Lives in United States Aloha, OR, United States
Works as a Engineering
Joined on Jun 18, 2005
About me:

I'm more an engineer than a photographer. I started shooting with a 110mm P&S and soon became 'the official photographer' where ever I went. People always liked my photos and I have a blast taking them. I upgraded to Digital in ~2000 and loved making custom photo books out of the images of my adventures. Somewhere around 2008 I upgraded to DSLR's and never looked back. I love the things I can do with flash units and enjoy portrait and event photography. Most of my shooting is rather informal, candid and more inclined to capturing real life expressions or emotions then posed, staged or otherwise 'fake' reenactments.

Sometimes I get paid, but I mostly do it for fun and the looks and excitement that my images bring others. I've thought of turning 'pro' but my images are not good enough and worry that adding 'work' will take all the fun out of something I love doing.

I almost always use a flash, I love the little YN622C radio units. I make regular use of AV mode with -1 EC and ETTL2. Most images are processed in Lightroom (MAC or PC) and sized for Facebook viewing.

All my 'work' shown here and elsewhere was done for free.

(Canon A20=> S70=>400D=>50D=>5D2, EF20 2.8, EF35 2.0IS, EF50 1.8 II, EF85 1.8, EF100 2.8 Macro, EF200 2.8L, EF70-300IS, EF28-70L, EF24-105L, EFS17-85IS, EF100-400L)


Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18
On article Integrating the Apple MacBook Air into a pro workflow (346 comments in total)
In reply to:

Jogger: Surface Pro is so much better, esp. with far better display and Wacom digitizer, and no Apple Tax.. but, youre not a real photographer if you dont use Mac.

I have a dozen or so WINTEL boxes and one MBP-R.

While I don't mind fingerprints on my cell phone or tablet screen they drive me NUTS on a computer display. IMHO: Touch Screen =/= photo editing.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2014 at 18:13 UTC
On article Integrating the Apple MacBook Air into a pro workflow (346 comments in total)
In reply to:

bmoag: Sizzle vs steak: I use a MacBookPro 13 inch for its retina display, light weight and excellent battery life. I know of no Wintel laptop with a display of this caliber, which is truly awesome, and worth the Apple premium despite the machine's otherwise execrable/ripoff-for-the-price CPU based graphics. However I primarily use My Macbook Pro with Windows in boot camp for image processing with Adobe products. If you use a color managed work flow, 14 bit raw image capture with a dedicated graphics monitor (built in color look up table-can be attached to the laptop or a desktop) and plan to process your images on the laptop I hope you understand why that is for what a system like that costs. At least I save money on ink because initial prints tend to be quite accurate in color and brightness.

While shopping for a high end "ultrabook" form factor laptop this winter I came across only a handful of models with high resolution IPS displays and Haswell processors. All of which had similar pricing to the MPB-R (+/- $100 for similar specs).

While a few models could be ordered from their warehouse (1-2 day to 5-10 day shipping delay) not a single store front in my metro area had a Windows based computer with similar specs to the MBP-R on display.

Apple had all models on display and in stock and with a $300 "black friday" savings my 13" MBP-R actually cost less than a similar WIN8 powered Kirabook.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2014 at 17:38 UTC
On article Integrating the Apple MacBook Air into a pro workflow (346 comments in total)

While the AIR is indeed the smallest model that Apple currently offers its screen and processing power is dwarfed by the much better MBP-R 13" and even better MBP-R 15" "top of the line" models.

The high resolution IPS Retina displays have fairly good color rendition out of the box, calibrate easily, don't change color+contrast at different viewing angles and offer a almost unheard of +9hr battery life.

While the performance is 'decent', LR 3.6 on my 1st generation i5 WIN7 machine processes photos faster than LR5.0 on my late 2013 MBP (dual core i5 Haswell).

The size & weight savings along with exceptional battery life and awesome display were selling points that steered me to the MAC (and the lack of WIN8 was icing on the cake). The quality of the screen and OSX version of LR 5.0 IMHO make these machines an attractive photo editing/processing tool for photographers.

Link | Posted on Jan 26, 2014 at 17:15 UTC as 18th comment
In reply to:

halc: Six things to expect:

1. All existing WP licensees (except for a couple of small Chinese) will exit WP, leaving MS alone

2. People will grow doubtful towards Nokia devices, now that they are MS devices, which has three times now threatened to obsolete old WP device in a year (that is: you buy every year, or we obsolte your device)

3. MS will keep it's sluggish updates to the lacking features of WP

4. Sales will fall, worldwide market share will fall.

5. MS will fail with WP phones, just as they did with sidekick, zune and many other customer devices they tried in already crowded markets.

6. In 4-6 years MS will replace WP with something new, and call it the true successor of WP, leaving all the remaining WP users stranded.

I own 2 WINCE devices and have owned 2 WINCE phones. While the 'pocketPCs' are fairly stable both of the phone versions were requiring almost monthly 'factory resets' to bring back to life.

MS re-badges, re-brands, re-launches the same failing technology over and over while leaving customers of its prior versions in the wake.

This is what makes the Apple ecosystem attractive. Many of their models OS can be upgraded a few times before being OBS and even when OBS they are fully functional. (a friend still uses a iPhone3)

My prediction(s)? MS will lease/rent the phones and/or require a 18mo replacement cycle and kill off+bury whatever is left of Nokia in the process. Someone will come out with a not-so-smart cheap flip phone that has good Youtube+FB+browser built in and the low end will live on without Nokia or MS.

Link | Posted on Sep 15, 2013 at 18:33 UTC
On article Battle of the Wi-Fi Cards: Eye-Fi vs. Transcend (184 comments in total)

IMHO: The #1 missing feature(s) of the Eye-Fi cards is the inability to upload directly to a NAS device (bypassing the need for a laptop/desktop) and indirectly using a laptop and network file shares as targets. Switching from Access point mode to wireless AdHock and back is also rather painful. The card will (if your shooting slow enough or have long enough delay between the last shot(s) and attempts to open files on your laptop/desktop) however save you the step of cabling your camera to your laptop/desktop after shooting to transfer the files.
I have yet to test its ability to transfer different file types to two different devices at the same time. (display .jpg on Android device, .raw on WIN7)

It should be noted that it appears that both the Transend and the Eye-Fi's less expensive models use cheaper/slower "N" compatible "G" speed radios which explains why the X2-Pro's speeds were consistently 2x faster.

I wonder why they did not test+try out the other contenders in this space?

Link | Posted on Aug 30, 2013 at 12:37 UTC as 38th comment

G.A.S. = "Shop-a-holic" .

Nice read. DPR being home to more self admitted 'gear heads' than photographers it was only a matter of time before this subject was brought up.

Link | Posted on Jul 19, 2013 at 14:00 UTC as 13th comment

I don't care about the image capturing device (I REFUSE to call them 'cameras') and place battery performance 1st over being able to see+use the screen under all conditions and reception+ call quality.

I have purchased or created some very very THICK phones over the years by using 2x-3x stock battery MaH options to extend the time between charges.

Link | Posted on Jul 14, 2013 at 12:36 UTC as 3rd comment
In reply to:

pcworth: Her comment is interesting in that she is completely wrong. What she should have said is that "Everyone thinks they are pros." This was the comment from a wedding photographer lamenting how many people choose to just take their own photographs instead of hiring a professional to do it.

In the days of film, you trusted in the professionals ability to get the shot when you might not. With digital, you know if you got the shot and can retake if you are not happy.

Maybe this is what she meant when she said their are no "Pros" anymore, unless you define a pro purely as someone who makes money from photography.

I think her statement is more along the lines of FILE SIZES. Consumer level cameras and gadgets now have .JPG resolutions equal to 'pro level' equipment of just a few years ago therefore marketing file size limitations based on professional status meaningless.

Link | Posted on May 25, 2013 at 20:16 UTC
In reply to:

fyngyrz: What a tempest in a teapot. Her opinion of what's pro or not, or who is... completely irrelevant to my life.

What's important to me is that they get after what's actually lacking in flickr; management of sub categories within groups and favorites. Groups could be *so* much more than they ever have been.

Yeah, I pay the $25, and I'm going to keep paying it as it stands right now. Flickr's not perfect, but it's pretty darned good.

Actually the now defunct $25 a year account is more appealing then ether of the free, $50yr or $499yr accounts.

If they added in control of print sizes and pricing we'd have a real winner.

Link | Posted on May 23, 2013 at 05:59 UTC

Classic. Pretty comical. Everyone jumping all over the photog and the customer.

Get real.

The average cost of a wedding in the USA is NOT $30,000.00 (this is a flawed figure "The Knot" came up with and advertises and many like to quote)

Frontier in Oregon sells me a 25D/25U megabit internet connection for $45 a month.

"Professional level" services cost money to provide. More overhead than "GWC" or "Uncle Bob" have. Is it $2000-10,000.00 worth of service? Maybe yes, maybe no. There are some VERY AMAZING shooters out there.

The reality is that photos are not required. Professional photos are optional. Lastly under many "normal conditions" most modern P&S cameras will produce perfectly acceptable 'snap shots' of just about anything.

If you forget to install your CF card during a studio shoot you can simply reschedule it, not so with a wedding. So yes indeed the word "wedding" requires a different level of service.

Link | Posted on Feb 1, 2012 at 06:53 UTC as 36th comment
On article Eye-Fi contests SD Association's Wireless LAN standard (41 comments in total)

There's a Wifi Spec and a SD card Spec, simply joining the two does not make a Eye-Fi card - the 'secrete sauce' is the embedded host daemons (and controller) that drive the radio and file transfer functionality.

It matters not if their solution is viable or junk, its a matter of if their patents are being infringed and if they are valid or not.

Being the 1st to do something does not always yield valid patents.

Link | Posted on Jan 21, 2012 at 18:20 UTC as 10th comment
On article Buyer's Guide: 10 Home Studio Lighting Kits (97 comments in total)

The Bowens Gemini 400 kit now is $100-200 cheaper than last year AND has air stands? (lack of decent stands was my #1 complaint)

Link | Posted on Jan 18, 2012 at 14:58 UTC as 12th comment
On article Why make a small-sensor mirrorless camera? (271 comments in total)

So it seems that the Rangefinder remains alone at the top of the mirror less designs.

No offense intended but when did sub APS-C formats become "serious cameras"? (some might argue the same could be applied to APS-C)

In interchangeable lens P&S - big deal. I'll pass.

(I want a 'rangefinder' that has an EF mount.)

Link | Posted on Sep 23, 2011 at 13:53 UTC as 36th comment
On article 3D Video Primer, Part 1 (32 comments in total)

3D - the success or failure of it lays in the hands of those that capture it (or not) and those that present it.

I remember seeing 'Avatar' as it was the 1st 3D feature where the 3D effect 'worked' for me. Almost all in theater features I've seen this year were in 3D, some were better than others for different reasons.

Is it to much to expect to see a 3D feature when your paying for it? Of the titles that I was least pleased with I could count on one hand the number of 3D scenes scattered through a 2D film. Many of the titles were 'conversions', features that were not shot in 3D - but converted later - and only portions of it were in 'simulated 3D'. There were a few 'conversions' that worked well and a few 'shot in 3D' that might of been, but what was presented on screen was not.

When captured and displayed well 3D can be awe inspiring.

Link | Posted on Sep 21, 2011 at 14:06 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
Total: 18, showing: 1 – 18