24Peter

24Peter

Lives in United States Dover, NJ, United States
Works as a Photographer
Joined on Mar 24, 2005

Comments

Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18
On a photo in the Hasselblad X1D Sample Gallery sample gallery (5 comments in total)

Hmmm.... seems like a lot of noise in the shadows @ISO 1600. Am I missing something?

Link | Posted on Apr 15, 2017 at 18:05 UTC as 4th comment
On article Extremely dramatic video touts Canon's CMOS technology (196 comments in total)

I've said this before and will repeat it now: I really do appreciate all the engineers at all the camera, computer and electronics companies. Their hard work allows me to do incredible things in terms of my photography, computing and beyond. These guys are my unsung heros. Hopefully they get paid well for their efforts and the market for all this stuff will be robust for many years to come so we photogs in particular, and consumers in general, can continue to reap the benefits. That said, this video is a little overstated and perhaps even a little silly at times. If it's meant to celebrate engineering advances and the people who make those advances possible, then great. Beyond that, it might benefit from a little less hyperbole.

Link | Posted on Feb 16, 2017 at 17:33 UTC as 37th comment

Thanks everyone for your kind words and other feedback. It means a lot to me! And thanks again Chris Williams and the other Editors for this great opportunity to share my work on DPReview. Nice to be able to give something back since you guys have helped me so much when I was starting out. Check out some of my latest moon shots on Instagram (@peteralessandria)

Link | Posted on Jan 15, 2017 at 02:02 UTC as 30th comment | 3 replies
On article 2016 DPReview Readers' Best Shots: Places (122 comments in total)
In reply to:

daddyo: Sorry, I'm not buying the Statue of Liberty image.
First, there is no way the moon would appear that large in relation to the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty is enormous, and I find it extremely hard to see how the moon, that high on the horizon would appear that large -- at least I've never witnessed it.
Second, if you visit the photographer's website, you will see other similar images of a crescent moon next to the Statue of Liberty with both the statue in focus and crater detail on the moon in focus -- that just does not happen.
I've done way too many shots of the moon, and know that in order to get crater detail, you have to focus on the moon 239,000 miles away -- you're not going to get sharp focus also on something a half mile away too.
Call me skeptical.

Thank you daddyo. I PM'd you earlier. Appreciate the acknowledgment. And I have mentioned to Chris Williams I would enjoy doing a feature for dpreview readers on how I do it! Stay tuned and happy new year :-)

Link | Posted on Dec 31, 2016 at 00:01 UTC
On article 2016 DPReview Readers' Best Shots: Places (122 comments in total)
In reply to:

daddyo: Sorry, I'm not buying the Statue of Liberty image.
First, there is no way the moon would appear that large in relation to the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty is enormous, and I find it extremely hard to see how the moon, that high on the horizon would appear that large -- at least I've never witnessed it.
Second, if you visit the photographer's website, you will see other similar images of a crescent moon next to the Statue of Liberty with both the statue in focus and crater detail on the moon in focus -- that just does not happen.
I've done way too many shots of the moon, and know that in order to get crater detail, you have to focus on the moon 239,000 miles away -- you're not going to get sharp focus also on something a half mile away too.
Call me skeptical.

Thanks Chris Williams - Jen Khordi and I are friends. We co-admin a NJ Photographers Facebook group. She and I (and about 1/2 dozen other people) were shooting together that night. We all have similar shots.

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2016 at 21:48 UTC
On article 2016 DPReview Readers' Best Shots: Places (122 comments in total)
In reply to:

daddyo: Sorry, I'm not buying the Statue of Liberty image.
First, there is no way the moon would appear that large in relation to the Statue of Liberty. The Statue of Liberty is enormous, and I find it extremely hard to see how the moon, that high on the horizon would appear that large -- at least I've never witnessed it.
Second, if you visit the photographer's website, you will see other similar images of a crescent moon next to the Statue of Liberty with both the statue in focus and crater detail on the moon in focus -- that just does not happen.
I've done way too many shots of the moon, and know that in order to get crater detail, you have to focus on the moon 239,000 miles away -- you're not going to get sharp focus also on something a half mile away too.
Call me skeptical.

Skeptical. Sigma 150-600 on a 70D. Totally and completely as captured in my camera. Why not ask rather than assume? I know you don't know how to do it - but that doesn't mean it can't be done. Look me up next time you are in NYC. I'll show you how it's done. In the meantime, check out my website. Dozens of more "unbelievable" photos. www.peteralessandriaphotography.com

Link | Posted on Dec 30, 2016 at 21:39 UTC

I guess, but for $899 the Sigma 20 1.4 has more to offer. My interest in these types of lens is nighttime (astro particularly Milky Way, and also NYC helicopter flights). The Sigma has acceptable sharpness wide open and is great @ 1.8. It's also AE/AF lens and while I don't use AF for Milky Way, it is vital for my helicopter flights. These are Sigma 20 1.4 examples of both:
Milky Way http://www.peteralessandriaphotography.com/milky_way_2016
Helicopter http://www.peteralessandriaphotography.com/helicopter_nyc_sept_2016 (some of these were done with my 70D+EF 35 F2; rest were 6D+Sigma 20 1.4)

Link | Posted on Dec 29, 2016 at 20:01 UTC as 13th comment | 5 replies

Where can we post our Super Moon pics? Here's one of mine: http://www.peteralessandriaphotography.com/new_york_fall_2016/e2890bbb3

Link | Posted on Nov 14, 2016 at 22:20 UTC as 28th comment
On article Video: Sony a6500 First Look (339 comments in total)
In reply to:

Elite83: Still waiting on a Sony battery grip for these APS-C bodies...

Their video quality is incredible for the price, but the battery is a huge handicap when filming on site.

@techjedi - no you need the silly cable. AFAIK its a Sony issue, not a grip manufacturer issue. It is doable. I did this photo shoot with the battery grip on an a6000 plus a Canon 70-200 F4. Manually focused BTW which is much easier with the EVF on a mirrorless: http://www.superstarheadshots.com/blog/anna-new-york-new-york

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2016 at 17:13 UTC
On article Video: Sony a6500 First Look (339 comments in total)
In reply to:

Elite83: Still waiting on a Sony battery grip for these APS-C bodies...

Their video quality is incredible for the price, but the battery is a huge handicap when filming on site.

There are (will be) third party battery grips. Had one for an a6000. Five hours battery life.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2016 at 22:24 UTC

Honored to be chosen as one of the 64 Finalists. Amazing images from wonderfully talented photographers. Mine is #14 - https://weather.com/photos/places/news/2016-photo-contest-winners#/6

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2016 at 21:49 UTC as 2nd comment

So here's a question I have been unable to find an answer to: do the Sony-sensored cameras (D810, etc.) lose the ISO-invariance/low-noise-in-pushed-shadows advantage WHEN DOING LONG EXPOSURES? My landscape photos almost always incorporate exposures of 30 seconds or more. I bought an a6000 last year to compare its performance to my Canons (5DII, 6D, 70D) in this regard. Even at the lowest ISO, when the exposure went more than a few seconds, the SONY was almost as noisy in the shadows as my other cameras. Thoughts?

Link | Posted on Sep 1, 2016 at 22:53 UTC as 39th comment | 6 replies
On article Focus Stacking in Macro Photography (131 comments in total)
In reply to:

24Peter: Thanks Erez for your article. I use this technique for product photography. I have clients that produce micro-precision adjusters and other parts. The entire product must be in sharp focus for their catalogs & other marketing materials. I don't like to use the auto-blend option in Photoshop however. I use the File>Scripts>Load files into stack with the auto align option but then manually mask my layers to find the sharpest points of focus. The Photomerg/auto-blend processing in CS5 is too hit or miss for me.

I understand that but as I said I find it too hit or miss and I end up spending more time adjusting Photomerge's masks than if I just mask the layers myself. I stack my images in order (for instance, closest focus point at the top and so on) so it is easier to do it manually.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2013 at 15:36 UTC
On article Focus Stacking in Macro Photography (131 comments in total)

Thanks Erez for your article. I use this technique for product photography. I have clients that produce micro-precision adjusters and other parts. The entire product must be in sharp focus for their catalogs & other marketing materials. I don't like to use the auto-blend option in Photoshop however. I use the File>Scripts>Load files into stack with the auto align option but then manually mask my layers to find the sharpest points of focus. The Photomerg/auto-blend processing in CS5 is too hit or miss for me.

Link | Posted on Apr 12, 2013 at 01:59 UTC as 69th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

24Peter: I don't shoot underwater scenes so am not sure of the answer, but I am wondering if he would have been better off placing all the strobes underwater to avoid the diffraction/ reflections from the surface on the backdrop and model. I find it distracting at best.

That said, I do like the concept and I'm sure the full rez images are breathtaking. And I certainly appreciate the effort to pull off a shoot like this.

Marcio - thanks for your reply. Let me ask: would strobes placed under the water "bounce" off the underside of the surface of the water and create a similar but subtler effect? You probably have a lot more knowledge/experience with this but I can't help but wonder if the desired surreal effect could have been obtained without all the wave interference patterns/ highlights caused by placing the lights above the water line.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2013 at 02:54 UTC

I don't shoot underwater scenes so am not sure of the answer, but I am wondering if he would have been better off placing all the strobes underwater to avoid the diffraction/ reflections from the surface on the backdrop and model. I find it distracting at best.

That said, I do like the concept and I'm sure the full rez images are breathtaking. And I certainly appreciate the effort to pull off a shoot like this.

Link | Posted on Mar 21, 2013 at 00:44 UTC as 29th comment | 4 replies

Really amazing & inspiring :)

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2013 at 19:30 UTC as 50th comment
On article The 15 Minute Makeover: Photoshop Beauty Retouching (168 comments in total)

Hmmm... I guess I'm missing something since all this does is completely overexpose the skin. I've tried two different models with the same results. I have to dial down the opacity of the red channel layer to around 25% for it to be even moderately usable. Then it just looks like a Glamour Glow filter. But beyond that, the skin issues are still visible - just lighter. Anyone else notice this?

Link | Posted on Dec 8, 2011 at 20:53 UTC as 90th comment | 1 reply
Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18