BNapa

Joined on Jul 29, 2011

Comments

Total: 50, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Peadingle: An amazing film, but I am not sure how he drove 20,000 miles in 18 days, (which is driving for over 22 hours a day at an average of 50 mph) and still found the time to take the pictures.

Mike,
You better make some money from this to pay for the cost of production! And then go out and do more.
Seriously, I hope you make lots of money for commercial usage rights. You deserve it my friend.

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 21:58 UTC

The images are stunning and the music is divine. Mike you know your craft. What a perfect marriage of sound and visuals. You captured nature with its beauty and fury all in one film. Wow!

I can put this on a large TV monitor on a continuous loop and watch it for hours and hours without getting tired.

We (or at least me) as photographers dream of a project like this and you go do it... bravo, bravo, bravo!

Link | Posted on Jul 13, 2016 at 21:53 UTC as 22nd comment | 1 reply
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2660 comments in total)
In reply to:

BNapa: It is ironic, I agree with most of the findings of DPReview in general. Perhaps they are correct in most of their assertions. However, there is such a thing as filed testing and shooting in real life situations. When it comes to that K1 delivers with flying colors.

I own the K1. The images it produces are stunning. I have owned Canons for 12 years and shot plenty of Nikon bodies. Nikon has the edge in autofocus and tracking. I will not dispute that. Both Canon and Nikon offer plenty of bodies and lenses for every need. But $1,800 for a body the caliber of the K1... nobody touches that.

Absolutely nothing.

Link | Posted on Jul 12, 2016 at 04:18 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2660 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kysmet4e: Interesting one, but it looks a bit pricey for me.. I will pass here ;)

Pricy compared to what?

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2016 at 19:08 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2660 comments in total)
In reply to:

phatbog: i'm coming from high end medium format, FF & aps-c, digital but sometimes film. My conclusion is simple, after 2 months with the K-1 and +20,000 actuations on this camera, with +20 pentax FF AF lenses, i disagree on almost anything you find bad.
AF doesn't miss. AFC is almost perfect. everything with this camera beats or is equal to Canon & Nikon high end FF. Remember Canon & Nikon have dedicated cameras & gear for sports. Pentax doesn't . What you loose with Pentax in perfect pro sports photography, you gain everywhere else. I'm sure if you would've spent more time with the K-1 you would've find it way better than your conclusions. ;)

Phatbog,
I have not shot quite as many digital cameras as you have. Although I reluctantly concur with the tracking conclusion of dpreview, I also agree with you that the K1 in my personal usage and experience, is the camera to beat. My lens collection is much smaller. However the few lenses I have along either K1 are giving me images far beyond anything I shot with before. I am coming from a long line of Canon bodies and L lenses as an owner and quite a few Nikon bodies as an occasional user.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, K1 is a beast at any price and at $1,800 asking price is a no brainer. I see medium format quality out of an APSc priced camera. How can you go wrong with that.

BTW, dpreview's silver rating is a major understatement. The K1 as a still image making camera deserves a platinum rating.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2016 at 18:34 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2660 comments in total)
In reply to:

BNapa: It is ironic, I agree with most of the findings of DPReview in general. Perhaps they are correct in most of their assertions. However, there is such a thing as filed testing and shooting in real life situations. When it comes to that K1 delivers with flying colors.

I own the K1. The images it produces are stunning. I have owned Canons for 12 years and shot plenty of Nikon bodies. Nikon has the edge in autofocus and tracking. I will not dispute that. Both Canon and Nikon offer plenty of bodies and lenses for every need. But $1,800 for a body the caliber of the K1... nobody touches that.

Simon Joinson,

I should have been more specific. Field test as shooting an assignment with clients breathing down your neck kinda field test. Not going to some coffee shop or by the river shooting my friends and coworkers.

As I mentioned in my post I agree with most of the dpreview findings. I happen to think the K1 is a capable camera, way beyond its price tag. I owned mid-range Canons priced in the $2.5-2.8K range and their focusing was a lot worse than K1's. As to image quality, Canon guys can only dream about this level of quality. I know because I bought and used more than a dozen Canon cameras over the years.

Yes the K1' video is nothing to write home about, yes the tracking is not up to snuff, yes it does not have a lot of this and that. But what it has is a lot more than the average.

I don't care if Dpreview wants to give the K1 a silver rating. In my book it has a rating way beyond gold.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 02:04 UTC
On article Special K? Pentax K-1 Review (2660 comments in total)

It is ironic, I agree with most of the findings of DPReview in general. Perhaps they are correct in most of their assertions. However, there is such a thing as filed testing and shooting in real life situations. When it comes to that K1 delivers with flying colors.

I own the K1. The images it produces are stunning. I have owned Canons for 12 years and shot plenty of Nikon bodies. Nikon has the edge in autofocus and tracking. I will not dispute that. Both Canon and Nikon offer plenty of bodies and lenses for every need. But $1,800 for a body the caliber of the K1... nobody touches that.

Link | Posted on Jul 6, 2016 at 00:01 UTC as 355th comment | 9 replies

Come on Tamron. Are you kidding me. Unlimited rights for 18 months for 4-18 star images for the price of a lens which retails for at most around $1,500. That is peanuts and you know it. I expect that from some shady no name company not from a company with the reputation of might "Tamron."

For that many images, for that long and for unlimited usage, even as an armature, I would expect a more equitable payment. We are talking about possible advertising usage, web site, trade show, and the list goes on.

Link | Posted on Apr 9, 2015 at 12:19 UTC as 1st comment

Nicolas,

You have the gift. The landscapes are breathtaking, the people shots are magical. I saw a post criticizing your people shots. To that person I would say show us some of your fantastic people shots.

The woman in the wheat field, the inside shot of man with the kid in the background speak volumes.

Keep shooting my friend you have the eye, the heart and thank god the technique and the tools to create these magical images.

I could turn my TV off and look at a slide show of your images all day long.

Thank you for taking us on this journey with you.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2014 at 16:38 UTC as 60th comment

Nicolas,

Your photos are fantastic. Your road trip on a bike is nuts! But I admire your courage to go to these remote places with no trailing crew and support cast.
I hope you make your 140 country goal.

I envy you as this has been my dream. May the force be with you.

What I want to say to the nay sayers would get me booted from this forum. All I can say to them is try to do this and live to tell us about it.

I totally, 1000% agree with you on the bike trip to the heart of a culture. It makes sense. Having visited a few distant cultures, I can see how they would receive you differently and open up to you as opposed to a crew arriving in 4x4s and the Hollywood like circus.

Be safe and keep posting your unique images.

Link | Posted on Oct 12, 2014 at 16:29 UTC as 61st comment | 1 reply
On article Ryan Brenizer on how to shoot engagement sessions (72 comments in total)
In reply to:

JohnEwing: Engagement shoots are stupid, lame, false and slightly nauseating.

Smeggypant,

I have awards to my name and I charged as much as $10k just for wedding photos. So I know what I am talking about. I have photos that you would drool over.

At the end of the day check has to clear so that you can pay for the next camera, computer, lens and god know what other things you have to upgrade. Let's not forget food on the table.

When I say even the "In photographers" talk about money. I know because I hung out with the nationally known names (can't name them here) ... the ones that you want to be like. The ones who win at WPPI competition every year for their excellent work. They all talk about clearing the check being #1 priority.
If you enjoy doing weddings, good for you. And if you want to do it for nothing, good for your clients.

Happy shooting.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2014 at 20:33 UTC
On article Ryan Brenizer on how to shoot engagement sessions (72 comments in total)
In reply to:

JohnEwing: Engagement shoots are stupid, lame, false and slightly nauseating.

One has to be really good (directing skills) to make it look like it is real. Otherwise it is a cheesy undertaking. I did quite a few in my old wedding photography days. I got some of my signature images from these sessions. And yes the good ones happen to be of good looking people… a 6'2" groom and a 5'10" bride. But most of the people were either too heavy or too short or too something to make a nice portfolio piece.

I agree with DotCom Editor, as long as the check clears... Let them have their day.

One more thing… I am tired of photographers pretending that this is their life's mission and they love doing it. Come on, WPPI is full of old timer high paid pros on tour for one camera manufacturer or another who proclaim in public that they were born to do this. In private, the story is totally different. It is about the money or non of them would do it.

Link | Posted on Apr 19, 2014 at 19:12 UTC
On article Cinetics Axis360 review (70 comments in total)

Is the controller capable of programming multi-row panoramas?

Link | Posted on Feb 26, 2014 at 13:25 UTC as 21st comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

paddyrags: Why not 70% for the photographers.

Unless 500px is taking care of the following:

1. The photographers insurance - medical and general
2. Sponsor his all equipments - cameras, lens, other peripherals
3. Pays for the travel, lodging and other incidental costs

Guys please feel free to add to the above list..

Cheers
Happy Clicking

4. Paid vacations
5. Four-day work weeks
6. On-site day care
7. Not any camera, 80MP Hassy with Zeiss lenses (augmented #2)
8. Catered lunches

That is it for now! Will add more later!

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 02:38 UTC
In reply to:

danieljcox: They're beating their chest about giving the photographer 30%???? WTH, We used to get 60% of all sales when it was much more difficult and costly to market photographs. Today, anybody suggesting it's more expensive to market images is obviously making excuses for taking more for themselves (500px). The internet has made all things less expensive and that includes marketing photos. They should be paying more than what agents did in the 70's, 80's, 90's and early 2000's. This offer is offensive and even worse with them trying to sell it by ANNOUNCING 30% as if that's a wonderful deal. It's not. Tell them to forget it. Take your pictures out.

Daniel J. Cox
www.naturalexposures.com

Daniel,

You have an excellent point. It should cost less to market and more needs to go to the photographer. But you are forgetting a couple of principles.

Principle one - Rip off someone (photographers in this case), build up a sizable business, then sell it to Getty or Corbis for a handsome payday and millionaire lifestyle at age 30 something.

Principle two - You remember when Nike, Reebok, etc. used to be made in this country. You paid $150 for a pair of Air Jordans that cost $40 to make here in the US. Now take the same shoe and make it for $10 a pair in China or Bandladesh or some place like that. Do we pass on the extra $30 savings to the customer? of course not. It is all about greed and there is no limit.

If someone can figure out a way to make pictures remotely from China or some other developing country, then the photographers' take might go down to 2-3% and the agencies get to keep all of the money.

BTW, your site and photos are spectacular.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 02:29 UTC
In reply to:

Kenc68: 30% for photographers has been the industry standard for years. For those of you complaining, 30% of something is better than 100% of nothing. Most big businesses will go to an organisation rather than an individual for stock images as they will be dealt with in a manner familiar to them. This is how the business operates. It's not personal & certainly not a case of "money grabbing" it's just business.

The artist in me says do not sell out. The bean counter in me says take the money and run!
I am not sure if I would equate this to the slave trade. Slavery was/is inexcusable. It was/is a human tragedy.
Selling out to these big agencies is a form of slavery after all. However, it is not a human tragedy!!
The option of going direct is always there but next to impossible to succeed. Believe me. I have tried.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 01:59 UTC
In reply to:

645D: If the new 645D adds all those new features in the K-3, such as 200,000 shutter cycles, focus peaking, metering and focusing sensor, I don't see any reason to keep my Canikon system. Great move, Pentax:-)

I am about to let my 6D go and start building on my K5IIs and FA limited lenses. I hate to sell my EOS mount Tamron 24-70 VC lens though. It is a gem but it has to go as well.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 01:36 UTC
In reply to:

Anastigmat: That is unexpected. I read that Sony had signed agreements to supply COMS sensors to Hasselblad and Phase One exclusively for 1 year. If the 645D with CMOS sensor is scheduled for spring release, it may be a money maker for Pentax, since the Hass and the Phase One are so darn expensive. Would like to see a mirrorless 645D in the future though All Pentax needs to make existing lenses compatible is to add an extensive tube of the appropriate length.

If it is indeed the same sensor, then Pentax has a major cost advantage. They have enough lenses to get going and introduce more as the market demand builds up.
I would not want to be a Hassy or Phase executive when the Pentax 645 ships. The cost gap will be too much and almost impossible to close. Can you imagine Hassy and Phase discounted to 30% of the original price just to compete.
All of this is of course dependent on Pentax delivering and at the $10K price.
We have to wait and see.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 01:28 UTC
In reply to:

Gaëtan Lehmann: Tilt screen! Pro don't want tilt screen!
That and the touch screen from phase One...all these medium format makers have gone crazy ;-)

Anastigmat, Your point is right on. I was wondering why a tilt screen in a medium format. Your explanation makes total sense.

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 01:19 UTC
In reply to:

BNapa: D's30% for the photographer sucks. That is true. But do you know how hard it is to market directly to the marketplace.
1. You better have spectacular photos
2. You need a web site to show the stuff
3. You have to create and manage the contracts
4. You have to have a web site that is capabale of commerce
5. You have to get the word out as in all the marketing work.
6. You are going to fight the fact that you are an unknown and anyone who has the money to license your work will be hesitant to work with an unknow (rightfully so) photographer
7. You have to secure your site, e-commerce from hackets
... and the list goes on. So you see, it is not that easy to go direct.
I know because I have tried.
In 2003, I came up with the idea, photographed, designed and did limited print run of 2,500 copies of an oversized B&W calendar. By the time I paid all the vultures and ate the cost of all the unsold copies, I came up on the loosing end big time.
And this was for a calendar which everyone thought was an Ansel Adams calendar.
I identified local retailers, presented to store managers and got them to agree that it was going to sell like hot cakes only to be overridden by a jerk out of New York who killed the idea because hedid not Iinitiate it. So I ended up dealing with Borders and Barnes and Nobles of the world.
Sure they gave me my 35% but wait, out of that I had to take out the cost of printing, shipoing the inventory to them, pay for shipping back to me what did not sell. And the time it took to creat the work. Lets not go there.
As I said, it is not easy to go direct.
The biggest lesson (albit an expensive one) I learned was that it is all about distribution not the work. That is why you see so much sub standard work (at least in calendars) out there. The are crappy photos printed for pennies in China and on the shelves where you are going to make money.

AbrasiveReducer,
You have an excellent point.
My calendar did go through price reduction and the works. But at the end of the day it is a calendar and it is a dated material. So, it has to come off the shelves.
My point was that going direct has its perils. In the case of calendars, there is no chance of selling direct. I tried and got shot down.
I have been a photographer all of my adult life and then some. I have also been involved with consumer goods and the retail world. In either case, art or hard goods, it is about distribution. Being on the shelves or being in front of the intended audience can make or break you.
So these guys take a lions share of the money. At least you get to be seen by the masses who might buy your stuff.
As much as I hate the thought, I must agree with another poster that 30% of something is better than 100% of nothing.
The artist in me says do not sell out. The bean counter in me says sells, sell, sell at any cost!

Link | Posted on Feb 12, 2014 at 01:13 UTC
Total: 50, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »