nachos

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

Comments

Total: 175, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »

Seems like it should've been named Lightroom Elements

Link | Posted on Oct 18, 2017 at 13:43 UTC as 312th comment
In reply to:

Thomartin: Some time ago I discovered a plugin called LrInstagram ( https://www.lrinstagram.com/) basically it adds a collection in Lightroom from which you can upload on instagram. Just drag and drop the pictures you want to upload and click "publish". You can also tweak the # and descriptions in the plugin settings.

IG has been cracking down on bots and bot-like behavior. Things were getting really bad with them. Not surprised that posting through an unofficial plugin would result in a shadow ban-like thing.

About a year ago Bloomberg published a piece on automating instagram to gain followers/engagement. This resulted in an explosion of this behavior that peaked this past spring - I was getting a dozen or more bot actions a day. Then IG shut off a lot of these apps or created a sort of black hole for their users to fall into. It's good because it was ruining the service - I bet a majority of traffic was simply bots chasing bots.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 17:57 UTC
On article Nikon's official D850 lens recommendation list (301 comments in total)
In reply to:

Muskokaphotog: There was a day when a lens had to correct for distortions and aberrations all by itself, without software tweaks. Anyone who has ever used a Hasselblad lens from the cm series or a TLR Rollei will know what I mean. If they could do it then, why can't Nikon actually make a lens without wonky distortion? There isn't a lens in that list that comes close to the corner to corner sharpness or distortion free character, especially among the primes obviously. I had a Nikon 80-400 that actually broke in half. Fortunately, I have an adapter to use my Zeiss glass on my Nikon and an adapter to use my Summicron 90 f2.

Funny because Hasselblad has been using software correction for a bunch of years now. They have a T/S converter that works with many of their lenses and the difficult part of its development was that they needed thousands of software correction profiles to make the results of its use acceptable.

Link | Posted on Oct 15, 2017 at 17:50 UTC
On article Shooting with a used DSLR kit that cost me just $80 (264 comments in total)
In reply to:

DesmondD: 10 megapixels isn't only good enough for social media and viewing on screen - you could print billboards or full page magazine shots with it. I still use my $30 Nikon D50 for some shoots :)

Our first studio digital camera was 6 mp and was used in commercial and editorial shoots...and cost 100k. Clients loved it. Most of these applications aren't all that demanding resolution wise.

Link | Posted on Oct 13, 2017 at 20:49 UTC
In reply to:

sapple: First thing I learned in my copyright class is your work is already protected by copyright without registering and has been for decades. This is a service that gives peace of mind to people that do not understand the law.

Actual damages are extremely limited. Hence the reason no lawyer will take on a case involving unregistered images.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 22:56 UTC
In reply to:

sapple: First thing I learned in my copyright class is your work is already protected by copyright without registering and has been for decades. This is a service that gives peace of mind to people that do not understand the law.

Without registration you cannot be awarded damages and no lawyer will take up your case in the event of infringement.

Link | Posted on Sep 18, 2017 at 19:38 UTC
In reply to:

KevinG: Wow!! I'm all in favor of evolving tech and image quality and have spent many $$ on equipment since 1999 but 50 grand is just stratospheric. I sure hope whoever buys this can make some money with it.

Kevin in CT

Phase One has a whole "cultural heritage" department devoted to this market. Governments are interested in it too. But anyway, we don't invest like that these days largely because there is no need. We were shooting catalog work, furniture etc. It paid for itself quickly. Today if you're going to make a big investment I would suggest owning the studio building and not renting it from someone else.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 17:33 UTC
In reply to:

KevinG: Wow!! I'm all in favor of evolving tech and image quality and have spent many $$ on equipment since 1999 but 50 grand is just stratospheric. I sure hope whoever buys this can make some money with it.

Kevin in CT

I think the primary users of this system will be for art reproduction and documentation. Museums and galleries create high detail images of their works for documentation purposes, restorations etc. They can never have too much resolution or color accuracy.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 17:00 UTC
In reply to:

KevinG: Wow!! I'm all in favor of evolving tech and image quality and have spent many $$ on equipment since 1999 but 50 grand is just stratospheric. I sure hope whoever buys this can make some money with it.

Kevin in CT

Our first MF digital rig was 100k after including the computer required to run it. This was a studio system. It was obsolete in 3 years (6mp scan back - essentially a scanner on a lens). $40-50k has been a typical cost for a top of the line back for few years now.

Link | Posted on Sep 13, 2017 at 16:56 UTC

I'm glad to see this isn't another "content-aware" tool that requires a lot of fixing when it makes questionable decisions, thus negating any time savings.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2017 at 16:50 UTC as 2nd comment
In reply to:

mmarian: This seems to me like a very minor upgrade. Does it deserve so much publicity and fanfare? I do not think so. I have been CC subscriber for a few year, the price is going up every year, not much improvements to show for....

I use photoshop professionally for hours every week and the pen tool is my least favorite because its a bit tedious and time consuming on complex shapes and that adds up. Any improvement in this area will be enjoyed by people like me.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2017 at 16:47 UTC
In reply to:

MisterBG: Don't see much difference between this and the existing pen tool.

Looks it takes less time and less tool switching involved. Great for those of us who use it daily.

Link | Posted on Sep 10, 2017 at 16:41 UTC
In reply to:

CallumG: No focus peaking in 4K? How exactly? Good to see the focus stack feature, god knows how long people have wanted that.

I'm thinking because it might not be accurate enough for 4K use. Or perhaps just too much processing overhead.

Link | Posted on Aug 24, 2017 at 13:12 UTC
In reply to:

Nansen: I'm tired of bombastic stories that omit the critical context; in this case - how was the gear packed in the bag or a suitcase? What was the damage to the bag itself?

I collect film cameras of a particular vintage. I have packed dozens and dozens of such items in checked bags without a single instance of an item suffering any damage in transit. There is little doubt in my mind that in this case the blame rest squarely on the sloppy owner. At the very least, nobody with any sense would leave a removable lens attached to the body when packing a camera in a bag or a suitcase; checked or carry-on.

Carry on? Why not? :-) I do this all the time... mostly because I'm not tossing anything around...

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2017 at 01:44 UTC
In reply to:

babart: This is the reason I switched to Fuji for travel gear. It's light enough to not get any flack from the defenders of cabin integrity. To trust $17,000 worth of equipment to baggage handlers is foolish to say the least. There is storage inside the plane for the occasional too-heavy bag if one asks and indicates the reason.

Most of the suggestions for protecting equipment stored in checked baggage make sense, except the use of Pelican cases. Or those older aluminum briefcase type camera protectors. These disappear with amazing regularity. Something smaller and soft, perhaps storing only one or two items, would be just as good and easier to pack.

I'm wondering how pros who carry lots of heavy equipment handle this? Certainly they have very good insurance. But I wonder if they make arrangements for storing the more expensive and breakable equipment inside the cabin?

That would probably not go over well... I have not had issues so far. Pelican style cases aren't that rare at all...I'm more concerned about damage than anything...knock on wood. Imagine a place like LAX, there is expensive gear flying out of there every day.

Note that you can use a real lock on carry on cases, even if they make you gate check them. Those useless TSA locks are only because they want to be able to inspect in the back office. Once you clear security, you are clear to use whatever lock you want.

I don't bother locking checked cases for that reason. I use zip ties, include a couple in the case with a friendly note asking that they zip it up when they're done. And they usually do!

Link | Posted on Aug 20, 2017 at 01:35 UTC
In reply to:

babart: This is the reason I switched to Fuji for travel gear. It's light enough to not get any flack from the defenders of cabin integrity. To trust $17,000 worth of equipment to baggage handlers is foolish to say the least. There is storage inside the plane for the occasional too-heavy bag if one asks and indicates the reason.

Most of the suggestions for protecting equipment stored in checked baggage make sense, except the use of Pelican cases. Or those older aluminum briefcase type camera protectors. These disappear with amazing regularity. Something smaller and soft, perhaps storing only one or two items, would be just as good and easier to pack.

I'm wondering how pros who carry lots of heavy equipment handle this? Certainly they have very good insurance. But I wonder if they make arrangements for storing the more expensive and breakable equipment inside the cabin?

If the kit is too big for cabin, it gets checked. No way around it. You pack it well and buy sturdy cases and gear. I have heard about using a flare gun in the case so it goes through the TSA hand search in the owner's presence to avoid back office searching. Then it gets locked with a real lock. All firearms use this process.

For the most part though, we are insured and check things too big to be carried.

Either this camera/lens was not properly packed in a sturdy case, or the security agent inspecting it dropped it.

Note that sometimes you can't bring it into cabin anyway - I've had to gate check the camera case on small planes. Whatever the plane crew says you must do, you must do or you're not flying. This is why I use a pelican case that you can stand on.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2017 at 22:47 UTC
In reply to:

mandm: Konica also had a very sharp zoom in the mid 1970's, 35-100mm f2.8 Hexanon Varifocal AR. The Varifocal lens required you to refocus after changing the zoom, the lens was a little slower to use, but it was very sharp when compared to the competition. Like the Minolta 40-80mm 2.8, Konica had to find a way to get people to buy zooms as most zooms had a poor record for sharpness.

Still lenses are usually varifocal. Parfocal is difficult and expensive to implement so its found in high end cine lenses. https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/03/mythbusting-parfocal-photo-zooms/

That said, some zooms are almost parfocal in certain scenarios - a small change in focal length might still be acceptably in focus depending on f-stop, lens construction, how OCD you are...

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 15:56 UTC

Looks great. Love the bokeh from well made non-aspheric lenses.

Link | Posted on Aug 15, 2017 at 14:00 UTC as 28th comment

ah nuts, video is no longer free of the vsclones that seem to inhabit every corner of instagram

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2017 at 23:04 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

Cheap GAS: lol at that Nikon price

Nope. It's called value pricing. The audience is professional and the lens is superbly professional. You want cheap; go buy this sigma.

Link | Posted on Jul 31, 2017 at 17:14 UTC
Total: 175, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »