Ferling

Ferling

Lives in United States Wherever I need to go, United States
Works as a Whatever I need to shoot
Has a website at http://ferling.net
Joined on Jun 12, 2008
About me:

Been shooting for 30 years. Everything from MF to whatever fits in the hand, (including video). Ran an in-house commercial studio for 12 years. I currently do limited freelance work, (choosing those assignments that don't involve cheapskates). I prefer DSLRs, shoot MF film on occasion, and don't mind compacts. I don't care what you shoot with, so long as you have appreciation for shooting.

Comments

Total: 161, showing: 101 – 120
« First‹ Previous45678Next ›Last »
On article Weye Feye connects your DSLR and smartphone (42 comments in total)

Very interesting. A cheaper alternative vs. dedicated OEM solutions, yet works across several models and @ 1/2 the price. Be interesting to see how end user production units work when they hit the wild.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2013 at 20:10 UTC as 28th comment
In reply to:

Stollen1234: so you think we might see weddig photographer using the new iphone as their backup or even as their main camera because of the brilliant apple invention?

i am not..but sure there are many might really do it

When shooting weddings, I always muse at the sea of iPhones and iPads used by those in attendance, while I'm corralled to a balcony, shooting at 300mm, f2.8 and iso1600 on a tripod with a no-flash policy. You would think that those folks below have all the advantage, until posting to FB reveals an ugly truth.

The point is, even if I could use an iPhone professionally, it would'nt work well in 50% of what I do, and for the other 50%, I'd still need about $5000 in lighting and gear to support the final image, anyway. Nuts.

Link | Posted on Sep 11, 2013 at 19:51 UTC
On article Olympus OM-D E-M1 Review (2074 comments in total)
In reply to:

sdribetahi: Does just adding two wheels and customization buttons make a camera 'pro'? It still doesn't give you the option of shallow DOF, or AF of FAST moving objects. Anyone can add buttons to a p&s as well. Doesn't make it pro.

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away. There were pro cameras that had none of that. Then again, being regarded as a "pro" back then was a whole different meaning, as you really had to know what you were doing, flying in the dark without instruments.

Today, I'm very happy to have those buttons and dials on my camera's to make my job easier. Nothing wrong with "easier" even for the likes of me, correct?

Regarding shallow DOF, artistic fun, but for the most part, I need to incorporate the surroundings to fit the subject too! Then again, I like 2.8 not for DOF, but to have fast shutters speeds to stop motion without over doing the ISO in a dim lit place. Otherwise, I'm all over f5.6 and up, especially with two players and a ball, and it would be nice if all three were in sharp focus. Most of what I do still finds it's way onto a print, and too shallow of a DOF can be a ugly monster for that.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2013 at 18:52 UTC
In reply to:

gbarclay: Unless your smartphone can display negative gray scale images this device will not work.

"I left out an important word: I was looking for high-resolution digital enlargers for home use."

Gottcha.

I still shoot film, and only one lab remains that can do MF locally. For 35mm, I passed on used scanners from eBay (and their issues), and just use a DSLR with Macro on a copy stand. I also use a light table that I ripped out of my old slide storage station for the color corrected light tubes within it.

I then mount the negs into a holder from an Epson scanner (to keep them flat), and shoot through a dark tube against the light. I also use a simple glass plate, dropped over the neg, if I want to capture the film edges for nostalgic reasons.

I capture via Canons EOS utility, and batch reverse the curves in PS, saving out to new files as tiffs back into an LR watch folder. The whole process is actually quicker than traditional scanners.

If the authors don't mind. Here's an example: http://photos.ferling.net/filmout/h784e3f99#h784e3f99

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2013 at 21:48 UTC
On article 6 things iPhone photographers want from Apple (66 comments in total)
In reply to:

DenWil: "iPhone Photographers" as a group should get over themselves and actually buy functional adjustable cameras. Phone cameras are a convenience for spur of the moment needs. They were never and should not be expected to supplant a 2.8 L lens on a DSLR with a FF 24MP sensor. 2.0 on a piece of glass 3mm across is not my idea of mechanical excellence. The obsession over this is comedy.

"Do you carry your DSLR everywhere? I doubt it. If you do, you're very odd."

Not as odd as someone whom asks a wrench to do the work of a hammer?

Since you're going through the all the same motions of purposely taking a decent photo, and if you actually care about IQ, speed and all the other little things a more proper tool will provide (ahem, a DSLR), then maybe the likes of DenWil might actually be onto something. You think? Just saying.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2013 at 21:06 UTC
In reply to:

gbarclay: Unless your smartphone can display negative gray scale images this device will not work.

"I wonder why we haven't seen truly high-resolution enlargers for home use. Or do they exist?"

Large sensor DSLR with macro lens on a copy stand?

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2013 at 01:22 UTC

Hmmm. Why not just mount a DSLR with a macro lens to a copy stand, shoot the negs through a dark tube against a light table, then reverse the curve in your editor of choice?

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2013 at 01:13 UTC as 28th comment

I had a WasteBook account while it was fun, and I've deleted the commercial stuff a long time ago. I also stopped posting my work out of respect for some friends/clients whom didn't want their photos, or private lives shared outside their family, etc. Email, a phone call and a secure Zenfolio gallery does wonders.

If you do have FB account, and swear it's a lifeline to leads and clients who provide you income that meets or exceeds your cost of doing business, (and not those whom try to take advantage of your "friends" status). Here are some things you can do:

1. Replace your profile pic with an avatar or something other than your face, to prevent it from winding up in something embarrassing to your reputation.
2. Post small images with fat watermarks and links to a protected gallery.
3. Be careful what you say by being your own PR rep.
4. Opt out of everything, kill the apps, and make sure that your settings for tagging and posting on your wall, require your approval, first.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2013 at 20:06 UTC as 33rd comment
In reply to:

Alpha Whiskey Photography: My food looks more appetising and is certainly healthier than this.

http://alphawhiskey.slickpic.com/photoblog/post/FoodPhotography

@ Alpha. You're culinary work is colorful, vibrant and drawing the viewers attention to what matters in a very appealing way. A little more bright than most, but it works in a positive way. I like it.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2013 at 18:39 UTC
In reply to:

Ferling: You can't really blame the younger crowd. Not having any real influence with using filters, for wanted to do everything in post.

I agree with others that ND's, Grads and Haze filters (including UV's to protect lenses), those that directly improve the IQ to create the cleanest, error free image as a baseline, (from which to effect PP) is the best approach today.

I like the old plastic boxes. Much easier to organize/stack in a drawer in my rigging cart, (which is a Stanley FatMax 4 in 1). Clearly marked on the edge with a sharpie. SlidePacks might require some folder tabs for those frequent users.

I occasionally use a Soft filter (though I prefer the Schneider with it's micro lens lets) as a time saver when shooting several portraits to limit my needs in PP. I also like to use them for video, the square lenses are big enough for standard matte boxes.

It's tough to justify the price of new with all the glass being offloaded in Yard Sales, swap meets and eBay.

@Kodachrome200. I come from film, and when Photoshop was a toy project, (called "Display"), between two brothers, and filters were needed for all kinds of corrections. I still shoot film, but I only kept the few that made a difference for digital and as toys for effects. I also made mention of buying them cheap on eBay, etc.

I will tell you that a nice Soft FX, properly done, will kill a lot of post processing needs. A starlight will do wonders on gems when the client wants those enhanced catch lights and sparkles, etc. So, just because I use Photoshop, doesn't mean that I always have to if I can do things right during the shoot, (which translates into less billable time).

I speak from actual use and experience, and you're gonna have a hard time to convince me that I'm wrong.

Link | Posted on Sep 8, 2013 at 18:16 UTC

You can't really blame the younger crowd. Not having any real influence with using filters, for wanted to do everything in post.

I agree with others that ND's, Grads and Haze filters (including UV's to protect lenses), those that directly improve the IQ to create the cleanest, error free image as a baseline, (from which to effect PP) is the best approach today.

I like the old plastic boxes. Much easier to organize/stack in a drawer in my rigging cart, (which is a Stanley FatMax 4 in 1). Clearly marked on the edge with a sharpie. SlidePacks might require some folder tabs for those frequent users.

I occasionally use a Soft filter (though I prefer the Schneider with it's micro lens lets) as a time saver when shooting several portraits to limit my needs in PP. I also like to use them for video, the square lenses are big enough for standard matte boxes.

It's tough to justify the price of new with all the glass being offloaded in Yard Sales, swap meets and eBay.

Link | Posted on Sep 7, 2013 at 20:10 UTC as 11th comment | 3 replies

There was a time when doing simple tasks, by today's standards, required machines and tools that were incredibly expensive. Avid, EMS CAD and Video Toaster workstations, for instance. These were software with the hardware attached. You essentially went through hoops to justify the cost, then used them until they ran into the ground, many of them lasting over a decade. You learned to upgrade only when justifiable and absolutely necessary.

When computers became cheap and capable, the software only model seemed compelling and also cheap. Buying only as needed and with significant gains in performance and core features.

What about the next ten years? Have we reached a time of diminishing returns? Why should an outright perpetual pay business model be so appealing and justifiable? Have we now traded measurable gains just for a privilege to use? How can an incentive to invent exist in a welfare scheme? It's a fair question to ask before spending another nickel. Don't you think?

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2013 at 05:42 UTC as 170th comment
In reply to:

yabokkie: basically black-and-white photos are those that were not composed well.

@ YaBLAHkie. I've been shooting black and white since Navy Photo-school in '83. I never knew in all my 30 years of shooting that Black and White was an inferior format.

All kidding aside. I happened to check out your stats, and you have over 2000 postings and only 2 likes. You are one messed up puppy.

I got you flagged. Got get some help, son.

Link | Posted on Sep 2, 2013 at 07:00 UTC
In reply to:

Ferling: "slow camera app start-up"
"long shot to shot times"

Ah, the little things that still make folks angry in the crowd when they miss the shot of their kid at a compelling moment, etc. How many times I've earned a little business by jumping in with a DSLR to save the day and exchange an email address.

Please don't take me wrong. Trust me, I don't doubt it's getting better, but we've become a photo addicted lot and get upset when we expect to use a wrench for a hammer. "Close" is still not fast enough for most moments.

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2013 at 21:21 UTC
Total: 161, showing: 101 – 120
« First‹ Previous45678Next ›Last »