nachos

Lives in United States AK, United States
Joined on Jun 7, 2003

Comments

Total: 128, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Profoto B1X LED off-camera flash updates 'B1' model (15 comments in total)
In reply to:

Teila Day: Good to see efforts being put towards monolights. The light-and-pack concept is antiquated and should've been put to pasture a decade ago. No one should have to shoot today with cords running all over the place, and the industry (looking at you Broncolor and Profoto) should be ashamed of itself for peddling lame battery packs with a cord running to the strobe all these years. Ridiculous!

Ok, so now we basically still have the same 500ws strobe, with a better modeling light and a higher capacity battery, etc.. At least improvements are being made, which I hope includes more rugged and reliable internals. Too bad no support for Pentax. Perfect real-world example of why it's great to have Nikon/Canon gear to fall back on. This is the kind of stuff Ricoh needs to be addressing if they want to produce and support professional cameras.

Pack/head are the norm on commercial ad work. It's not like sets aren't already messy. Putting a bunch of weight in the air isn't great for a lot of reasons - you don't really want to boom one of these lights. Even on a regular stand the top heaviness means you need to bag the stand with extra weight... kind of undoes the convenience. And its only 500 w/s... that's just not enough for a big set or outdoors and shooting through a scrim on a sunny day.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2017 at 22:57 UTC
On article Nikon D3: The camera that changed everything (262 comments in total)
In reply to:

munro harrap: I did not buy a D3, because I could not understand how anyone would want a 12MP camera rather than a 16.7MP Canon 1Ds MkII, it did not figure! There was this machine that had been there four years already when the D3 eventually emerged, without sensor cleaning or anything other than live view to tempt me. I looked here at all those marbled 6400 ISO samples and was not at all impressed, though obviously it was way ahead of the Canon, because I just used fast primes when such situations occurred, instead of my zooms. I had a evil plan, and used Nikon primes bought cheap when APS-C Nikons persistence in the market had reduced prices for Nikon lenses made for full-frame 35mm to well, very little, and was waiting for the Nikon Great Leap Forward to compete with Canon, but it did not come until the D800 of 2012, when they at last decided to do reality justice. And I was ready with all those primes, waiting!!

4.7MP isn't much of a difference in practical terms. I shot campaigns with both. The D3 could have its ISO adjusted without fear - the 1DS II could not. It was also almost half the price of the 1DS.

Link | Posted on May 26, 2017 at 00:23 UTC
On article Nikon D3: The camera that changed everything (262 comments in total)
In reply to:

marcio_napoli: Anyone who knows my posting history, knows I couldn't care less for high ISO.

But back in the day, Nikon presented a series of images on their website, and among them there was a musician shot (jazz, I think?) at "clean" ISO 6400.

Back in 2007, ISO 6400 setting was rare as Scarlett Johansson's twin sisters, but *considerably clean* ISO 6400 was nothing short of unheard of.

It was FREAKING ALIEN TECH.

It was so freakish that I remember showing that image to a national level photographer, and he said "obviously fake !!!".

When a renowned photographer (Nikon shooter BTW) thinks Nikon would risk their reputation releasing an official fake shot, you know things got scary.

I'm a ISO 25 shooter (ISO 25, not 25.000), but I remember this particular image as the game changing moment in digital photography history.

And what noise there was was not offensive - it was a pleasant grain.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2017 at 17:49 UTC
On article Nikon D3: The camera that changed everything (262 comments in total)

D3 is still my backup camera. For most use it is more than adequate. Also, I love how it feels in hand. Solid, confident. It has been dropped and didn't miss a beat.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2017 at 17:47 UTC as 69th comment
In reply to:

acidic: I like my Surface Pro 4 i5 256GB, but if you are planning to run Adobe programs, you will need the latest version because older versions won't scale properly and your tools/palettes will be extremely tiny and difficult to see.

That workaround is only partial - many things won't scale correctly still.

Link | Posted on May 24, 2017 at 14:16 UTC
In reply to:

ewelch: That it doesn't have Thunderbolt 3, let alone USB-C is a sad commentary on the lack of clue on Microsoft's part.

If it had Thunderbolt 3, not only would it support any USB Device (with a tiny dongle attached to a USB-A cable), it would have Thunderbolt 3 (faster by far any any USB), as well as the latest DisplayPort and HDMI, and USB-C that supports USB 3 gen 2.

The entire point of this thread is why microsoft chose to not put usb-c and thunderbolt in. And the answer may very well be because at the moment, it's a mess and until its straightened out not good for consumers. History is littered with situations where a "better" tool wasn't adopted - beta VS vhs, firewire vs USB - in those cases it was about licensing fees. That might also be a factor here too.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 23:54 UTC
In reply to:

ewelch: That it doesn't have Thunderbolt 3, let alone USB-C is a sad commentary on the lack of clue on Microsoft's part.

If it had Thunderbolt 3, not only would it support any USB Device (with a tiny dongle attached to a USB-A cable), it would have Thunderbolt 3 (faster by far any any USB), as well as the latest DisplayPort and HDMI, and USB-C that supports USB 3 gen 2.

Thunderbolt 1 was a market failure - worse than firewire. Few peripherals adopted it and few (any?) outside of Apple used it for non-video applications. Not a good comparison...

The only saving grace for thunderbolt is USB-C. And that's only if the licensing fees are reasonable. If they're not, as with firewire, it too will never go far.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 23:20 UTC
In reply to:

ewelch: That it doesn't have Thunderbolt 3, let alone USB-C is a sad commentary on the lack of clue on Microsoft's part.

If it had Thunderbolt 3, not only would it support any USB Device (with a tiny dongle attached to a USB-A cable), it would have Thunderbolt 3 (faster by far any any USB), as well as the latest DisplayPort and HDMI, and USB-C that supports USB 3 gen 2.

No you misunderstand. My mother is not illiterate. Nor is she an engineer. And that's the problem. If you have to spend 5 minutes trying to explain why this cable that looks identical to that cable but doesn't work, you have a failed design. It's a step backward into the 80s/early 90s when serial cables worked that way.

What's funny is, USB was supposed to fix that mess. Now it's back there again.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 23:05 UTC
In reply to:

ewelch: That it doesn't have Thunderbolt 3, let alone USB-C is a sad commentary on the lack of clue on Microsoft's part.

If it had Thunderbolt 3, not only would it support any USB Device (with a tiny dongle attached to a USB-A cable), it would have Thunderbolt 3 (faster by far any any USB), as well as the latest DisplayPort and HDMI, and USB-C that supports USB 3 gen 2.

"It's common knowledge to almost everyone (except the most computer illiterate) that different cables are necessary and that usb-c does not necessarily mean Thunderbolt 3."

Really? You think so? This is the funniest obtuse thing I've read all day. So if I go show my mother a bucket of random usb-c cables she'll be able to pick the right one?

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 22:59 UTC
In reply to:

ewelch: That it doesn't have Thunderbolt 3, let alone USB-C is a sad commentary on the lack of clue on Microsoft's part.

If it had Thunderbolt 3, not only would it support any USB Device (with a tiny dongle attached to a USB-A cable), it would have Thunderbolt 3 (faster by far any any USB), as well as the latest DisplayPort and HDMI, and USB-C that supports USB 3 gen 2.

On the contrary. USB-C is a tremendous headache in mass adoption. Please read this: http://blog.fosketts.net/2016/10/29/total-nightmare-usb-c-thunderbolt-3/

The short of it is that even if the cable and ports look the same, they may have vast performance and compatibility differences. For example, you need a thunderbolt cable to use thunderbolt devices - even though it outwardly appears identical to say, a usb-c cable that only supports 480 mbps.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2017 at 22:33 UTC
In reply to:

daddyo: Excellent quality images from a skilled photographer. These were probably shot with either 4X5 or 5X7 Speed Graphic cameras.

Heh, I had to pick them apart a little too. Looks like two lights, one to the side and a flashbulb near the lens as was common in the day.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2017 at 20:20 UTC
In reply to:

AlanG: It is also interesting that one could smoke a pipe or cigar at work back then.
I recall a photo from the Indianapolis 500 where a man was cleaning the windscreen during a pit stop while smoking a stogie. No concern about starting a fire with all that fuel nearby. Today pit crews where Nomex suits and helmets.

People caught on fire. That's why they wear nomex and don't smoke anymore.

Link | Posted on May 11, 2017 at 20:19 UTC
In reply to:

TheLoupe: I really appreciate articles like this, as it provides a wider perspective on the settings / context in which digital photography occurs. Reading the CJR article is worth it to understand when and under what circumstances higher day rates are paid to freelancers at certain publications. My sense is that quality and reliability (read: repeatability) have a price; I presume that the editors and staff at small and large organizations who pay the rates understand what they can afford and what they want to avoid (i.e. average/poor photos and/or going over budget). Am I missing something that is somehow particular to the world of journalism?

Your national publications and well regarded regionals have standards. Vanity Fair is not going to hire some rando from an internet forum. As for the financial side, I wish it weren't true, but these days editorial work is a bit like charity work... You do it because it's interesting, you like the story and the people you're working with. It's weird though because a really well executed piece can boost the publisher's bottom line. That's not very charity like.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2017 at 22:33 UTC

Day rate is just the starting point. Nobody can make a living off these amounts because no photographer is working the majority of their days as billable. It's important to expense each and every thing to cover costs of overhead - equipment kit fees, processing, travel, etc. A major feature in a AAA publication may be billed in the thousands.

Some publications have been moving toward assignment flat rates that are all-inclusive - I dislike these because they encourage corner cutting, ultimately doing no-one a favor.

Link | Posted on May 1, 2017 at 22:11 UTC as 13th comment
On article Throwback Thursday: Minolta DiMAGE X (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

bluevellet: The back of this camera is worringly spartan. Tiny LCD, tiny OVF and a few buttons then lots of empty space.

The optics and flash took up most of the internal space behind the blank areas.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 22:09 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: Minolta DiMAGE X (134 comments in total)
In reply to:

Joachim Gerstl: The only camera ever that I bought and returned the next day. I liked the compact form but image quality was really poor. But of course I did not learn and bought a Sony Cybershot T3 about 2 years later. There is a reason why this lens technology has not survived.

Same here. I had the 3 MP version, I think? Image quality was poor so I sent it back. Like many, I got caught up in the reviews about its amazing folded optics and extremely compact size (for the time).

I then bought a Canon S400 which was much better.

Link | Posted on Apr 28, 2017 at 22:02 UTC
On article DJI launches Phantom 4 Advanced drone (66 comments in total)
In reply to:

JonBush: Maybe I'm not reading something correctly, but doesn't the current Phantom 4 Pro have a 1" 20MP CMOS sensor (with mechanical shutter) capable of H.264 4K videos at 60 fps or H.265 4K at 30 fps and a 30 minute flight time?

Body is a little different.
Pro: The FlightAutonomy system adds dual rear vision sensors and infrared
sensing systems for a total of 5-direction of obstacle sensing and 4-direction of obstacle avoidance.

Advanced: The FlightAutonomy system includes 5 vision sensors for 2-directions of obstacle sensing and forward-vision obstacle avoidance.

So it seems the Pro has more sensors.

Link | Posted on Apr 13, 2017 at 20:20 UTC
In reply to:

santamonica812: When I was a photog student, I always wondered why there was not this sort of resource online. (Of course, there were lots of regular books. But they varied in quality, so a book that was good for portrait lighting was also dreadful on lighting for products.

A site I'll definitely be bookmarking.

Most books on lighting are like cookbooks - just recipes to follow, with no explanation of why things are placed where they're at, or what to do when it doesn't work the way you expected, or you don't have the exact same tool. Oh, and they're often dated by when they were published - some 90's era lighting books are very cheesy now.

Someone mentioned the Light, Science & Magic book - this is a great book. It doesn't have many recipes, or even great images inside. Instead it explains the foundation to understanding light and how to manipulate it to do what you want, whether its a product or a portrait. From there you gather your tools, draw your design and build it.

Link | Posted on Mar 13, 2017 at 23:55 UTC
On article PDN announces its 30 emerging photographers of 2017 (27 comments in total)
In reply to:

User9362470513: No doubt there will be 100s of naysayers and snide remarks by the end of the day, but I am always interested to see other photographers' work and there are some very interesting pictures on here and the PDNS30 website.

Never heard of Photo District News before, but I might check out their website more regularly.

I find that websites like PDN and especially Lensculture get much more of my attention since this website is so full of gearhead fanboys sneering about camera makers 24/7.

PDN's been around forever, one of the few industry mags that's more about the work than gear (they cover equipment, but it's minor). I have a print subscription.

When I was starting out I used to read the back issues sitting around the studio I worked in - I learned a lot that way.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2017 at 16:07 UTC
In reply to:

jadot: I love Elinchrom. I've always had their lights, from EL500's through to packs, and The Quadra when it first came out. These 1200s look awesome.

I'm not going skydiving any time soon, though. It's just not my thing.

I wish that just once a lighting or camera company would make a promo video that wasn't showcasing how you can use the gear on your extreme sports day out. Granted, it's pretty mind blowing that you CAN shoot in this kind of situation, but it's not something that I can relate to, and I'd bet that the majority of Elinchrom's customer base probably don't either.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think I'm not the only photographer who shoots with lights that doesn't jump out of aeroplanes or off the side of a mountain on a regular basis.

I feel totally inadequate.

Probably, but it makes for better visuals. I have used my elinchrom's in rain, mist and tropical humidity that condensed right on the pack without issues.

The membrane buttons aren't the most tactile pleasing, but you won't ever have to worry about some dripping mist shorting it out.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 20:55 UTC
Total: 128, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »