vuk_vuksanovic

t.j.

 

i feel honoured to have inspired the only two postings you've ever made on photonet since registering back in 2003. just to clear things up for the innocent/confused observers: as you may have noticed from my name, i am broadly from the neck of the woods to which the humour was directed and us slavs don't have much trouble poking fun at ourselves, especially when it comes to ribbing about our countries' technological backwardness (something we were gifted by the post ww2 totalitarian regimes). it is not about the people, but the circumstances of the nation.

clark.

<br><br>

for a little more peace of mind, you may want to shop at the link below:

<br><br>

<a href='http://www.katzeyeoptics.com/cat--Pentax-DSLRs--cat_pentax.html'>katzeye screens for pentax</a>

stuart.

 

that is a masterpiece of bokeh. wow!

the image is about 25MB and the refresh starts at the top of the pics and cascades down in about 2 seconds or so. in photoshop it is almost instant. when working with curves, it is tremndously annoying not to have almost instant feedback.

peter.

 

to me, a reasonable price for photo editing software at this point in development history would be around the $75 dollar range, so what you're suggesting is off the mark in that respect.

 

ultimately, i prefer to support the open source movement and freeware. in this case, these is a performance price to pay, but many open source products i use (or have developed myself) are better and more reliable than what the big companies are putting out.

 

btw--could someone at least confirm that the refresh rate is a big annoyance with GIMP? just so i know i haven't messed up with the setting somehow.

in an effort to switch away from photoshop, i tried gimp todsy for the

very first time. the fundamental tool for me is curves and i actually

found the length and control of the line to be superior to what

photoshop offers, but then the side was let down tremendously by the

absurdly slow refresh. i have set the memory caching to 500MB, so

that can't be the problem. is there anything i'm overlooking?

for what it's worth, i thought i'd share a few snapshots captured on

my first afternoon out with the *istDS2 and an old prime lens i

purchased for around $100:

<br><br>

<a href="http://qstatistic.com/foto/new/ds2_day1.htm">click here for

the pics</a>

<br><br>

chers,<br>

vuk.<br>

<a href="http://qstatistic.com/foto">http://qstatistic.com/foto</a>

huw.

 

you have earned my complete admiration. this project should be documented in a much better way than through disconnected threads on a forum that organizes content in the most primitive, serial manner.

 

if other members are willing to help me out with content, i will offer to host and do the core web design in order to display all of this properly.

 

it really says a lot about the company who makes our favourite cameras that they haven't yet said a word. you just know the marketing "people" have advised it would be very gauche and almost certainly cause worry among asian collectors. the chin-stroking executives most definitely agreed. this is the price of purism increasingly transforming itself into jewellery/image manufacturing.

 

vuk.

...it just shows what a wanker ansel adams was to criticise this man. clearly jealous of a superior talent or unable to appreciate it.

simon.

 

thank you from me as well for showing that magnificent photo. an absolute masterpiece.

 

vuk.

funny how 99% of contemporary equipment reviews fail to inform you properly about the viewfinder--arguably the most important part of a camera. judging by the pictures, i assume this one is "electronic". if so, that places the lumix neck-and-neck with a $25 disposable. why a company would want to spend time engineering a sophisticated lens in such a context is beyond me (unless, of course, the marketing department knew how to "sell" the idea).

 

that said, i really hope i'm wrong and it's actually some kind of miracle/miniature rangefinder they've built in.

 

vuk.

almost all of my shooting is with a 50mm lens.

 

vuk.

michael.

<br><br>

excellent self-portrait.

<br><br>

cheers,<br>

vuk.

<i>should read:</i><br>

"property of <b>any</b> sort..."

<i>"The right to a photograph is the same as the right to a manuscript or a piece of music. It belongs to the person who created it...</i>

<br><br>

morally, perhaps. absolutely, no. one of the "problems" of advanced techonology is how it has made replication of things like music, words and images fairly trivial--rendering the product virtually worthless (just ask any teenager with an mp3 device). the person working in a very material/concrete domain (for example, a carpenter) is currently unaffected, but someone like a digital/digitized photographer has serious problems.

<br><br>

to tell you the truth though, i don't really believe in intellectual property of an sort, even though i produce a fair amount of it for a living (the solution is to keep producing something either unreproducible or newer). the suffering created by physical property is bad enough. photography, like any art, should be the result of personal, creative motives: in this realm, issues of copyright are irrelevant. that said, anyone taking false credit for a shot is a complete wanker

i don't have a wife to offer, but i can put forward one of three very attractive girls for a july swing/swap, as long as all parties agree (and submit detailed photos of self).

M series cameras are all about shooting B&W and there is still no digital option out there today to rival genuine film in terms of aesthetics. i love leica, i would like a digital camera, but a digital M is of no interest at all right now.

every comment posted here is from the perspective of the author.

steve.

 

not sure what you're seeing, but the leica shots are miles ahead of the canon.

...because the digital noise is not particularly attractive.

alfie.

 

you can't shoot inanimate subjects through leica R mounted on a canon--unless the girl is dead.

ollie.

 

only leica glass can capture something like that, though your scanning/spotting has let the side down somewhat.

it's a shame these weren't captured on film.

if you are willing to be a "yes man" to an ignorant client who you aknowledge is selecting shoddy work, then you have little integrity. it's laughable how you're implying this makes you a genuine photographer.

<i>"no matter what the photographer thinks is great, the person who is going to use the photo is going to have a different idea. As a result, you deliver as much as you can (and this used to be true with film) so as to maximize the possibility of having something you are going to get paid for ... I don't want to have some great shots that nobody wants - I won't get the pass or the work the next time."</i>--jeff

<br><br>

this reply shows you've missed the point completely. i am also appalled that you whore out your "contact sheets" this way. obviously, you must deal with some fairly vulgar/repulsive clients to ever be placed in such a position.