Muskokaphotog

Joined on Sep 5, 2011

Comments

Total: 13, showing: 1 – 13

Just a quick note about the sample pictures. They are particularly uninspired. A flag pole? A cat with dead on flash? BTW, notice what look like major dust blobs. I've found dust to be a problem with mine.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2017 at 18:47 UTC as 11th comment

One issue this site and some posters completely miss. If you are a soon to be married bride, are you going to search for photos of another wedding for your album? There is a big difference between gathering incidental great shots from millions of people vs. photographing on command and getting good results every time. That's the difference between a professional and a casual photographer... producing a good result every time. It isn't ok to redo it, to come back another day or to just hope. When your performance matters, hire a professional and be prepared to pay. Unless of course you give every guest a camera too and just hope you'll get what you want. What a mess.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2017 at 12:44 UTC as 32nd comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

DMillier: Question for pro who think this service is a bad thing:

My reading of the piece is that Cho's argument is that Unsplash does not threaten pro photography because it is not supplying pictures to clients who otherwise would have paid you. Instead it supplying students or corporate employees doing their weekly team meetings who need something to illustrate a powerpoint presentation.
These are people with zero budget who are not in a position to and never would pay anyone for an image. They'd likely use their own image, steal something off the internet or simply go without. Unsplash provides them with a service to make their presentations marginally more interesting but the extra value is very low so needs to be free or it simply wouldn't be done.

On the surface, that sounds like they are meeting a demand that is entirely parallel to the revenue streams of pro photogs.

What do you think of that argument?

The photograph is now pop music. There are so many ways to "create" an image. It doesn't matter anymore. There is no point to photographing anything scenic or during a trip except family members because thousands of people have been there already and thousands of images exist. But there is a big difference between gathering and filtering thousands of images from millions of people and taking wedding photographs and getting good results every time, on command.

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2017 at 12:40 UTC

If you as a photographer (I'm beginning to hate that word) are just beginning, you have nothing to lose. As a hobbyist with another job, why not? This kind of site equalizes established pro with everyone else. It's the karaoke of photography. Nothing new. Harness millions of people to solve a single problem. What it does do, is devalue every image to just an image. The artifact value of a printed photograph no longer exists for anything newly created. What isn't answered in this article is how Cho is making money from this? Also, what are the "rules". If I capture an image at an event or hard news, I may give permission for the use of the image, but what about the people, owners of property, etc? This could be real fun! Imagine, you're a new winery, photograph bottles of your wine artfully and post them up! Free advertising. But what if you're a well known brand? But like Atarco says, nobody does anything for free! Is this his solution to avoid to paying for an image?

Link | Posted on Aug 5, 2017 at 12:33 UTC as 33rd comment | 1 reply
On article Leica SL gallery update (220 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jaythomasni: Leica Adopted Minolta... nice

You are both correct. Leica adopted the Minolta XD-11 as the basis for its R4 and the R3 was based on the Minolta XE-7. The Leicas used the Minolta metering and the vertical metal focal plane shutter. Even many of the zoom lenses were made in Japan by Minolta. The 35 - 70 2.8 is among the sharpest zooms. I have them all, Leica and Minolta versions. Minolta lenses, unlike Nikon, were less contrasty, better colour and just as sharp. Nikon lenses were characteristically overly contrasty to my tastes.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2017 at 04:25 UTC
On article Leica SL gallery update (220 comments in total)
In reply to:

Muskokaphotog: The SL might be a nice camera, but the Sony evf mirror less R is also very good with inexpensive adapters readily available. I have used the Rokkor 35-70, Leica R Sumicron and even Retina lenses on mine. Photography is about the image not the brand in the hand.

I briefly played with the bigger Leica, outfitted with a 50mm 1.4. The EVF was spectacular and I have no doubt the 50 would be too. No way I'd take that kit with me on a documentary excursion or in the "field". That 50mm was bigger than my Hasselblad lenses. It also depends hugely on what the final output will be (print, projection, etc.). I'm sure your Leica will take great pics for you. Each is a tool for an intended purpose. How many photo journalists run with three or four Leica around their necks? BTW, I used to shoot a lot of 6 x 6 and 6 x 9 format (Hassy, Linhof, Graflex, etc.). I don't think much of modern glass. Certainly the Canon and Nikon lenses fall far short of where they should be. Especially given the outrageous prices. No doubt the Sony zoom is crap. Even the Zeiss 35 I tested was a joke. My point is, I think choice "vintage" glass on the Sony can do exceptionally well. "Ordinary photographs?" My old mechanical Hassy has the best meter in the business. My brain.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2017 at 04:10 UTC

Planned obsolescence has been around for a long time. The first Leica SLR metering was not through the lens. The next model was and so on. Only a few cameras like the 500 c series have truly withstood time. I believe all current digital cameras will be obsolete in 3 to 5 years max. Print options have not really improved enough for it to matter. Nor will newer cameras create any better photographers.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2017 at 11:33 UTC as 9th comment | 9 replies
On article Hasselblad X1D-50c First Impressions Review (316 comments in total)

The reality is, most prosumer and better cameras produce an image that is satisfying. With a few simple techniques and software, it is easy to compensate for just about any aberration. In m opinion, it would be better to spend the extra thousands on travel and experience than on fussing about what is hanging around my neck. A Nikon D810 with any of the perspective control lenses and you're set for landscapes. Another observation, I think some of the old Planars, Apolanthars and ApoSymmars were and are damn good lenses. Have they been superseded? There is and never will be a replacement for a platinum palladium print from one of those lenses. Actually, I like my Summicron 90 f. 2.0 too.

Link | Posted on Apr 7, 2017 at 00:48 UTC as 11th comment
On article Leica SL gallery update (220 comments in total)

The SL might be a nice camera, but the Sony evf mirror less R is also very good with inexpensive adapters readily available. I have used the Rokkor 35-70, Leica R Sumicron and even Retina lenses on mine. Photography is about the image not the brand in the hand.

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2017 at 17:11 UTC as 10th comment | 2 replies

This should be much better than a wet or gloved thumb. What about device security at borders? Has anyone ever had the contents of their phone or camera card inspected by border paroles?

Link | Posted on Feb 18, 2017 at 16:57 UTC as 35th comment

I'm not sure what "real world" means? Does it mean: situations where there is no benchmark of comparison? Is the stadium roof so badly out of square or is it the lens distortion? The 1.8 sounds very impressive. They must be very bright viewing. I don't think the speed is as important as it once was with ISO ratings approaching the stratosphere. One thing for sure, lens quality has not kept up with the capabilities of the bodies. It is nice to see an effort toward improving quality. Almost reminds me of the Summicron, Planar.

Link | Posted on Jan 27, 2016 at 01:23 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Nikon's New D5 and D500 Push the Boundaries of DSLR (719 comments in total)

The new Nikons are unquestionably great cameras. Apart from "professionals", who uses anyone of these cameras enough to justify spending the extra $? The other issue is the lenses. I have been using cameras and lenses for over 40 years and I think lens quality has actually regressed at the professional end. Sure we have better AF, but most lenses now need serious computer rejigging to compensate for distortions and other aberrations. When will Nikon create a standard lens with the corner to corner sharpness and a distortion free horizon?

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2016 at 11:58 UTC as 21st comment | 2 replies
On article Nikon D4 overview (839 comments in total)

I'm surprised no one commented on the fact the D4 requires a new kind of battery. Besides that, it took Nikon long enough! Anyone with a D3, who tried out a D7000 would find a lot to like about this smaller, lighter body with better low light. I hope the D4 is even better. I am also surprised the D4 stuck with CF cards. Most computers come with slots for SD cards now. I'll wait a bit, when the price comes down. I sold my D3 and D3x in anticipation.

Link | Posted on Jan 14, 2012 at 19:11 UTC as 49th comment | 8 replies
Total: 13, showing: 1 – 13