Constantin V

Lives in Russian Federation Novosibirsk, Russian Federation
Joined on Nov 6, 2016

Comments

Total: 373, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Constantin V: These techs are what effectively eliminated professional photography as of today. The less skills required the more inclusive is the profession, payment goes down, skilled personal extinguish. And thousands of dpreview drones are applauding the new promising tech as if they are know something. This is how common knowledge "it's impossible without X..." appears, even though it was possible before you know it. Yeh, great.

@lauma So you don't see anything bad when mediocrity prevails, huh? That's very typical. What possibly can go wrong? I said this before. The less skills required the more inclusive is the profession, payment goes down, skilled personal extinguish. This sets a standard in mass-mind, mediocrity expands. I hardly see any good photography in the news these days. Except a few major players.

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2021 at 03:41 UTC
In reply to:

Constantin V: These techs are what effectively eliminated professional photography as of today. The less skills required the more inclusive is the profession, payment goes down, skilled personal extinguish. And thousands of dpreview drones are applauding the new promising tech as if they are know something. This is how common knowledge "it's impossible without X..." appears, even though it was possible before you know it. Yeh, great.

@lauma "This is not..." - What 'this'? 'Something good is not good at all, it's bad' - Well, you wrote before ''Photography is about getting the subject look good", right? So... I kinda don't know why I should listen somebody on the internet who thinks he knows he's talking about.

"While as a good photographer it's a blessing" - As I told you before. Expectations are not that skyrocketing. To make money it's not that important if you are good or not. "Good enough" photography will do for satisfactory price. Digital provides satisfactory level without knowledge of actual photography as you put it.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2021 at 04:50 UTC
In reply to:

Constantin V: These techs are what effectively eliminated professional photography as of today. The less skills required the more inclusive is the profession, payment goes down, skilled personal extinguish. And thousands of dpreview drones are applauding the new promising tech as if they are know something. This is how common knowledge "it's impossible without X..." appears, even though it was possible before you know it. Yeh, great.

Fresh example for those who think the tech leads to success: https://www.theverge.com/22684730/students-file-folder-directory-structure-education-gen-z

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2021 at 11:16 UTC
In reply to:

Constantin V: These techs are what effectively eliminated professional photography as of today. The less skills required the more inclusive is the profession, payment goes down, skilled personal extinguish. And thousands of dpreview drones are applauding the new promising tech as if they are know something. This is how common knowledge "it's impossible without X..." appears, even though it was possible before you know it. Yeh, great.

@armandino how the tech can raise any bar in art? Is it somekind of tech competition? I know that a man who can make the photo in his head with OVF probably sees more, then one who relies solely on EVF. And EVF is what dictates you how your photo will look like.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2021 at 11:11 UTC
In reply to:

Constantin V: These techs are what effectively eliminated professional photography as of today. The less skills required the more inclusive is the profession, payment goes down, skilled personal extinguish. And thousands of dpreview drones are applauding the new promising tech as if they are know something. This is how common knowledge "it's impossible without X..." appears, even though it was possible before you know it. Yeh, great.

@PNad you don't see a forest behind the bush. :(

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2021 at 11:02 UTC
In reply to:

Constantin V: These techs are what effectively eliminated professional photography as of today. The less skills required the more inclusive is the profession, payment goes down, skilled personal extinguish. And thousands of dpreview drones are applauding the new promising tech as if they are know something. This is how common knowledge "it's impossible without X..." appears, even though it was possible before you know it. Yeh, great.

@lauma what you are describing is a profession suitable for any pretty nice girl who can smile nicely. All the rest will be done by a digital tech. Basically you are describing not a good photographer (as you aren't mentioning anything but 'looking good' and to make something 'good' in general public's view is pretty simple), but a friendly service. I'm not in that kind of photography, but according to jobs it's like being a waitress in macdonalds.

Thinking only about tech is bad, but at least that was somekind of filter too.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2021 at 10:56 UTC
In reply to:

Constantin V: These techs are what effectively eliminated professional photography as of today. The less skills required the more inclusive is the profession, payment goes down, skilled personal extinguish. And thousands of dpreview drones are applauding the new promising tech as if they are know something. This is how common knowledge "it's impossible without X..." appears, even though it was possible before you know it. Yeh, great.

@manos234 "Photography never was a profession for "skilled" people. Since the late 19th century photography as a profession was considered for the lazy ones," - And you think this because..? Out of the blue? Ansel Adams wasn't a lazy one. Magnum photographers worked hard.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2021 at 10:34 UTC
In reply to:

Constantin V: These techs are what effectively eliminated professional photography as of today. The less skills required the more inclusive is the profession, payment goes down, skilled personal extinguish. And thousands of dpreview drones are applauding the new promising tech as if they are know something. This is how common knowledge "it's impossible without X..." appears, even though it was possible before you know it. Yeh, great.

@Larawanista "The need for innovation cannot be slowed down just to protect a trade or a profession." - How about protection of sanity? Some time ago people had to rely on their mind more then this days.

"...better types of photography..." - hard to tell what is 'better'. It's just positive thinking without ground.

Link | Posted on Sep 25, 2021 at 10:30 UTC
In reply to:

Constantin V: These techs are what effectively eliminated professional photography as of today. The less skills required the more inclusive is the profession, payment goes down, skilled personal extinguish. And thousands of dpreview drones are applauding the new promising tech as if they are know something. This is how common knowledge "it's impossible without X..." appears, even though it was possible before you know it. Yeh, great.

Why do you take the demand for granted? Demand is a standard determined by photographers and their works. You already consider a good photo that has a proper focus on the eye. But is it creative? Not necessary. As of creativity... this is the word that often used, but I hardly understand if it has any particular meaning. One guy here persuaded me, that everyone can produce art. The art he says is that the author consider it to be. I'm not convinced.

And smartphones are killing pro protography just because general public has no any taste or demand for good photography.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2021 at 08:55 UTC

These techs are what effectively eliminated professional photography as of today. The less skills required the more inclusive is the profession, payment goes down, skilled personal extinguish. And thousands of dpreview drones are applauding the new promising tech as if they are know something. This is how common knowledge "it's impossible without X..." appears, even though it was possible before you know it. Yeh, great.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2021 at 06:19 UTC as 23rd comment | 29 replies
In reply to:

hypo: Does any else remember the days when we used to dream of being able to afford a Leica - the camera used by the great photographers that we'd like to be? And now: it's nothing more than a bling accessory to be ostentatiously worn alondside your Rolex, your Farrari, your Prada, your Dolce and Cabbana. Still, if an Aston Martin DB7 is still beyond my reach, perhaps the Leica is just about afordable. But I think I'll wait until the Leica has built in machine guns and a rocket-launched ejector seat.

It's not about camera brand itself. It's not about great photographers. You either up to raw shooting style or not. It's about m-series and the film media too. Yes, many nowdays are not.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2021 at 09:17 UTC
On article Hands-on with the new Fujifilm XF33mm F1.4 R LM WR (116 comments in total)
In reply to:

IIIV: So, the Fuji 23mm F1.4 is larger, heavier, and more expensive than Sony's FE 35mm F1.8?

No thanks.

I was on the fence between Fuji and Sony A7C and know what? Both sux. Sony has totally unusable wheels and buttons. Fuji has junk sensor. (Yes, I've tested cameras and yes, I know that commercial says different.) Size is equal. Fuji makes big cameras for it's sensor size. Leica FF is the same size. And no, I don't like bells and whistle of Fuji. As they also lack traditional manual focus features as in Leica.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2021 at 07:22 UTC
In reply to:

biggercountry: Speaking from previous experience, there's something liberating about having a discontinued camera. There's no second-guessing, wondering if the new camera I bought is actually up to the task of doing what I think it should be able to do. Using an older camera makes it easier to accept limitations, which are inherent to any photographic tool. (That is, until we can capture light, store it, and reproduce it in a format that is indistinguishable from reality to our brains.)

In fact, I'd say working with limitations is more fun than trying to find the tool that has the least limitations. Which flies in the face of everything this site is predicated on, I know... but yeah. Food for thought.

Same here. Film, manual focus and no colours keeps you close to the essence. Sold my D750 with no regrets.

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2021 at 04:16 UTC
In reply to:

LJ - Eljot: There is also ADOX CMS 20 wich can be used at 5 ISO:

https://www.adox.de/Photo/films/cms20ii-en/

Wich is very sharp. (they claim to be the sharpest; up to 800 l /mm)

@Rob Tupper oh yeh? then why don't you show some samples?

"I’ve used Adox for many years. " - Adox is a company name, not a film name. There are Adox CMS II and Adox CHS II. Maybe you don't know what you have used.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2021 at 09:13 UTC
In reply to:

LJ - Eljot: There is also ADOX CMS 20 wich can be used at 5 ISO:

https://www.adox.de/Photo/films/cms20ii-en/

Wich is very sharp. (they claim to be the sharpest; up to 800 l /mm)

@Old Cameras there is no bases for such judgement. These samples are just not enough.

Link | Posted on Aug 25, 2021 at 09:09 UTC
On article Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3 DG DN Sport sample gallery (65 comments in total)
In reply to:

dgumshu: That is one of the worst Sample Galleries I’ve seen. I can’t believe someone actually posted those beginner newbie type images.

@dgumshu you are right, but it can't be helped. Dpreview's photos are always very weak (snapshots). As I understood the site grew as a hobby project of some IT engineers. Pointless to discuss quality of images. Also most of visitors are happy as it is. This is the result of photography for everyone. Average level went down.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2021 at 12:37 UTC
In reply to:

LakeSuperior1: I'm a big fan of Voigtlander lenses. I don't think a lot of folks understand why some of us like lenses such as this. For me, these bring me back to when I started out in photography. Manual everything lenses help keep you in control of the image from the beginning. Using an AF in manual isn't the same. As some have pointed out, you can create the "look" this lens will provide with post processing. But for a lot of us photographers re-creating everything in post just isn't the same. I'll admit, the price is a tough one. But having used many Voigtlander lenses I have a feeling it is well justified. Their lenses have a quality that much more expensive name brand lenses just don't reach. The sharpness & color that my Voigtlander lenses provide is like nothing else. This lens is certainly not for everyone. But for those of us who enjoy a solid, precise, manual & optically amazing lenses this is good news.

Totally with you on this. Though I hadn't previous experience like yours, this kind of lenses won me over the time and I've sold my modern DSLR setup.

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2021 at 12:16 UTC
In reply to:

Senior Software Developer: The image gallery much better than I was expecting to be. I guess some people learn how to find potentially interesting shots better than I could.

That's logical considering your nickname.

Link | Posted on Aug 16, 2021 at 05:07 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Note that 120 film tends to have flatness issues worse than 135 film. The result is that resolution typically isn't much better, but tonality is smoother (lower noise, greater dynamic range) because more film area is recording each unit of resolution. Cut sheet film tends to be fairly flat and the lenses are relatively slow, so depth-of-focus still gives lots of detail on the film... but the large volume between the lens and film often causes a drop in contrast due to light bouncing around.

It's also worth noting that "shutter shock" on modern digital cameras is nothing compared to the wallop packed by a 4x5 focal-plane shutter -- as found in the Speed Graphic. Thus, you might be better off with 4x5 press/view camera that uses the leaf shutter in the lens, for which there are many good choices: Crown Graphic, Burke & James, Busch Pressman, etc.

Also be warned that some medium-format sheet film cameras are less desirable and hard to distinguish from 4x5 in online ads.

@ProfHankD "Well, conveniently..." - yes, but haven't look at it yet:) They may compare apples to oranges as well.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2021 at 04:57 UTC
In reply to:

ProfHankD: Note that 120 film tends to have flatness issues worse than 135 film. The result is that resolution typically isn't much better, but tonality is smoother (lower noise, greater dynamic range) because more film area is recording each unit of resolution. Cut sheet film tends to be fairly flat and the lenses are relatively slow, so depth-of-focus still gives lots of detail on the film... but the large volume between the lens and film often causes a drop in contrast due to light bouncing around.

It's also worth noting that "shutter shock" on modern digital cameras is nothing compared to the wallop packed by a 4x5 focal-plane shutter -- as found in the Speed Graphic. Thus, you might be better off with 4x5 press/view camera that uses the leaf shutter in the lens, for which there are many good choices: Crown Graphic, Burke & James, Busch Pressman, etc.

Also be warned that some medium-format sheet film cameras are less desirable and hard to distinguish from 4x5 in online ads.

@ProfHankD "Pixel quality varies with area per FINAL RENDERED pixel (not really area per sensor pixel). Thus, targeting the same total pixel count for the final image is exactly the right comparison, and that's what COMP does. " - No-no-no. Back to the topic. We started talking about medium format, right? The reason we look at sony cameras just because we don't have the same generation of sensors from the same manufacture in 35mm and medium format. But if there were, it means roughly the same number of pixel on both, MF would be just bigger. No we need to compare 1:1 pixels.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2021 at 04:55 UTC
Total: 373, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »