meanwhile

meanwhile

Lives in Australia Australia
Joined on Nov 14, 2009

Comments

Total: 602, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Alex Efimoff: So horrible... It's how to software fix a bad shot taken with a wrong lens (in one of the next CC Photoshop releases)... I couldn't stand the example photos taken with a wide angle lens...

"And, well, there is a trick involving panorama technique"

Sounds like the Brenizer Method .

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2016 at 00:04 UTC
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: I can't help myself, I'll leave here my opinion. If you disagree, feel free to leave yours.

I simply fail to see why anyone within the target audience (smartphone users would ever care for such gimmicks).

Like M1963 wrote a few posts below: "Why do these guys believe people who take selfies are interested in correcting perspective? They aren't! They just don't care. "

Nailed.

Know what? I'd include everything quality-related in the same comment. That DOF app... Do you really think a smartphone user taking a dumb selfie, or a burger shot, will care for "ahh... should I go with f0.95 or 1.2 bokeh? Zeiss or Leica bokeh?"

And that 41 mp Nokia?

I have a friend that owns this cell phone. She has ZERO knowledge about what megapixels really mean, she continues taking less than 2 mp worthy of real details images (motion blurred, noisy) and somehow she thinks her 41 mp cell phone is a "real camera".

"ahh... should I go with f0.95 or 1.2 bokeh? Zeiss or Leica bokeh?"

Given that has nothing to do with this app, huh? Maybe read again what it actually does.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2016 at 23:45 UTC
In reply to:

meanwhile: If my calculations are correct, that means it's ~88 lux at 1m. Is that correct? I have an Ikan PL60 which is 219 lux @ 1m and it barely makes a difference from that distance.

Actually, my memory is off. Just got it out and it's actually pretty bright @ 1m. So this light should be good for a stop or two.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 02:59 UTC

If my calculations are correct, that means it's ~88 lux at 1m. Is that correct? I have an Ikan PL60 which is 219 lux @ 1m and it barely makes a difference from that distance.

Link | Posted on Jul 20, 2016 at 00:11 UTC as 6th comment | 2 replies
On article Sony Planar T* FE 50mm F1.4 ZA Sample Gallery (268 comments in total)
In reply to:

babart: For $1000 one can acquire a Sigma 50/1.4 plus the Sigma MC-11 adapter for Sony E mount. The MC-11 allows full auto control and works with many of the Art lenses.
If one happens to shoot Fuji, their 35/1.4 (50mm crop value) is $600. If one doesn't mind manual focus a Zeiss Contax 50/1.4 in mint condition can be had for $350. Like several others here I'm not certain I get the $2000 price tag.

"Like several others here I'm not certain I get the $2000 price tag"

I don't get it either. Maybe that's because it's $1500? Still out of my ballpark, but not what you state.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2016 at 03:59 UTC

This all reminds me of a story from an old (late) friend who worked in, among many other things, the photographic section of the Texas Highway Dept.
http://dougs-stories.com/stories.php?stories_ID=30

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2016 at 01:35 UTC as 7th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

M1963: Somebody had to say it, so here it goes:
If you want that film look, use a film camera.

*tips hat*

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2016 at 23:38 UTC
In reply to:

M1963: Somebody had to say it, so here it goes:
If you want that film look, use a film camera.

"Oh, I see, you're an idiot. No surprise: there's one in every thread."

Wait, what was it you said ...

Thanks for your constructive and enlightening reply. It really contributed to the debate.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2016 at 12:52 UTC
In reply to:

M1963: Somebody had to say it, so here it goes:
If you want that film look, use a film camera.

Thank you M1963. I thought it was the correct response to your ridiculous hypocrisy. "All these digital film products are useless pieces of $&@! But I like this one best." DXO products are great, until you want to do any kind of local adjustments. You know, like you could do with film.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2016 at 09:30 UTC
In reply to:

M1963: Somebody had to say it, so here it goes:
If you want that film look, use a film camera.

"DxO Film Pack is the only way to go" Ha ha ha ha ha. Ha.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 00:20 UTC
In reply to:

mmarian: Can somone enlighten me as to what is so amazing or even atractive in mimicking the films?? I thought most have moved on with the proliferation of digital cameras and Photoshop like processing software. The manipulation possibilities are endless. Why someone craves for film emulation presets???? If the nostalgy is the reason why not to go back to film and make it authentic?? Sory,I do not get this😞

It's actually not confusing at all if you get it. If you don't, don't worry about it and move on.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2016 at 00:18 UTC
In reply to:

ambercool: No photography means no photography. Why are some of you guys against this? If it's that big of a deal to take a photo we still have our cameras(existed way before cell phones) and film for press related things.

The insult wasn't directed at me, so I have no need to absorb it.
There were no facts to ignore.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2016 at 03:30 UTC
In reply to:

ambercool: No photography means no photography. Why are some of you guys against this? If it's that big of a deal to take a photo we still have our cameras(existed way before cell phones) and film for press related things.

"Follow that path perhaps"

Oh, sorry, the path where you just insult people and come across as even more arrogant? I was doing you a favour leaving that out. My mistake.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2016 at 02:01 UTC
In reply to:

ambercool: No photography means no photography. Why are some of you guys against this? If it's that big of a deal to take a photo we still have our cameras(existed way before cell phones) and film for press related things.

"I just understand the rules" Some choose to understand and value rules above all else. Some choose to understand and value people above all else. Eh.

Link | Posted on Jul 3, 2016 at 23:43 UTC
On article Meyer-Optik Goerlitz launches 3-element 95mm F2.6 (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

J A C S: Three elements for $1,700. Those must be the most expensive elements in lens history...

The situation pops up occasionally. :-)

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 23:19 UTC
In reply to:

ambercool: No photography means no photography. Why are some of you guys against this? If it's that big of a deal to take a photo we still have our cameras(existed way before cell phones) and film for press related things.

"When you got your Thinkpad ..." Ambercool, in this case just say "I'm sorry, I was wrong", because you are. zkz5 knows his stuff.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 22:03 UTC
On article Meyer-Optik Goerlitz launches 3-element 95mm F2.6 (120 comments in total)

Half-price sales coming soon.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 06:30 UTC as 27th comment | 1 reply
On article Meyer-Optik Goerlitz launches 3-element 95mm F2.6 (120 comments in total)
In reply to:

J A C S: Three elements for $1,700. Those must be the most expensive elements in lens history...

Thank you for letting me know.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 06:27 UTC

Maybe they are patenting it so they can shelve it and no one can use it. *ducks*

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 06:24 UTC as 125th comment
In reply to:

ambercool: No photography means no photography. Why are some of you guys against this? If it's that big of a deal to take a photo we still have our cameras(existed way before cell phones) and film for press related things.

When it stops you from taking a video of a concert or artwork, sure, no problem. When it stops you from videoing someone being beaten by the police, problem.

Link | Posted on Jul 1, 2016 at 06:19 UTC
Total: 602, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »