jackzuckerphotography

Joined on Sep 23, 2013

Comments

Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5
In reply to:

Gray Photography: Pixel peeping taken to the extreme. A solution looking for a problem?

I fear DP Review has lost themselves in the world of examining belly button lint with a microscope.

None of this has anything to do with photography.

ummm...No. They are reviewing a feature of the camera and pointing out it's limitations. I for one am glad. Knowledge is power. Comments like yours remind me of the local camera store (long since out of business) who told me that digital photography would never equal film in resolution, quality or dynamic range.

Link | Posted on Aug 31, 2016 at 17:03 UTC

too bad there's no full frame version. I'd replace my canon 24-105L

Link | Posted on Feb 23, 2016 at 22:59 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

PhalaNik: Adobe Creative cloud desktop is one of the worst bits of software ever written. Installing and updating is always a problem, which is a big shame as the core software is pretty good. If you are a windows user The best way round is to restart your machine in safe mode with networking (press F8 during start up). Update the creative cloud desktop app, then restart normally and update the programs you want to.

Ben

i don't have any problems updating the apps. I used to when CC first came out but it's been solid the last year

Link | Posted on Dec 2, 2015 at 18:32 UTC
On article Hands on with the Pentax 645Z (706 comments in total)
In reply to:

Pantyhose Bandit: 51 megapixels. 8256 x 6192 pixels. It's $8.5K and the 36mp Nikon D800 is 3K. Is the extra $5.5K really justified by the extra 15 megapixels?

How big is big enough? A magazine centerfold is about 11 inches by 28 inches. Given that magazines do not print at a very high resolution, theres's plenty wasted pixelage on the D800. On the 645 even more pixels are wasted and the image is the wrong dimension because the 645 is 4:3. A centerfold is 11:28 which is closer to 3:2.

Billboards have the lowest resolution of all. Newspapers have pretty low resolution too due to the paper they're printed on.

This looks to me more like Ricoh trying desperately to bring out something expensive to make them more money without actually benefiting the consumer too much.

so quantify the "look" of medium format. Post some pictures showing the increased dynamic range or some other quantifiable justification for it. Not disputing the value. Just want to see some concrete data other than "the look" and "the format"

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2014 at 12:19 UTC
In reply to:

CaseyComo: Why not just be modern and crapify your photos with a computer like everyone else?

no, the point is, why pay $700 for a lens that sticks you with the "effect" when you can shoot it without the effect in the camera and add whatever you want in post processing? Anyone who knows how to use photoshop can do this after the fact and you are not stuck in that one effect you shot it with. There are reasons that nobody is using soft focus filters and vignetting devices on the camera anymore...Oh yeah, except for lens-baby stuff, lol

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2013 at 14:12 UTC
Total: 5, showing: 1 – 5