lbjack

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Aug 26, 2008

Comments

Total: 62, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Daryl Cheshire: Maybe I missed something but would it make sense to comment on how it takes JPGs?
If you shoot raw, you bypass some of the processing and you do it yourself in post.
I'd like to know how it handles pictures that have been processed by the camera.
If you post process it, wouldn't that showcase your photohop skills rather than how they came out of the camera? I know some of the photos came with a post processing disclaimer.

Daryl, ignore the arrogant prig; you make a valid point. Whether using RAW or in-camera JPEG, you end up with the same thing, because these days print photography has followed the decline of print publishing (and the need for huge TIFF files), and display imagery predominantly digital. Even billboards are coming around! So, a RAW image will most likely end up as a JPEG, for digital display. Now, since the RAW-to-JPEG will end up the way you want it, because you've done the pp. But will the difference be meaningful beyond pixel peeping? Not for time-constrained professionals. Try Fujifilm X100F JPEGs, which are phenomenal.

RAW will tell you how good the sensor and optics and (as you say) the pp are, while out-of-camera JPEG will tell you how good the software and optics are, i.e. the closer an out-of-camera JPEG is to a RAW-to-JPEG with pp, the better the camera. So, yes, a $10,000 camera w/o video sure as hell had better produce phenomenal out-of-camera JPEGS!

Link | Posted on May 29, 2017 at 22:51 UTC
On article Apple unveils iPhone 7 and dual-cam iPhone 7 Plus (905 comments in total)

While arguing the finer points, everybody seems to be missing the only point that matters. The best camera is the one you have and its corollary, "Get the shot." Virtually nobody besides the dedicated photographer niche carries around a phone and camera. They carry around phones that take photos/vids.

Another reality ignored here: For the general public print is virtually dead. The quality required for an image need not be beyond the capacity of the display, and 12Mp DNGs and 4K more than fill the bill.

The iPhone 7 will take beautiful photos/vids for the the medium they are aimed at. All dedicated consumer cameras are on the way to extinction, and the iPhone 7 and their competitors are accelerating the process. That's the reality. Deal with it.

Link | Posted on Sep 9, 2016 at 00:07 UTC as 52nd comment | 6 replies
On article Go big: Leica SL studio and real-world sample gallery (112 comments in total)

They're showcasing the inimitable Leica reds. Other than that, meh . . .

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2015 at 21:40 UTC as 22nd comment
On article A lot to Leica? Hands-on with the Leica SL (Typ 601) (1495 comments in total)
In reply to:

GodSpeaks: Well I see the trolls are out in force today. I am also willing to bet that 99+% of the naysayers couldn't afford this camera anyway.

Not to worry folks, it's a Leica, aimed at and for those that can appreciate Leica, and like the opening blurb says, have high credit limits.

Claptrap! It's NOT a Leica. Aside from the ostentatious badge, it has nothing to do with Leica.

I could afford it, but I'd be embarrassed with it. Anyway, the buyer of this thing needs to hire muscle if he doesn't want to get mugged just out of principle.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2015 at 07:01 UTC
On article A lot to Leica? Hands-on with the Leica SL (Typ 601) (1495 comments in total)

This thing reminds me of those outrageously expensive, oversize wristwatches in vogue with power types: shameless ostentation.

I thought Leica's founding principle was discretion. Obviously, it's lost its soul.

Link | Posted on Oct 21, 2015 at 06:42 UTC as 277th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

lbjack: Infantile bashing of new tech: Wul, I don't need no that-there 4K blah blah...just marketing blah blah...

If optical zoom in smartphones is constrained by form factor, then the only alternative is cropping out aka digital zoom, a ripoff unless you get a finer field in the first place, which 4K gives. 4K enables far better crop zooming.

Of course 4K is meaningless on a 5" screen, but who said the phone is the end display? Whine about no 4K content? Well, get off your butts and make some! This phone facilitates it.

Why do you pubescents talk about the phone as the display? The phone is the viewfinder, not the display. It's a camera making content to be curated, then viewed later on a proper 4K display. Bashing as useless 4K based on a thin, 5" camcorder is infantile.

You missed my point. The things you say betray a need for remedial reading.

Link | Posted on Sep 22, 2015 at 07:31 UTC

Infantile bashing of new tech: Wul, I don't need no that-there 4K blah blah...just marketing blah blah...

If optical zoom in smartphones is constrained by form factor, then the only alternative is cropping out aka digital zoom, a ripoff unless you get a finer field in the first place, which 4K gives. 4K enables far better crop zooming.

Of course 4K is meaningless on a 5" screen, but who said the phone is the end display? Whine about no 4K content? Well, get off your butts and make some! This phone facilitates it.

Why do you pubescents talk about the phone as the display? The phone is the viewfinder, not the display. It's a camera making content to be curated, then viewed later on a proper 4K display. Bashing as useless 4K based on a thin, 5" camcorder is infantile.

Link | Posted on Sep 20, 2015 at 07:50 UTC as 8th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

lbjack: Stodgy. C'mon Canon, get with it! We need Sony innovation with your quality.

Precisely my point.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 21:49 UTC

Stodgy. C'mon Canon, get with it! We need Sony innovation with your quality.

Link | Posted on Aug 28, 2015 at 02:45 UTC as 43rd comment | 3 replies
On photo Lake Como, Lombardy, Italy - VSCO and No in the VSCO FILM 04: Slide Films challenge (2 comments in total)

A challenge here that costs money to enter? That's real class.

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2015 at 21:28 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

matthew saville: Oh jeez. Game, you have been changed. Let the nay-saying commence!

I've already shot a huge Hindu wedding with the A7R II and the 35 1.4 FE, and I gotta say it is definitely delivering the goods. I'd switch right now if I had enough money to buy all the right (FE) lenses. (And yes, all the right FE lenses do currently exist, for my shooting style, though not others'...)

Matthew, I was actually supporting your excellent post, the conclusion of which says, " all the right FE lenses do currently exist, for my shooting style, though not others'..."

I'm one of those "others". I'm sure the A7rII is a fabulous camera, but it has it's weaknesses, and action shooting needing long lens AF is one. Astrophotography, using very long exposure times, and extended 4K are other reported limitations.

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2015 at 19:16 UTC
In reply to:

matthew saville: Oh jeez. Game, you have been changed. Let the nay-saying commence!

I've already shot a huge Hindu wedding with the A7R II and the 35 1.4 FE, and I gotta say it is definitely delivering the goods. I'd switch right now if I had enough money to buy all the right (FE) lenses. (And yes, all the right FE lenses do currently exist, for my shooting style, though not others'...)

Always condescending. You've really nothing to be condescending about. I haven't used one? Very few have! I'm making a purchase decision and would just as soon get my information from real users who've bought one, if that's OK with you.

(3) "anything we've written" isn't all there is to write, though you doubtless think it is. The problematic AF in adapted Canon lenses is already documented. That's a problem for action shooters. "Nothing that moves" I cribbed from a review which concludes: "if Sony’s FE lens lineup works for you or you only shoot landscape/slower subjects with your Canon lenses, the A7RII is absolutely worth switching for and fantastic. If you shoot anything that moves, it’s not ready for prime time."

The reviewer has at least as much credibility as you, though you'll doubtless dismiss it.

I don't need long lenses with good AF for Hindu weddings. But I do need them for wildlife and sports, which is "my shooting style".

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2015 at 19:10 UTC
In reply to:

matthew saville: Oh jeez. Game, you have been changed. Let the nay-saying commence!

I've already shot a huge Hindu wedding with the A7R II and the 35 1.4 FE, and I gotta say it is definitely delivering the goods. I'd switch right now if I had enough money to buy all the right (FE) lenses. (And yes, all the right FE lenses do currently exist, for my shooting style, though not others'...)

I, Sir, get it, too.

"For my shooting style" is the thing. That means, for this camera, at this price point, with the current lenses available, nothing that moves.

Link | Posted on Aug 21, 2015 at 04:23 UTC
On article Under the hood: A closer look at the Sony a7R II (593 comments in total)

The complaints about DPR's report from the Sony presentation are infantile. It was said at the outset that this was a Sony event. DRP were there to report what they saw. If you bash your hosts, then you don't get invited back. Maybe the manufacturers need DPR more than DPR need them, but then it's also about manners, a concept lost on paparazzi wannabes.

Link | Posted on Aug 17, 2015 at 18:36 UTC as 99th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

lbjack: The royals-bashers have no understanding of the institution of modern monarchy, and what envious little people don't understand they seek to tear down. Of course it's an appropriate attitude to have in justifying what amounts to child molestation by their peers.

Modern monarchs (which don't include Muslim monarchs) serve at the pleasure of their people, and there are few peoples indeed who are not delighted with their royals. If not UK -- and the majority support the monarchy -- then those benighted peoples of Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, Thailand and Japan.

And the OP to you.

I live in a republic but appreciate the purpose of monarchy for those peoples who choose to have them.

As stated, bashing their subjects is the way paparazzi, such as you presumably, seek to justify their depredations.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2015 at 17:05 UTC
In reply to:

MustyMarie: But some/many of us COULD NOT CARE LESS ABOUT THE ROYAL FAMILY AT ALL !!

A family of twits who would be no-one if not for a name & wealth (inherited and certainly NOT deserved) !!

This is the most asinine of human activity, a given family of land owners, makes them special - how & why & STILL ?

The epitome of arrogance, and some buy into this and almost worship this utter silliness, even in other nations !

If ANY thing, their wealth should be taken and distributed to the poor of the UK, the land used as a park for all those 'commoners', and a law making it a crime to pay homage to the family name and the individuals - forever.

Very repulsive in the current age, or ANY age actually.

Only small & sad minds of individuals pay any importance to this family, sad!

Well, MM, you and your likes should try that shallow, petty rant in most of today's monarchies and be ready for a well-deserved punch in the face, not by the authorities but by the people, who are quite happy with their royals.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2015 at 16:36 UTC

The royals-bashers have no understanding of the institution of modern monarchy, and what envious little people don't understand they seek to tear down. Of course it's an appropriate attitude to have in justifying what amounts to child molestation by their peers.

Modern monarchs (which don't include Muslim monarchs) serve at the pleasure of their people, and there are few peoples indeed who are not delighted with their royals. If not UK -- and the majority support the monarchy -- then those benighted peoples of Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, Spain, Thailand and Japan.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2015 at 16:26 UTC as 58th comment | 4 replies
On article The travel photography of HDR guru Trey Ratcliff (235 comments in total)
In reply to:

Valiant Thor: The HDR (cartoonish) hater photography purists are simply exhibiting their ignorance. They assume that just because they can't see certain colors and elements of the light spectrum with their eyes, they don't exist.

If you were to visualize the entire known light spectrum as stretching from coast to coast, that which we see with our eyes would be about the width of a dime. In terms of seeing what is really out there, humans are almost blind. Maybe HDR can be thought of as a step in the direction of seeing more of the wonders of creation that exist beyond the limits of human perception.

I applaud Trey and his excellent techniques which attempt to show our world in a new and different "light".

Good point. Normally, our eyes' dynamic range is wider than a camera's because our saccadic vision samples different areas in our vision field virtually simultaneously, giving us subjectively higher dynamic range than what we'd get if our eyes fixated on one point, like a normal camera does. HDR imitates saccade with an AE bracketing burst. Like our minds combine our saccadic fixation points to widen our DR, HDR software combines the burst shots to widen the dynamic range according to the ± values of the bracketing, i.e. ±5 expands DR more than ±3.

Because of modern cameras' extremely high sensitivity, one would think a camera -- from "see in the dark" to resolving the solar disk -- will exceed human DR. And there you arrive in what one might call meta-vision.

There's no "trick" about HDR. It just enables the camera to record ALL that's out there, which our eyes, or a normal camera shot can't take in at once.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2015 at 21:26 UTC
Total: 62, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »