Lives in United Kingdom London, United Kingdom
Has a website at
Joined on Sep 27, 2006


Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18
On photo Elephants Performing in the Random Items - Challenge 29 challenge (32 comments in total)

What a sad photograph!

Link | Posted on Oct 17, 2016 at 08:21 UTC as 12th comment

Anyone who's used those table tennis bats knows that after a short while that rubber finish is going to look like CR*P.


Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2016 at 09:25 UTC as 87th comment | 2 replies
On article Behind the shot: Praia da Adraga at blue hour (91 comments in total)

Such lengthy post-processing...

This, OTOH, is a straight out-of-camera JPEG:


Link | Posted on Jul 17, 2016 at 06:42 UTC as 26th comment | 3 replies
On article Sony shows off upcoming full-frame lenses at Photokina (336 comments in total)

OK, so now we finally will have a 35/1.4... but it'll be the same size as the 24-240 superzoom! So much for the mirrorless advantage in terms of size and weight.
But oh, wait: we also have the more compact 35/2.8, don't we? But then the DOF and the total light-gathering ability is the same as that of a 23/2 on APS-c (which could obviously be much more compact to begin with). So much for the FF advantage in terms of DOF and ISO.
Mmmh, it seems that in spite of marketing claims, one just can't beat the laws of physics. Bummer.

Link | Posted on Sep 26, 2014 at 07:21 UTC as 20th comment | 16 replies
On article Ricoh GR comparative review (43 comments in total)

UGLY Moiré!

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2013 at 09:39 UTC as 17th comment
On article Fujifilm X-M1 real-world samples gallery (98 comments in total)
In reply to:

Duncan Dimanche: You know the fuji sensors are nice in low light but they are never sharp. Even the RAWs are being stripped off noise in order to create an illusion of amazing high ISO performance... it does remind me of Sony's JPGs

It would be nice if those samples shot would be in RAW...
But I know that there is little difference in Fuji's raw and JPGs...

I'm trying to like Fuji but I really can't...just look at that girl's portrait... there seems to be not much details....

Cheers and thanks for posting those

Not sure what you mean there - the JPEGs from my X-E1 and XF 14/2.8 and 60/2.4 are VERY sharp indeed.
(No fanboy here, just my first-hand experience).
Besides, sharpness is overrated anyway. A good photo is first and foremost about composition and tone (colour / b&w gradations).

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2013 at 15:35 UTC

If tripod mounted, then why such a high ISO?

Link | Posted on Sep 5, 2013 at 17:23 UTC as 3rd comment
On article Leica announces X Vario zoom compact with APS-C sensor (757 comments in total)

Slow lens!

Link | Posted on Jun 11, 2013 at 19:41 UTC as 191st comment
In reply to:

marco1974: "pansy whining"? Is this what you think of not being willing to stand for blatant corruption?

No. I wrote "NOT being willing to stand for", i.e. that he would NOT stand for it.

Anyhow: I'm glad to see that the post I was referring to in indignation has now been deleted.

Link | Posted on Dec 1, 2012 at 20:35 UTC

"pansy whining"? Is this what you think of not being willing to stand for blatant corruption?

Link | Posted on Nov 30, 2012 at 09:41 UTC as 21st comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Micky Nixgeld: Does somone need "The Zonesystem" in the age of HDR and other digital "goodies"?
For film it´s great, but...

Beautifully put, DaveMarx!
I agree 100%.

Link | Posted on Oct 8, 2012 at 09:21 UTC

All those who say the Zone System is irrelevant today must be those same people whose idea of photography is to "spray and pray" with their 10fps DSLRs set to Matrix/Evaluative metering, and then "tweak and salvage" whatever sheer chance presented them with (at least exposure-wise) in post-processing.
BUT for those who instead wish to MAKE pictures and approach photography as a more slowed-down and deliberate art akin to painting, the Zone System is actually as relevant today as it ever was.

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2012 at 11:55 UTC as 35th comment | 1 reply
On article Extreme contrast edits in Lightroom 4 and ACR 7 (133 comments in total)

Yes, that's what I meant with my previous post.
Then, if some people wish to make *shadows* as light as *highlights* and call it *art*, by all means that's their prerogative.

Oh dear... indeed.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2012 at 09:54 UTC as 35th comment
On article Extreme contrast edits in Lightroom 4 and ACR 7 (133 comments in total)

In fact, deep shadows should NEVER be "lifted" to medium-tone!
"Extreme contrast edits" invariably produce extremely cartoonish results.

Link | Posted on Apr 24, 2012 at 07:24 UTC as 37th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

elefteriadis alexandros: -Yes, first photoshop, (money and months to familiar with that..) then filters, then again some extra money for Nikon software,( ..familiar with that..), then double triple exposure (forget if the subject move..) shot raw and give money for extra space in hard drive to gain maybe 1-2 stop, maybe in the end some pictures looks dull or fake....
-Huh start all over again..
-Hey dude take some real film camera and go out to take real pictures!!

Yes! But I'd like to add: nothing prevents one from using 'film photography' techniques (like GND filters, spot metering + zone system, etc.) with DSLRs too...

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2011 at 07:37 UTC
In reply to:

HiRez: HDR brings everything towards a flat grey mess. Pictures need definition and HDR tends to remove it. Yes, you can see more detail in the shadow and/or highlight areas, but it just never looks natural, no matter how good the software or how skilled the artist/photographer.

Sorry, but I still prefer a more natural looking picture with some clipped highlights or shadows.

I agree 100%

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2011 at 07:35 UTC
In reply to:

dccdp: In my opinion, the original picture is actually better than the processed result. It looks more natural, the unprocessed shadow areas outline the shapes better and give "depth" to the picture.

The final result is just a flat, artificial, oversaturated, cartoonish picture.

exactly my point, also!

Link | Posted on Oct 7, 2011 at 07:34 UTC

Hmmm... I actually like the "uncorrected" image best. LOL

Link | Posted on Oct 6, 2011 at 19:02 UTC as 32nd comment
Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18