meanwhile

meanwhile

Lives in Australia Australia
Joined on Nov 14, 2009

Comments

Total: 714, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: You can "change the game" as much as you want, resorting to DNG included.

All these samples show color casts that are very difficult to balance, as samples 63 to 65 clearly and aptly show.

Foveon sensors far from being a photographers ally make color an enemy to contend with.

It has been so for 15 years and, apart from proving that a significant part of the population is, indeed, color blind, it is a mystery tantamount to commercial suicide why Sigma insists on this technical solution.

"If you can't see it, I can't help you"

If you can't not see it, I can't help you.
It's not me who has the issue with it.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2017 at 12:19 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: You can "change the game" as much as you want, resorting to DNG included.

All these samples show color casts that are very difficult to balance, as samples 63 to 65 clearly and aptly show.

Foveon sensors far from being a photographers ally make color an enemy to contend with.

It has been so for 15 years and, apart from proving that a significant part of the population is, indeed, color blind, it is a mystery tantamount to commercial suicide why Sigma insists on this technical solution.

I'm not a Sigma user, nor am I deuteranomalous.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2017 at 12:05 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: You can "change the game" as much as you want, resorting to DNG included.

All these samples show color casts that are very difficult to balance, as samples 63 to 65 clearly and aptly show.

Foveon sensors far from being a photographers ally make color an enemy to contend with.

It has been so for 15 years and, apart from proving that a significant part of the population is, indeed, color blind, it is a mystery tantamount to commercial suicide why Sigma insists on this technical solution.

Looking at your portfolio, I find your treatment of colour aesthetically displeasing 95% of the time (not trolling, it's just not for me) - that doesn't mean you are wrong, or that your images are flawed. It means you make different choices than I would make. Similarly, just because you dislike Sigma Foveon's colour, doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong. Casts exist in the world, in the environment. You seem to actively try to remove any cast from your images, even if it existed in the world at the time. That's your choice.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2017 at 11:30 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: You can "change the game" as much as you want, resorting to DNG included.

All these samples show color casts that are very difficult to balance, as samples 63 to 65 clearly and aptly show.

Foveon sensors far from being a photographers ally make color an enemy to contend with.

It has been so for 15 years and, apart from proving that a significant part of the population is, indeed, color blind, it is a mystery tantamount to commercial suicide why Sigma insists on this technical solution.

You have a bee in your bonnet about a particular aspect of photographs that annoys you. That is not unique, nor is it newsworthy. I'm quite sure that you can find color casts in all kinds of photographs from a multitude of equipment. For some reason, you have decided that Sigma is most deserving of your wrath. To what end?

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2017 at 11:19 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: You can "change the game" as much as you want, resorting to DNG included.

All these samples show color casts that are very difficult to balance, as samples 63 to 65 clearly and aptly show.

Foveon sensors far from being a photographers ally make color an enemy to contend with.

It has been so for 15 years and, apart from proving that a significant part of the population is, indeed, color blind, it is a mystery tantamount to commercial suicide why Sigma insists on this technical solution.

"really looks like the original OOC DNG"

It's the first implementation of this, with no input/adjustments from makers of the software. It won't be perfect. Guess this must be your first run around the block if that surprises you, or you think it points directly to an innate deficiency in the camera itself. It took third-party appmakers a year or so to get solid X-Trans support.

You are just whinging for the sake of whinging.

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2017 at 00:17 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: You can "change the game" as much as you want, resorting to DNG included.

All these samples show color casts that are very difficult to balance, as samples 63 to 65 clearly and aptly show.

Foveon sensors far from being a photographers ally make color an enemy to contend with.

It has been so for 15 years and, apart from proving that a significant part of the population is, indeed, color blind, it is a mystery tantamount to commercial suicide why Sigma insists on this technical solution.

"Stopped at the first sentence"

Can you do this from now on when posting?

Link | Posted on Apr 10, 2017 at 00:13 UTC
In reply to:

PhotoKhan: You can "change the game" as much as you want, resorting to DNG included.

All these samples show color casts that are very difficult to balance, as samples 63 to 65 clearly and aptly show.

Foveon sensors far from being a photographers ally make color an enemy to contend with.

It has been so for 15 years and, apart from proving that a significant part of the population is, indeed, color blind, it is a mystery tantamount to commercial suicide why Sigma insists on this technical solution.

If 3 out of 70 files illustrate a flaw you are suggesting is universal to all photos taken with a particular camera, then perhaps it is not as universal as you think.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2017 at 15:19 UTC

Have they said whether DNG support is coming to older cameras or not?

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2017 at 11:38 UTC as 70th comment | 2 replies
On article We try out the new HassleVlad (100 comments in total)
In reply to:

MikeFairbanks: So you guys are putin him in a cubicle?

And he moscow to all the meetings.

Link | Posted on Apr 2, 2017 at 05:30 UTC
In reply to:

tkbslc: I never like the word, "bokeh" anyway. I propose we call it "OOFA" (out of focus areas)

"Oh, that shot has really nice OOFA"

Is that O-O-F-A, double-O-F-A, oof-a, uu-far ... ?

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2017 at 21:23 UTC
In reply to:

FLruckas: Sort of an exercise in silliness....

Languages evolve....

How many words are pronounced one way in their native language and way different in another....

Nikon is a great example.....

Nigh con .... Knee con .....

And if it's pronounced differently often enough the correct sound in the dictionary changes to the current version....

The vernacular becomes the accepted.....

That's how languages work...

Just like the meaning of words....

Ever heard of Kleenex, aspirin....?

So silly...

This article is two days early.....

It's not April 1 yet.....

:-)

Yes and no. Josh Homme, as an example, accepts that the correct pronunciation of his last name is contextual.

Link | Posted on Mar 30, 2017 at 21:21 UTC
On article Re-make/Re-model: Leica Summaron 28mm F5.6 Samples (202 comments in total)
In reply to:

aris14: C.mon DPR readers, show some fantasy. In this case we are witnesses of a new era in photography: The Leic[o/a]graphy. The Leic[o/a]graphy will substitute the Lomography by adding glamour, prestige and value, the cost of which is not some tenths of $/€, but thousands. A cost only the fearless will undertake only the half blinds will comprehend, a real tribute to vanity.
Btw, the lens was just right at a time that color pix represented the 10% of global use, the most cams were rangefinders and color films were struggling to cope the expectations...

I'm not capable of spending that kind of money on a camera, but that's rubbish. People are not going to buy an M10 to use this lens - they already have a Leica, or they are adapting it on something else.

Link | Posted on Mar 25, 2017 at 11:22 UTC
In reply to:

Irakly Shanidze: What a lovely review... Yet what it is really missing is an understanding why we need medium format in the first place. So, listen up :)

It is all about lenses. More precisely, about a fundamental conflict between sharpness and micro-contrast. The conflict stems from the fact that the smaller the frame is, the higher are requirements for lens resolution. More resolution means more edge sharpness, means higher overall contrast. That, in turn, prevent from increasing micro-contrast. Larger frame means less need for high resolution, which, in turn, makes it easier to design a lens with higher micro-contrast.

Now, what is micro-contrast, and why do we want it? It is the micro-contrast that makes pictures look alive. Lenses with high sharpness and low micro-contrast (like Sigma Art series, for instance) render a highly detailed image that looks flat. A high micro-contrast lens creates an image that looks three-dimensional even when it is not critically sharp.

Hi Ken. (joke)

Link | Posted on Mar 24, 2017 at 04:39 UTC

Great article!

CANON 50mm f/1.4 II (S Series, 1959).

Link | Posted on Mar 22, 2017 at 13:28 UTC as 109th comment
In reply to:

guyfawkes: When saving an image to jpeg after editing the original my software gives me the option to select a quality setting where 100 equals best quality jpeg, but having just saved a jpeg of 450KB from a 16MB RAW image, with the image dimensions remaining the same, on screen I can't see any difference. This represents a reduction to roughly 1/32nd of the original. So what am I missing here with google announcing just 35% saving?

That 450KB file would be 292KB instead.

Link | Posted on Mar 19, 2017 at 21:46 UTC
In reply to:

OlyPent: Eventually, will this thing end-up on the used lens market?

Maybe there's another way in? :-)

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2017 at 01:07 UTC
In reply to:

OlyPent: Eventually, will this thing end-up on the used lens market?

"didn't use a better grade part"

Unless, like some others have surmised (including Roger), it's maybe designed to be a 'crumple zone', so other parts don't get damaged in the fall.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2017 at 00:07 UTC

Ha. Is this the SD Association trolling Sony?

(Yes, I know Sony is on the board too)

Link | Posted on Feb 25, 2017 at 01:31 UTC as 10th comment | 1 reply
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF bokeh demystified (355 comments in total)
In reply to:

mezastel: Notice how the images Sony shows off has that *Simulated image disclaimer. Why couldn't they use REAL images?

Sure. As they did with most. But there is no Sony 100mm f/2.8 non-STF to use.

Link | Posted on Feb 20, 2017 at 09:46 UTC
On article Sony FE 100mm F2.8 STF bokeh demystified (355 comments in total)
In reply to:

mezastel: Notice how the images Sony shows off has that *Simulated image disclaimer. Why couldn't they use REAL images?

The non-STF image is simulated.

Link | Posted on Feb 19, 2017 at 01:04 UTC
Total: 714, showing: 41 – 60
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »