The Ghost of Caravaggio

Joined on Jul 3, 2016

Comments

Total: 35, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Fotoni: Data needs three copies in separated drives to be safe enough. Five years warranty gives peace of mind because usually failures happen within first years or it will last very long. Three years warranty is minimum to be quite sure. There are also bad unit drives with 5y warranty. I had one which failed just after few months, but the replacement has lasted over 10 years. It is a WD black caviar 1TB.

@Terrano

Since ~2007 I only used raw files for my photography. However, a small percentage are original out-of-camera JPEGs and TIFFs from film scans.

I back up an archive of every raw file and original JPEG and TIFF. This is essentially a digital equivalent of a physical file cabinet people used to use to store folders of plastic notebook sheets containing physical film negatives and transparencies.

I back up my LR image library. These are ~ 80% lossless DNG files. Most of the DNGS are from digital camera raw files. Some DNGs are from film and transparency scans. The others are TIFFs I have not bothered to convert to DNG and JPEGs made by family members and friends with P&S digital cameras and smart phones. All of these are a subset of the archive described above.

I also backup my Lightroom catalog and other LR files I would need as part of a disaster recovery plan.

The back up of my original file archive is a luxury. The LR backups are a necessity.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2022 at 16:02 UTC
In reply to:

Fotoni: Data needs three copies in separated drives to be safe enough. Five years warranty gives peace of mind because usually failures happen within first years or it will last very long. Three years warranty is minimum to be quite sure. There are also bad unit drives with 5y warranty. I had one which failed just after few months, but the replacement has lasted over 10 years. It is a WD black caviar 1TB.

If the initial seed takes days or weeks you either have a slow internet connection, the cloud provider is throttling your upload transfer rate or you have an extraordinary amount of data.

Off-site disaster data recovery is a very old practice. Decades ago we transported magnetic tapes to salt mine. Cloud services are much more efficient.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2022 at 15:26 UTC
In reply to:

Fotoni: Data needs three copies in separated drives to be safe enough. Five years warranty gives peace of mind because usually failures happen within first years or it will last very long. Three years warranty is minimum to be quite sure. There are also bad unit drives with 5y warranty. I had one which failed just after few months, but the replacement has lasted over 10 years. It is a WD black caviar 1TB.

@Miike Dougherty

It's true the cloud option is only practical with a high-speed connection. The transfer rates for both your internet connection and home wi-fi network matter.

I have ATT optical fiber (1 GB up and down. With a 2020 MacBook Pro connected directly to the ATT modem via wired ethernet, my first 7 GB image file upload took about 1 hr per GB.

I stared the upload before I went to bed and it was done by the time I woke up the next morning. I use sync mode for my Lightroom image library and a separate raw file archive. Updating new images is very quick.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2022 at 18:43 UTC
In reply to:

Fotoni: Data needs three copies in separated drives to be safe enough. Five years warranty gives peace of mind because usually failures happen within first years or it will last very long. Three years warranty is minimum to be quite sure. There are also bad unit drives with 5y warranty. I had one which failed just after few months, but the replacement has lasted over 10 years. It is a WD black caviar 1TB.

Backup to:

1/ One or more HD or SSD devices

2/ Could service from any major vendor (Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Apple, tonnage just a few).

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2022 at 15:44 UTC
In reply to:

Photoman: FF or go home!

If sensor surface area is that important, FF does't cut it either.

A digital medium format body has a 43.8mm × 32.9mm sensor. The 43.8mm × 32.9mm sensors increase sensor surface area by ~1.7 compared to a 24mm x 36mm sensor.

Why bother with a puny 24 x 36 mm sensor?

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2021 at 17:21 UTC
In reply to:

Bigsensorisbest: The problem is, who wouldn’t want to put a bit more towards it and have a secondhand M10?

Not me.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2021 at 17:08 UTC
On article The Beginning of Photography: The Drama of 1839 (145 comments in total)

Well done... thanks.

Link | Posted on Oct 4, 2021 at 16:06 UTC as 11th comment
On article Leica Q2 Monochrom initial review (500 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Perhaps the greatest feat of this camera is the monochrome view in the EVF.
That alone is the tremendous advantage for anyone interested in the BW photography; instant visualisation of any scene in pure monochrome, not guessing how the colours (which we see through regular rangefinders, OVFs and EVFs) will turn out in BW.
This was impossible in film days, even with best BW films loaded in the camera, and it is better that even the monochrome version of the digital M camera, which uses classic rangefinder for framing.
This is pure BW, throughout.

Since I have never printed an EVF image, a simulation is just fine.

However, I do not accept your premise that a color filters "interpret the look". In fact an image from a monochrome sensor is also a simulation. Unless the the original subject matter was devoid of color, all monochrome renderings are simulations. Also, monochrome sensors are sensitive to IR. So, the rendered image depends on how much IR light was present and how much (or if) the IR light is attenuated.

Th advantages of a monochrome sensor are:
. no color aliasing artifacts
. no artifacts due to RGB color filter array cross contamination
. more exposure compared to using a CFA (given identical shutter times and apertures)

Alleged advantages for AF and metering are inconsequential in the unlikely event they even exist

Link | Posted on Nov 16, 2020 at 14:39 UTC
On article Leica Q2 Monochrom initial review (500 comments in total)
In reply to:

Zvonimir Tosic: Perhaps the greatest feat of this camera is the monochrome view in the EVF.
That alone is the tremendous advantage for anyone interested in the BW photography; instant visualisation of any scene in pure monochrome, not guessing how the colours (which we see through regular rangefinders, OVFs and EVFs) will turn out in BW.
This was impossible in film days, even with best BW films loaded in the camera, and it is better that even the monochrome version of the digital M camera, which uses classic rangefinder for framing.
This is pure BW, throughout.

I can use a monochrome EVF finder with my cameras any tine I wish.

Oddly, some of the most valued monochrome images from 35mm film cameras were made with Leica M film bodies where the OVF finder displays a color image.

Link | Posted on Nov 13, 2020 at 15:58 UTC
In reply to:

Dr88man: Purchase a large quantity of film, and you can keep it in the freezer for years without degradation. Allow the roll to thaw at room temperature for 1 week before use. I can never get rid of my Mamiya 7ii system with the 43mm, 80mm, and 150mm lenses.
On this latest news, I just ordered several 5pk Velvia and Acros films. I scan my own film with an Epson V750. What actually worries me is the vanishing E6 developers.
30% price increase, doesn't mean elimination, just reflects lower volume and increased costs of chemicals.

Film will fog (loose contrast) over time in a freezer. Neither cold temperatures nor lead can block cosmic rays.

By occasionally comparing development results over time, development techniques can be altered to minimize contrast loss caused by long-term cosmic ray fogging. I imagine this is easier for B&W film than color.

I don't know anything about color shifts.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2019 at 16:24 UTC
In reply to:

Don Sata: App isn't going to be supported un a few years.

Why?

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2018 at 14:39 UTC
In reply to:

DS HK: two points:
1) "we'll never go full-frame"?
Yes, APS-C is good for most consumers, but why most companies go for full frame?Firstly, APS-C suffers strong competition from mobile phones, in few years, the only way to claim a different from phone's computational photography is the bigger sensor size.
Secondly, a company with only APS-C system, without upgrade path to bigger sensor system will discourage many consumers. XFS is totally different system and wouldn't considered as an upgrade path. Some comments already use with term "lock" in the APS-C system.....
So, never say never!

2) About policy of "minimizing (lens) software correction. " but want to keep the lens size smaller, how can it be done?
It is the opposite way of computational photography. Wait and see.
Just like you tell users not to use PS to do lens correction, the next lens will be optically perfect and smaller size. What a perfect world!

In the early days of 24 X 36 mm sensors you could say the same thing. In those days lenses designed for film cameras were available. It took time for new lenses to appear.

The same is true now for the digital MF. There are lot's of MF film lenses available for the GFX.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2018 at 14:38 UTC
In reply to:

wootpile: my strongest wish is for fuji to re-design 23 f2 and correct the poor close distance sharpness.

My Fujinon 23/2 XF R lens is pin sharp at close subject distances.

However the X-100 and X-100 S/TF XF Fujinon 23/2 Aspherical lens is not. In fact its was not designed to be sharp close up. This has not changed for four generations of X100 bodies, so it won't change now.

This compromise (minimum camera thickness vs close up sharpness) is due to the extremely short lens rear element to sensor distance.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2018 at 13:12 UTC
In reply to:

DS HK: two points:
1) "we'll never go full-frame"?
Yes, APS-C is good for most consumers, but why most companies go for full frame?Firstly, APS-C suffers strong competition from mobile phones, in few years, the only way to claim a different from phone's computational photography is the bigger sensor size.
Secondly, a company with only APS-C system, without upgrade path to bigger sensor system will discourage many consumers. XFS is totally different system and wouldn't considered as an upgrade path. Some comments already use with term "lock" in the APS-C system.....
So, never say never!

2) About policy of "minimizing (lens) software correction. " but want to keep the lens size smaller, how can it be done?
It is the opposite way of computational photography. Wait and see.
Just like you tell users not to use PS to do lens correction, the next lens will be optically perfect and smaller size. What a perfect world!

If a 24 X 36 mm sensor area is the Holy Grail, what are larger surface area sensors – like the GFX 50S?

The 24 X 36 mm sensor is the new APS-C.

Link | Posted on Oct 24, 2018 at 13:04 UTC
In reply to:

TFD: Nice if somewhat detailed article. My practical take away would be to avoid highlight clipping and therefore under expose - I always and by default bracket every exposure something that would be expensive to do with film. One practical camera feature would be a highlight exposure setting i.e. the camera setting the exposure just below the highlight clipping point.

Not really sure I buy the argument that the noise comes from the image, however we all know that a higher ISO results in more "noise" visible in the image and therefore have a practical work around.

It would be interesting to add colour positive film to the chart. Shooting with Kodachrome or Ektachrome never offered much exposure latitude.

Clip highlight regions that are unimportant to the photograph's purpose. One example could be specular sunlight reflections. There is no useful information in these reflection. When they are intentionally overexposed the S/N for the shadow regions improves. Of course, gross overexposure could produce artifacts. This is how come I also bracket exposures by default.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2018 at 15:01 UTC
In reply to:

dash2k8: Allow me to display the ignoramus in me: how does this issue fundamentally change the fact that in a dark setting, I have to crank up my ISO?

What it changes is you now know there's a disadvantage to just thinking about "cranking up" camera ISO parameter. The goal is to use the lowest practical camera ISO setting for what you're trying to accomplish.

Link | Posted on Aug 8, 2018 at 14:57 UTC
In reply to:

MrBrightSide: Well, this is what the British get for allowing the Romans to leave (or driving them out) 1600 years ago. If they had been able to convince them to hang around a few hundred more years, the Roman engineers would have finished building out the aqueduct system—voila, no more droughts.

So do I. According to 23&Me I am a descendent of Nial. Of course being King and all, Nial sired a very large number of children. By now there's nothing particularly unique about a genealogical connection to Nial, there's million of us.

Link | Posted on Jul 24, 2018 at 14:04 UTC
In reply to:

oscarvdvelde: I'm curious for its performance. Probably it relies on software distortion correction, but it can be a good trade-off if it has good image quality across the frame.

When will FUjIFILM ever catch up to the competition?

Other brands offer lenses in the same price range) with no vignetting whatsoever.

In fact here's a comprehensive list

(message ends here)

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2018 at 15:37 UTC
In reply to:

Azathothh: Oh so Lightroom will get faster if i get a really fast and expensive computer? Thanks Adobe, really handy...

It is really handy for working photographers because time = money.

I retained clients because I would shoot a gig during the day, edit and render the photos that evening. The clients would download them the next morning.

And, computer hardware depreciation is tax deductible as well.

If your time is not an economic variable then speed doesn't matter.

Either way, Adobe can't violate the laws of physics – fast computers run any moderately competent application faster than slow computers. Fast computer cost more than slow computers.

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2018 at 15:00 UTC

XTrans Post-Production RIght Now

Demosaic with LR (or whatever); send TIFF to NIK; render/modify with NIK; return rendered/modified TIFF to LR (or whatever).

So if DxO continues to allow the rendered TIFF workflow, XTrans users will be able to use NIK. Otherwise, DxO's punishment of XTrans users will reach a new level.

Link | Posted on Oct 25, 2017 at 14:30 UTC as 99th comment
Total: 35, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »