doctor digi

Lives in United States CA, United States
Works as a Photographer / Club Owner
Joined on Jun 26, 2001

Comments

Total: 76, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »
On article Hasselblad to announce 'game changer' next week (457 comments in total)
In reply to:

felix from the suburbs: Kind of sad to read all of those mocking comments. When I was starting out in armature photography Hasselblad was a premier brand and our "someday" camera should we ever win a lottery or inherit enough money from some unknown relative. I guess it's just another causality of the digital age. But I, for one, hope that they knock it out of the park and regain some of their lost glory - even though I likely wouldn't be able to afford it unless that unknown relative with money decides to write me into their will.

Armature photography? That must be a very niche branch of photography. Still, each to their own...

Link | Posted on Jun 18, 2016 at 14:06 UTC

Good luck in London's National Gallery - perhaps one of the most badly lighted galleries in the world!

Link | Posted on May 23, 2016 at 15:50 UTC as 2nd comment

Never mind the text. What's most telling is the etching on the left, of the people looking at the painting.

The K1 pixel-shift beats everything including the 645Z.

Link | Posted on May 6, 2016 at 11:05 UTC as 72nd comment | 3 replies
On article Erez Marom: On the importance of naming images (109 comments in total)

This article is nothing short of pretentious twaddle.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2015 at 18:21 UTC as 25th comment
On article JPEG Committee contemplates adding DRM to image format (186 comments in total)

For a format to be successful it needs to be popular and be accepted by its users.

I really don't see DRM JPEG as being accepted by the majority of users and thus it will not be popular.

Most people are happy with JPEG as it is. Including DRM will add no value and, from the point of view of the consumer, actually take away value.

Link | Posted on Oct 16, 2015 at 11:49 UTC as 57th comment

So many idiots on here. What's worse is that some of you call yourselves "photographers", yet you seem to have very little understanding of either photography or science judging from the ill-informed, naive, and quite frankly ludicrous comments that are posted on dpreview any time that photos from the Moon are shown.

Link | Posted on Oct 5, 2015 at 20:13 UTC as 57th comment

I'd ignore anything Flickr puts forth.

The day they replaced the old way of displaying the photos with that hideous "infinitely scrollable" page of images is the day I realised they don't have a clue.

Link | Posted on Sep 19, 2015 at 20:17 UTC as 4th comment
On article The travel photography of HDR guru Trey Ratcliff (235 comments in total)

I normally dislike this technique, but these are a fairly good example of what can be done without giving it the Photomatix look.

However, I wish people would stop calling this technique "HDR". these are not HDR images. They're tone-mapped. The technique is tone mapping. HDR is just a file in the intermediate process, and unless you have some special technology that we don't currently have for displaying the full dynamic range, then you cannot display it.

Link | Posted on Aug 10, 2015 at 18:28 UTC as 28th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Marcus Sundman: Since there is only 1 direction of polarization recorded per pixel you effectively lose half of your resolution, which also means 50% less light. Plus everything else that you lose because of the passthrough.

Let's say you're taking a photo of water. Half of your pixels will capture the horizontally oscillating photons (the reflection) and half of your pixels will capture the vertically oscillating photons (from under the surface). Now you will throw away the former, which is half of the pixels. Hence, half of your resolution is gone and half of your light.

Maybe you need to re-read the article?

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 19:41 UTC
On article Vantage Point: The aviation photography of Jon Pece (189 comments in total)
In reply to:

doctor digi: I'm sure some will love these.

I found them very boring. Seen it done so many times before. I think there is one shot that I thought worthy of more than a few seconds glance.

Sorry to appear so negative, but really, I have seen this kind of thing done so much better.

I never said it was.

Link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 19:52 UTC
On article Vantage Point: The aviation photography of Jon Pece (189 comments in total)

I'm sure some will love these.

I found them very boring. Seen it done so many times before. I think there is one shot that I thought worthy of more than a few seconds glance.

Sorry to appear so negative, but really, I have seen this kind of thing done so much better.

Link | Posted on Jun 28, 2015 at 12:29 UTC as 13th comment | 3 replies

Taylor Swift is no different to any other celebrity (no matter how much she tries to spin it the other way): when it's something that will being them more money they are all for it, but if it goes against them in any way they bleat about how unfair it is and how they are standing up for "the little people".

Rappacious hypocrites, the lot of them.

Link | Posted on Jun 26, 2015 at 08:07 UTC as 23rd comment

What next? 100,000 pictures of the same person making up a demonstration???

Oh, hang on - got carried away by the comments about the 70,000 picture mountain image...

But seriously - not a bad effort. Not realistic in the pose department, but then, it isn't a real orchestra anyway - just a bit of fun.

Link | Posted on Jun 7, 2015 at 12:12 UTC as 20th comment
In reply to:

rallyfan: I'll always have a soft spot in my heart for Hasselblad.

The Yanks pretended to use them when they faked the moon landings.

Then more recently the company decided to rebadge Sony stuff with wood grips and added a bunch of zeros to the price tag.

Brilliant stuff.

This looks really promising for anyone interested in violating people's privacy rights.

You'd think that on a photography forum, of all places, people would have an ounce of common sense when it comes to photography.

SnakePlissken: you are refering to Reseau marks. As anyone who has actually used a camera will know, overexposed areas will cause fine detail to disappear. Parts of the crosses appear to be "behind" objects because they cross into overexposed areas.

Do you really think that people creating fake pictures are going to leave behind such obvious manipulation? And what would be the point anyway - the marks are inside the camera!

You also need to do some research (and look at the actual photos taken - they are on-line). Most are cropped, not straight and incorrectly exposed. The ones people normally see were the ones released by the PR department that have had all these things corrected to make them look nice to the public.

Link | Posted on Jun 5, 2015 at 12:02 UTC
In reply to:

doctor digi: When it was done by a single person and the result was achievable on normal hardware, then it was meaningful.

Now it's just numbers. It's been done better and with fewer pictures.

What next? 100,000 pictures with a 1000mm lens? It's jumped the shark as far as I'm concerned.

Congratulations on all the effort though. However, it's about as much effort and as exciting as photographing every dashed white centreline on a 1000Km section of highway. (now there's a project for someone).

Meerkato.

No, I'm talking about when the first Gigapixel pictures were made about 10 years ago. They were shot by hand and stitched by hand. They were the first of their type. That was achieving something. Everything after that point is, well frankly, meh.

Link | Posted on Jun 3, 2015 at 18:45 UTC

When it was done by a single person and the result was achievable on normal hardware, then it was meaningful.

Now it's just numbers. It's been done better and with fewer pictures.

What next? 100,000 pictures with a 1000mm lens? It's jumped the shark as far as I'm concerned.

Congratulations on all the effort though. However, it's about as much effort and as exciting as photographing every dashed white centreline on a 1000Km section of highway. (now there's a project for someone).

Link | Posted on Jun 2, 2015 at 20:42 UTC as 72nd comment | 3 replies
On article DPReview recommends: Best smartphone cameras (370 comments in total)

Hmm. No mention of the Xiaomi Mi4.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2015 at 13:57 UTC as 46th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

doctor digi: Nice video - but you wouldn't be able to legally fly it in so many of those locations.

I have a P2+ and I think I will sell it. Soon the forces of darkness will arrive, here in Europe and in the US, and flying these will be confined to special flight parks and be made illegal elsewhere without a very expensive licence and pro training.

These are the golden days. Unfortunately there are too many idiots out there and it will only require the downing of one passenger plane by engine ingestation of a 'copter to seal the fate of this hobby.

The world isn't just America, you know.

Link | Posted on Apr 18, 2015 at 13:47 UTC

Nice video - but you wouldn't be able to legally fly it in so many of those locations.

I have a P2+ and I think I will sell it. Soon the forces of darkness will arrive, here in Europe and in the US, and flying these will be confined to special flight parks and be made illegal elsewhere without a very expensive licence and pro training.

These are the golden days. Unfortunately there are too many idiots out there and it will only require the downing of one passenger plane by engine ingestation of a 'copter to seal the fate of this hobby.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2015 at 21:14 UTC as 7th comment | 4 replies
Total: 76, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous1234Next ›Last »