rbach44

Joined on Nov 4, 2011

Comments

Total: 96, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

DPReview's dentition of AI has gotten rather loose lately...

Link | Posted on Nov 1, 2017 at 18:09 UTC as 52nd comment | 5 replies
On article Photo story of the week: I Am Legend (172 comments in total)

I think this photo is a prime missed opportunity. It is lovely scene and a neat subject matter, but executed poorly.

- This looks like a picture of a rock and some trees with a hiker in the background. The composition and positioning of the photographer to the subject just feel all wrong.

- Feels overexposed. I’m sure the histogram is “correct” or whatever, but the fog feels overexposed and all the details in the foreground rocks/trees feels unnecessary. I would’ve exposed a stop under.

- PP feels inappropriate.I’m not suggesting the use of that god-forsaken digital soft focus technique, but this feels crunchy and harsh for something thats supposed to feel airy and ethereal. And the saturated blue tint and the candy greens makes things look weird

Coulee been something wonderful, but just does not come across that way. Unfortunately reading the backstory makes it even more of disappointment.

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 16:28 UTC as 43rd comment
On article Photo story of the week: I Am Legend (172 comments in total)
In reply to:

quietrich: Many commenters here are claiming that the photographer got the exposure wrong, that the sky shouldn’t be burned out, that the composition should have cropped this element or put that element somewhere else. We are all experts, it seems ;)

I think that photography is the only art form that begins with the real world as a starting point, rather than a blank canvass. Therefore any scene in the real world is subject to the artistic interpretations of the photographers, none of which (assuming the results are deliberate) are either right or wrong. If there was only one correct interpretation of a particular scene then that makes photography a purely technical exercise, rather than a creative medium.

Personally, I like that the sky in this photo is white.

I don't think the problem is that the sky is white or blown out, but that it is doen rather poorly. The transition feels harsh and unpleasant. It certainly does not feel ethereal and is probably why so many people are complaining about the sky...

Link | Posted on Oct 30, 2017 at 16:20 UTC

“The search for bokeh in a 17mm lens can drive a man to madness.”

But really, I wonder who these lenses are for. My D600 and 35mm f/2 would have about the same amount of bokeh/isolation/whatever and, at least IMO, would produce superior images with more pleasant rendering. When considering the entire package, it would not be huge difference in size, weight, or cost.

On a system built on a smaller sensor that trades subject isolation and blur potential for portability, its seems odd to then chase blur potential by sacrificing portability.

Link | Posted on Oct 26, 2017 at 13:59 UTC as 16th comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

rbach44: Man, what a grumpy bunch here. I think a lot of you guys are missing the point.

I’ll buy this and throw it in my backpack and be happy if it makes good image or two. It might be fun to have something where I have to think to change the look. What if I leave the cartridge at home and I’m forced to shoot B&W for a day? Sounds funs and challenging.

For all those who yak about how cameras don’t matter, here’s your camera. I’m personally looking forward to having a great time with this toy. Toys are for grownups too. It’ll probably get as much use as half the M’s out there and costs 2% of the price.

Bravo, Yashica (or whoever you are)

Robert Schroeder, the same logic can be applied to about any camera in the wrong hands. Why this camera is deserving of so much ire at $140 while there are $5000+ cameras that others use as toys is beyond me...

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 12:54 UTC

Man, what a grumpy bunch here. I think a lot of you guys are missing the point.

I’ll buy this and throw it in my backpack and be happy if it makes good image or two. It might be fun to have something where I have to think to change the look. What if I leave the cartridge at home and I’m forced to shoot B&W for a day? Sounds funs and challenging.

For all those who yak about how cameras don’t matter, here’s your camera. I’m personally looking forward to having a great time with this toy. Toys are for grownups too. It’ll probably get as much use as half the M’s out there and costs 2% of the price.

Bravo, Yashica (or whoever you are)

Link | Posted on Oct 11, 2017 at 02:45 UTC as 121st comment | 7 replies

What?! Something kinda new and, dare I say, FUN in the photo world?!

Just cheesy enough to be pique some interest, cheap enough to worth the fun factor. Maybe being locked into one ISO/color setting could be a good creative exercise.

With my choice focal length and an optical viewfinder too? Am I the only one whose actually excited about this camera?

Link | Posted on Oct 10, 2017 at 16:08 UTC as 243rd comment | 1 reply

“Gamechanger” always seems to be the phrase that those who get money/free gear to review tend to call things. I’ve been on to the term ever since a reviewer on Steve Huff referred to the Samsung 85 1.4 as a gamechanger for similarly vague reasons. It does fall short of the holy grail of crappy sensationalism, the “Is the the new _____ a gamechanger?” title.

This looks like a very nice flash, possibly the best on the market, but “Gamechanger” and “Does the same thing but a lot better” are two different things.

Link | Posted on Oct 9, 2017 at 22:24 UTC as 37th comment | 2 replies

Personal anecdote:

I was enjoying local park here in NYC this summer when someone started flying a drone in the middle of said park. Someone with a baby politely told the operator that he really prefers that they don’t fly it over his baby’s head. An argument ensued, someone cried.

I’m not sure exactly what my point was. But the less places any unskilled moron can fly a a heavy device with spinning propellers over my head to record me and everyone else without us knowing, the better.

Link | Posted on Sep 29, 2017 at 20:06 UTC as 14th comment | 6 replies

While I wish that the manufacturers would innovate a bit more just like the next guy, I think we take for granted how much time effort, money, and risk goes into these products. How many truly unique products are there currently?

Its a very irrational marketplace, with a lot of misinformation, misguided ideas, and strange\strong opinions floating around. But those are the people who are buying, so cameras must be made for them. In fact, you could argue that cameras are made more for the geeks than for actual photographers.

Imagine if they started making an F1 car that you could take for your morning commute? It wouldn’t be much of an F1 car anymore. It becomes a strange frankenstein of cost cutting, technological limitations, and compromises wrapped up in a package that needs to “feel” good on top of it.

And that is what the camera industry has turned into: weird mixes of limitations, strange expectations, and uninformed customers that spend a lot of money. Blame us too.

Link | Posted on Aug 7, 2017 at 21:37 UTC as 27th comment
In reply to:

Clyde Thomas: The photographer who dies with the most paying clients wins..?

No... but it you are trying to run a business it'll certainly help.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 18:49 UTC

Just another example of the unbalanced environment that creatives have been facing for a while now, where creatives are expected to sacrifice income for exposure or portfolio/resume building.

If you want to post your work here, by all means go ahead. But don’t believe the spin that its for your benefit. The chances of you profiting from this relationship are minuscule compared to the certainty that someone will be profiting off of your work. Unless they provide some data to the contrary, I'm inclined to believe this is a one-sided relationship

Also, it is not wise to confuse the difference between sharing work with an audience (the Chance the Rapper example) and giving away a service for free. Big difference.

I know I worked hard (and payed a lot) for my design degree and the skills I’ve gained, and I see no need to give away my services for free for someone else to profit off of it. Creatives can get exposure AND get paid for their work, but it takes some work.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 18:03 UTC as 72nd comment | 2 replies
On article Nine new lens adapters announced for the Fujifilm GFX (90 comments in total)

Who on Earth would put M42, OM, or Pentax K lenses on a medium format camera? That AF Contax 645 one looks pretty sweet though…

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 12:25 UTC as 5th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

rbach44: Dear Leica, I have a plan for you:

Please start making lenses for other systems. People want your lenses way more than your interchangeable lens cameras. Give Zeiss some competition. I know I’d buy a bunch even at some whacky price. I’m sure I’m not the only one.

"Then Leica would have to reverse engineer the Canon or Nikon mounts and controls."

There's probably about 20 other brands that have done this is in the past...

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 18:44 UTC
In reply to:

rbach44: Dear Leica, I have a plan for you:

Please start making lenses for other systems. People want your lenses way more than your interchangeable lens cameras. Give Zeiss some competition. I know I’d buy a bunch even at some whacky price. I’m sure I’m not the only one.

Sure that’d work too, just like that new 28 Summaron.

I’d like some high quality ones though as well. Something like a modern version of R lenses that I could put on my Nikon. That’d be sweet. Both seem like good business for Leica, and with the “classic” versions they wouldn’t even have to give up their silly heritage shtick.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 18:42 UTC
In reply to:

rbach44: Dear Leica, I have a plan for you:

Please start making lenses for other systems. People want your lenses way more than your interchangeable lens cameras. Give Zeiss some competition. I know I’d buy a bunch even at some whacky price. I’m sure I’m not the only one.

The price is not necessarily the concern. Its more of a ready made, adapterless solution that I’m talking about, I’m not interested in putting cine lenses on my still camera. Something like the Zeiss ZF/ZE lenses but yknow, Leica. Prices in line with the price of even the M lenses would be fine.

I’m sure that would make a lot of people happy. I would like to be able to use a Leica lens without having to use their cameras or an adapter.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 17:06 UTC
In reply to:

rbach44: Dear Leica, I have a plan for you:

Please start making lenses for other systems. People want your lenses way more than your interchangeable lens cameras. Give Zeiss some competition. I know I’d buy a bunch even at some whacky price. I’m sure I’m not the only one.

I meant lenses that I and most photographers would use. Putting a huge 5-figure cine lens on a camera for stills would be miserable.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 14:34 UTC

Dear Leica, I have a plan for you:

Please start making lenses for other systems. People want your lenses way more than your interchangeable lens cameras. Give Zeiss some competition. I know I’d buy a bunch even at some whacky price. I’m sure I’m not the only one.

Link | Posted on Aug 3, 2017 at 14:20 UTC as 31st comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

photophile: Slightly digressing from the main story here - just how large a print can you make from a 100MP resolution ? Would it be enough for those large advert posters/hoardings you used to see on major roads, advertising breakfast cereals/ latest cinema films etc ? Come to think of - why have those large posters disappeared from the streets - migration of ads online, increased use of LED displays, or insufficient resolution from digital ?

Photophile,

Prepress guy at a large format print shop here.

Unsatisfying answer is: it depends. Its often a balance of viewing distance, native resolution available, and quality of the original file and how well it will take to upsizing. Large posters or banners are almost never printed at 300DPI, partly due to the fact that the resolution is not needed for those viewing distances and partially because it makes our workflow more efficient to work with the smaller files. Big posters are something like 75-150DPI and billboards look great as low as 36 DPI if they are seen from the highway. It all depends.

In all of my years doing this I’ve never seen a native 100MP file. Skilled pros know how to shoot and prep a file that will enlarge nicely, native resolution is only part of the puzzle. We’ve been printing billboards since 12MP has considered a big file, the high res sensors just make things a bit easier.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 14:51 UTC

What constitutes this as fine art? The same old night skyline and landscape photos but with a lot more pixels? A lot of time spent on an image we’ve seen a thousand times before? The same few subjects that stand still enough for stitching? I’d rather see some good prints of interesting subjects that were chosen for artistic rather than technical reasons, gigapixel or not.

As a prepress artist at a large format print shop, I am deeply skeptical of these things. There always seems to be a new kid on the block claiming superior prints based on lots and lots of resolution. Resolution is only part of the equation (and with a bit of time and software, pretty easy to master). Remember, billboards look great at 36-72 DPI…

I’m not sure what the purpose of this “gigapixel” thing is besides geekery. But I will reserve judgement until I can see one of these prints in person.

Link | Posted on Aug 2, 2017 at 14:41 UTC as 8th comment | 2 replies
Total: 96, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »