beats it. Multilayered sensors to the masses NOW!

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2017 at 04:14 UTC as 13th comment | 4 replies
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)

I don't understand why it is difficult to talk about color. Ok, the X1D doesn't output JPEG, but something can be said about the samples in RAW. It looks to me they render colors basically in the same tonality, only that the X1D is more saturated.

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 00:49 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
Total: 283, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »