Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 »
 71 
 on: Today at 11:23:20 AM 
Started by Pete JF - Last post by ned
it's an easy $350 (!!) for XRite to re-certify an i1.  For our needs, I can't see it needed.  In fact, I'd love to know, of the color professionals here on LuLa, how old is your i1Pro & when was the last time you sent it in for calibration.
My blue channel went out on my non dealer purchased 10 months old pro2. Normally this would have been covered under the 12 month warranty. Over $500 for a replacement.

 72 
 on: Today at 11:22:18 AM 
Started by David Grover / Phase One - Last post by ario
David, for some reason Leica and Olympus do not appear any more among the supported cameras.
As far as I can see I do not have any problem processing and reprocessing with the new engine the files from my Leica M, Monochrom and OMD.
Is there an omission in the CO document?

 73 
 on: Today at 11:22:14 AM 
Started by revaaron - Last post by Alexey1
210mm

 74 
 on: Today at 11:21:46 AM 
Started by Paul_Claesson_HasselbladUS - Last post by Enda Cavanagh
Great news and great to see Hasselblad getting their ass in gear. Now for a new larger sensor back that can work properly on view cameras. At least it's a right step. Really excited to see examples of 34 minute exposures without a dark frame. That is huge

 75 
 on: Today at 11:19:36 AM 
Started by Atina - Last post by RVB
Peter,37.5 is underwhelming and I would have preferred to see the exmor sensor inside..However you have a point about smaller pixel pitch,I have a friend who moved from a H4d-40 to IQ280 ,he shoots portraits and loves the 280 files but finds it harder to use,especially hand held,he has a lot less keepers with the 280,Its great for tripod work though!

best

Rob

 76 
 on: Today at 11:19:34 AM 
Started by pedro39photo - Last post by ErikKaffehr
Hi,

I cannot comment on weather Nikon's nor Canon's telephoto lenses. To do that we need to either shot both on identical cameras or have MTF curves measured in similar setup.

What I can definitively say is that a high resolution APS-C body will extract more detail with a telephoto at a set distance than a full frame body with similar pixel count. On the full frame body an extender can be added, but it is questionable if it would improve resolution.

The very simple truth is that for telephoto work with fixed lens type and distance the camera with the smallest pixel pitch would give best detail reproduction.

So, a D7 would outresolve a D810 and a D7100 would outresolve D7 and a Nikon V1 would outesolve all of them. With a larger format you need a longer lens to fully take advantage of the image size.

Best regards
Erik

 77 
 on: Today at 11:14:10 AM 
Started by Atina - Last post by TMARK
Again, he just said that the field where the ancient 645 film camera would have been used, Leica is now a modern solution.

Thanks you.

 78 
 on: Today at 11:13:39 AM 
Started by Atina - Last post by TMARK
I just don't see the relevance of suggesting that the camera is good instead of film use... Leica was wise enough to attract users of other MF in their field and now proves even wiser to attract FF users of Canon and Nikon to their field... isn't that enough?

I believe you do not understand my post.  I am talking about roles and function of a camera format, not the medium.  Here is a little history:  Up until 2004 645 cameras, shooting film, had a role in commercial photography:  Better than 35mm film but with more agility than 6x7 or 4x5.  This was perfect for fashion and lifestyle.  That 645 role was taken over by the 1ds and other 35mm sized digital cameras.  The Leica S can fill that role perfectly, as an analogue to the old 645 systems.  That's all.   I'm not arguing with you.

 79 
 on: Today at 11:12:52 AM 
Started by Rajan Parrikar - Last post by RSL
Turns out your guide is a very competent photographer.

 80 
 on: Today at 11:11:07 AM 
Started by Bob_B - Last post by RSL
Hi Bob,

Slobodan's right and Stamper's right and "iluvmycam" (maybe one of these days he'll give us an actual name) is right. On the other hand, I'd qualify what Stamper said: Depends on what you're after. These pictures are technically good, but they're of no particular interest to anybody not connected in some way to the people they represent.

There are two kinds of critiques going on in User Critiques. The one you see most often is the technical kind, the kind that calls for a crop or a reduction in sharpening or a change in color management or a conversion to B&W. The kind you rarely see, but ought to see a lot more often is what I'll call the "impact" critique, which goes to the effect of the picture on the viewer. Sometimes pictures with high impact are technically imperfect. But technically high-quality pictures' impact frequently is nil. Far too often we see extended technical critiques on pictures with absolutely no impact value -- stuff that should have elicited a jab at the delete button as soon as it came out of the camera. LuLa's Users Critiques is a long way from unique in this respect.

Before you "work on the candid aspect" of this kind of picture, try spending some time with a book of street photography or photojournalism -- the real thing, not the "we'll get your attention with obscenity and excess" kind under the link in the previous post. People are the most interesting things you can photograph, but for a picture that features people to have impact the people usually have to be interacting with other people or with their surroundings in an interesting way. The exception is the rare case of a person showing an emotion that stabs the viewer's heart.

Keep shooting. You obviously know the craft.

Pages: « 1 ... 6 7 [8] 9 10 »
Ad
Ad
Ad