Posts for: Retina
Jun 3, 2022 13:19:17 #
burkphoto wrote:
[...]One MAJOR thing they didn't think would happen this soon was the mobile broadband Internet-enabled *smartphone.[...]
In more general terms it is incredible rate of miniaturization of the CPU, ASIC, SRAM, and ever shorter wavelength radio communications that was hard for our fathers to envision. Optical technology does improve (with the aid of electronics) but not nearly as fast as electronics when wed to optics.
Jun 2, 2022 11:02:24 #
The Chicago Sun-Times wrote:
"The Sun-Times business is changing rapidly and our audiences are consistently seeking more video content with their news. We have made great progress in meeting this demand and are focused on bolstering our reporting capabilities with video and other multimedia elements. The Chicago Sun-Times continues to evolve with our digitally savvy customers, and as a result, we have had to restructure the way we manage multimedia, including photography, across the network".
So their stated motive was improve coverage with more video and audio. Taking the paper at their word, it seems their professional photographers were not tech savvy or their outdated cameras were incapable of anything but silent stills. One message in their misleading statement is that the skills required to be a professional photographer are overkill, and anyone trained to cover a story in print could do an adequate job in many scenarios to capture video with sound "well enough" to satisfy their audience. Contract photographers and reporters who were serious enthusiasts covered other stories with dedicated cameras, but at some inevitable cost to their primary reporting efforts. The last sentence in the quoted statement is backwards with regard to cause and effect. But how often does a newspaper abuse logic when it has an agenda?
"The Sun-Times business is changing rapidly and our audiences are consistently seeking more video content with their news. We have made great progress in meeting this demand and are focused on bolstering our reporting capabilities with video and other multimedia elements. The Chicago Sun-Times continues to evolve with our digitally savvy customers, and as a result, we have had to restructure the way we manage multimedia, including photography, across the network".
So their stated motive was improve coverage with more video and audio. Taking the paper at their word, it seems their professional photographers were not tech savvy or their outdated cameras were incapable of anything but silent stills. One message in their misleading statement is that the skills required to be a professional photographer are overkill, and anyone trained to cover a story in print could do an adequate job in many scenarios to capture video with sound "well enough" to satisfy their audience. Contract photographers and reporters who were serious enthusiasts covered other stories with dedicated cameras, but at some inevitable cost to their primary reporting efforts. The last sentence in the quoted statement is backwards with regard to cause and effect. But how often does a newspaper abuse logic when it has an agenda?
Jun 2, 2022 07:52:10 #
vanderhala wrote:
I took a picture (D7200 with 11-20 Tokina with the OEM hood at 11 mm, a UV filter and I forgot that I also had put a graded ND filter. I wanted to show the ring shadow and ask : Is the shadow the filter or the hood (should an OEM hood do this?).
However: I could not decrease the picture size, as ViewNX2 says: you cannot do this in unsupported file.
Also: the picture (of my D7200 which is 24 MP) in RAW is listed as 30 megapixels? How is that possible?
However: I could not decrease the picture size, as ViewNX2 says: you cannot do this in unsupported file.
Also: the picture (of my D7200 which is 24 MP) in RAW is listed as 30 megapixels? How is that possible?
Stacking more than one filter plus the hood would be asking a lot. Just one filter and the hood may work. The vignetting could be the hood when it is too far out from the lens or the second filter especially if they are not thin as the first responder wrote.
Jun 1, 2022 11:47:04 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
[...]one might go searching with google against the original posts in 2013 when this event occurred and was noted on UHH.
What was printed in Forbes at the time was the layoff of the full-time photographers. My guess, and I don't believe any contemporaneous report would show this, that it was the usual story as burkphoto may have alluded to: pensions, medical insurance, etc. They probably retained or augmented contract photographers, especially for sports and entertainment. So the headline could have read "Love their cameras, hate the photographers" but certainly not in any cultofmac blog. What had to have been insulting to those laid off was the paper's released statement that this was a move to appeal to tech-savvy customers.
Jun 1, 2022 09:02:56 #
cpl3 wrote:
Wondering what people think of this article from C... (show quote)
If a newspaper can't afford to allow their photographers to leave by choice or retire, it indicates they are probably cutting corners in all areas. Or did some higher up at the paper get a gift from the iBank to make an endorsement? I will be more impressed when the members of the Capitol press corps and the White House photographer leave their cameras home and show up to work with just their phones. I am curious whether this was taken with a phone camera by the guy who wrote the article. Or maybe the paper let reporters uses their personal cameras to illustrate their stories.
https://chicago.suntimes.com/columnists/2022/5/30/23148037/tommy-pham-joc-pederson-reds-giants-padres-dodgers-cheek-slap-fantasy-football
May 24, 2022 08:15:22 #
Rongnongno wrote:
I am getting a bit tired of folks stating that &qu... (show quote)
People spend time (and money) on what they want to get better at, whether they love the process or maybe have certain goals. SOOC meets the needs of those with more modest expectations. There is nothing wrong with that. Others are not happy with SOOC but accept the compromises because they don't have the time for PP. I bet there are some here who work unrelated day jobs and can't wait to practice post when they retire. I doubt there are many who tried, gave up, and rationalize away post as necessary only for those who lack advanced SOOC skills. To any experts here get satisfaction from helping others see the advantages of making the most of what a sensor can do, comparisons between a best-effort SOOC vs a good post version of the same exposure help to illustrate the differences.
May 14, 2022 17:55:15 #
There are many people who are too ashamed to display ANY photos of their single greatest fought over right today. Please try not to take it personally when this impacts your own work. Their decision to exclude this image is more a reflection on the sensitivities than the quality or Inclusive and Diverse nature of your work.
May 3, 2022 09:36:25 #
My favorite feature of mirrorless is the lack of shake. Even without IBIS, it means less need for a tripod and the time it takes to set one up and position it.
May 1, 2022 14:20:56 #
mikegreenwald wrote:
A comment by dpullum in an unrelated post on 4/30 ... (show quote)
This does not answer the question any more directly than half the answers so far, so please ignore my post if that matters. My use of phone cameras relates to how easily the camera works with high productivity applications. This is more a question of which OS the phone is tied to. The questions you ask are great, however, I use my phone camera for purposes I would not do with a dedicated camera. I love the portability of SOOC pans while hiking, photo "scans" of documents with auto skew and stretch, and fake portrait mode when I should have brought along a real camera. More and more of these special features have been acquired by the big company OS's from independent developers. It's hard to keep up. As good as these phone cameras get, I still see them as handy tools for which I would never give up my quest for a FF MILC so I might someday have a truly adventurous life.
Apr 27, 2022 20:26:00 #
srt101fan wrote:
I get your point. But good reproductions of artworks, including photographic prints have always been difficult to achieve. And few of us are able to see the originals. Should we stop looking at reproductions and stop expressing opinions about a work because we haven't seen the original? I think not....
I agree. Of course there are some good books. In an earlier post I thought I recommended that anyone not able to see Adams' prints in exhibits to look for good quality books. I have one book that is poor but has a lot of good text, another decent one but the pages are yellowing, and one that is quite good when if comes to the printing. What I meant was no one should judge one of his prints from a poorly done web pic. Much of his work is exceptional, in part, because of his meticulous capture of the subtleties in light and detail in scenes that interested him. I hope that makes sense.
Apr 27, 2022 18:58:09 #
AzatVi wrote:
Ansel took an image with his camera, the picture he saw in his mind was created in the darkroom.
From what I recall of his notes about his approach to his work, he probably created this image before he stopped his truck. The rest was executing his famed process of carrying the final image from pre-visualization to print. Each step was an integral part of the entire workflow with improvisational tweaks along the way as he encountered one or more unexpected challenges as he described in his letter that was generously posted earlier.
Apr 27, 2022 18:43:08 #
Soul Dr. wrote:
I quite agree. the OP was asking for honest opinions about this image as if someone didn't know who made it.
Just because someone's opinion doesn't match yours, doesn't mean it is sophomoric.
I find it was a good thought-raising question.
will
Just because someone's opinion doesn't match yours, doesn't mean it is sophomoric.
I find it was a good thought-raising question.
will
The premise of the question was hard to accept for anyone who spent any time looking at one of his larger prints. The compressed blocked up web pic looks like an average post-card you might find at a convenience store almost anywhere in the southwest, except worse. On the other hand, his large original prints of this are in a totally different realm. Everything that makes this photograph great was lost before the OP clicked Send. It is a valid and interesting question, but to request opinions about an anonymous master's work after it was unknowingly butchered is less than fair to the artist and the viewer. If the OP is implying that this photograph may have become famous by riding on the artist's name, then no. It's one of the many reasons he is so famous.
Apr 27, 2022 07:52:30 #
camerapapi wrote:
I hope the majority of you know that this image was badly underexposed because Mr. Adams forgot to bring an exposure meter with him so he calculated the exposure. This is what I know and I cannot say if that was true...
What I read in his letter about the exposure was putting the moon in Zone VII (if I recall) required water bath development in order to bring up the darker parts. Without the moon, mountain snow, and possibly the white clouds, he would have allowed more light. In other words, he had to underexpose the foreground, for lack of a better word, and develop accordingly. In terms of pushing and puling film, water bath pulls the film's suggested rating in the most exposed portions and pushes it in the rest. It's like have ASA 32 and ASA400 film in the same frame. At least that's what I get from his letter and having read his Zone System book.
Apr 25, 2022 09:25:23 #
kymarto wrote:
Think about it this way: you are doing a portrait ... (show quote)
I took a casual family group portrait a couple years ago under an odd lighting situation where the skin hues just could not be fixed with the simple free JPG editor that came with the OS. With the RAW of the same photo, it was easy to make the hues much more natural looking. The same happened with blocked up highlights with other JPGs. I usually save JPGs and RAW files. Even though I am not very skilled with post-processing, I did learn the hard way that the difference between in-camera vs post-processing is like night and day. As a programmer I understand how this is, but it was really evident in practice. I look forward to having time to establish a workflow to make working with RAW faster and easier. There is almost no comparison when it comes to the potential results.
Apr 24, 2022 16:16:08 #
Architect1776 wrote:
gvarner wrote:
Without post processing, a RAW photo is like a film negative. A RAW file does not include many of the settings that the camera uses for a JPEG file and so you get a rather "flat" photo. It’s designed to be that way so you can refine the image in post to your liking with changes to exposure, highlights and shadows, sharpness and grain, and color balance among others. Many of these things you can’t do well on a JPEG.
Without post processing, a RAW photo is like a film negative. A RAW file does not include many of the settings that the camera uses for a JPEG file and so you get a rather "flat" photo. It’s designed to be that way so you can refine the image in post to your liking with changes to exposure, highlights and shadows, sharpness and grain, and color balance among others. Many of these things you can’t do well on a JPEG.
RAW is much, much better than a negative. With film, a negative has already been developed, stopped, and fixed in one a one-shot attempt to get the most from the exposure. RAW is more like an undeveloped latent image on exposed film before it gets wet. You get to non-destructively develop it over and over, with the ease of sliding a mouse, with any number of developers for different times at different temperatures, pushing and pulling until you get the best results you have time for. And that is just to get it to the unprinted stage. Another bonus is you can any number of printable files from the same exposure. I like the approach from an earlier post where his workflow involves saving RAW at a higher resolution and bit depth than a JPG to save time, storage space, and still preserve flexibility with the original file.