jeffcpix

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Aug 12, 2005

Comments

Total: 27, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »
On article Photoshop CC 2015.5.1 available (89 comments in total)

Still no history brush for 16bit

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2016 at 05:43 UTC as 12th comment
In reply to:

Gatoraied: I had my own darkroom back in the early 60's and worked as a commercial photographer. I sent all color work to Rochester and only did my B&W's. Film was 35mm, 620, 120. Did lots of dodging and burning which worked quite nicely. When seeing Adams' multi light & toggled enlarger/projector light array I thought " Ahhh, thats how he did it!". Of course never using 8x10 negatives the thought never crossed my mind but it was brilliant!. For years many of us in the business knew Adams manipulated his photographs but could never quite nail down how it was done. Of course anyone who worked photography knew getting Adams kind of exposures were next to impossible and just thought he performed some magic in the darkroom but never realized that using that toggled lighting was one of his creations. Interesting to know the rest of the story. BTW, I wonder if National Geographic will purge all of Adams' photos from their archives?

The preferred lightsource for 4x5 and smaller was the Ferrante Codelite head. As for his darkroom, it was far from being state of the art for the time; rather, it was more of an upgrade from what was available to commercial labs in the 40's. Hard to believe he opted for a magnetic wall rather than a vacuum easel but he wasn't making murals as big as the commerical labs. The grain focusing device he was using is now called the Peak Critical Enlarging Focuser and is still available at BH. And temperature control wasn't a problem -- anyone doing serious work had thermostatic mixing valves. Similarly, the Thomas Duplex Sodium Vapor Safelight was preferable to those Kodak drop-lights. Before you get all sentimental over his prints, take a look at the work of others who worked in platinum -- or in dye transfer for color. AA's work was crisp -- but there was a whole 'nother aesthetic which eschewed this. AA made fine prints, but so did many, many others.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2016 at 11:10 UTC
On photo Streets of Burano in the Streets #3 : Streets in colour challenge (4 comments in total)

If you're going to go overboard in post (or strength of creative filter), why not have the sky match its reflection in the water? It's easy, use Nik Viveza, put grouped control points in the sky and bring the brightness down. Try it -- you'll like it. When faking color and saturation, at least be consistent.

Link | Posted on May 31, 2016 at 09:38 UTC as 1st comment
On article Striking: Photos from a lightning hotspot in Venezuela (34 comments in total)

I don't know how reliable the Weather Channel is

https://weather.com/safety/thunderstorms/news/lightning-strikes-around-the-world

but they have this: "Studies have shown that Florida is the state where you're most likely to get struck by lightning, but there are places elsewhere in the world where lightning flashes even more often."

There's been quite a lot of lightning the past two nights -- flashes every 2-4 seconds for 30 minutes -- mostly seem concentrated around Mara del Lago. Maybe it's nature abhoring a vacuum.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2016 at 12:08 UTC as 5th comment

In situ copying of 'masterpieces' -- ridiculous.
I wonder who retouches the off color specular
reflections of the ambient light? Too bad the
camera doesn't generate a color patch which
could be used to calibrate the viewing device for
accurate rendering of colors and contrast.

If this

https://www.google.com/culturalinstitute/u/0/asset-viewer/apple-harvest/GgEtbnL6cNOmjg?projectId=art-camera

is the best they've got, I'm not impressed.
And does Google own the copyright on the digital version?
Check out this from the museum at Cornell University

http://museum.cornell.edu/rights-reproductions

Link | Posted on May 19, 2016 at 11:05 UTC as 12th comment | 1 reply
On article Manfrotto adds friction arms to its accessory lineup (11 comments in total)

Is it friction only, like the articulated arms, or do they use a locking system like the ball bearing race used in the magic arms?

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2015 at 12:44 UTC as 7th comment

"One Man Band"
"Auteur"

It's what the post-modernists call 'a masterpiece'. Should sell many copies.

Take a concept and craft an object (photograph) which, at a sense perception level, clearly expresses the idea to the viewer. What sets this image above similar works is the variety of poses and the clever appropriateness of those poses. It also exploits a feature of our medium: a unique ability to render enormous amounts of detail. It also makes evident that photographs are not necessarily truthful renditions of reality.

Would it have detracted from the viewers experience or the theme if the members of the actual orchestra had been photographed wearing masks of the same face? Would Valery Gergiev have thought it amusing if it were his face? Had it been painted, would it be considered Surreal(ism)?

I'm surprised no audio is supplied -- oops, that would make it multi-media and not photography...

I have posted a link at rec.music.classical.recordings -- and await their comments.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2015 at 11:34 UTC as 45th comment
In reply to:

jeffcpix: A bit restrictive -- having to always put the subjects dead center in the image lest they fall into the swirly zone. Much better results from PS Radial Blur on a separate layer.

True -- but if you watched the video, you'd see that there are only two images which have off-center subjects... perhaps because the swirl looks rather odd when only a portion of it is seen. But by all means, if that's the look you want, spend the money and show us how well it works for you.

Link | Posted on May 30, 2015 at 11:17 UTC

A bit restrictive -- having to always put the subjects dead center in the image lest they fall into the swirly zone. Much better results from PS Radial Blur on a separate layer.

Link | Posted on May 29, 2015 at 11:24 UTC as 24th comment | 4 replies

TTL would make it much more useful. No specs on how long the arms are -- could be very handy for use as copy lighting. How about a filter slot for polarizing? Maybe a built in slave that ignores pre-flash or pc cord plug? Good idea which needs to be made more 'feature rich'. Probably needs to be used carefully -- looks like it could easily rip the hot shoe off the camera -- I'd consider using it mounted on a bracket instead of the hotshoe.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 10:30 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

nerd2: Digital already surpasses film in every aspects (resolution, dynamic range, noise) and can closely simulate any film we had. I think we should ban film photography, just for environmental reasons.

If the studios and directors would like to assure the supply of film, they should consider buying the Kodak plant -- I should think that Kodak would sell it for a reasonable price. Or perhaps Quentin could try 'crowd-funding': How many feet of film do I get for my $25?

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2014 at 04:09 UTC
On article A look at the Lomography Petzval 85mm F2.2 lens (184 comments in total)

An excellent article on this type of lens can be found at

http://www.antiquecameras.net/petzvallens.html

I think it unfortunate that the manufacturer chose to make a 'replica' rather than using a conventional focusing helical, diaphragm and T-mount. If a photographer today seeks that specific bokeh, there's no reason he should be penalized with waterhouse stops, rack and pinion focus and a sloppy lens mount.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 11:09 UTC as 45th comment | 1 reply
On article Massive 3,000 square foot pinhole photo on display (34 comments in total)

Any details on the material... how it was sensitized, how it was processed? Who paid for it?

Link | Posted on May 2, 2014 at 11:08 UTC as 21st comment
On article Olympus Stylus 1 First Impressions Review (327 comments in total)
In reply to:

zapatista: Well, constant f2.8 is nice, I wonder how is does vs. an FZ200.

Too bad Sony doesn't update the KM A2 -- one of the last
great Minolta designs. And the A2 28-300 f2.8 was a G lens!

Link | Posted on Oct 29, 2013 at 10:23 UTC
In reply to:

bawboh86: Are there any good accessories I can use with my Sony SLT-A77? I see Nikon and Canon mentioned, but not a lot on how to get some of the functionality out of my Sony.

Have you considered:

"portable 5" (diag.) LCD monitor is the perfect complement to your compatible DSLR camera or camcorder."

http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921666295823

Link | Posted on Sep 27, 2013 at 05:30 UTC
In reply to:

semorg: Mind you, initially they were hoping to raise $100,000.
So the good news is that they got enough money to manufacture these things. The bad news is they'll probably wont meet the demands and those who are not in the first 100-200 will have to a wait for a long time or live with some shoddy quality stuff.

You can fool some of the people all of the time.
But there's one upside -- at least it's not being
developed using tax money by the Defense Department.

If it were such a wonderful idea, the Chinese/Koreans would
have made these with T-mounts, barrel controlled f-stops,
helical focusing and sold them for less than $99 dollars delivered. Look how much CAT 500mm lenses are selling for on ebay -- amazing that anyone would think that this paperweight would cost more to produce.
And wait until they learn what a 'waterhouse stop' is.

Link | Posted on Aug 9, 2013 at 04:36 UTC
In reply to:

b craw: I have a(n) MFA and have been teaching both digital and film photography for 10 years at the university level. It never ceases to surprise me how many in the photographic community are ill-tempered and close minded. It is part of the reason I am apprehensive to call myself a photographer despite nearly all my work ending in a photograph.

While I am capable of seeing the lack of practicality or need in various photo contexts of this technology, I can envision some applications for particular conceptual work. But asking some photographers to think conceptually - beyond technical masturbation - may be a bridge too far.

[i suppose I should acknowledge my own ill temper here.]

Conceptual fantasy = an idea that a person has no means to execute in a medium he is ill-equipped to manipulate.

It's not uncommon for 'aspiring artists' to choose a 'message'
that might be better expressed in another medium -- except
that medium takes more effort/experience than 'pushing a button and letting Kodak do the rest'.

But these days play=creativity and we wouldn't want to damage their budding self-esteem... or lose those tuition $$$$.

Link | Posted on Jul 22, 2013 at 05:18 UTC
In reply to:

b craw: I have a(n) MFA and have been teaching both digital and film photography for 10 years at the university level. It never ceases to surprise me how many in the photographic community are ill-tempered and close minded. It is part of the reason I am apprehensive to call myself a photographer despite nearly all my work ending in a photograph.

While I am capable of seeing the lack of practicality or need in various photo contexts of this technology, I can envision some applications for particular conceptual work. But asking some photographers to think conceptually - beyond technical masturbation - may be a bridge too far.

[i suppose I should acknowledge my own ill temper here.]

And asking professors to demand technical proficiency instead of conceptual fantasy might be yet another bridge still further.
I guess that would require a PE rather than an MFA

Link | Posted on Jul 21, 2013 at 06:43 UTC
On article Classic lines when clients want you to work for free (141 comments in total)
In reply to:

Anepo: I have been offered money to photograph as i am not a pro i decline despite taking far better photos than your average mom and dad,
not at a pro level however, the reason i refuse is both that i do NOT beleive that i am good enough to take on a job.

AND in my country it is a crime to take a paid job for photographing if you do not have a license in photography
(yup no university school degree in photography? Then you cant work in the industry)

However i am allowed to take photos and if someone likes them they can purchase them, they are not allowed to hire me in advance.

Eitherway so far people have asked to buy a photo from me 4 times (an average joe not a company), i have declined each time and just given them an A4 sized print, why? I do not feel my photos are worth the money and i made someones day. Though for the love of me i dont understand those people wanting to buy a photo by me, they are mediocre at best.

Anepo wrote:
"AND in my country it is a crime to take a paid job for photographing if you do not have a license in photography
(yup no university school degree in photography? Then you cant work in the industry)"

How many of you would be willing to accept a scheme where photographers would need to be licensed in order to work?

How many 'professions' are there where all you need are the tools of the trade to promote yourself as a 'professional'?

I think we have all seen work done by 'non-professionals' that's
of excellent quality -- and there's even a school of thought which argues that it's the content not the object that counts.
Face it, we're in a "You press the button, we do the rest" business. Lots of people have figured out how to put a frame around reality -- 'professionals' just seem to do it better.

The business of photography is more about business than art.

Link | Posted on Jun 6, 2013 at 09:59 UTC
Total: 27, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »