Greg VdB

Lives in Earth
Works as a Geoscientist
Has a website at www.pbase.com/gbleek
Joined on Sep 6, 2002

Comments

Total: 749, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Ayoh: That large diameter focus ring looks unergonomic. Seems it would be quite hard to turn rapidly.

@Nick: I'm glad you like your lens, but I have to ask: what the heck is going on with the bokeh in the girl-in-forest picture? Quite frankly, I think it looks horrible. I'd be happy to be convinced by some of those "tons more" images...

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2017 at 07:48 UTC

A lot of jealousy in these comments from people who secretly feel like THEY deserve a new D5 as much as those pesky astronauts :-)

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2017 at 07:28 UTC as 33rd comment
In reply to:

jadot: Bit dizzy now

... and vertigo at the same time!

It definitely made for some engaging footage, which was ultimately the goal, so I say "well done" to the creators!

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2017 at 19:25 UTC
In reply to:

Rob890: there should be a like button of sorts for articles like these.

That's a "Facebook Like" button...

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2017 at 13:31 UTC

Interesting technique. Sitting in the shelter of our homes, it's easy to forget just how challenging and unforgiving those shooting conditions must have been.

From an aesthetic point of view, I enjoyed the third to last picture most. For me, it captured best the feeling of the small fragile sailing boat on the big, harsh sea. Having also looked at Mr. McDonagh's website, I must say I'm a much bigger fan of his indoors work (some excellent stuff!) than of his outdoors photography. This is very much personal preference, but overly HDR-looking landscapes are simply not my thing.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2017 at 10:21 UTC as 16th comment
In reply to:

Miwok: Nice but a bit boring, look like déja vu 1 million times.
In 2017; the only photos of landscape than i find interesting are the one made by drone, who give new possibility on composition.

How many more of those drone shots can you see before *they* become boring clichés as well? And do they lose artistic value at that point?

For me, shots like the one above are timeless. Humans have been witnessing sunrises since the dawn of mankind, and I like to think the way we enjoy them hasn't changed over the ages. Just sit back, drink in the light and the shapes, and (IRL) the wind the sounds and the smells, and feel ready for another day. That's what sunrises are about for me, no matter how many times I live them personally or see pictures of them. I have never experienced a similar connection to life from a drone shot, even though I can certainly appreciate them for artistic merit.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2017 at 08:07 UTC
On article Cinematic 4K footage shot with the Apple iPhone X (308 comments in total)
In reply to:

Michael S.: Boring and just average quality, not a single "awww-moment" has been in there.
So why showing?

Hi there, Michael! Didn't know you also existed outside of the astro-world :-)

To answer your question: this is a typical article that only serves to garner page clicks. DPR has been increasingly (re-)producing content with only that in mind.

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2017 at 07:58 UTC
In reply to:

Greg VdB: Amazing to see how much damage was done even though the camera was never fully submerged.

In the comments section Roger also noted: "One other thing that is more about dust and sand, but also when there’s heavy salt mist in the air (you know, you can smell the salty sea smell) is don’t change lenses unless you have a lens change bag. Once that lens is of nothing is protected the slightest bit."

Having never lived near the ocean, I definitely underestimated just how corrosive salt water would be to my camera.

@CCD FTW: Sure, everything is "replaceable", and we live in a society where consumerism has almost turned into a religion, yet I prefer to take care of my tools to reduce my ecological footprint to a minimum.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 10:49 UTC

Amazing to see how much damage was done even though the camera was never fully submerged.

In the comments section Roger also noted: "One other thing that is more about dust and sand, but also when there’s heavy salt mist in the air (you know, you can smell the salty sea smell) is don’t change lenses unless you have a lens change bag. Once that lens is of nothing is protected the slightest bit."

Having never lived near the ocean, I definitely underestimated just how corrosive salt water would be to my camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 07:52 UTC as 41st comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

ProfHankD: As usual, a nice article with a solid message. It's worth noting, however, that conductive, reactive, ion-contaminated water can get inside cameras many ways -- not just a dip or splash. If a camera has been handled (what cameras haven't been?), there will naturally be salts on it transferred from your skin. There also are often salts in the air, especially near an ocean, but also in many types of dry dust. Thus, when water vapor condenses on/in your camera due to temperature/humidity changes, that water can carry enough ions to behave a lot like salt water.

So, condensation can be nearly as bad as a quick dunk. Be careful about trapping cameras in high humidity or trapping high humidity in/behind your lens. For example, placing a camera in a waterproof housing/bag at the seashore can trap high humidity in your housing, and exposure to cool (e.g., underwater) temps could easily hit the dew point and condense that humidity, leaving your camera in a little pool of contaminated water.

"Definitely, this is one part of why it's common practice to put desiccant bags in the housing with the camera."

Interesting comments both, and I wasn't aware of the above practice. Thanks for sharing!

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 07:17 UTC
In reply to:

George Veltchev: do not underestimate the corrosive power of salt water !!!! In case of incident ... rinse your camera with plenty of tap water before dries out in your oven for 15 minutes at 235ºC .... to prevent overheating in the process put it gently into your refrigeratory at home for another 18 to 20 minutes and don't forget to remove the lens right at the beginning ...

I do wonder how you became an expert in this area :-)

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2017 at 07:13 UTC
On article Leica Thambar-M 90mm F2.2 sample gallery (214 comments in total)

I usually love Wenmei's portraits - she has a gift of capturing the pure essence of her subjects, especially concerning her daughter - but in this case, the "character" of the lens often annoyed me. By comparison, this bothered me much less in the case of the Lensbaby Velvet 85mm: https://www.dpreview.com/samples/3152995609/lensbaby-velvet-85-sample-gallery
Nobody in their right mind should spend *that* amount of money on this Leica failure.

Link | Posted on Nov 7, 2017 at 17:24 UTC as 66th comment | 1 reply
On article Canon EF-M 22mm F2 STM sample gallery (176 comments in total)
In reply to:

Greg VdB: @Carey, to continue our discussion from earlier this week:

These samples are arguably more visually pleasing than those in the Canon 85mm F1.4L sample gallery, for the simple reason that sooc JPEGs look better than images converted using the Adobe Standard profile. Personally I prefer the approach taken here: "displaying sooc JPEGs + providing RAWs", rather than "showing Adobe-Standard-processed RAWs + providing RAWs".

The one thing I don't understand is why you would take one approach for one lens, and the other for another lens. A consistent workflow across the board seems advisable, if only for the viewers to know in advance what to expect.

I don't disagree at all! My above comment has to be seen in the context of the following conversation:
https://www.dpreview.com/samples/5001614830/canon-85mm-f1-4l-is-usm-sample-gallery?comment=8789458330
(make sure to read Carey's reply there)

I should have repeated that my preferred approach for lens samples would be "showing JPEGs minimally processed from Camera Neutral/Standard-calibrated RAWs". In the rare cases where Camera Neutral/Standard would cause clipping, this is easily resolved by lowering contrast somewhat. The advantage would be that, at least, colors and micro-contrast would appear more accurate than when the Adobe Standard profile is applied.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2017 at 19:08 UTC
On article Canon EF-M 22mm F2 STM sample gallery (176 comments in total)

@Carey, to continue our discussion from earlier this week:

These samples are arguably more visually pleasing than those in the Canon 85mm F1.4L sample gallery, for the simple reason that sooc JPEGs look better than images converted using the Adobe Standard profile. Personally I prefer the approach taken here: "displaying sooc JPEGs + providing RAWs", rather than "showing Adobe-Standard-processed RAWs + providing RAWs".

The one thing I don't understand is why you would take one approach for one lens, and the other for another lens. A consistent workflow across the board seems advisable, if only for the viewers to know in advance what to expect.

Link | Posted on Nov 5, 2017 at 15:17 UTC as 59th comment | 2 replies
On article Canon 85mm F1.4L IS USM sample gallery (319 comments in total)
In reply to:

citrate: Some people complained about the color; some others say the color is great.
What happened here?

Also, some people (like me) view this on a calibrated monitor, others on an overly punchy mobile phone screen...

Link | Posted on Nov 2, 2017 at 10:44 UTC
On article Canon 85mm F1.4L IS USM sample gallery (319 comments in total)
In reply to:

Greg VdB: Before people start commenting on poor colors: using the Adobe Standard profile with Canon cameras is a great recipe for dull, flat images.

(Depending on the scene, I will start processing from Camera Standard/Landscape/Neutral/Portrait, but *never* Adobe Standard...)

You miss the point: from experience, I can tell you that the Adobe Standard profile produces images that have less saturation and contrast than the real-life scene. A bit like S-log for video.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 13:40 UTC
On article Canon 85mm F1.4L IS USM sample gallery (319 comments in total)

Before people start commenting on poor colors: using the Adobe Standard profile with Canon cameras is a great recipe for dull, flat images.

(Depending on the scene, I will start processing from Camera Standard/Landscape/Neutral/Portrait, but *never* Adobe Standard...)

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 13:11 UTC as 103rd comment | 5 replies
On article First samples: Leica Thambar-M 90mm F2.2 (223 comments in total)
In reply to:

photophile: What happens if you use this Thambar lens on a 35mm camera loaded with that Moonstruck/Sunstroke Dubblefilm ? Your answers please...

(Best answer wins a Y35 digiFilm camera)

That's a question for the Area 51/Loch Ness/Bigfoot specialists! Alternatively, NASA may use it to provide evidence for life on Mars.

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 08:56 UTC
In reply to:

RPJG: I read in these contents that reversed lenses are generally brighter than macro lenses, and give higher magnification ratios.

So the question arises, why aren't native macro lenses designed along the lines of reversed "normal" lenses? There must be *some* drawback to using a reversed lens versus using a native macro lens?

That was a great question, and good replies. Thanks!

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 08:48 UTC
On photo Slender Schlachthof in the The Supernatural challenge (7 comments in total)
In reply to:

Greg VdB: Fantastic image, George - that would make a perfectly fine poster for any horror movie!

Care to share you process on this one?

Thanks for providing the details, George. And yes, I did assume that was a collage rather than simply a picture of your son ;-)

Link | Posted on Oct 31, 2017 at 15:50 UTC
Total: 749, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »