RGBCMYK

Lives in United States United States
Has a website at www.christopherbroughton.com
Joined on Sep 9, 2007
About me:

Instagram feed with over 1000 street photographs https://www.instagram.com/chris_broughton/
www.christopherbroughton.com

Comments

Total: 48, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

If this is related to health and safety I am sure everyone would be healthier and safer if they banned smoking in France.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2017 at 22:10 UTC as 76th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Ivan Paganacci: When I no longer needed my $10/month PS/Lightroom subscription, I discovered there’s no online option to cancel. I had to phone a rep who asked why I wanted to leave, is there anything we can do better, etc. To quote Ditch Brodie — pack your bags, we’re going on a guilt trip.

Subscriptions should be able to be canceled without talking to anyone or having a confrontation. Tactics like this say a lot about a company.

If you purchase the subscription from a vendor then you don't need to enter a credit card into their machine

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2017 at 22:13 UTC
On article Why hyperfocal distance charts are inaccurate (44 comments in total)
In reply to:

RGBCMYK: What I find interesting is that most people have forgotten that hyperlocal distance scales were originally created with a known final output size of an image. The 35mm film camera scales were often created to make acceptable sharp 8x10 prints and when you know this the scale can't be used to make a 16x20 or a cropped 8x10. It is stated that Hasselblad depth of field scales were created on the 500 series to make 8x8 inch prints and if you wanted to make 16x16 you need to use two stops smaller scales. It is in the manual. So to state they are simply incorrect what you might say is that most people don't know how to use the huperfocal distance scales correctly and understanding circle of confusion and final output size relationships will enhance your ability to interpret the scales.

I can assure you that for over 20 years I used the hasselblad hyperlocal / dof field scales on their lenses and applied near and far focusing and for prints up to 24inches they are perfect and tack sharp. Of course for this increased requirement it is necessary to set the dof for scales 2 stops more critical but this is also noted in the text The Hasselblad Way by Fritag. I always focused on the near limit and noted distance then far distance and set the near and far points according to the scale and used the required aperture.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2017 at 14:34 UTC
On article Why hyperfocal distance charts are inaccurate (44 comments in total)
In reply to:

RGBCMYK: What I find interesting is that most people have forgotten that hyperlocal distance scales were originally created with a known final output size of an image. The 35mm film camera scales were often created to make acceptable sharp 8x10 prints and when you know this the scale can't be used to make a 16x20 or a cropped 8x10. It is stated that Hasselblad depth of field scales were created on the 500 series to make 8x8 inch prints and if you wanted to make 16x16 you need to use two stops smaller scales. It is in the manual. So to state they are simply incorrect what you might say is that most people don't know how to use the huperfocal distance scales correctly and understanding circle of confusion and final output size relationships will enhance your ability to interpret the scales.

I would also add that in painting distance is enhanced with a loss of sharpness, contrast and if in color with a color shift as objects get farther away from the viewpoint. I can always accept slight sharpness loss at infinity but loss in the foreground is counterintuitive to how we see.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 21:30 UTC
On article Why hyperfocal distance charts are inaccurate (44 comments in total)

What I find interesting is that most people have forgotten that hyperlocal distance scales were originally created with a known final output size of an image. The 35mm film camera scales were often created to make acceptable sharp 8x10 prints and when you know this the scale can't be used to make a 16x20 or a cropped 8x10. It is stated that Hasselblad depth of field scales were created on the 500 series to make 8x8 inch prints and if you wanted to make 16x16 you need to use two stops smaller scales. It is in the manual. So to state they are simply incorrect what you might say is that most people don't know how to use the huperfocal distance scales correctly and understanding circle of confusion and final output size relationships will enhance your ability to interpret the scales.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2017 at 21:30 UTC as 16th comment | 6 replies

I wonder why they didn't put the lens inside a pocket of a their jacket? If there is a doubt I always have 4 outside and 2 inside pockets on my jacket when flying. I also always padlock everything inside my carry on when traveling.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2017 at 19:14 UTC as 184th comment
In reply to:

stratplaya: A friend asked if she could watch the eclipse with her smartphone. I told her it would be better and safer to just buy some solar glasses. You wouldn't see anything but a very bright light on the phone's screen until about 60% plus coverage.

But that got me thinking, can a smartphone sensor be damaged if it's pointed while active at the sun?

I thought about this years ago when I got my first Sony Nex7 which always has the sensor exposed and of the 1000's of photographs I have taken with the sun in the frame I have never damaged a sensor. The lens is always focusing the sun on the sensor even when the camera is off if it is pointed towards the sun

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2017 at 04:05 UTC

He truly was forward thinking when he wrote this. This was included with a print that was purchased from John Sexton and the piece of paper is titled Darkroom Editions 1992 / Sandstone Narrows. "This image was made in a remote, remarkably beautiful and extremely fragile location. Not a believer in professional "secrets," it has become painfully clear to me that to preserve and protect certain special areas, lacking adequate protection, it is necessary to safeguard the geographic locations of these sensitive sites. Some areas cannot survive heavy visitation, even by careful visitors, and need to be protected in a sacred trust. Each of us has a responsibility to care for our planet, including asserting protection against damage caused by ignorance, carelessness or vandalism. I do hope you enjoy this image, and come away with feelings of your own about the sacred and unique qualities of the land." John Sexton. 1992!!!

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 21:41 UTC as 7th comment

Why not get out there and explore? It reminds me of watching people taking photographs of the Mona Lisa in the Louvre.

Link | Posted on Jul 25, 2017 at 21:35 UTC as 8th comment
On article Tutorial: How to photograph wine on clear plexiglass (46 comments in total)
In reply to:

RGBCMYK: How can they share and support this material? The left side / edge of the bottle is not defined and there is a tonal merger along the left shoulder of the bottle. I am being a little critical and the name of the tutorial is about shooting on a clear surface but the product is incorrectly lit. I really hope everyone really looks at the final image. Wouldn't pass a basic product photography class assignment. The right shoulder of the bottle looses definition too. Please understand how to create dimensionality and separation. This was done well before photoshop with correct position of cards to create the separation of the edge.

I used the incorrect term aesthetic and should have used the phrase basic product photography competency for advertising. If you commented on the use of the term aesthetic do you actually believe the final photograph is worthy of a featured tutorial for 1000's to believe that this acceptable?

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2017 at 16:50 UTC
On article Tutorial: How to photograph wine on clear plexiglass (46 comments in total)
In reply to:

RGBCMYK: How can they share and support this material? The left side / edge of the bottle is not defined and there is a tonal merger along the left shoulder of the bottle. I am being a little critical and the name of the tutorial is about shooting on a clear surface but the product is incorrectly lit. I really hope everyone really looks at the final image. Wouldn't pass a basic product photography class assignment. The right shoulder of the bottle looses definition too. Please understand how to create dimensionality and separation. This was done well before photoshop with correct position of cards to create the separation of the edge.

I would agree that most won't see it until they become aware of it but this is suppose to be a tutorial of how to and it fails. I question whether the author is even aware of it because he presented the final product that falls short in so many basic product aesthetics.

Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2017 at 00:36 UTC
On article Tutorial: How to photograph wine on clear plexiglass (46 comments in total)

How can they share and support this material? The left side / edge of the bottle is not defined and there is a tonal merger along the left shoulder of the bottle. I am being a little critical and the name of the tutorial is about shooting on a clear surface but the product is incorrectly lit. I really hope everyone really looks at the final image. Wouldn't pass a basic product photography class assignment. The right shoulder of the bottle looses definition too. Please understand how to create dimensionality and separation. This was done well before photoshop with correct position of cards to create the separation of the edge.

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2017 at 23:01 UTC as 16th comment | 7 replies

The title of the video is verified incorrect. They specifically said they cut it off center so it doesn't fall apart. Maybe the title should be Canon lens cut into 3/8 and 5/8 sections ;-)

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2017 at 22:42 UTC as 46th comment

there will always be those that haven't owned a gitzo and use other tools but I so love my Gitzo 1349 that I bought two. If I had just one piece of gear that I love it is my huge carbon fiber tripod

Link | Posted on Jun 20, 2017 at 22:11 UTC as 14th comment

While I won't argue that the final result is nice I always believed that there is sometimes a magical component of an actual double exposure that occurs inside the camera without the pixel level of control of photoshop. The title is technically incorrect too because this isn't a double exposure but the layering of two images into a single composite.

Link | Posted on Jun 17, 2017 at 14:15 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply

He needs to do a little more research. Early 1900's more than just professional photographers had cameras. Ever thought about the Kodak Brownie that cost $1 that included the film?

Link | Posted on Jun 16, 2017 at 23:31 UTC as 28th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

NAwlins Contrarian: re: "The Cycloptic Mustard Monster utilizes 120mm film and produces 6x14 cm negatives."

No, it uses type 120 film, which is about 61mm wide. And although the frames are nominally 6 cm, in reality they are almost always 56 or even 55mm wide, reduced / shadowed by flanges that hold the film flat.

That is similar to film every calls 35mm but Kodak called it 135 film since the 1930's that took an image 24x36mm on film that was 35mm wide

Link | Posted on May 26, 2017 at 22:59 UTC
On article SmugMug Films: The journey from food to photography (16 comments in total)

One of the true things that shines through is not only is Eric an excellent photographer but he has a true passion and deep understanding and inquisitiveness about what he is photographing. He reminds me of one of my favorite quotes by Jay Maisel. ... “If you want to make more interesting pictures, become a more interesting person." and Eric truly echoes this quote.

Link | Posted on Apr 22, 2017 at 21:24 UTC as 4th comment

I am only outraged that an average image like this got so many likes on instagram. What is it that prompted the like button?

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2017 at 17:40 UTC as 78th comment | 2 replies

Will it add ears? The perspective from 2 feet of a human face should be a criminal offense and those that allow photos of their face from 2 feet should have the opportunity to see what their face looks like from a complimentary distance! #noears

Link | Posted on Apr 6, 2017 at 19:24 UTC as 24th comment | 1 reply
Total: 48, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »