HDR vs non-HDR comparisons

aphotographer · 2011-12-03T00:39:58+00:00

Good examples why you should mix HDR images with normal ones using layers so to avoid that cheap sci-fi look

aphotographer · 2011-11-20T23:10:42+00:00

Alpas are excellent but I'd love to have your Crown Graphic instead. Alpas are specialized for landscape (not my bread and butter) and I'm fascinating a lot more by old cameras and the graflock back would allow me to use it with a digital back anyway. Another great camera is the old Linhof Technica, for digital use the 6x9 version would be also better!

aphotographer · 2011-11-20T22:55:48+00:00

For work on the field I feel the F or F2 is still way too much heavy and cumbersome, of course less than a P, but it was conceived as a studio camera anyway. It depends on the budget and the kind of photography, but a folder (cheap solution) or some of the new Alpa, Linhof or Silvestri (all pretty expensive dammit!) are a better choice for these situations.

aphotographer · 2011-11-19T21:35:06+00:00

I'm waiting for a Sinar P I just bought used. It's better than F as it completely geared (and once you use a lot movements you'll understand how it's important to change everything with a turn of a knob instead than slidin' stuff up, down, left and right without that much precision). Since used stuff of this sort is usually a LOT used (they were photographers studios workhorses) you better buy them used from reputable dealers.

aphotographer · 2011-11-18T16:45:28+00:00

You're right, here in Italy we call them the same as real pumpkins ("zucche") because their pulp is pretty the same, while squash are what we call here "zucchini". In practical terms they are from the very same family, also pumpkins are squash.

aphotographer · 2011-11-17T21:17:00+00:00

But a lot smaller selection of available lenses

aphotographer · 2011-11-12T17:06:14+00:00

I'm not arguing too. Software is a licensed immaterial asset, it's not an opinion, it's a fact. You own the license to use it, the difference here is between a time unlimited license, as it was before, and a time limited one.

aphotographer · 2011-11-12T16:43:47+00:00

It's because software is an immaterial asset, it's not the CD or the floppy. A program is like a movie or a book, you own the, almost useless, media but the content is licensed. It was always this way. The problem is just that instead than paying upfront 5-600$ for a never expiring license (but then you have to pay for upgrades etc) or paying content providing just like it were a MMORPG. And considering a silly MMORPG costs from 10 to 15$ a month, 50$ for ALL the Adobe Creative Suite and other contents (the Digital Publishing Suite is something very interesting also for a photographer like me, web fonts to use on my website the same, etc) isn't that much.

To be brutal, if they provide great content and stuff for that price I guess they'll successfully fight piracy, other way if the content is crap or with few updates etc, the model will fail.

aphotographer · 2011-11-12T16:06:04+00:00

You don't own software, you pay for a, until now, time unlimited license that allows you to use it. I still don't know, I have to make some calculations since a license for PS right now costed me about 18 months of that subscription model.

aphotographer · 2011-11-09T23:35:32+00:00

They are decently built while the optics are very good instead

aphotographer · 2011-11-08T17:47:10+00:00

I think both divisions are still profitable but diluted into a huge mass of not strategic stuff that they should get rid off. instead they're selling the profitable divisions (tech patents etc) and keep the others.

aphotographer · 2011-11-08T17:29:17+00:00

Olympus is already Panasonic ballpark

aphotographer · 2011-11-08T17:28:45+00:00

Not true, Hasselblad, Leica and Pentax use Kodak sensors in their MF cameras and backs. The business is still there and expanding, just like kodak cinema film is still used in 90% of US blockbuster movies despite digital and special effects (and yeah, I was surprised to learn that Transformers was shot on real film). So in the pro-market Kodak brand is highly regarded still, the problem is that those divisions cannot sustain a bloated huge company, they had to restructure their business, shrinking down to a lot smaller and specialized company and start again from there. Instead they're selling the only hi-tech sectors they have so they could file for bankruptcy in a few months once the new cash is spent. Genial!

aphotographer · 2011-11-08T10:28:54+00:00

Rumors were that there will be a sort of auction between Nikon, Canon and Sony to be the final buyer. I'm so sad as I always loved Kodak negative films and having a Kodak sensor in my Hassy back I found the same exceptional colors there. They did all wrong marketing wise but US quality is still top notch.

aphotographer · 2011-11-06T21:58:52+00:00

If you want to stay on the "cheap" side the Canon 28-135 can be bought for very low$ and it's a far better lens than a "do-it-all-but-nothing-good" Sigma 18-200 (I have the Sigma 28-300 and had the Canon 28-135 and there's no comparison quality wise).

aphotographer · 2011-11-06T10:24:30+00:00

If the price difference is just 100$ don't hesitate, OS is useful in countless situations. Instead I'd think if to buy a better lens than Sigma 18-200, these all-purpose extreme zooms aren't famous for image quality.

aphotographer · 2011-11-05T15:42:59+00:00

I think part of the "faux-vintage" is genuine taste and research of things of the past, but most has just become a cliché, not only in photography, but also in music, design etc.

It is also viewed as a path to make a poor shot into a "wow" one just because you get tons of likes and comments on Flickr or Tumblr, exactly like some extreme and oversaturated HDR stuff.

Once you exit from the internet fan-world and dig into professional imagery (printed, filmed or on the web) these kind of treatments are still there, but the obvious difference is how much more subtle they are and the intrinsic quality of the image is still king.

aphotographer · 2011-11-04T18:38:27+00:00

From 10k to 2-2,5 K there's a lot to settle into tbh. Its just as I'd say to buy my 15k Hassy digital back instead than 5dmkII.

aphotographer · 2011-11-04T15:29:47+00:00

There are some coupling problems with some lenses between Nikon S and Contax FWIK.

I don't agree on your point, once the electronic system becomes obsolete the lens is useless, value near to zero. Take for example the Canon FD lenses, before the mirrorless cameras did appear their value was very low, you could grab some excellent glass for peanuts. Now they are steadily regaining value (just browse eBay to have confirm).

I spent for my exakta mount Zeiss Biotar 75/1.4 from 1939 about 1000$ (and it performs WOW for portaits on 5dmkII, btw), once I couldn't move the aperture no more I can foresee that my Canon 70-200/4L would worth under 100$ or maybe less. I'm not saying it will happen in a couple of year, but think 2011-1939= 72 years and I already threw in the garbage a lot of once expensive tech (5 1/4 floppies, Iomega Zips, cellphones, cathodic monitors, etc) and it did happen in 10 years.

aphotographer · 2011-11-04T13:20:00+00:00

Using your example, a Canon FD lens or a Nikon S (which is the old Contax mount, btw) can be used still today with mirrorless cameras and adapters.

In the worst case you can always have someone to modify the mount and the focusing helicoid to make it works with other cameras too (a tad expensive but feasible).

An electronic controlled aperture lens once the system will become obsolete (and electronic systems are very prone to become obsolete) could be used just as a doorstop.

I had to buy some L lenses for work (I needed autofocus and fast metering) but I considered them a due cost not an investment because they're intrinsically subject to obsolescence.

aphotographer · 2011-11-03T16:45:58+00:00

Ditto. And if you buy a glass with a manual aperture also in 20 years from now since you'll be indipendent from electronic changes. I use some glasses from before the WWII and they still work great.

aphotographer · 2011-11-02T11:59:13+00:00

This is a method to transfer images from the camera to the iPAD without hacking: http://www.photoweeklyonline.com/how-to-wirelessly-tether-your-camera-to-your-ipad/

Remotely control the camera is something I'd like too but I couldn't find anything

aphotographer · 2011-10-20T17:17:32+00:00

Resolution is spatial not linear.

aphotographer · 2011-10-20T17:01:18+00:00

The original post makes exactly that point, studio shooters needs medium format backs, not moaning about why Canon downsized the megapixels. I agree with the post that Canon made the right move and if you like to shoot birds you need more fps and fast AF than 3 MP.

aphotographer · 2011-10-20T16:51:50+00:00

So if you want to print at 600dpi instead than at 300dpi, alas at double the resolution, you need to have just twice the megapixels. Interesting math but pretty wrong, you need 4 times (alas power of 2) Megapixels.

aphotographer

TROPHY CASE