Scott Eaton

Lives in United States grand rapids, United States
Joined on Sep 20, 2005
About me:



Total: 57, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
On article Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup (91 comments in total)
In reply to:

Artistico: Easy to do with digital. But I guess the appeal(?) of lomography must be using terrible cameras with horrible film and get expensive, soft, colour-shifted photos - just so they can call it art because it's not digital. I find the phenomenon fascinating but not for me.

More 'craft and art' nonsense from the anti digital crowd posing on a digital forum. 99.999% of the users of this junk product will use a film scanner 'digital camera' to reproduce the images. That's....stupid...and horrendously illogical. Akin to people who use drawing as an example to program a robot to do it for them in raster. At least I had experience not only manually cross processing film but then printing via optical enlargers and chemical papers which was a joy dialing in a neutral print with a conventional dichro set. We had no other alternative, and we sure as hell would go digital if we could have,

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 23:48 UTC
On article Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup (91 comments in total)

Cool for hipsters, hypocrites and college art major drop-outs that say they prefer to 'work with film than digital cameras', then will use a digital camera (film scanner) to post the images on their computer.

At least in another life I would cross process and directly / optically print on C-type paper, and did so for some very pricey commercial clients. Results were sometimes cool, and sometimes weird in a Warhol kind of way. This stuff is a solution looking for a problem.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 23:41 UTC as 23rd comment | 4 replies
On article Lomography adds Lomochrome Turquoise film to lineup (91 comments in total)
In reply to:

Sir Nick of High Point: Most all color negative film has a red mask layer, so isn't it already color shifted in a way? If I tried scanning these negatives, how would I know how to properly adjust the color curves for the mask layer?


No, the scanner profile, if properly designated for the film will adjust. This creates two problems; first, the orange mask varies between color neg film types, second, the compensation for the orange mask reduces density range in the film. Another reason slide film lacking these masks work better. The orange mask is a legacy concern anyways. Nobody prints with halogen light sources anymore.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2014 at 23:36 UTC

I shoot a lot of landscapes and haven't used a 'polariser' in years. I do realize their benefits, but their need is aesthetically quite narrow...aside from killing annoying glare on reflective surfaces for commercial work at times. Often the 'free glare' version in landscape work is often the more preferable.

In other respects, lunking around a 105mm filter when your lenses are smaller threaded makes no sense. Using a warming filter on a digital camera makes less sense. Most of the comments below trying to justify warming filters are from the same people that would use warming or color adjustment filters with print film because they we're too ignorant to realize lab printing nullifies the effect.

AWB in digital cameras also nullifies the warming effect. Perhaps Lee should include a recipe for ice cubes in the box as well.

So, unless you're still shooting tranny film this is a near pointless product,

Link | Posted on Oct 19, 2014 at 05:29 UTC as 14th comment | 3 replies
On article Fujifilm X-T1 Review (657 comments in total)

I'm comparing the studio samples of XT-1 -vs- the entry level Canon and Nikon offerings, and would like to know why everybody is raving about the image quality?

Entire swaths of color detail are missing in the XT-1, edges of detailed objects look like they are being over-processed with grain reduction techniques, and the image quality is mushy, non-distinct, and looks synthetic. While the XT-1 does a good job with noise reduction, it looks no different than Nikon / Canon sensors with luminance reduction cranked to some absurd levels in post.

DPR can rave about skin tones all they want. Pretty much all skin tones I'm looking at are identical because of the low color sensitivity of the sensor. What ever attraction this camera has is likely due to the name on the front, or some other intangible nostalgia.

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2014 at 20:22 UTC as 100th comment | 12 replies
On article Canon EOS 70D Review (718 comments in total)

Looking at the comparison shots objectively I'm not sure how anybody working on a real monitor can't see the improvements over the 7D and 60D. Those saying it's not improvement over the 60D need to stop surfing with their Androids and use a real computer. Color accuracy has also improved with the 70D...something 7D fanatics don't comprehend.

What's also obvious is while the 70D has made substantial improvement with high ISO noise the camera lags the 7100 by a rather substantial margin in all other areas, especially just plain detail. Typical 'smudgy' Canon sensor surprise.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2013 at 02:47 UTC as 142nd comment | 3 replies
On article Gorgeous color photos of America in the 1930's and 40's (109 comments in total)
In reply to:

clicstudio: Gorgeous and amazing photos! They almost look recent.
Makes u realize the "real" photographers were those, 70 to 80 years ago, who shot manual and film and without an LCD screen to help and no photoshop.
I really admire them and the glimpse of Americana their photos show. Color makes the whole difference.
Thanx for sharing!

With all due respect, get a life. Anytime old photographs are displayed on Dpreview we have an onslaught of film zealots picking away at digital -vs- analog and otherwise using their computer to complain about computers. Seriously, unplug, and go away.

Fact is, that many years ago photographers had little choice in what options to use, and had a dSLR been available -vs- kodachrome they likely would have picked a dSLR.

As it is, it took a film scanner (a digital camera that takes pictures of film) and several computers to transpose these images into a medium (digital) than others can view (digital internet). This was the only way to get these images away from the shoebox / archive they were stored in. It's uttery hypocritical to glorify a medium which was so difficult to reproduce to be seen by the masses while at the same time complimenting their ultimate display. There's a reason most people don't think color tranny existed in the early part of the 20th century, and this is why.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2013 at 20:22 UTC
In reply to:

Poweruser: Still not sure where the point is with wide-gamut screens?

95%+ of users cant see any difference because their devices run SRGB at best (often times uncalibrated), think of tablets, phones, all Macs, etc.

Also, you cant "print" Adobe RGB.

No, you're wrong. If you really think a matte based print made from pigment ink and displayed under typical room lighting exceeds the gamut range of a backlit monitor you're stoned. In order to truly exceed the color range of sRGB a print needs to be on reflective or coated media and displayed under a light source as bright if not brighter than open sunlight. Reflective media like ink-jet prints are calibrated with densitometers, and these densitometers have very intense light sources built in. In order to reproduce the color range that you see in those fancy 3-D color maps your room light needs to match the spectral range and intensity of the calibration tool that's reading the print, and it's not practical. This is why 95% of the print industry is still sRGB an those 5% mucking around with other color spaces aren't producing anything additional in a print we can see. AdobeRGB is otherwise nothing more than an abstract when it comes to printing.

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2013 at 13:12 UTC

I'm clicking around the DPREVIEW studio scene comparing the 6D and the D600 and trying to keep an objective mind. While the 6D is doing a very good job in some things like dynamic range in shadows, what's just as obvious is how it's the same old Canon in terms of purple slanted blues, reds more orange than red, and anemic yellows. Beginning to wonder if Canon is reducing the density of their CMOS color filters to play keep up with Nikon / Sony. In fact, some of the color rendition differences are quite startling, but Canon users just don't seem to take color accuracy very seriously.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2013 at 04:18 UTC as 19th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Francis Carver: I guess this thing is okay for taking stills, not so good for videography, though.

1. No functioning viewfinder in video mode.

2. H.264 codec.

3. No 1080p60 video recording ($250 cameras have that feature now, Canon!!!!)

4. Mono audio only.

5. No external microphone input possibility (as per specs listed here).

NOTE: specs say nothing about any external microphone connectivity, although on the image of the camera, there is a little door with a MIC logo on it, don't know what that is, as the door is closed, he-he-he.

6. No headphone jack.

Gotta look elsewhere, dang....

Anybody who thinks 4:2:2 video (Canon) is appropriate for professional standards is obviously not a pro. Canon is too busy protecting their upper tier pro video market to care.

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2013 at 03:52 UTC
In reply to:

Rodrigo Sandoval: Do you know what's the 6D bitrate for video?

It's 4:2:2, so what does it matter because it's terrible. {shrug}

Link | Posted on Jan 19, 2013 at 03:50 UTC
On article The DSLR Field Camera (168 comments in total)

Been using pano stitching for years, starting with my 10D to get 5K-10K dimension images for large printing. These techniques are really superb for creating high rez images for either DPI considerations or large murals. Integration with the latest versions of PS really helps as well and that's pretty much what I stick with.

By combining multiple shots in the 'Z' axis before stitching you can increase DOF via focus stacking, or even some HDR treatment. Pana stitching doesn't have to limited to X-Y treatment.

Biggest headache I've found with pano stitching is dealing with registration issues with water, etc. Also, the printing you are using seriously determines the advantages of super high DPI -vs- interpolation. RA-4 printers just don't show much advantage above 150dpi while ink-jets hit diminishing returns above 250 or so. Programs like PhotoAcute should also be discussed, but it's obvious you guys want to bicker about Nikon -vs- Canon.

Link | Posted on Dec 27, 2012 at 21:30 UTC as 27th comment
On article Canon EOS 6D sample images added to hands-on preview (252 comments in total)

Nice to know that Canon is still using the same engine that blows reds and produces mushy colors that rival 1998 consumer print film.

Link | Posted on Nov 21, 2012 at 01:48 UTC as 37th comment | 3 replies

One of the most annoying aspects of the Canon 7D / 60D's I've used is how the camera's 'sludge-up' strong colors, particularly reds or colors consisting of intense reds. Drives me nuts when shooting macro work and trying to reproduce those with any kind of gamut range or detail. You can see this with the simple studio comparisons right here and how the K5IIs *doesn't* do this compared to all the Canon APS-C cameras. Along with at least a stop of lattitude in the basement, and a few orders of magnitude less noise, yadda, yadda, yadda. In terms of I.Q., I'll happily take those over extreme scenario moire'. My fellow Canon users will still stick their thumbs in their ears though and scream "I can't hear you". Well done Pentax. That's a serious amount of detail from that sensor.

Link | Posted on Nov 12, 2012 at 23:52 UTC as 8th comment

I learned zone system in college from a protege' who learned directly under Adams. Zone system was a means to and ends, not the other way around as Ansel worshippers here are trying to tell us. It was also practiced by the commercial printing industry in different form and merely applied to chemical photography by Adams. Adam's didn't invent the discipline from ground zero if you ask any retired pre-press tech. The end goal of Zone System was to produce a print with aethestically linear values that were under control by the photographer from the exposure stage, to the printing stage. The problem is that the majority of photogs don't print anymore and don't process film. What's left is some relevant disciplines towards tonal control, but if you really need to understand this from a zone system perspective, which is print orientated you likely don't get it anyways. However, it might give you confidence to make insulting comments about digital photography not being as good as film, etc.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2012 at 15:41 UTC as 23rd comment
In reply to:

King Penguin: Am I correct in saying that if 35mm film was digital it would be 21mp......then this camera is an affordable digital version of film. As for high ISO, in film days to get 800 ISO you had specialist film and that was grainy........I very rarely shoot above 800 ISO and I'm sure most other people don't either. Most of the time I shoot on 100 ISO, occasionally increasing it if I need an extra stop or two.......I can't be alone in this, can I?

{ Continued} If a $150 Plustek and 35mm film is your vision of quality, the D600 is outside your context. 35mm film and a Plustek woulnd't be considered seriously in the quality standards prior to 2000. Your results are not great, and you dont have more dynamic range with consumer film than RAW extracted digital. I know betetr than to ask for samples.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2012 at 03:08 UTC
In reply to:

King Penguin: Am I correct in saying that if 35mm film was digital it would be 21mp......then this camera is an affordable digital version of film. As for high ISO, in film days to get 800 ISO you had specialist film and that was grainy........I very rarely shoot above 800 ISO and I'm sure most other people don't either. Most of the time I shoot on 100 ISO, occasionally increasing it if I need an extra stop or two.......I can't be alone in this, can I?

The arguements for film are basically stupid and illogical. Film, as a recording matrix is not 2-D in nature as digital is, and is highly variable across it's density and color range. Printfilm loses resolution rapidly when under exposed, and slide film when over exposed. Slide film records highlights as empty film base (nothing - no data). The dyes in film also vary according to emulsion type, so assigning a specific mpixel count to film is flat earth science. Also, before digital arrived, every professional I know shot MF and LF to get away from the quality limitations of 35mm. However, 35mm today in film -vs- digital arguements (like this one) is regarded as a much better medium for revionist sake. Next, volume color film processing gear costs more than a MF digital camera, and with digital I don't have to worry if the lab ran control strips that morning or if my film is scratched on the rollers. Last, a film scanner *is* a digital camera, but one that takes pictures of film.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2012 at 03:04 UTC
On article Accessory Review: Nimbus Cloud Dome (96 comments in total)

So, where did they put the chip to prevent China from making knockoffs?

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2012 at 19:16 UTC as 21st comment
On article Nikon announces D600 24MP enthusiast full-frame DSLR (235 comments in total)

As I understand it, this camera is capable of 4:2:2 video over HDMI. I'm curious what the price is of the least expensive Canon dSLR that can shoot both FF and 4:2:2.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2012 at 20:31 UTC as 27th comment
In reply to:

Prognathous: No articulated screen... bad move Pentax.

I love the idea of no AA filter, the lack of which can almost always be compensated for with PP. Why should every shot be 'dumbed down' just because you might be shooting a venetian blind at 100 meters.

I know a lot of people don't care about video, but I really wish Pentax would have really been radical and had 4:2:2 color compression mode for video. That feature alone would have wiped the floor with Canon's entire professional video line not to mention dSLR following.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2012 at 23:55 UTC
Total: 57, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »