Glen Barrington

Glen Barrington

Lives in United States Springfield, IL, United States
Works as a Retired
Joined on Mar 21, 2003
About me:

I look good fat, I'm gonna look good old. . .

Comments

Total: 407, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Throwback Thursday: Our first cameras (384 comments in total)

A 35 mm film SLR; the Mamiya 500 DTL. I think it cost less than $200 new at Goldblatt's Department Store, in 1966 or 1967 with a 50 mm f/1.8 Sekor lens (a fairly decent lens, but I was too dumb to know it).

Match needle exposure meter, fastest shutter speed was 1/500 of a second - All manual everything.

Link | Posted on Mar 18, 2017 at 02:48 UTC as 90th comment
In reply to:

Frederik Photography: Well. Even with this app a photo of this isn't possible anymore

I don't know, it kinda looks like my basement in the spring.

Link | Posted on Mar 16, 2017 at 21:10 UTC
On article Olympus working on 8K video for Micro Four Thirds (218 comments in total)
In reply to:

Georgeee: 33MP for single shot. handheld high-resolution image mode . beat FF

Not if you make the m43s sensor 4 inches by 5 . . . just sayin'

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 20:22 UTC
On article Olympus working on 8K video for Micro Four Thirds (218 comments in total)
In reply to:

princecody: Why can't Olympus & Panasonic have interchangeable firmware? This is micro four thirds after all. 🤔

You might as well just have some Chinese OEM manufacturer design and build cameras for both companies and then slap 2 different labels on the generic box.

The whole point of a 4/3s system is to share certain manufacturing and development costs, but still be able to COMPETE with each other on a technology basis, and with the rest of the industry as well.

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 20:20 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: the Olympus C-2100UZ (106 comments in total)
In reply to:

adriantilley: This series needs to stop. DPR, I know that you need to fill up your news feed with something, but who cares about the specs on a camera from 10 years ago or whatever? Have some self respect.

I like this series

Link | Posted on Mar 10, 2017 at 04:27 UTC
On article Throwback Thursday: the Olympus C-2100UZ (106 comments in total)

I noticed the photos seemed dark to me. That was about 2-3 years befor I got into digital photography so I'm trying to remember way back then, was that how digital photography was? Was it just Phil's "style", or was it the way people liked photos back then?

I do know my film based photos weren't quite as "contrasty" as they are now, but my film photos were, for the most part, brighter than these.

Link | Posted on Mar 9, 2017 at 14:20 UTC as 54th comment

I can't remember the last time I bought a paper photography magazine. The truth is, the photo related web sites (like DPR) offer more, more current, and better, coverage of things photographic.

LOL the only paper magazine I subscribe to any more, is a magazine for diabetics. and even then I gleefully ignore the advice offered, on my way to that great darkroom in the sky!

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2017 at 02:44 UTC as 148th comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

Glen Barrington: Am I the only one who noticed those photos are out of focus? That last one might not be OOF, but the others are for sure.

historianx, I WAS a newspaper photographer for a couple of years before I went into the computer business. While it's true that getting SOMETHING was important, by the same token, When you are showing off your work, trying to 'strut your stuff', you just don't publish 'something', you try to show your best work.

If this wasn't that sort of article, what was it? Maybe I've misunderstood the goal of the article.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2017 at 20:25 UTC

Am I the only one who noticed those photos are out of focus? That last one might not be OOF, but the others are for sure.

Link | Posted on Mar 6, 2017 at 17:22 UTC as 23rd comment | 5 replies
In reply to:

david vella: Nikon currently appear all over the place with their product lines . Pro / prosumer DSLRs okay, but updates needed. The rest , nowhere .

Nikon is in turmoil and cannot move forward for looking back , but in totally the wrong way . Instead of reinterpreting the best of their history they are stuck with the end of the road 'F' mount.
There is no viable way a modern mirrorless DX/FX mirrorless system can retain the old mount and flange distance without serious compromise which would be pointless against the competition.

Clean sheet of paper thinking and a reinvention of what Nikon stands for in the 21st Century is the only way out of their dilemma.
Look what Fuji /Sony/ Olympus /Panasonic have achieved in less than six years with a fresh start approach , why not Nikon too.

Dr. Jon, assuming your facts are true, then WHY is the controversy over Nikon's survival? And not by just us Yahoos, but by people who follow the computer industry as well? Do you mean by "making money" that they are the 2nd most profitable company out there? If that is your claim, then why isn't there a similar buzz about the 2nd tier companies?

I have no desire to see Nikon fail, but if what you say is true, then what ELSE is going on?

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2017 at 15:40 UTC
In reply to:

david vella: Nikon currently appear all over the place with their product lines . Pro / prosumer DSLRs okay, but updates needed. The rest , nowhere .

Nikon is in turmoil and cannot move forward for looking back , but in totally the wrong way . Instead of reinterpreting the best of their history they are stuck with the end of the road 'F' mount.
There is no viable way a modern mirrorless DX/FX mirrorless system can retain the old mount and flange distance without serious compromise which would be pointless against the competition.

Clean sheet of paper thinking and a reinvention of what Nikon stands for in the 21st Century is the only way out of their dilemma.
Look what Fuji /Sony/ Olympus /Panasonic have achieved in less than six years with a fresh start approach , why not Nikon too.

rrcad said "What exactly did Fuji, Olympus, Panasonic and Sony achieve? All four of them combined sell by far less cameras than Nikon."

What's missing from your question is why are we talking about Nikon's survivability and not F,O,P, & S? The number of cameras sold is just one factor of a camera company's viability. Overall profitability, and public perception of the manufacturer's contribution to the future of photography is also an important factor.

Link | Posted on Mar 1, 2017 at 16:13 UTC

MMM . . . to me, this smells a little like a company executive making soothing sounds to skittish shareholders. "Back to basics" is a feel good term that means "we want to sell cameras, (if we can)".

There is nothing in the statement that indicates Nikon has a vision of where it wants to be in 10 years, or what sort of cameras they want to be selling then and how they will sell them. What in that statement indicates a direction different from what they are already doing other than they aren't going to sell cheap consumer cameras any more?

I wish Nikon well, but I wouldn't invest in their company based on this statement, and I wouldn't buy a Nikon camera based on this statement. Where's the beef?

Link | Posted on Feb 28, 2017 at 12:36 UTC as 113th comment | 1 reply

Oh boy . . . Fingerprint readers are just now starting to get reliable. Facial recognition sounds like yet another technology we have to pay for and then ignore for 3 to 6 generations before they want to scan our brain waves.

I think I'm going to skip the S8, wake me up when the S11 is rumored to arrive.

Link | Posted on Feb 17, 2017 at 20:15 UTC as 77th comment
On article Study: people don't actually like looking at selfies (200 comments in total)
In reply to:

Hinder: The trick to getting people to look at your selfies is to do them naked. I had the police and then the whole courtroom looking at mine.

People just don't understand art.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 13:11 UTC
On article Study: people don't actually like looking at selfies (200 comments in total)

Makes sense to me.

In this strange world we now live in, we are all stars in our own movies, which we find endlessly fascinating. In spite of the fact that we can't imagine anyone NOT being interested in US, we are unable to muster enough empathy to view other people's self aggrandizement with anything but contempt.

Link | Posted on Feb 11, 2017 at 13:10 UTC as 50th comment
On article More 950 samples: low light / higher ISO / BSS (1 comment in total)

Are there sample photos left from the original story? That's a little disappointing, I'd love to see some results from the camera. It wouldn't have to be a lot of photos, just 2 or 3.

Link | Posted on Feb 2, 2017 at 12:02 UTC as 1st comment
On article Adobe Creative Suite 6 has been officially retired (351 comments in total)
In reply to:

Glen Barrington: To all those complaining, the truth is, Adobe doesn't care if you subscribe or find something else, it's all the same to them. Under the perpetual license model, Adobe considered you troublesome expensive customers to have. Collectively, they considered you more trouble and more expense than you brought in as revenue.

Under this new plan, they are charging what they think returns a fair profit. Customers can either accept this offer, or find other software, they have drawn their line in the sand, and It seems they have declared, "Pay up, or shut up!"

I left Adobe behind 4 years ago. It took planning and work, and sometimes I was REALLY irritated that I had to change my workflow. On the whole, it was worth it. I'm getting all the quality that someone at my skill level can expect, and I have more confidence that I am in control of my photographic future.

@GeorgiJuraj - I am quite satisfied with ACDSee Ultimate 10. It is a far better DAM product than Lightroom, a VERY good raw developer (I'd say at LEAST as good as Lr, probably a tiny bit better), and it is a competent bit mapped editor.

As an editor, it is nowhere as complete as Photoshop, but it does most of the stuff (layers, adjustment layers, supports PS Plugins) I need it to do.

I have an old copy of PaintShop Pro X8 that I rarely use any more, but I still have a lot of trust in and positive feelings for PSP.

And just for fun, I bought Affinity Photo for Windows. I like Affinity very much. While it is very much a first generation product, and isn't as fast and responsive as I would like, it does a LOT of stuff very well. By the time they get to V2 or V3, it's going to be incredibly good.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2017 at 18:14 UTC
On article Adobe Creative Suite 6 has been officially retired (351 comments in total)
In reply to:

Svetoslav Popov: Who cares. I'll use my PS CS6 until hell freezes over, and after that i'm moving to another pasture. Photoshop is my only remaining Adobe software, and once per year i'm looking at the alternatives. The choices get better as time passes by. :)

@Newe, A software product is pretty much retired when the publisher either says it is, or when they just stop developing/supporting it (whether they tell us about it, or not). Either situation makes further consumer purchases risky at best.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2017 at 18:02 UTC

I never heard of the product, but if I understand what it does, is that it acts as a remote shutter release. How is this concept better than just using my Olympus Image Share app?

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2017 at 19:33 UTC as 24th comment | 2 replies
On article Adobe Creative Suite 6 has been officially retired (351 comments in total)
In reply to:

Glen Barrington: To all those complaining, the truth is, Adobe doesn't care if you subscribe or find something else, it's all the same to them. Under the perpetual license model, Adobe considered you troublesome expensive customers to have. Collectively, they considered you more trouble and more expense than you brought in as revenue.

Under this new plan, they are charging what they think returns a fair profit. Customers can either accept this offer, or find other software, they have drawn their line in the sand, and It seems they have declared, "Pay up, or shut up!"

I left Adobe behind 4 years ago. It took planning and work, and sometimes I was REALLY irritated that I had to change my workflow. On the whole, it was worth it. I'm getting all the quality that someone at my skill level can expect, and I have more confidence that I am in control of my photographic future.

@agentul - Point of view is everything in this sort of situation. I'm sure the Adobe MBAs consider the profit most fair!

Link | Posted on Jan 31, 2017 at 16:09 UTC
Total: 407, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »