russell_contreras

June 23, 2012

I do not worry about the demise of film but of dedicated film scanners.

</blockquote>

The <a href="http://plustek.com/mea/products/opticfilm-series/opticfilm-120/introduction.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Plustek OpticFilm 120 scanner</a>. I think this thing is supposed to dropped in late summer/early fall. Internet rumor is it's supposed to be a Nikon Coolscan 9000 replacement.

June 22, 2012

I have nothing against the lens per se, but are you sure? On an APS-C DSLR?

EDIT: If you want to learn discipline, get a wider lens, not a longer one. Longer lenses are just limiting. I suggest that one reason (among several) why mobile phones have 28mm equivalent lenses is because a longer focal length would frustrate the user.

</blockquote>

Simple really. The Canon 50mm 1.8 can be had for $100. Even if you buy it and it doesn't meet our expectations you can sell it on ebay and you are only out a few bucks. There really is no excuse not to have it in your bag. It is too long for a general purpose lens, but it is excellent for people photography. Anthony Perlas already has a wide angle zoom. So it isn't as if he is lacking on that end entirely. If he really wants to get into checking out different apertures and bokeh something longer and with a bigger aperture is more appropriate.

June 21, 2012

It is certainly not mindless and for the average person shooting for the webmail or printing up to say 8x10 inches the 3 to 6MP is plenty as I remember before we moved to higher MP cameras with "progress".

</blockquote>

3 and 6 MP DSLRs aren't even sold anymore so I think it's mindless advice. Technology marches on. I for one have been quite happy to have the extra megapixels when I've had to rotate and crop an image and still wanted to make a large print. I remember having a 3MP camera... I am not very nostalgic.

Russell, substitute "camera" with "car" and it'll likely become more obvious.

</blockquote>

Yeah it's like KR is talking about a debate between getting a 4 cylinder or upgrading to a 150 hp v6. Meanwhile the 150 HP V6 isn't even available anymore and 2013 models are coming with a 190 HP inline 4 standard... and its costs less and is more fuel efficient. Canon's consumer entry level DSLR has 12 megapixels and it sells for a reasonable price. Why not talk about that? I guess people don't start threads because a reviewer mentions 12 megapixels. You need to say 3 megapixels to really get your name out there and increase your google rank.

I don't see how negative comments in bold serve any useful purpose...

</blockquote>

Three comments were in bold. Only one happened to be negative. I just highlighted the main points in the post.

he might just decide to sue you for liable and defamation

</blockquote>

It's "libel." KR says purposefully extreme things to drive traffic to his website. He is courting controversy. That's his business model. Why would he sue over that? When was the last time Rush Limbaugh or Lady Gaga sued someone for libel?

June 20, 2012

Use Camera Raw. There is a HSL/Grayscale tab. You can then use sliders that only affect individual colors. You can adjust Hue, Saturation, and Luminescence. I use it all the time. You can do a combination of things. You can adjust HSL in Camera Raw and then use curves. So you don't have to just max out one technique. You can tweak both a little bit.<div>

00aWh3-475737584.jpg.38e9b83849cc89e9942222982e35e734.jpg

</div>

June 20, 2012

Considering you haven't spent money on a film scanner yet, I suggest you save yourself a lot of trouble and consider this option instead: <a href="http://www.scancafe.com/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.scancafe.com/</a>

</blockquote>

Website looks good. Prices look real good. Stories on the internet are rather hit or miss though. They ship ALL your slides/negatives off to Inida. It takes MONTHS to get orders back. Just FYI.

Russell, let's hope so, A new, and affordable, guality film scanner would be most welcome!

</blockquote>

Yeah, image quality and price are still unknown. They seem to be making it out to be something that rivals the Nikon Coolscan 9000. That and the price point remain to be seen. If it ends up being sub $1,000 and equal to the Nikon Coolscan 9000 I will rob and steal to get the money for it. If it is $1,500... It will be awhile before I get it.

Rumors from a Plustek agent on <a href="http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=114288">Rangefinderforum</a> suggest it will be priced at no more than US$2500.

</blockquote>

Ok guys here is the scoop... September is the target availability date. About 30 days before availability, you will see the major photo retailers posting pre-order pages.

</blockquote>

June 20, 2012

The "no one needs any more than 3 to 6 <a id="itxthook3" href="00aWG8?start=20" rel="nofollow">megapixels</a> for anything" comment should be taken within context. It's no different from one man's opinion that no one needs more than 150HP in a car, or to some of us, we should all be riding bikes or be walking; you can argue 'til death but it won't change car sales statistics or influence what people will buy one bit.

</blockquote>

Michael Chang, the problem with KR is a lot of amateurs read his site and have no background knowledge to put it in "context." The guy's authoritative bombastic style makes him sound like an expert to amateurs. Of course people like you and I just put him on ignore. I don't even click on links to his site. But amateurs that show up at his site are reading about 3 and 6 megapixel cameras that don't even exist anymore. It does a real disservice to those people. If someone is going to drive traffic to their site they should at least have responsible content.

The lowest end Canon DSLR is the T3 and it has 12.2 megapixels. Why would anyone be giving an amateur buying advice that involved 3 and 6 megapixel cameras? The simple answer is 12.2 megapixels doesn't drive traffic and spawn threads of outrage the way 3 megapixels does. It's just mindless trolling and profiteering.

June 20, 2012

Obviously, sensor type, lens, price, and point and shoot versus DSLR is a start but where can I find some comparisons without purchasing, owning, and shooting with the equipment?

</blockquote>

Well new models are coming out all the time so memorizing the manual for any given camera is worthless. Why don't you read some online reviews for the latest gear? If you pick a Pro, Prosumer, and Consumer model from each brand and read a couple of good reviews for each you will have a general idea about each lines philosophy and why people like them. To be honest with you there really isn't a huge amount of difference between the cameras... at least as far as DSLRs are concerned. Canon and Nikons both take pictures that would be indistinguishable on in final prints or in small internet pictures. A lot of the choice comes down to small preferences. One thing I would say about DSLRs is to learn about the SYSTEM. Bodies come and go but if one system has a couple of lenses a customer wants then that will probably be the system for them. Also make sure you learn about how the system handles flashes. I heard Nikon does a better job in this department.

Point and shoots are a mess. There are so many of those things that many of them aren't even reviewed. Getting a general idea about where the point and shoot market is right now is probably a good idea. Learning about a bunch of models is probably pointless unless you know the models you will be selling. Learning about the best point and shoots from the major companies might be worth while as well as learning about the best selling point and shoots. But I wouldn't go crazy memorizing a bunch of stuff about a bunch of cameras you probably will never stock or sell.

I'm into digital photography but I shoot DSLRs. When someone asks me about point and shoots I sigh and roll my eyes because for me to give an intelligent answer I have to do A LOT of research just to try and figure out what is out there. The DSLR world is finite... The point and shoot world is infinite.

June 20, 2012

Russel, sounds like you shot alot of colored-slide films, like me. If Ilford is independant they'll stick around for a good many years. Anyhow, doesn't seem too many worry-warts out here at photo.net.

</blockquote>

D F, I didn't shoot a lot of slide film because of the expense. But I certainly used it enough that the loss of Ektachrome was felt. I don't use Ilford that much. Although I am glad they are around and apparently going strong. I've been experimenting a lot with slow speed emulsions like Efke and Adox. I also got a boat load of Acros. For some reason they were selling 120 rolls for $3 a pop a few months ago. I couldn't pass that up. Adorama increased the price to $3.20.

Never was a fan of Kodak film so its demise went unnoticed...

</blockquote>

dennis williams, some of us xpro and Ektachrome was pretty good for that. Besides if you only had two choices what would you rather have an oligopoly or a monopoly? There is zero pressure on Fuji now. I have never heard of anyone that uses a product that didn't notice when there became only one global supplier. Pretty short sighted.

I find that living in flat bland suburbia does not get my juices running to shoot period...

</blockquote>

Yeah I hear ya'. Even though I don't live in suburbia it takes a lot of motivation to get out and shoot once you've lived in the same place for years... unless it's NYC or nonsuburban New Orleans.

June 20, 2012

Can anyone suggest what would be the best scanner to use?

</blockquote>

Jay 66,

I would hold off on any purchases for a month or two. The <a href="http://plustek.com/mea/products/opticfilm-series/opticfilm-120/introduction.html">Plustek OpticFilm 120 scanner</a> is supposed to be coming out soon. It looks interesting. I would wait for the reviews of this thing before making any major purchases... particularly of old unsupported Nikons and Canons. If the <a href="http://plustek.com/mea/products/opticfilm-series/opticfilm-120/features.html">OpticFilm 120</a> lives up to the hype the Nikon Coolscans may be obsoleted and their ridiculous prices on eBay will plummet.

June 19, 2012

does the BAD REALLY DRIVE THE GOOD OUT

</blockquote>

How many good custom tailors are in your neighborhood? How many Walmarts hawking cheap Chinese crappy clothes are in your neighborhood?

Kodak doesn't even make slide film anymore. If Fuji quits the slide film business we're screwed.

June 19, 2012

I shoot with a Canon T3i with a 55-250mm lens and a 18-55mm lens.

</blockquote>

Get better lenses! Seriously. You don't have to break the bank. The Canon EF 50mm 1.8 is an excellent lens. Put this lens on the body of the camera and do as others have told you and read, read, read. Learn about shutter speed, aperture, depth of field, and ISO. The EF 50mm 1.8 on an SLR is to me the best experimenting and learning lens for a beginner. Don't skimp on lenses. You will keep a good lens for life. Look out for rebate sales. Canon does them once or twice a year. The 17-40mm L is also a good lens. Go check this lens out somewhere if you can. It has excellent build quality. If feels great in your hands and works like a charm. Plus you can use it on film cameras and FF DSLRs. It does cost a few hundred so you can hold off on that purchase. The 50mm 1.8 should be an ASAP purchase though.

Also some brief social etiquette and mannerism as a new photographers.

</blockquote>

If you are doing it for money be as professional as you would in any business.

What are some common pitfalls that new photographers usually do that I should avoid?

</blockquote>

As someone else said sometimes beginners over promise and under deliver. That is a big no no. Also if you are doing something for money or as a bartering agreement get a signed detailed contact. If you shoot a model or someone's property (house, car) get a model release if you want to use the image for advertising work. I mean selling to an ad agency or business, not advertising your own work.

June 19, 2012

Never again will I visit Mr Rockw:><s> </s>

</blockquote>

Kudos to you for not spelling out his name. No need to increase his google rank. Unfortunately though you did place three links to his site. So his outrageous comment worked. He got more press and more links.

My philosophy is to maximize image quality to a reasonable degree. It doesn't really cost any more money nowadays to produce a 12 megapixel sensor. Technology has marched on. If you can have a 12 megapixel camera for the same price as a 6 megapixel camera why not? And a few years from now an 18 megapixel camera won't cost any more than a 6 megapixel camera. The price of storage is falling as well. Besides the hiccup we had because of the south east Asia floods HDD storage costs were plummeting. For the average shooter terabytes of HDD space could be had for <$80. Moore's law is doing it's thing with processing power as well. I have a three year old computer. It works great for photo editing. I can throw 18 megapixels at it no problem.

I guess my point at this stage is why not 18 megapixels? I find in photography people get caught up in esoteric theoretical discussion. Practically speaking you can get a fantastic 18 megapixel DSLR for less than 6 and 3 megapixel DSLRs sold for back in the day. Why even bother discussing 6 megapixel cameras?

It's like in the thread where people are discussing camera phones vs DSLRs. If you can get a DSLR that takes better pictures and a nice sharp fast prime lens for less than an iphone 4s why wouldn't you get a DSLR? I believe sometimes artists in an effort to be unconventional over think things. If 18 megapixel cameras had an entry cost of $2,500 and the next cheapest thing was 6 megapixel cameras for $400 I would have a six megapixel camera. But that is not reality. New six megapixel DSLRs are not even available and 18 megapixel DSLRs are sold at very reasonable prices.

June 19, 2012

Last week the <a href="http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/neverseconds-shut-down/?utm_source=googleplus&utm_medium=socialmedia&utm_campaign=googleplusclickthru" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">school district told her she could no longer use her camera in school</a>.

</blockquote>

The Man will always try to silence agitators.

"Shut up! Be happy!" -Ice-T

June 18, 2012

>>> But a DSLR remains the best generalist camera amongst the three for the average photo enthusiast/professional.

That blanket statement may be true for you personally. Some may feel differently; ie a better enthusiast choice could be one of the new "mirrorless" cams.

</blockquote>

I believe I said "amongst the three." The cameras listed were 8x10, DSLR, and camera phone. No mention of "mirrorless" cams.

>>> But a DSLR remains the best generalist camera amongst the three for the average photo enthusiast/professional.

That blanket statement may be true for you personally. Some may feel differently; ie a better enthusiast choice could be one of the new "mirrorless" cams. Or a cellphone cam.

</blockquote>

That reply is ironic considering the posts I was replying to. I also said the average photo enthusiast/professional. I did not say "every single last solitary one." Heck there are people that swear by lomography cameras. More power to them. Not my choice but it's a free country.

June 18, 2012

You brought up clandestine people photography. My point is there's no need to be clandestine. That's what street photographers routinely do; shooting without feeling the need to be sneaky.

</blockquote>

Okay, let's move beyond specific applications. My point was an 8x10 camera is excellent and has some advantages in certain situations and a camera phone can have advantages in certain situations. But a DSLR remains the best generalist camera amongst the three for the average photo enthusiast/professional. Whatever niche applications and perceived advantages an 8x10 shooter or smartphone shooter settles on is up to them. It's a free country. That's all I was trying to convey.

June 18, 2012

>>>> The point of the post was not why people take shots like that. The point was what is a superior tool for that job. For a niche <a id="itxthook1" href="00aVPu?start=90" rel="nofollow">application</a> like clandestine people photography an argument can be made that a phone camera is superior in spite of the fact that as a general all round camera a <a id="itxthook2" href="00aVPu?start=90" rel="nofollow">DSLR</a> is superior.

A person who does not engage in street photography would believe that to be true. Camera type makes no difference for candid street photography. Again, using a <a id="itxthook3" href="00aVPu?start=90" rel="nofollow">cellphone</a> cam in sp is not about being sneaky or clandestine, but having a tool that compliments your photography. For me and many others, it's a cellphone cam.

</blockquote>

Brad, you are fixating on street photography. All I was illustrating is that a reasonable argument can be made that a smartphone is superior for certain niche applications, but as a general all round shooter for the average person a DSLR is obviously the better choice.

The exception does not disprove the rule. And just because their is a general rule doesn't mean there are not exceptions. I have shot street photography and I like billions of people on the planet have taken surreptitious snaps with a camera phone. It works well for that purpose. Better than a DSLR. It's small silent and if you hold it right it doesn't look out of place and threatening.

June 18, 2012

We're being fooled again. The Mobile Photography Awards is more a Photoshop contest. The two or three exceptions deserve to win for their superb composition

</blockquote>

Michael Chang, I missed your post earlier and paraphrased your thoughts in one of my own posts. The gallery in question is showing off what can be done with Photoshop. It is not showing off smartphone cameras. I shoot everything. Print film, slide film, DSLR, smartphone, etc. I use Photoshop. I use filters on my lenses. I cross process. I do all kinds of things but to be honest with you the majority of my work is done either in B&W film with either an orange filter or no filter or digital with either no filter or a polarizer. I do as little post processing as possible.

I can take an amateur and point them to a DSLR, lens, and polarizer and have them taking technically nice shots in no time (composition and choice of subject is another matter). I personally couldn't even come up with the Photoshop results in that gallery let alone teach the average smartphone user how to do it. You could give me a $40,000 digital medium format setup and a fully fitted out studio and it still wouldn't happen.

June 18, 2012

Do you shoot street photography and shoot with a cellphone? I do, and along with others I know who do, don't sneak shots. Why on earth would you do that when you can simply square up in front of your subject(s) and take the shot?

</blockquote>

The point of the post was not why people take shots like that. The point was what is a superior tool for that job. For a niche application like clandestine people photography an argument can be made that a phone camera is superior in spite of the fact that as a general all round camera a DSLR is superior. Check out <a href="http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/photos/">People of Walmart</a>. Practically the entire webstite is an homage to clandestine people photography... I don't think any of those shots were done with a DSLR.

I'm not a people photographer, but even I have been practically attacked by people who thought I was taking pictures of them or their property. And this was in my own apartment complex. People are often unreasonable and a bit mad.

</blockquote>

Absolutely. In general I don't take clandestine photographs because I feel it is an invasion of privacy. You are right though. I have taken just general pictures of a street and frankly not even noticed one person in the frame and they thought I was taking a picture of them. It's unbelievable. I'm standing at a distance on a busy street with a wide angle lens and they feel they are the focus of the whole scene.

The other problem is people that want to be in the scene. People see the DSLR get pulled out and they will just linger in your shot because they think they are going to get famous. I've literally had to stand and wait for people to move along so I can get a shot. Or once you start framing up the shot crowds of the curious start to congeal around you because they want a picture of whatever this "professional" photographer is taking a picture of. If you ever do one of those tourist bus group tours you don't want to be the guy with the nicest looking camera on the bus. Every schmuck will crowd around to get the same shot you are taking because they assume you are some artistic genius.

June 17, 2012

God knows I've seen some interesting shots from some pretty decrepit devices but I don't see someone running around a football field with a quaker oats box with a pinhole on the end trying to capture the game. The fact is that devices made for <a id="itxthook3" href="00aVPu?start=80" rel="nofollow">photography</a> are usually better at the job than a device like the iPhone which is meant to capture <a id="itxthook4" href="00aVPu?start=80" rel="nofollow">photographs</a> as a secondary or possibly tertiary job.

</blockquote>

David W. Griffin,

That's hilarious. I was thinking about that same exact analogy. I actually I was thinking I do take issue with you about one thing. My analogy would actually be about two cameras. While reading this I thought 35mm cameras are good and large format cameras are good. I would never compare the image quality of a 35mm camera to that of a large format camera. But then again I wouldn't photograph a football game with a large format camera!

Cameras are just tools. People have subjective preferences regarding tools. But if you have to make general objective statements about cameras no one can claim an iphone in general is better than a DSLR. Now an iphone might be better for clandestinely sneaking some street photography shots but it's not in general going to be better across a wide variety of tasks. All kinds of mini spy cameras have been built and they work great for their purpose but if anyone told me that for general use a spy camera was better than a digital SLR they would lose all credibility with me. Again though I don't think that is what Bob was saying.

June 16, 2012

But I didn't intend for my guitar analogy to carry any particular statements regarding a purist approach.

</blockquote>

Oh I know. If a picture is nice it's nice. It doesn't matter how it's created. I was commenting more from the perspective of my own personal work flow. If I can go out and buy a DSLR kit for less than an iphone 4s and it will have better ergonomics and get me my results faster that's what I'm going to use personally. I am not really concerned with what other people use as long as the results are equivalent. My point about Photoshop was if I can get my results faster because my out of camera shots require less processing I see that as a positive.

Filtering, processing and editing *are* art forms every bit equal to the earlier stages of the creative process.

</blockquote>

They are. I personally think some of that stuff takes more talent than some of the stuff I do out in the field. That's why I avoid it as much as possible. If I can get to the results quicker by achieving results in camera that's what I do. I notice on the internet periodically people with argue about the necessity of polarizer filters. Some claim you can achieve the effect in Photoshop. Well for me it literally takes seconds to get the polarizer effect with the filter on the camera in the field. Why would I want to mess with learning a bunch of Photoshop tricks and fiddle with it. If someone can do a reasonable polarizer facsimile in Photoshop that's great. That's talented. I just don't see why I would spend the extra time when it takes seconds to do in camera.

June 16, 2012

I don't know what Brad's snap of his print of the linked image is supposed to show. When talking specifically about quality and aesthetics of a print, we'd need to see the print, not a low res screen image of the file that got printed and not a snap of the print. A print is a different animal from a low res screen image or a snap of it.

</blockquote>

Fred G.,

You and I have some differences on our preferred subject matter for photography be we match up 100% on this aspect of photography. I've quoted you for truth.

June 16, 2012

Most of my full day weddings, I gave them between 300-400 images and the couples are happy. A few I gave them around 220-250 and I never had anyone complained that my image count is too low.

I promised one East Indian couple 400 and they were pretty impressed and said that's a lot. So go figure. Only one time I had one bride told me "but other people are giving 800 pictures" during consultation. I gave her about 400 pics and she was happy too.

</blockquote>

Well I agree with this Russell. I started in the late '80's actually. The major difference is in the film days every time you take a shot the cost back then was a $1 per shot. So if you took 160 pics your cost was about $160. Back then I shot around 200, so my cost was $200.

</blockquote>

My Wedding albums have around 300 - 400 photos displayed in 120+ pages and tell the story of the couples wedding day.

</blockquote>

Thanks for all the advice guys. I thought that 4,000 figure was a bit high. I see digital has changed things but is still reasonable... most of the time. I guess number of pictures shot on wedding day is the new megapixel race for consumers!

I looked at my local market and looked at what others supplied and tried to offer more for the same price.

</blockquote>

I guess that's the real driver.

I was thinking about exporting the photos in three different formats; tiff (in order for the B&G to edit as they see fit), jpg (for printing), and small jpg's (for email).

</blockquote>

David, your question assumes anyone other than a photographer that works with digital knows the difference between a JPEG and a TIFF. I wouldn't bother doing that for my best customer let alone my worst. As someone stated back in the day people didn't get negatives. You ordered prints. The fact they are getting high quality JPEGS is pretty incredible. I would be thrilled.

June 16, 2012

Show me one. One that 'smokes' the pictures in the original link. Those have vision and imagination...

</blockquote>

Unfortunately vision and imagination are not something that comes from a cold metal technological device. That is something that comes from within the artist. Purchasing a $600 camera phone or a $500 DSLR kit ain't going to give you either.

June 16, 2012

Yes, that's what I originally talked about, but the reason I was now talking about male bodies and nudes was because you responded with this: "Male frontal nudity by and large is not attractive or pleasant to look at." To me, male frontal nudity is more than penises. Maybe I misunderstood what you were getting at.

</blockquote>

"Male frontal nudity" only means one thing. People don't say that to let you know an umbilicus is going to be in the picture. It's a civilized way genteel people let you know what will be dangling in your face.

I'm not sure why you're so focused on shriveled-up flaccid penises as something not attractive. No one was talking about shriveled up flaccid penises.

</blockquote>

I spoke about other phalli. It's just in the context of "art" one type of phallus seems to predominate.

It depends, for me, on the cause of the distraction. White racists will be distracted by black people in photos, yet I wouldn't exclude black people from my photos because of that.

</blockquote>

I would not equate the general desire to not see a limp phallus to racism. You yourself admitted most people are distracted by that symbol. Your response is, I'm going to use it more. Okay. I mean it's your choice. I'm not going to stop you. Sometimes I really like a picture and I don't care if anyone else does.

Being gay...

</blockquote>

I wish you had just said this in the beginning. Actually it's really not your fault. I am a victim of political correctness. My mind has been so brainwashed I just wouldn't allow myself to assume anyone who likes taking pictures of phallic symbols must be gay. I will not make that mistake again.

Being gay, I run into many size queens. Given several things you've said here, I will now count you among them.

</blockquote>

Just giving the ladies what they want. Don't hate the player... hate the game.

June 16, 2012

Appreciate the tips, Russell, but I just don't have the patience to wait that long for pictures.

</blockquote>

Film requires patience. No doubt about that.

Besides I have more fun with digital because I am the one injecting my own tastes in how I want the image to look which makes me the ultimate creator. A processing lab can't claim credit for any creative nuances that seem to be desired by mobile phone device photographers.

</blockquote>

I don't think they are claiming credit for nuances of any type. I suggested E-6 processing because it is consistent. If you send out five E-6 rolls shot at the same time on the same equipment to five different decent E-6 labs they should all come back basically identical. That's the point. It's consistent and predictable. My understanding is print film is less consistent and is more susceptible to the vagaries of whichever lab develops the roll/sheet.

Just didn't realize there were that many graphic design minded folks who shoot slick and sophisticated looking photos using a mobile phone. Wonder how their high paying corporate clients think about that?

</blockquote>

If you can deliver the agreed upon image at the agreed upon price I don't think they know or care how the image is created. Personally for my workflow I prefer to have a nice, low noise, RAW file to work with. It's easier and more versatile for me. If I was shooting commercially to put food on the table I wouldn't muck about with a phone cam. The ergonomics are atrocious.

Sign In

Profiles

Forums

Blogs

Events

Downloads

Gallery

Store

Posts posted by russell_contreras