AngelicBeaver

Lives in United States San Antonio, United States
Works as a Steel Detailer
Joined on Nov 3, 2004

Comments

Total: 82, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article How water droplets came to life for a Gatorade ad (103 comments in total)
In reply to:

mainger: I'm sorry, how exactly did they make these drop "kick" the vertical sandbag? CGI methinks.

It says that it was all shot "in camera", so CGI and compositing would be out. I agree that it's probably some timed mechanism within the heavy bag.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2017 at 21:02 UTC
In reply to:

Terkwoiz: Does anyone really purchase a smartphone with the camera as the main concern? Build and UI is most important for me.

The last android phone I used was the galaxy note 2 because, at that time, Apple didn't make anything with a screen larger than 4.5 inch.

After using both android and apple my biggest necessity is a streamlined and rock-solid UI. Most of the time android phones (especially Samsung phones) come loaded with bloat. iOS is just so much better. Has this changed?

Unfortunately, I think phone cameras are going the wrong way. If iPhone sets the standard (and it seems to), the IQ on phones is never going to be great. As far as I can tell, the focus is on smoothness and color, rather than preserving detail. Optimized for phone screen viewing, in other words. The best photos I have seen come from phones come from ones that are four or five years old now (Nokia Lumia 920 and 1020), and on defunct platforms. The sensors are getting smaller, and the manufacturers don't seem to care about resolution. What normal people want in a phone camera doesn't match what I want. I keep hoping someone will make something like the Panasonic CM1, but with a removable battery and storage, and a few other improvements. I don't think it's going to happen though. My wife's selfies from her Galaxy Note 3 make her face look like melted plastic, and then everyone compliments her on her wonderful skin.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2017 at 22:08 UTC
In reply to:

Arastoo Vaziri: Please don't overreact: I don't condone what the bloke in the van did in any way, but the photograph of the van (not the one with it being removed) is far more interesting than the rather commonplace one with the creases.
And I wonder whether the towing vehicle tracks weren't even more harmful to the ground. Couldn't they have used an helicopter to remove the van?

It probably would have been cheaper to have someone fix the van and then back it out. Then sell the van.

Link | Posted on Mar 15, 2017 at 13:37 UTC

I read this article title so many times, trying to figure out why I would want my picture taken with a photo editor at NASA. I thought, "Maybe they are the rock-stars of the photography world or something."

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2017 at 16:51 UTC as 2nd comment
On article Leica Summilux-SL 50mm F1.4 sample gallery (368 comments in total)

More giraffe portraits, please.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2017 at 16:06 UTC as 55th comment
On article Leica Summilux-SL 50mm F1.4 sample gallery (368 comments in total)
In reply to:

mxx: Just so everybody knows: I've got nothing to say about this lens.

There, I've said it.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2017 at 16:05 UTC

Haste makes waste.

Link | Posted on Jan 23, 2017 at 18:46 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Paul Auclair: should a photograph/photographer really be the principle focus of what transpires at these tragic events.
do we need to see these images in order to believe what takes place?

rev32, I agree that we need journalists to be as impartial and factual as possible, but we see evidence everyday that many of the "journalists" don't do that, or have such a particular perspective that they believe they are being neutral but are, in fact, very biased in their reporting. The subconscious bias is, I think, why the rigid impartiality is so critical, but I've seen so many one-sided articles and cherry-picked photos that I wonder if this impartiality is as widely embraced as it needs to be. Unfortunately, we don't seem to live in a society that is willing to hold bad journalists accountable. In fact, we reward them.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 15:25 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Auclair: should a photograph/photographer really be the principle focus of what transpires at these tragic events.
do we need to see these images in order to believe what takes place?

Timbukto and Paul, you make some really good points. Maybe we are at a point where unedited, high resolution surveillance footage would be better, given the myriad accusations of bias and political agenda that crop up around everything. Less art, more context. It's disheartening.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2016 at 13:09 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Auclair: should a photograph/photographer really be the principle focus of what transpires at these tragic events.
do we need to see these images in order to believe what takes place?

Timbukto, I wholeheartedly agree with you. I was responding to the original post for this particular photo. I see deceptive photos all the time. I don't see that applying to this one, unless the ambassador assaulted the guy before being shot. You're getting into a whole new realm of deception, if that's the case. At that point, we're doomed. Hoping for a more literate world is a beautiful dream, but it's certainly not where we're headed. I hope that, at the very least, the literate among us would be more ethical in how they disseminate the news. Too many people make themselves painfully easy to manipulate.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 21:32 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Auclair: should a photograph/photographer really be the principle focus of what transpires at these tragic events.
do we need to see these images in order to believe what takes place?

Also consider the thought that we are living in a "post-truth" era. People purposefully fabricate news stories designed to sound true. News stories, now more than ever, need credibility. Photographic evidence lends weight to words.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 21:21 UTC
In reply to:

Paul Auclair: should a photograph/photographer really be the principle focus of what transpires at these tragic events.
do we need to see these images in order to believe what takes place?

Really? Somebody on a photography website questions the value of a photograph at a decisive moment? Pictures transcend language barriers, communicate ideas and emotion in a heartbeat... they say a picture is worth a thousand words for a reason. A single image of a Syrian child washed up on a beach created a movement. Images are powerful, but we need people who can capture them.

Link | Posted on Dec 20, 2016 at 21:15 UTC
In reply to:

cosinaphile: an excessive amount of pixellation in the rear lcd if fear for a 13000 dollar usd body

an exciting tiny beast , but .....

edit.... as was said elsewhere , these dark uninspired images are a poor offering to judge a first impression .... please team up with a real photographer for these articles
even for a few hours ..... honestly you diminish the glow of this unique new hassy with these dingy poorly composed shots

cheers otherwise and thanks for the well written copy

I think the shots are perfect for judging dynamic range and detail, which is what people are looking for in these. He definitely chose his images as something of a stress test.

Link | Posted on Dec 12, 2016 at 17:04 UTC
On photo I am an Elephant in the An A to Z of Subjects- Week 5, E challenge (25 comments in total)
In reply to:

Midwest: What sandbagging idiot gave this great photo a single star?!

I wouldn't sweat it too much. Some people are just grumpy, or really have a chip on their shoulder against certain subjects or photo processes. When anyone can vote, you're bound to have outliers like that. Ultimately, these contests are just for fun. It's not like anyone has been cheated out of prize money or camera gear, or a photo tour of Europe.

Link | Posted on Dec 7, 2016 at 16:03 UTC
On photo I am an Elephant in the An A to Z of Subjects- Week 5, E challenge (25 comments in total)
In reply to:

Midwest: What sandbagging idiot gave this great photo a single star?!

Probably someone who isn't a fan of the HDR look.

Link | Posted on Dec 5, 2016 at 05:50 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1382 comments in total)
In reply to:

photo_rb: I have to take DPReview to task on this. A couple of days ago I posted here that I wished they had made the 4/3 sensor a bit larger when it was originally conceived. This was my "opinion" based on my needs and the fact I like the camera.

It still reads that way to me but some prankster on the DPReview staff must have changed it on everyone else's feed to read "Real men don't use a 4/3 sensor." That is the only explanation I can think of for some of the replies. Shame on you DPReview!

Here's what I got: "I wrote some stuff, but people are reading way more into it then I intended, so this is my funny joke about how DPreview must have changed my words after I wrote them."

Link | Posted on Nov 28, 2016 at 17:23 UTC
On article Ultimate OM-D: Olympus E-M1 Mark II Review (1382 comments in total)
In reply to:

nokinonacynos: Looks like an amazing cam. However, I think MFT will continue to struggle. Once the cam is not pocketable, size becomes less of an advantage. People are realizing that a certain size is required for comfort and ergonomics. With a Pro lens, the package is similar to APC. So no advantage. In fact, the 25mm 1.2 is bigger, heavier and much more expensive than a 35mm f/2 for APC let alone a 50mm f/1.8 for FF.

This camera will have to sell on inherent qualities rather than size and weight.

I switched from Canon to Olympus years ago. Lens size was only one of the many reasons. The number one reason for my ultimate switch was Canon's terrible Auto Focus. I owned the 85 f1.8 and it constantly misfocused. I even had it checked out. With Olympus and the 75 f1.8, as long as I put the focus box at the right place, it doesn't misfocus, and the optical quality is top notch, which brings me to the close second reason I switched: Lenses. Olympus and Panasonic offered the best bang for the buck in lenses. They offered the focal lengths I wanted, many with size and weight savings, and they were better than what I could afford with Canon.12-40, 20mm, 75 f1.8. I love these lenses AND all of them stabilized. Whenever people try to make size the end game for micro 4/3, I laugh. Honestly, if size is your only consideration, M4/3 is still your system because they continue to offer other, tiny bodies that you can pair with their tiny lenses.

Link | Posted on Nov 26, 2016 at 20:35 UTC
In reply to:

biza43: Interesting and informative article, thanks. However, normally photographers that worry about these subjects will shoot Raw, not Jpeg, thus allowing more room in highlight and/or shadow recovery during processing.

@biza43 It's frustrating for a non-RAW shooter to get help with JPEG output because it seems every request for a feature or for help gets met with an immediate chorus of "Shoot RAW!" I find the benefits of RAW to be well documented and frequently expounded upon. As such, I get tired of having to battle the RAW shooters to get to the information I want. Shooting RAW is not the only answer, and is unacceptable for me. I know you wrote "normally", but you can certainly hear the chorus in a lot of the comments below. It's like asking how to get somewhere by bicycle and everyone always yells back, "You should use a car and take the highway!"

Link | Posted on Nov 10, 2016 at 13:43 UTC
In reply to:

biza43: Interesting and informative article, thanks. However, normally photographers that worry about these subjects will shoot Raw, not Jpeg, thus allowing more room in highlight and/or shadow recovery during processing.

I like that this article acknowledges that there are some people who don't shoot RAW yet still want the best JPEG possible. That would be me. I can't do a RAW workflow for a variety of reasons and knowing the best way to capture scenes like these is very helpful.

Link | Posted on Nov 9, 2016 at 14:58 UTC
On article DPReview Asks: What was your first camera? (766 comments in total)

Panasonic F-Z20 back in 2004. 12X optical zoom, constant F/2.8 aperture. Nice macro. I learned a lot with that camera.

Link | Posted on Nov 4, 2016 at 12:50 UTC as 623rd comment
Total: 82, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »