Jump to content

boinkphoto

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    318

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by boinkphoto

    Tokina 11 - 16 and D600

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Looking at the link given earlier, it looks usable at 16mm. I was interested in this myself as I own one.</p>

    <p>In any case a used Tamron 17-35mm f2.8-4 is pretty inexpensive and at least in my opinion an excellent full frame wide angle lens. I happily use it on my D800.</p>

    New Nikon D600 pictures

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>While I am sympathetic to those preferring DX (having just joined the FX crowd I can verify it has its minuses), there are a whole range of advantages to FX, not the least of which is better DoF control, reduced noise, (clean) higher ISO capabilities, and better dynamic range.</p>

    <p>It is true that DX and smaller sensors are making remarkable bounds, but technically speaking any improvement in smaller sensors can be applied to larger sensors, always putting them ahead.</p>

    <p>That said, I think the smaller sensors have and will continue to have their own place and advantages (for instance, smaller and lighter cameras). Certainly I will continue to use them until, well, some newer mousetrap makes them all pointless (and/or Europe melts down and the world follows - which unfortunately looks about equally likely at this point).</p>

    Confused which config should I be buying

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>Generally speaking, the longer the zoom range, the more distortion and other flaws the lens will have. If you're more concerned with the quality of each image, I would suggest the shorter zoom. If you are more concerned with missing the shot (even if you might get a less than perfect shot), then I would go with the longer zoom.</p>

    <p>That said, I am not familiar with the lenses in question and sometimes there are exceptional lenses (bad or good), that break the above rules to some extent.</p>

    Angry, defensive, bitter.

    in Wedding & Event

    Posted

    <p>My experience is the Internet, like alcohol, often allows people to feel free to say things that they wouldn't say in other circumstances. While this can on occasion be constructive in person (though often not), it is rarely constructive over the anonymity of the web.</p>

    <p>Think about it - does the receiver of such unfettered essentially anonymous commentary go, "Oh, wait, maybe they're right - I am a stupid dolt," or do they go, "What a jerk - I'm not going to ignore them" (or worse, "I'm going to burn them back!")?</p>

    <p>In the mean time the world just became a little bit of a worse place.</p>

    <p>That's not to say there isn't place to call a "spade a spade", but it doesn't have to be done without a modicum of empathy to the recipient.</p>

    <p>I'm dubious of those who tout how they say it like it is and are proud of it. I'm not so sure the same would be true should it be face to face (nor necessarily should it be true). Some of it seems lazy (yes, it's work to properly candy coat), some of seems cowardly (hiding behind anonymity), and some of it seems just plain mean (there is a certain glee that sometimes comes through). It's the later that concerns me the most, as it seems to cater to the worst in us - after all sadly there is a sort of guilty pleasure in trashing your neighbor, but again it does not make the world a better place.</p>

    <p>In any case, it's not clear that I would have said the above without the semi-anonymity of the Internet, so I probably should not talk.</p>

    Simply looking for validation through commiseration

    in Wedding & Event

    Posted

    <p>Really, I don't think it's plausible to judge based on one photo but you'd have to be pretty bad to not be worth $500 for 8 hours of work.</p>

    <p>As far as the one photo goes, well the photo certianly isn't "bad", but being perfectly honest it's also not that compelling either. There's probably a number of things I could pick on, though based on my monitor, exposure would be the biggest (probably PP could correct some). The cut head isn't great either, but that's a dead horse at this point.</p>

    <p>Again, it's pretty hard to judge from a single photo. On the other hand, posting more of a client who hasn't agreed to share their photos is pretty iffy in itself, so I'd probably leave it at that.</p>

    <p>So you live and learn. Take the criticisms and see what you can learn from them.</p>

    Nuclear dust camera

    in Mirrorless Digital Cameras

    Posted

    <p>I think there is plenty to be concerned about in regards to Fukushima, but "nuclear" cameras is not one of them. If anything I would be more concerned about the same "dust", which is in the airstream right now and can be delivered right to your doorstep.</p>

    <p>Generally BTW - cameras are built (for obvious reasons) in "dust free" environment (granted, not that that's a guarantee - but added to the unlikely scenario anyway...). Add that of course to the other posts that most of equipment being bought today were already in the stream, a lot isn't actually from Japan, etc., etc. and I think you're seeding fear where no fear is warranted.</p>

    <p>Don't get me wrong, again I think there's a lot to be worried about in regards to Fukushima, but this isn't one of them. If anything buying Japanese cameras might be a way to help out their economy.</p>

    <p>And on that point - I think we probably should be focused more on the tens of thousands of Japanese who might be at risk and/or are suffering from the earthquake/tsunami, rather than say if our next materialist purchase might have radioactive "dust" on it (and I say that as a hopeless materialist myself).</p>

    Parents want a model release back

    in Business of Photography

    Posted

    <p>Or to script the scenario:</p>

    <p><strong>Parent1:</strong> Did you hear about that photographer? The parents wanted their photos back and he wouldn't give them - not even the release.<br>

    <strong>Parent2:</strong> Really, that's creepy. What do you think he's going to do with them?<br>

    <strong>Parent1:</strong> I don't know, but it gives me the willies. Glad I didn't take my kids there.<br>

    <strong>Parent2:</strong> Yeah, me too - I'm never going to do that.</p>

    <p>Seriously - first thing that came to mind.</p>

     

    Parents want a model release back

    in Business of Photography

    Posted

    <p>As others noted, while you probably are in the right and may well be able to win this in court, I see no benefit to do so. Whereas you might win in a real court, in the court of public opinion you are going to lose given societies (well warranted) sensitivity toward children. In short, you're just asking for bad PR, perhaps, depending on how nasty it gets, even of the sort that might land you being lumped in with predators and other types.</p>

    <p>As a photographer (albeit not professional) I am entirely sympathetic, but as a parent I would find a photographer's unwillingness to relinquish a release disturbing. This is probably particularly true for outside parties who are likely to only hear soundbites that cannot portray nuance effectively but are very good at taring individuals.</p>

    <p>Julian Assange might be a good recent example...</p>

    Nikon D7000 scores 80 on DxOMark

    in Nikon

    Posted

    <p>I am sympathetic to both arguments - I do not think you can dismiss out of hand the technological advancements nor do I think you should fall into a trap that a "better camera will make you produce better pictures".</p>

    <p>I think what technology does do is allow you to capture some pictures you might otherwise not been able to capture (period) and/or or successfully capture images that otherwise might have been unsuccessful.</p>

    <p>For instance, I still love my Fuji S2, but there are a lot of lighting situations that it just can't handle, where my D300 or even Fuji S5 would (whether say, low light or high contrast). Another example might be focus, where the advances in focusing technology improve your likelihood of getting the shot. Or flash, where accuracy may again improve your chance of getting the shot or offer off camera options. Or megapixels, which might allow you to crop more effectively.</p>

    <p>Many of these things can be replaced by simple effort and care in taking photographs - and there's a lot to be said for that effort as it often brings more to the image than simple success. However much of our photographic lives are spent in situations where time for such care isn't available (say "the decisive moment", sports photography, when you're traveling with others, or, like me, where you have a family and everything seems rushed). In that case, technology can be a real lifesaver.</p>

    <p>Moreover, even when you do take care, it is possible to still muck up - I am sure all of our hard drives are filled with many such instances, and any advances that reduce that risk increase our chances of getting usable photos. Since "good photos" are usually a subset of "usable photos", increasing the later increases the chance of the former.</p>

    <p>But in the end, yes, it comes down to the photographer, not the camera. No amount of technology can replace that (though they're trying damn hard).</p>

    <p>Honestly what bugs me more is the number of bad photographers (actually bad photos - I can't generalize on the photographers themselves) who take a boring shot, jazz it up with like fake cross-processing, and shove it out like some godsend. Yes, often the fake cross-processing or whatever temporarily rescues the photo, but it's so formulaic as to sort of suck the life out of the genre. Actually it's definitely not bad photographers - I see good photographers who overuse this stuff and it drives me crazy.</p>

×
×
  • Create New...