Lives in Netherlands Leiden, Netherlands
Has a website at
Joined on Nov 29, 2002


Total: 26, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »

For me what stands out is the color rendition on all of them, I have yet to see a 35mm equiv camera produce something that gets even close. Skin tones, subtleties in the landscapes.

Link | Posted on Dec 21, 2019 at 14:43 UTC as 4th comment
In reply to:

Vitantonio Dell'Orto: 20 fps and the battery lasts 450 shots? That is 22 seconds shooting before having to change it. Don't think any actual sport or wildlife photographer would be thrilled. Until they'll fix the battery life in mirrorless (not just Sony's) reflex will always be the best choice for that kinds of photography.

You need a videocamera.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2017 at 18:27 UTC
On article Hasselblad X1D final production sample gallery (136 comments in total)

I am not sure why ACR is used to process these images. Phocus/C1 both have superior output. ACR is mediocre at best, especially with skintones.

Link | Posted on Apr 17, 2017 at 07:56 UTC as 9th comment | 3 replies
In reply to:

JackM: Here's the pic...

"She also claims the photo was edited to include alcoholic items on the dining table." how does that work in your pic ?

Link | Posted on Jan 10, 2017 at 16:55 UTC
On article Sigma releases price and availability for sd Quattro H (370 comments in total)
In reply to:

(unknown member): The pixels in camera sensors are defined per colour. As such, the Sigma has a spatial resolution of 25.7 megapixels and the sensor has 38.6 megapixels (total photodetectors) in three layers, compared to Bayer CFA sensors where the number of pixels corresponds to the spatial resolution.

The APS-H sensor features 25.5MP in its top layer, which the company considers equivalent to the capture of a 51 megapixel sensor using the conventional Bayer design.

The APS-C version uses a phase-detection capable variant of the sensor used in the existing DP Quattros, offering 19.6MP on its top layer. Sigma says this should offer a level of detail comparable with a 39MP Bayer chip.

Link | Posted on Dec 15, 2016 at 09:26 UTC
In reply to:

CortoPA: I think the images here are great, the DR is superb.

Some people need to stop looking at their current gear with rose colored glasses and try to be more appreciative of what Hasselblad has done here.

I've never owned a camera this good. And it will probably be a while before I do.

And I sure would love to have one.

@Jennysaurusrex - that's why you need to download Phocus from Hasselblad and hold your jaw when you see the details in color and DR. This is not 8-bit photoshop stuff.

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 08:25 UTC
In reply to:

brycesteiner: Very interesting! I just converted the RAW file with the latest DNG converter. The file size was nearly dropped in half.
Is Adobe's RAW converters good? I noticed these samples on the site don't use Adobe, is it because Adobe really is just generic and really loses too much?

Anyway, I converted the wood shop picture that's looking out the windows and then lifted the shadows. It's pretty amazing all the detail that was in the black areas. Quite a bit of noise and lines of sorts but still there was a lot there.

.fff are 16 bit files, did you set ACR to 16 bit ?

Link | Posted on Dec 13, 2016 at 08:09 UTC
On article Apple revamps MacBook Pro lineup, adds 'Touch Bar' (866 comments in total)
In reply to:

PVCdroid: Insane pricing and they will still sell a boatload of them.

@RedFox88 It is quality, maybe you don't want to hear it, but it simply is. It start with the trackpad, there is no windows-based laptop that even comes close in accuracy. These machines do rock, but they are way overpriced.

Link | Posted on Oct 27, 2016 at 22:45 UTC

These values are measured on 1Ws t0.5 and no word about color stability, marketing-wise it sounds very impressive. Pretty sure it is good stuff, but for real-world these values are not really interesting.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2016 at 09:07 UTC as 5th comment
In reply to:

Thuravi Kumaaran: Yes, i won’t care.
They name it Apple, but they give us a bitten apple.
So it is a false advertisement.
If they are true, give us Apple – not a bitten apple.
Cultured people won’t give/sell bitten apple to others.
This bitten apple negative symbol of humanity, may go with today’s ignorance.
But, i won’t buy/sell a bitten apple.
Thanks to GOD, for other better options.

Wake up and don't limit yourself: there is no god.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2016 at 08:52 UTC
On article Rock Solid: Canon 1D X Mark II Review (442 comments in total)

For the soccer shots that are out of focus: the focuspoint was on a white area without any contrast, not very strange that the camera gave up, you need some kind of contrast/edge.

Link | Posted on Aug 1, 2016 at 17:51 UTC as 49th comment | 1 reply
On article Framing fashion with Dixie Dixon (46 comments in total)
In reply to:

Bakman_29: This is called glamour photography, borderlining on "cheap" fashion. Then talking about "keeping everything real" while photoshopping the hell out of it.
"fashion" is a different level.

@conrad, you can check my profile.

Link | Posted on Feb 9, 2016 at 07:21 UTC
On article Framing fashion with Dixie Dixon (46 comments in total)

This is called glamour photography, borderlining on "cheap" fashion. Then talking about "keeping everything real" while photoshopping the hell out of it.
"fashion" is a different level.

Link | Posted on Feb 6, 2016 at 21:10 UTC as 17th comment | 7 replies
In reply to:

rbach44: There is a problem I see in these pieces that I see often in this style, and that is the editing. To me it seems overdone an gives it a fake look, which is a shame because of all of the effort put in to do it all in camera. I don’t mean the subject matter either, I mean the soft-focusish filters, the HDRish feel, and all that wide angle perspective distortion all just doesn’t work for me. They seem like they could all use lot of burning and dodging too on those burning highlights too.

There are a lot of people saying it looks like CGI and I agree. I see it in the climate change series too: cool concept with a ton of work put in to NOT fake things, then a ton of editing that then makes it look fake. I feel there would be much more of an impact if they were edited to look like the beautiful pictures they are rather than some 3D composite from deviantart. I would love to see the raw files for these.

But what do I know, I’m just some photographer, no one is writing articles about me.

Photographers can see this overshopped stuff, normal mortals cannot comprehend and just think in "ahhh wow". There are so many photoshopgraphers that only survive because of photoshop.
When it comes down to photography, it is mediocre at best. Especially in "fashion" and glamour.

Link | Posted on Jan 22, 2016 at 05:37 UTC
On article GoPro's poor holiday sales lead to staff layoff (114 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Schulz: Sony beat's them all...

Try it underwater (ie. diving)

Link | Posted on Jan 17, 2016 at 14:36 UTC
On article Behind the Shot: Prince of the Night (84 comments in total)
In reply to:

SKPhoto12: This is not photography. It is design, which any good PS commercial designer could do. You don't have to go there, just buy a stock image and work on it. Pure nonsense, if you ask me. and people pay to go take pictures with this guy! Might as well just take a good PS course and save a lot of money, because his workshops are not cheap.
The "Emperors new cloths" never fails to impress the naive!

Well i've been there (was actually a long hike from a different location about 20 years ago). You need some luck to get clear skies as the weather can be changing like four seasons in one day. Then again, it was an experience that nobody can take away from me (this includes whole of patagonia). I have a similar shot except that everything is covered in clouds. The shot itself is not original as it was done before, but shooting yourself still demands your own vision/ideas. But you will be limited how to shoot this location. Those rocks slip easily underneath you except from this spot.

Link | Posted on Dec 14, 2015 at 06:59 UTC
On article Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 IV Review (1556 comments in total)
In reply to:

howieb101: I think these reviews do not make a fair adjustment for price. If you sell an expensive camera it has to be fully featured to justify its price.

Lots of less expensive cameras get marked down based on missing features. Oh, but its several $$$ cheaper.

It doesn't seem fair lots of the time.

The Rx100 IV certainly seems to be about as good as you can get for a one inch sensor but you are paying for it literally.

At circa US$1000 I'd say it is a fair price only. Definitely not staggering value for money.

a camera is about it's capabilities/image quality, not its price. I don't have to start to make the car comparisons right ?

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2015 at 03:18 UTC
In reply to:

Francis Carver: Wow, Canon, you had done it again! You had released yet another legacy 1080p video camera body -- smack in midst of the UHD and 4K resolution era.

But wait -- what's that price? $300? $3,000? $30,000? Tell you what, Canon -- make it an even $300,000, and I'll sign us up for three.

i think you misread that this camera was for you.

Link | Posted on Jul 30, 2015 at 20:31 UTC
On article Phase One 645DF+ with IQ250 field test (127 comments in total)
In reply to:

Henrik Herranen: Once again:
Why is sensor size not in the "Key specifications" list? You cannot expect your readers to remember these things by heart for every camera - I certainly don't.
Plus, honestly, if sensor size isn't a key specification, then what is?

Otherwise, an interesting read. Still, I don't think the "shallow DoF" argument works for MF anymore, with the sensors only slightly larger than FF, and with so many FF ultra-large aperture lenses (f/1.2 to f/1.4) available.

"slightly larger" ?

Link | Posted on Jul 11, 2015 at 07:49 UTC
Total: 26, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12Next ›Last »