hemiola

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Jan 7, 2011

Comments

Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11

Sorry but I can't help laughing, while asking why is this share worthy news?

First - as already pointed out - the transition to full HD hasn't been completed yet, and "full HD" is not even 2K strictly speaking. And now we're already talking 4K? Even if this is truly 4K (and that's a big if), how many displays out there support it?

Second, a full HD video shot with a mobile phone looks nothing like a full HD video shot with a D800, which in turn looks nothing like a full HD footage shot with a professional grade camcorder, even though they all bear the "full HD" mark. That's especially true in less than ideal shooting conditions.
So what you're getting in fact is 4 times more crap (noise, image artifacts) and marginally better quality at the expense of storage.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

Link | Posted on Jan 29, 2014 at 10:41 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Tamas Dezso offers glimpse into post-Communist Romania (230 comments in total)

What is the purpose of this "artistic" endeavor, may I ask?

'In his own words, the purpose of the project is to render a world which may disappear forever imperceptibly and very rapidly due to the transitional nature of the [Communist] era'.

He seems to argue as if this fast disappearing world is something worth dwelling on, documenting, even yearning about. Speaking of a dark bygone era as if it were an inextricable part of Romanian culture, something to be missed when it's gone, is both pointless and offensive.
If Germans were shown decaying buildings once belonging to the SS or Gestapo I doubt many would find it in good taste. And yet Germans - unlike Romanians or Eastern Europeans in general - did at least initially support the rise of that totalitarian regime.
So Mr Dezso can keep his obsession with post-communist relics to himself.
I did find some of his photographs interesting, but these have nothing to do with post-communism, ironically enough.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2014 at 11:45 UTC as 12th comment | 2 replies
On article Ireland: A Photographers' Guide (43 comments in total)

I wish I could say this is an isolated case in Ireland, but frankly almost everywhere I've been the story's the same: the tourist centers at Giant's Causeway and Cliffs of Moher, the idiotic fencing spoiling the view, the much unneeded souvenir shops. In some cases you have to wait until after sunset to get proper access (Cliffs of Moher), in other cases you have to jump fences (Kinbane Head).
While the official explanation for these wonderful undertakings is "making Ireland available to the masses" or "enriching the traveler's experience" or "protecting the natural habitat", in reality it's about maximizing profit.
With very few exceptions, the unspoiled and wild Ireland is long gone. The way things are going, we might see within our lifetime the whole coast of Ireland being ring fenced, with "guides" dressed as puffins and gannets selling brochures and charging you for access.
That, in my opinion, also explains the loss of appeal in recent years.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2013 at 11:15 UTC as 1st comment
On article Ireland: A Photographers' Guide (43 comments in total)

Hello again Carsten!

I read your article again recently, looking for some inspiration.
I just visited Skellig Michael for the first time, and for the most part I agree with your comments. However, there's an uglier side to it.
For one, it looks like a construction site: scaffolding, barracks, raw construction materials dumped all over the place, packaging material vividly coloring the landscape. What's more, the upper part of the island is now closed to the public, so the elevated point from which you took the picture is no longer accessible. So much for "exceptionally well preserved" and "extremely remote". Add to that the number of people constantly getting in and out of the frame, and it's pure bliss!

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2013 at 11:15 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

PeterFree: I once saw an exhibition of Jeff Wall in London. I was absolutely staggered that such arbitrary work got given any attention at all. One really has to see the full sized prints up on display to realize just how unimaginably uninteresting and dull this man's 'work' truly is. The fact that governments have sponsored him may in part explain how such a travesty has occurred. That the names of Ansel Adams or Michael Kenna (and many others) are not on this list of "10 most expensive photos ever sold" is a testimony to the evils of Fine Art Academia. I have seen "Professors" of fine art making piles of building rubble, back squares of canvas evenly coated with bitumen and other such obviously identifiable items of rubbish as serious submissions of 'Art' for prospective degrees in Academia. The all encompassing argument of "but who is to say its not art?" being held up by people who are supposed to be experts against those who would cry "but the Emperor is NAKED"

Truer words have never been spoken!
Let me add just one more thought: it's time pretentious people drop the infamous "you guys just don't get it" line from their vocabulary. Maybe 100 years ago it was true when the gap between the elite and the masses was still huge, but nowadays even poor, unsophisticated, uncultured people have access to almost the same level of education and information (at least in the civilized world this is the case). So when a pretentious elitist shouts "you just don't get it" next time, maybe he's right, or maybe there's simply nothing to get.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2013 at 09:32 UTC

I'm really grateful I found this article.
I just had an epiphany: now I finally understand why I'll never be a true photographer, not even a semi-serious one!
That's because - in the words of old man Rooney - that's just "pretentious nonsense":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDlLh0jcJVY

I think I'll go back to shooting my sunsets, coastline, portraits and stay poor...

Link | Posted on Jul 26, 2013 at 12:53 UTC as 15th comment
On article Ireland: A Photographers' Guide (43 comments in total)

Thank you for the very interesting article.
I'm an expat living in Ireland for a number of years now, but still I haven't seen (or even heard of) all the beautiful places you mentioned.
However, you forgot one of arguably the 2 most scenic landscapes in Ireland, namely Cliffs of Moher (the other obviously being Giant's Causeway).

And speaking of cliffs, another less known little gem is Croaghaun (you did mention Achill Island to be fair), the 3rd tallest sea cliff in Europe:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/Croaghaun_cliff.jpg

Cheers

;)

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2013 at 23:08 UTC as 7th comment
On article DxO releases FilmPack 4, with 65 new creative effects (62 comments in total)
In reply to:

hemiola: If anybody from DxO is reading this, could you please make sure, once and for all, that all FilmPack features are available in Optics Pro?

Same thing happened when FilmPack 3 came out. The presets were only available when FilmPack was used as a standalone app, although it claimed it was fully functional as a plug-in. Then we had to wait until they finally created a patch for Optics Pro.
And even then only 'creative renderings' were imported, without advanced tweaking controls.

It's very annoying to have to process an image twice with 2 pieces of software, not to mention the fact that Optics Pro and FilmPack have some (but not complete) overlapping functionality.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting FilmPack should be discontinued and/or merged with DxO Optics Pro. Having them as separate programs is fine. But when you claim FilmPack can be used as a plug-in in Optics Pro (and other programs) either do it properly, or don't do it at all.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2013 at 09:01 UTC
On article DxO releases FilmPack 4, with 65 new creative effects (62 comments in total)

If anybody from DxO is reading this, could you please make sure, once and for all, that all FilmPack features are available in Optics Pro?

Same thing happened when FilmPack 3 came out. The presets were only available when FilmPack was used as a standalone app, although it claimed it was fully functional as a plug-in. Then we had to wait until they finally created a patch for Optics Pro.
And even then only 'creative renderings' were imported, without advanced tweaking controls.

It's very annoying to have to process an image twice with 2 pieces of software, not to mention the fact that Optics Pro and FilmPack have some (but not complete) overlapping functionality.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2013 at 08:45 UTC as 13th comment | 2 replies

Thank you for the very interesting article.
Is there a chance you could expand a bit more the image quality section and perhaps add a subsection on artistic/creative rendering capabilities of each?

For example you mention highlight recovery but no shadow recovery. From my experience with Lightroom 3 and DxO Optics Pro 7, the latter was noticeably better in recovering details from shadows while keeping noise at acceptable levels. Lightroom 4 might have narrowed the gap, but it would still be interesting to see which software wins.

Also, do no forget DxO Film Pack which - when incorporated into DxO Optics Pro - offers a myriad of possibilities such as film renderings, film grains, toning, filters. Not sure if Capture One or Lightroom offer something similar.

Link | Posted on Jan 25, 2013 at 23:09 UTC as 66th comment
Total: 11, showing: 1 – 11