Guidenet

Guidenet

Lives in United States Orlando, US, FL, United States
Works as a Retired Corporate Photographer
Has a website at http://faithartsvillage.com/
Joined on Sep 27, 2007
About me:

I'm a 64 year old retired corporate photographer who has also been a software engineer. My academia is largely based on Vision and my dissertation was on Fluids. Much of my post work was involved in research mostly in the realm of massively parallel systems like BSP. I have a small studio and gallery which I enjoy on occasion. My specialty is bird photography, and I've been lucky to have had a few attempts published over the years. For the past twenty years, I worked for a large Fortune 500 company as their in-house photographer for the communications, publicity and care departments. I’ve also done their corporate meetings and events. As the company owns several television stations, making the opportunities endless.
I had to retire because I suffered a massive right side stroke in the spring of 2013. My small portrait studio and gallery are doing better than ever.
I have a daughter who is a successful Wedding Photographer. As I’ve embraced retirement, I've taken more and more shooting contracts, but only those I enjoy like the local little league baseball teams. I occasionally act as a cruise photographer for some of the cruise lines here in Florida when requested by organizations.
I also spend more and more time teaching basic photography for several resources locally as well as out of my studio located at FAVO (Faith-based Art Village of Orlando). As well as Photography, I am also a Water Color and Acrylic painter and enjoy recreating some of my favorite work in those mediums. Learning how to create art is a lifelong passion.
I'm seriously passionate about people learning exposure and the Zone System of Photography before considering themselves sufficiently astute in this craft. I’ve held several Zone System Workshops over the years as well as one Cruise based workshop. I’m also passionate about Ansel Adams’ ideas about pre-visualization. Pressing the shutter button and the camera are just one small part of the image creation process.
I started at eight years old in 1959 when my dad and I built a darkroom, him more than me. My father taught me the Zone System at a very young age. I continued as a youthful photographer, buying glass with lawn mowing money through my high school and then into college with odd jobs. I paid most of my tuition as an undergraduate shooting weddings and baby pictures as well as for the university newspaper. Many of those years I shot 4x5, 5x7 and 8x10 field cameras and sheet film. In small format, I shot Pentax until 1968 when I switched to Nikon, needing a better more professional system tool. I still shoot Nikon today as well as Nikkor lenses for some of my large format gear. I also mostly shoot digital but still maintain a darkroom for up to 5x7 format. 8x10 is stored in the attic and is only black and white. I even have a Nikkor enlarging lens. Over the years, I believe Nikon has been instrumental in the creation of truly great glass.

Comments

Total: 363, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2484 comments in total)
In reply to:

Guidenet: Yeah, dump the typical DSLR for a Nikon DF or Fuji XPro2 et al. I can wear it with my Faux Giorgio Armani Hong Kong suit and a Bolex wrist watch and really impress the ladies. Hubba hubba! What you wear is more important than the photographs you make. Give me that retro look.

@ The Davinator Tell us how you really feel. You wouldn't be a Fuji user now would you? Do you remember the Fuji advertising last year? Not my words. What you carry is more important than the pictures you make. They aren't pulling punches here.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2016 at 23:09 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2484 comments in total)
In reply to:

Guidenet: Yeah, dump the typical DSLR for a Nikon DF or Fuji XPro2 et al. I can wear it with my Faux Giorgio Armani Hong Kong suit and a Bolex wrist watch and really impress the ladies. Hubba hubba! What you wear is more important than the photographs you make. Give me that retro look.

Actually I did. Moreover, I read most of the responses. I was hoping for additional bicycle shots in the park type pictures and videos though. Personally, I think Fuji needs to add a faux double swing film advance lever to the top of the camera. It could interface with the bicycle's selfie pole or give an instant upload to Instagram.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2016 at 21:44 UTC
On article Retro through-and-through: Fujifilm X-Pro2 Review (2484 comments in total)

Yeah, dump the typical DSLR for a Nikon DF or Fuji XPro2 et al. I can wear it with my Faux Giorgio Armani Hong Kong suit and a Bolex wrist watch and really impress the ladies. Hubba hubba! What you wear is more important than the photographs you make. Give me that retro look.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2016 at 21:16 UTC as 74th comment | 20 replies
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2661 comments in total)
In reply to:

Anastigmat: The DSLR market has been declining for a couple years because FF prices have been stubbornly high due to lack of competition and people are not upgrading to APS-C cameras as much as they used to. This camera will likely shake up the market. Canon and Nikon have to respond to such an attractive camera at such a reasonable price. Even if you don't plan to buy it, you can still benefit because it will force Canon and Nikon to give their users more value and lower prices.

I don't know. Seems to me the price for full frame has been going down to the point it's becoming quite reasonable. Nikon's D610 regularly sells for around $1496 or refurbished for around $1150. The somewhat fancier D750 has been around $1996 for quite a while. The Pentax is being offered at $1796 which is a great price, but not so cheaply as to somehow change the face of the market. The only feature you might claim really advantageous would be that price for 36 megapixels, but I think this will be ubiquitous soon enough.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2016 at 13:46 UTC

Unless the rules specifically precluded manipulation or it was stated to be a photo journalist contest only, nothing was done wrong here, IMO.

Unless stated otherwise, your creation is just that, your creation. There is no possible way to make a 2 dimensional still image of a 3 dimensional slice of reality complete with sounds, smells and all else which goes with that. It's going to be your interpretation just like a Monet was Monet's interpretation of a garden.

If you just pride yourself on printing the exact 2 dimensional slice of what you see, you're not doing a whole lot in my opinion. You're just Xeroxing what God already gave you. Like a news reporter, you're just showing people some event they weren't there to see. Even people like Ansel Adams spent hours in the darkroom creating. Those shots we saw in Nat Geo or Time/Life were shot on slide film, but were then made into 4x5 internegatives and spent time in the darkroom.

So, it all depends on the stated rules for this.

Link | Posted on Feb 4, 2016 at 16:06 UTC as 10th comment
In reply to:

Guidenet: I'm not sure the purpose I'd put a lens like this to. Maybe a grandchild's birthday party if I were going to hand the camera off in Auto mode to a relative. I think a smaller camera of the type they call a "travel" zoom would be much preferable because top level image quality does not seem to be a priority, as with most lenses in this genre. I just can think of no serious photographic experiences where I'd need both 16mm and 300mm at the same time and not just carry two lenses, one on the camera and one in a belt pouch.

I think this is especially true for travel where you're likely to come upon once in a lifetime photographic opportunities. I'd want my very best for those rare occasions, not the worst I could muster. On the other hand, if I were with my kids and grandchildren at Walt Disney World, my little Canon G1X would serve much better than attempting to turn my sophisticated DSLRs into heavy point and shoots.

I'm lucky in that my Jan is a photographer. She just finished a gallery presentation on the Hopi Indian Nation. She full well understands I may want to spend hours or even days waiting for light. She knows I may wish to plan a shot a year or more in advance.

When bird photography is important, she is aware if she wants to come, we may be stalking a bird for one or more days at a location. She'll bow out if it might be overnight in the wilderness, but often comes if it's a hotel with a spa and room service. ;-)

A few years back, while I spent the day half way up in the Grand Tetons waiting for a snow storm to break for a shot I never got, she spent that day in a ski lodge in Jackson, lounging in a hot tub, getting a massage and an hour more in the spa. LOL Such is life.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2015 at 05:53 UTC
In reply to:

Guidenet: I'm not sure the purpose I'd put a lens like this to. Maybe a grandchild's birthday party if I were going to hand the camera off in Auto mode to a relative. I think a smaller camera of the type they call a "travel" zoom would be much preferable because top level image quality does not seem to be a priority, as with most lenses in this genre. I just can think of no serious photographic experiences where I'd need both 16mm and 300mm at the same time and not just carry two lenses, one on the camera and one in a belt pouch.

I think this is especially true for travel where you're likely to come upon once in a lifetime photographic opportunities. I'd want my very best for those rare occasions, not the worst I could muster. On the other hand, if I were with my kids and grandchildren at Walt Disney World, my little Canon G1X would serve much better than attempting to turn my sophisticated DSLRs into heavy point and shoots.

@photominion Those might just be the choices I bring while on a week traveling and not on assignment. I wouldn't "lug" them all around daily. That's what a day bag is used for, the two or more I may bring on an outing. Sometimes just one and one in a belt pouch, but isn't that the point of an interchangeable lens camera? When on an excursion with the grandchildren, it might just be that little Canon point and shoot. There would lie the purpose of a non-interchangeable lens camera.

I see nothing wrong with a point and shoot type camera. I just wouldn't put it to the same use as I do my DSLR models in most cases, though they can work in a pinch. That indeed is the issue I see with super ratio zooms. It seems to be an attempt at converting one's interchangeable lens camera into that point and shoot and doing so in a much less convenient manner.

I guess it doesn't matter. If one is shooting Jpeg and automatic, sticking some Tamron 18x lens on there might be appropriate. ;-)

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2015 at 05:26 UTC
In reply to:

Guidenet: I'm not sure the purpose I'd put a lens like this to. Maybe a grandchild's birthday party if I were going to hand the camera off in Auto mode to a relative. I think a smaller camera of the type they call a "travel" zoom would be much preferable because top level image quality does not seem to be a priority, as with most lenses in this genre. I just can think of no serious photographic experiences where I'd need both 16mm and 300mm at the same time and not just carry two lenses, one on the camera and one in a belt pouch.

I think this is especially true for travel where you're likely to come upon once in a lifetime photographic opportunities. I'd want my very best for those rare occasions, not the worst I could muster. On the other hand, if I were with my kids and grandchildren at Walt Disney World, my little Canon G1X would serve much better than attempting to turn my sophisticated DSLRs into heavy point and shoots.

@tbcass Though I think photography is 90% the photographer and 10% gear, I want the best opportunity within my budget and not be hampered by sub-par optics, if possible. This is why I usually shoot full frame and the best glass I can afford. It's why I carry a tripod and an incident light meter. It's why I shoot RAW only. It's not to be cool, but to afford me the best possible opportunity within my skill set.

As far as a super ratio is concerned, why bother to lug an extra lens with sub-par performance through most of it's range, which is also slow. When traveling, not on assignment, I might carry two FX bodies, a 15mm fisheye, 16-35 f/4, 28 f/1.8, 85 f/1.4, 150 f/2.8 Macro, 80-200 f/2.8, 80-400 f/4.5-5.6, Giottos Carbon Fiber travel tripod, two strobes in a Think Tank roller. I will also have a day bag and assorted belt pouches. Depending on location, I might take additional and leave some of the above behind. I also bring a smaller point and shoot, car charger and a laptop. :-)

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2015 at 00:44 UTC
In reply to:

Guidenet: I'm not sure the purpose I'd put a lens like this to. Maybe a grandchild's birthday party if I were going to hand the camera off in Auto mode to a relative. I think a smaller camera of the type they call a "travel" zoom would be much preferable because top level image quality does not seem to be a priority, as with most lenses in this genre. I just can think of no serious photographic experiences where I'd need both 16mm and 300mm at the same time and not just carry two lenses, one on the camera and one in a belt pouch.

I think this is especially true for travel where you're likely to come upon once in a lifetime photographic opportunities. I'd want my very best for those rare occasions, not the worst I could muster. On the other hand, if I were with my kids and grandchildren at Walt Disney World, my little Canon G1X would serve much better than attempting to turn my sophisticated DSLRs into heavy point and shoots.

@tbcass Hey, unfortunately, this thread has denigrated more than I would have hoped. Sometimes I fail to express myself in a manner consistent with my attitude and come across condescending. As an example, I never put down another's photographs unless they are specifically asking for a critique, then often try to frame it positively. We are all photographers trying to do what we enjoy. This might be what irks me a little about super ratio zoom lenses. They strike me as a compromise between convenience and passion for photography. I'm not saying I'm correct, but this is purely my personal observation and I'm expressing it not to be mean spirited, but to maybe trigger more passion.

Once in a lifetime are travel photos where you are not likely to go back to the same spot. It might be the oxbow in the Grand Tetons. It might be desert burros in the Red Rock, Nevada area. Some are planned but many are not. I just may not ever be back.

Link | Posted on Sep 17, 2015 at 00:20 UTC
In reply to:

Guidenet: I'm not sure the purpose I'd put a lens like this to. Maybe a grandchild's birthday party if I were going to hand the camera off in Auto mode to a relative. I think a smaller camera of the type they call a "travel" zoom would be much preferable because top level image quality does not seem to be a priority, as with most lenses in this genre. I just can think of no serious photographic experiences where I'd need both 16mm and 300mm at the same time and not just carry two lenses, one on the camera and one in a belt pouch.

I think this is especially true for travel where you're likely to come upon once in a lifetime photographic opportunities. I'd want my very best for those rare occasions, not the worst I could muster. On the other hand, if I were with my kids and grandchildren at Walt Disney World, my little Canon G1X would serve much better than attempting to turn my sophisticated DSLRs into heavy point and shoots.

@Leandros S You're a little over the top with a 16mm and 300mm prime. My point here is that I find it quire rare to need those two extreme focal lengths at the same time. Rare enough, I for one, am not willing to put up with the poorer image quality I'd get with a super zoom solution. For example, and folks tend to call this a travel lens, when visiting a new town and when done with an assignment, I'd roam around and probably never exceed 85mm or so. Anyone can come up with some anecdotal situation where someone might wish they had a 300mm, but in reality, it's just not often enough to have to carry around a lens with dubious IQ.

Again, when traveling, usually I want a great optic because of the once in a lifetime opportunities.

I mean why bother buying an interchangeable lens camera only to make it a large one size fits all with poorer image quality? The people I see who make this choice are often losing their passion for photography. The excuse is travel, but it stays attached.

Link | Posted on Sep 16, 2015 at 00:57 UTC
On article Fujifilm X100T successor rumored to feature new lens (336 comments in total)

I think it's just fine the way it is. After all, it's that classic retro look which must be maintained. It looks great with my Armani styled jacket and Rolex lookalike watch. Very classy indeed for the well set up photographer on a budget. Most of us just can't afford a Leica, and we should not be left out. ;-)

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2015 at 11:14 UTC as 15th comment

I'm not sure the purpose I'd put a lens like this to. Maybe a grandchild's birthday party if I were going to hand the camera off in Auto mode to a relative. I think a smaller camera of the type they call a "travel" zoom would be much preferable because top level image quality does not seem to be a priority, as with most lenses in this genre. I just can think of no serious photographic experiences where I'd need both 16mm and 300mm at the same time and not just carry two lenses, one on the camera and one in a belt pouch.

I think this is especially true for travel where you're likely to come upon once in a lifetime photographic opportunities. I'd want my very best for those rare occasions, not the worst I could muster. On the other hand, if I were with my kids and grandchildren at Walt Disney World, my little Canon G1X would serve much better than attempting to turn my sophisticated DSLRs into heavy point and shoots.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2015 at 10:57 UTC as 63rd comment | 38 replies
In reply to:

Create: All the Canon and Nikon fanboy neurotics are at it again, 4 Sony cameras in the top ten, and yeah i know about clicks.

@William Koehler Yes, the sensor division of Sony makes sensors for Pentax, Sony and Nikon, but so what? They also share some Nikon technology and use Nikon steppers to make those sensors. Again, so what? It's not relevant. The discussion here is what Sony has chosen to do to the RAW data.

Regardless on how some fanbois and Jpeg shooters want to spin it, most of us who shoot RAW with expensive professional grade cameras do not want a lossy type file except maybe as an option. It doesn't matter if we shoot Canon, Nikon, Sony et al, we'd like to have our RAW files to be as RAW as possible.

Memory is cheap. Storage space is cheap. Computers are robust as is converter and editing software. We do not need nor want the camera makers to babysit us on things like this when it comes to serious gear. Sure, entry levels, no problem. Some of those users only use Jpeg anyway, but if Sony wants to be taken seriously, they need to be more serious about their better gear.

Link | Posted on Sep 12, 2015 at 17:30 UTC

I think it's an awesome image. I have no problem with Photoshop, multiple images or anything else. Photography is not about trying to Xerox reality. That's impossible anyway. It's also not about pure illustration. It's about creating what is in your mind's eye. I think some of these comments are by envious folks who find themselves lacking in creativity.

Whether one likes this particular art, it certainly is creative and that's what's important in my opinion. Just like a movie can be fiction, a painting doesn't need to be photorealistic, a photograph doesn't need to be a static snapshot. I think a good image comes from the rendering of a previsualized image created your mind's eye. Much comes from what is accomplished in the darkroom or modern version of a darkroom. Anyone can press a shutter button. It takes more to be creative, whether with oils, acrylics or a camera.

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2015 at 16:01 UTC as 94th comment
On article Canon EOS Rebel T6i Review (311 comments in total)
In reply to:

fuxicek: I wish the successor to canon 100d/sl1 would be more more rebellious, with evf, rangefinder style and with some automatic panorama mode..

@fuxicek Yeah, that's what we need, another PlayStation Walmart point and shoot. That's rebellious! They can get rid of that optical reflex viewfinder and substitute a cheap EFV. Then add a bunch of "Make Art" buttons for the wannabes photographers. While we're about it, make it look like a 1950s rangefinder so we can wear it like a fashion accessory.

I actually thought we had too many of these whiz bang glorified point and shoots to satisfy most everyone wanting to make their mark in photography, but I guess we could lower the bar some more. Maybe one that plays music downloads as you're photographing.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2015 at 22:21 UTC
In reply to:

Mrrowe8: Sadly much like the T-Rex , Hasselblad & Leica days have come and gone .. They use to be what ALL real photographers aspired to own as it represented the BEST .. Now however they are in most cases overpriced hipster junk .. If they focused on specialty fields maybe they can inch back into the real world .. But now they are just a dull filler story ..

@REDred Photo I wasn't denigrating your use of film in the least. Mostly I was merely attempting to say the obvious, that these tools contribute little to what makes an image inspiring or compelling. If an image is successful, it matters little as to the medium. If it fails, changing the medium won't make it successful.

Now retired, I've also been a working professional corporate photographer for over 45 years. Today I have just two small studios and a gallery to take up my time. Though I never really got involved with medium format, I don't think it matters much. I shoot LF because it's fun and small (35mm) because it's practical.

The one thing that just never impressed me was the coolness factor. I used to put gaffer's tape or nail polish over the Nikon nameplate when I was younger. To purchase a tool because of how it looks strike me as incredible. It's like buying a new paintbrush because how another artist would judge my work (I'm a watercolor and acrylic painter as well).

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 23:05 UTC
In reply to:

Mrrowe8: Sadly much like the T-Rex , Hasselblad & Leica days have come and gone .. They use to be what ALL real photographers aspired to own as it represented the BEST .. Now however they are in most cases overpriced hipster junk .. If they focused on specialty fields maybe they can inch back into the real world .. But now they are just a dull filler story ..

@REDred Photo Everyone's camera can continue to produce images of "exquisite clarity, subtlety, and beauty" providing the person holding that camera can produce images of exquisite clarity, subtlety, and beauty. Hasselblad, Leica, Nikon, Sony, etc. et al, whether film or digital, have very little to do with this, fortunately.

When camera companies and purchasers fail to understand this easy concept, that's when we don't get images with exquisite clarity, subtlety, and beauty. Instead we get feature laden Walmart toys, carved wood grips, cameras only capable of black and white, and retro designed fashion-ware like the Nikon DF, the various Fuji and other Leica wannabes (including Leica).

Many buyers these days would love a "Make Art" button on the top to go with the Intelligent(?) Auto, Av and Tv choices. Just press that shutter button, figure out what that is in front of me and then give me "artsy." Oh, and did you notice my Rolex? ;-)

Link | Posted on Jun 25, 2015 at 18:28 UTC
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1165 comments in total)
In reply to:

darngooddesign: For everyone arguing the price, the Q is only around $1k USD more expensive than a new RX1 + EVF. Now a grand is nothing to sneeze at, but hardly the traditional Leica premium.

@richtea777 Over the many years, that Steal Me principle has been important for me and I think others. I've been on so many location events and have had so much stolen over the past fifty years, it becomes a consideration. You can't completely erase this possibility, but you can minimize it.

Some easy ways such as replacing that Canon or Leica strap for something less obvious can help. I often buy Think Tank gear bags because many don't look so much like camera bags. Early in my career, I'd often paint over the word Nikon or Pentax on the camera to slightly minimize attention. Sometimes black tape worked.

For a professional, perception is often a key factor even though we might not like it. Stigmas can make a difference. Clients, these days, often look at one's gear and may judge the output more critically if they deem you aren't using professional caliber equipment. One need look at some of the recent law suits to see this in action. We might not agree, but it happens.

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2015 at 14:06 UTC
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1165 comments in total)
In reply to:

Poss: I do not understand the jabs at the luxury market. It's a valid market as any of the other ones.

Besides it was a Rolex that reached the deepest ocean point in 2012 and an Omega Speedmaster at Neil Armstrong's wrist when he stepped on the Moon, not a cheap Chinese knockoff. Want to see what technology will eventually filter down to the automotive consumer level? Watch what Mercedes is putting on their flagship S series sedans. And so on.

If anything this looks like a well sorted camera for which Leica can comfortably charge a premium price. Much like Porsche can (and does) charge for a Cayenne or Omega does for the current Speedmaster (very different than the one used in the Apollo program) or Apple does for an iPhone.

Some brands enjoy having a very loyal following for very good reasons and when we belittle them, we tend to sound more like an acute case of sour grapes.

@richtea777 You're so very right. I apologize. I merely find using a camera as a fashion accessory amusing and sometimes fail to understand others might have a need there. My almost fifty years as a jobbing professional photographer can truly jade my viewpoint.

For so many years I've advised to ignore the camera and invest one's time and money in learning photography, that it's the photographer, not the camera. I guess I might forget that for some it really is the camera, not what they do with it. Yes, for some, looking and feeling good is the important thing and you're right, there's nothing wrong with that.

Thanks for the reality check. :-)

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2015 at 13:42 UTC
On article Leica Q In-depth Review (1165 comments in total)
In reply to:

Paul Petersen: I think I would get better results with a Sigma 18-35 on my D7200 and have some flexibility all the way around. Leica's 24mp FF seems to be a bit of dog in sensor performance. But I would look so cool with one to those that actually know what a Leica is.

Again, that BS meter just pegs right over. Color? What world are you from? Good glass should be color neutral and a Zeiss labeled Consina lens has no better color than anyone else except in the eyes of someone impressed by that label. Most experienced photographers in this price range do not shoot SOOTC Jpegs, so color correction and white balance are often post operations.

When the sunlight filters through green foliage and tints your subject's skin tones, you color correct it. We did this in the darkroom for years. We still do it today. Your glass has little to do with it.

You claim to have all this experience with photography, but it surely doesn't show by your remarks on the subject. It's more a mimicry of some Zeiss press release.

It is so typical of self proclaimed photography gurus who have nothing much in their gallery and no links to any of their work, as well a no profile, total anonymity and nothing in their gear list after 4 years membership. Knock knock Mcfly. ;-)

Link | Posted on Jun 13, 2015 at 13:20 UTC
Total: 363, showing: 21 – 40
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »