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: 141 – 160
« First‹ Previous6789Next ›Last »

While I can understand the negative comments with some users in regards to digital today. In 2000, there was still a huge film user base, and this would have been viewed as a novel, "endless film" toy and seen some sales. I would have loved to try this out and keep the T90, T70 and FTBn going. I have a lot of FD glass that could use some new life, and would most likely get one just for that reason.

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2013 at 18:48 UTC as 60th comment | 2 replies
On article Gorgeous color photos of America in the 1930's and 40's (109 comments in total)
In reply to:

clicstudio: Gorgeous and amazing photos! They almost look recent.
Makes u realize the "real" photographers were those, 70 to 80 years ago, who shot manual and film and without an LCD screen to help and no photoshop.
I really admire them and the glimpse of Americana their photos show. Color makes the whole difference.
Thanx for sharing!

I, for one, use both formats, and my old employer rightly decided on digital for reasons of convenience and cost. Film is unforgiving, and certainly requires some thinking and skill for repetitive success. There are so many things that can wrong with film, that winding up with a great shot does earn one some pride, and respect.

However, you really can't judge a person so harshly for not having an experience with film. To them, it's the "old and obsolete" format, and frankly digital is quite good these days. My first pro digital camera was a 1Ds mk 1. Before Adobe had tools like camera raw and LR to deal with it. With film you could slow down and take your time. Not with digital. I worked like a dog shooting several sets a day, because I could. Instant gratification also meant same or next day turn around. The entire experience was of mixed emotions. I nearly burned out in the first year.

I feel blessed to live in age to have experienced both.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2013 at 04:07 UTC
On article Gorgeous color photos of America in the 1930's and 40's (109 comments in total)

I remember at my day job as a Staff photographer, finding some old boxes of early product shots done on Kodachrome by my predecessor. He primarily used sheet film, shot through large format Cambo's. Which we sold in favor of digital for it's speed and cost savings. Coming from a film background, and occasionally shoot MF negative in Portra. I could understand the extra time and effort it took for him to achieve some wonderful results. Though outdated product, the images had a life and depth to them. However, it was no match to appease the impatient generation of quick, instant and easy.

Film takes work, and especially in the early days, with only rudimentary meters, was like flying without instruments. I'm certain those great shots were more skill than chance.

When I do shoot film. I still catch myself "gimping" (looking for the preview of the shot) only to see the box tag, clipped to the back of the camera to remind me what film was inside it. :)

Link | Posted on Aug 18, 2013 at 17:22 UTC as 34th comment
In reply to:

Ferling: Soooo, taken at face value, I guess the moral of the story is don't rent 70-200mm lenses from Lensrentals? :)

I have a few 70-200's and some much older 80-200's and even a sun 80-240 (built like a tank). I use them often, even accidentally dropped a 70-200 f4 a few times (and it still works fine). Hazards of the job.

If I were to fathom a guess, is that folks don't treat rentals as equally as they would treat one of their own, purchased with hard earned cash? I generally reserve my vintage lenses for harmful and wet use, (No electronics to short out and can withstand constant dis-assembly and a hair dryer). My EF and Simga's 70-200 are handled gently, always capped and shot with a regards towards wear and tear. Etc.

So while my first comment might seem a bit comical, there is a real issue to consider when renting lenses for critical (aka paid) applications.

@ Tkbslc. As an engineer whom understand statistics, I agree. I'm referring the larger sample size of lensrentals user base. However, you don't statics for issues dealing with common sense that if you take care of something built to last. It will.

@Tonio I have lenses that have been constantly used for over 25 years. Where a 70-200 something always accompanies EVERY shoot I take (that range replaces the need for a lot of other glass).

I used to rent a lot of gear in the past, and grew tired of dealing with the faults and mishaps extolled by others. While it might seem unrelated, I had two rental video camera's fail on me during a corporate training shoot. One ate the tape and jammed, and the other had a power issue. On the surface it seemed like a $500 loss, but in reality, when we added up the salaries (including the CEO and his execs), and other associated costs of having to reschedule a shoot? $20,000.

We purchased new gear, most of which has lasted over ten years.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2013 at 21:25 UTC

Soooo, taken at face value, I guess the moral of the story is don't rent 70-200mm lenses from Lensrentals? :)

I have a few 70-200's and some much older 80-200's and even a sun 80-240 (built like a tank). I use them often, even accidentally dropped a 70-200 f4 a few times (and it still works fine). Hazards of the job.

If I were to fathom a guess, is that folks don't treat rentals as equally as they would treat one of their own, purchased with hard earned cash? I generally reserve my vintage lenses for harmful and wet use, (No electronics to short out and can withstand constant dis-assembly and a hair dryer). My EF and Simga's 70-200 are handled gently, always capped and shot with a regards towards wear and tear. Etc.

So while my first comment might seem a bit comical, there is a real issue to consider when renting lenses for critical (aka paid) applications.

Link | Posted on Aug 13, 2013 at 16:57 UTC as 46th comment | 4 replies

Half the fun of using these old lenses is in the fact that they are both original and old. Zenit also brought back the Helios 40 85mm f1.5. However they are essentially the same build and coatings of the originals built prior to '92. That said, with these new Petzvals having their optics modified to work with smaller formats essentially makes them different from the originals, correct?

I've bought a good deal of cheap vintage lenses on eBay, and from the junk I have about 30 unique pieces worthy in their own right, (and writing a few reviews of my own findings). My personal favorite is a 135mm f4 Carl Zeiss Jena Triotar, built in 1950. A simple triplet design in an aluminum tube. With proper handling (which makes using fun), it produces exceptional images.

Again. Having something 'original', even though it costs me $27, is a value that cannot be replaced by reproduction.

My guess is that some are betting on a limited production run to create something of a rare toy.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2013 at 17:25 UTC as 6th comment
On article OMG Life Autographer Quick Review (122 comments in total)

Simple question: Would you feel comfortable around folks wearing these?

Thought so.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2013 at 16:43 UTC as 66th comment | 1 reply

Well. While I can understand why it should be called the iDiot Instant Printer. It's a toy that will appeal the likes of many. Remember, that there are lots of folks out there whom are completely clueless when it comes to computers. I have friends whom are pros, and still call me about basic issues with their PC's. They would rather get this then deal with the internal workings of their phones. You need to understand that lazy people seeking obvious convenience is what keeps engineers working into the wee hours of the night.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2013 at 00:49 UTC as 13th comment
On article 5 Reasons why I haven't used my DSLR for months (593 comments in total)

Horses for courses. It's perfectly feasible for someone getting out the business to shed some pounds in the gear department. We all gravitate to the tools that meet our expectations and do the job. However, this is nothing new. Even my five year old LX3 and ten year old Canon G5 produce remarkable images for casual use. You accept their shortcomings in speed and features in lieu of convenience.

However, there's nothing wrong if you're the type whom worries and must have 3 lenses and two bodies to cover all possible encounters on an outing. Whatever makes it enjoyable to you. We all share a common interest.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2013 at 00:33 UTC as 168th comment

I paid only half for the price of a "Z" by going for an "L". So.. how much is an "H" vs an "S"?

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2013 at 04:03 UTC as 141st comment

The irony. To consider that because the Rhein II is the most expensive print ever sold, the sale actually makes it something of value to others whom might like to have that "trophy" on their wall for their own bragging rights.

The price can only go up. :)

Link | Posted on Jul 23, 2013 at 03:54 UTC as 60th comment
On article Can Photojournalism Survive in the Instagram Era? (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

Ferling: First. What do we expect from folks in charge whom have no idea of the consequences of their decisions? Yes. An iPhone is a very capable device. I have nothing against folks using them. Even my cheap Samsung takes a few nice snaps. However, I like buttons that give me instant adjustments to a given situation, and a form factor based on decades of evolution. How many good shots have we missed because some dope was thumbing through a menu to punch up a setting? Of course, the camera is just a tool. What matters is whose doing the shooting. Great. Then answer this: Whom brings a knife to a gun fight?

Second. Let's train those folks on how to use their iPhones (knives) better. Like the say goes: The more you polish a turd.

Experienced pros can make settings faster than you can browse a menu, mostly without even taking their eye off the subject.

Life doesn't happen on cue. DSLRs are much quicker than someone having to press the phones wake button, sliding the screen, and finally pressing the camera button and wait for it take the shot. Your focus is thus drawn to the device instead of what's happening in front of it. By that time, I've captured the moment and off to the next scene. It's utter nonsense.

You're comment "good enough" is proof as to the lack of interest in quality today. I happen to care about that. You can get both quality and the right moment with the right tool.

Leaving the camera at home because it's heavy is lame. We're talking about professionals on the job.

What folks with iPhones don't get is that these organizations know great captures come from iPhones, but they don't care from WHO. They just know that one of you will have the shot they need. That's a gamble.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2013 at 20:31 UTC
On article Can Photojournalism Survive in the Instagram Era? (84 comments in total)

First. What do we expect from folks in charge whom have no idea of the consequences of their decisions? Yes. An iPhone is a very capable device. I have nothing against folks using them. Even my cheap Samsung takes a few nice snaps. However, I like buttons that give me instant adjustments to a given situation, and a form factor based on decades of evolution. How many good shots have we missed because some dope was thumbing through a menu to punch up a setting? Of course, the camera is just a tool. What matters is whose doing the shooting. Great. Then answer this: Whom brings a knife to a gun fight?

Second. Let's train those folks on how to use their iPhones (knives) better. Like the say goes: The more you polish a turd.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2013 at 06:23 UTC as 31st comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

Ferling: Interesting. So it's a live mid-tone contrast boost or (for those of you familiar with LR3), a 'Fill' light tool. Nice.

Update. Further reading suggests users having issues with heavy color moire and stair-stepping on edges and highlights in stills. It would depend on your subject matter and the kinds of output that would negate that. Journalistic with no flash, and maybe weddings might benefit, (would have to test and examine some prints to know for sure regarding weddings and commercial use). Gonna wait this out, and might play with it when the warranty expires on one of my bodies.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2013 at 16:54 UTC

Interesting. So it's a live mid-tone contrast boost or (for those of you familiar with LR3), a 'Fill' light tool. Nice.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2013 at 16:25 UTC as 11th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

yabokkie: maybe +4 stops dynamic range from 70D at no cost of resolution,
but at the cost of near 1 stop worth of SNR ?

Noise is not so apparent if you expose to the right and the entire scene is evenly lit, (I have a good number of wedding shots to back it up). Those extra stops would mean I could use f4 (more folks in focus), or an increase in shutter speed (especially on at 300mm) to stop more motion.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2013 at 16:18 UTC
On article 50 lessons learned about mobile photography (74 comments in total)

#31 "Respect" is spot on, (and I shoot with bigger tools).

When shooting weddings, and I'm up front and center during the processional, I always get a kick out of the sea of mobile tools pointing at me and the party. Then I'm escorted to my designated playpen on the balcony, in the far corner with a 300mm lens for the remainder of the ceremony. While everyone else is happily snapping up 10MP stills and HD video.

Which leads us to my version of rule #51: Wedding House rules only apply to the one not using mobile.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2013 at 04:54 UTC as 30th comment

First. Real statistical evidence aside, you can Google any amount of bias you want to support an assumption that a particular product will or will not be a worthy purchase.

Second. A real story with a real name goes a long ways. Reviews without the weight of an experience by a user not willing to post his or her real name are suspect. It's also easy for anon persons to soundboard others.

Third. There will always be a few lemons that get past QC, so it's just as important to consider how the company handled and catered to the customer in response as part of the review process.

Fourth. Do your homework. Don't be lazy. It's your money. Like painting a picture with a mixture of different pigments, so must you research different resources to get a better grasp. In finding a particular interesting review, I always check out if that particular poster has posted before, to get an idea of their personality and what they do that qualifies them as someone of trust.

-Keep shooting

Link | Posted on Jul 16, 2013 at 18:04 UTC as 29th comment
Total: 161, showing: 141 – 160
« First‹ Previous6789Next ›Last »