All Forum Comments
Comment by bladerunneruk posted on more and more bemused at 24/02/2010 - 13:27
Steveninwyoming wrote:
Bladerunneruk, my thought on this is that it is a generation shift. The last 20 years or so that digital format has been available the attitude is I can fix it later. The need for speed has taken over for quality. The people that look at these pictures and think that they are acceptable from a professional stand point obviously did not have to deal with an editor in the 60's or 70's. I am glad that my mentors are no longer here to see what is getting published in our newspapers and magazines.
Steven
Hi Steven, hmmm, speed vs quality is a fair point to a degree. Bladerunneruk, my thought on this is that it is a generation shift. The last 20 years or so that digital format has been available the attitude is I can fix it later. The need for speed has taken over for quality. The people that look at these pictures and think that they are acceptable from a professional stand point obviously did not have to deal with an editor in the 60's or 70's. I am glad that my mentors are no longer here to see what is getting published in our newspapers and magazines.
Steven
I do find myself wondering how some of these were accepted by major picture agencies (see credits in bottom right hand corner), which I presume have their own quality standards.
For the pics I've linked to I think the speed part of things is at the news agencies end when searching for a suitable illustration ?
The need for speed at the photographers end is probably more acute for things like events e.g. football, olympics I guess.
I would expect there to be more contributors to picture agencies nowadays, so surely more 'quality' pics should be available and the level should rise ?
Comment by bladerunneruk posted on more and more bemused at 24/02/2010 - 13:19
Malo1961 wrote:
the articles are fine, robert peston's emphasis in odd parts of the sentence on TV does sound quite odd though.Quote:
I honestly can't see what your problem is with the pictures TBH your suggested versions or corrections sound awfully dull. Each to his own I suppose.
Maybe he just can't stand Stephanie Flanders I honestly can't see what your problem is with the pictures TBH your suggested versions or corrections sound awfully dull. Each to his own I suppose.
It's the pics I'm grumbling about, some seem rather poor to me imho, there are some good ones though, I like this for example http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2009/12/lagging_no_mor...
Comment by bladerunneruk posted on more and more bemused at 24/02/2010 - 13:06
I don't know if it's just me but I find myself becoming more and more bemused at the 'quality' of some of the images used on major news websites which come from the major agencies like getty etc.
a few examples
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8529664.stm - blurred and can't read the whole text
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/02/men_of_letters...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/02/the_new_eurobi... - building half covered in shadow
and this one ???
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/01/both_accident_... - the typical UK estate agent skill level could maanage this, as evidenced by the usually naff pictures used when selling you expensive homes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2009/12/overrated.html - buildings only just exposed enough imho
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/01/china_syndrome... - better than some but I find myself thinking the AWB needs pp'ing
I find myself uninspired by the artistic merit or even the skill level needed for these sort of shots. What's the attraction of them ?
Am I misunderstanding the needs of news agencies, I just find myself more and more irritated the more of these sort of shots I see, I can do that stuff easily myself, why are pro picture agencies accepting them ?? am I a purist, or what ? I don't get it !
why do I bother trying my best to take a 'good' picture ???
And quite frankly you don't need a dSLR for these pics so why bother with anything else other than a P&S with a bit of Av and Tv control ?
methinks perhaps I should start not deleting some of my sub-standard pics and send them to getty ?? (oh they're invitation only aren't they or something, so that's no good !)
As a keen amateur I must give my apologies to the professional photographers who took these images, clearly they're got their finger on the pulse more than I have, and are earning a crust from their pics, which is more than I can say....
grumble over !
a few examples
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8529664.stm - blurred and can't read the whole text
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/02/men_of_letters...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/02/the_new_eurobi... - building half covered in shadow
and this one ???
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/01/both_accident_... - the typical UK estate agent skill level could maanage this, as evidenced by the usually naff pictures used when selling you expensive homes
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2009/12/overrated.html - buildings only just exposed enough imho
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/stephanieflanders/2010/01/china_syndrome... - better than some but I find myself thinking the AWB needs pp'ing
I find myself uninspired by the artistic merit or even the skill level needed for these sort of shots. What's the attraction of them ?
Am I misunderstanding the needs of news agencies, I just find myself more and more irritated the more of these sort of shots I see, I can do that stuff easily myself, why are pro picture agencies accepting them ?? am I a purist, or what ? I don't get it !
why do I bother trying my best to take a 'good' picture ???
And quite frankly you don't need a dSLR for these pics so why bother with anything else other than a P&S with a bit of Av and Tv control ?
methinks perhaps I should start not deleting some of my sub-standard pics and send them to getty ?? (oh they're invitation only aren't they or something, so that's no good !)
As a keen amateur I must give my apologies to the professional photographers who took these images, clearly they're got their finger on the pulse more than I have, and are earning a crust from their pics, which is more than I can say....
grumble over !
Comment by bladerunneruk posted on more and more bemused at 23/02/2010 - 13:30
Will be interesting to see what they come up with, I'd be tempted, but it's probably well out of my price bracket anyway. Last rumour I remember was initial release in japan of a pretty small no of units, so I doubt we'll see any in the UK for a good while yet, guess we'll know more after the trade shows over the next couple of months.
Comment by bladerunneruk posted on 645D aimed for Spring 2010 at 22/02/2010 - 23:03
thoramay wrote:
I am restricted in my mobility, so, close up and macro is my normal. I have about 13 different lens covering most of the range. Normal kit lens plus tamron 75-300. Tamron 100mm macro. A35-105. F 24-50. F 70-210. F 35-105. FA 28-80. FA 100-300. F 17-28 fisheye. F 1.7 AF adapter and others. I will take my tripod. Many I do not use for my normal work, so! I need advice on which to take, please. I do not know the area except from the usual promotional pics. It will be a trip to remember and so I want to take full advantage of the opportunity.
regards Thoramay.
from this list I would choose F70-210 - help reach the places mobility makes more difficult, the 18-55 or F24-50 as std lens, 100macro with&without AFA, the fish might give some interesting views of the rock formations at the giants causeway, if you have an A50 or A28 one might come in handy but you have tripod so not essential. My 70-210 saw a lot of use for landscapes - I don't go in for wide sweeping views so much, so perhaps it's a matter of taste. I am restricted in my mobility, so, close up and macro is my normal. I have about 13 different lens covering most of the range. Normal kit lens plus tamron 75-300. Tamron 100mm macro. A35-105. F 24-50. F 70-210. F 35-105. FA 28-80. FA 100-300. F 17-28 fisheye. F 1.7 AF adapter and others. I will take my tripod. Many I do not use for my normal work, so! I need advice on which to take, please. I do not know the area except from the usual promotional pics. It will be a trip to remember and so I want to take full advantage of the opportunity.
regards Thoramay.
lenses aside, a couple of extra SD cards, polariser, ND8 filter all rather useful. depending how sturdy the tripod is a remote for use with delayed shutter release could be invaluable, I've been amazed in the past how much blurring I could get from an ordinary tripod without use of MLU or remote.
enjoy the trip
Comment by bladerunneruk posted on HOLIDAY CAMERA SET UP at 13/02/2010 - 23:04
vjayshutterbug wrote:
Hi all! In my never-ending quest to get a lens "good enough" for my amazing K7, I have narrowed down some choices to either the Tamron 17-50 or the Pentax 16-45. They would cost about the same at my local camera store. And advantages/disadvantages? WHICH WOULD YOU CHOOSE? Thanks in advance for any advice. hope to pull the trigger on one by Friday.
BTW...getting a good telephoto zoom is step two in my plan.
I've owned the 16-45 for a couple of years and it's been my mainstay lens in this range, it is good optically, not too heavy and not too expensive. I never found the CA to be much of a problem, whenever it occurs it can be easily fixed in pp-ing if necessary.Hi all! In my never-ending quest to get a lens "good enough" for my amazing K7, I have narrowed down some choices to either the Tamron 17-50 or the Pentax 16-45. They would cost about the same at my local camera store. And advantages/disadvantages? WHICH WOULD YOU CHOOSE? Thanks in advance for any advice. hope to pull the trigger on one by Friday.
BTW...getting a good telephoto zoom is step two in my plan.
http://www.photozone.de/pentax/134-pentax-smc-da-16-45mm-f4-ed-al-review--test-r...
I haven't tried the tamron 16-50/2.8, except to briefly hold one in the shop.
test on nikon : http://www.photozone.de/nikon--nikkor-aps-c-lens-tests/290-tamron-af-17-50mm-f28...
the 17-70 seems a bit better constructed than the 16-45 imho, it zooms the other way (16-45 is longest at 16mm - can be useful for candids !) MTFs quite similar, less CA on paper
http://www.photozone.de/pentax/408-pentax_1770_4?start=1
Which to choose ? I think it depends on your usage, I used to find I changed lenses a bit too often at the longer end with the 16-45, but I seem to have the sort of eye which picks out details / wants to crop in so maybe that's just me. It's good at the wide end. I'm using a K10 and there is some significant noise at high ISO (>=800) so f4 is a bit of a drawback indoors with the UK's grey skies, but on a KX or K20 or K7 it should be fine and f2.8 might not be such a draw.
have a look at the depth of field you'll get with f4 and f2.8 on dofmaster.com and think about your desired subject.
imho, budget permitting, it's basically 17-50/2.8 for primary indoor use, the 17-70 or 16-45 for primary outdoor use of which I'd choose the 17-70 if starting from scratch, the extra range gives a bit more flexibility and the build quality seems a bit better.
a good telephoto zoom ? - the 60-250 is excellent.
Comment by bladerunneruk posted on which lens would YOU choose? at 12/02/2010 - 14:15
imagesteve wrote:
I am baffled!! Sold a 31mm F1.8 limited to a customer last week only to see that it was not sharp on his K10D. Assuming a faulty lens or camera I tried it on my K10D with the same result, UNSHARP through all apertures. Out of pure frustration I put the lens on both the K7D and the Kx with brilliant results. The images were so sharp you can cut yourself with it. Can anybody explain... What am I doing wrong....?
I would suggest looking at the K10 debug mode and adjusting for BF/FF using a focus test chart or financial pages stuck on the wall, tripod mount it and use 2s mirror lock up. My K10 needs around +140um for all my lenses.I am baffled!! Sold a 31mm F1.8 limited to a customer last week only to see that it was not sharp on his K10D. Assuming a faulty lens or camera I tried it on my K10D with the same result, UNSHARP through all apertures. Out of pure frustration I put the lens on both the K7D and the Kx with brilliant results. The images were so sharp you can cut yourself with it. Can anybody explain... What am I doing wrong....?
Comment by bladerunneruk posted on 31mm F1.8 Limited Edition at 02/02/2010 - 09:45
axl wrote:
quite a bit I think.
for example used FA50/1.4 will cost you around £225-£275 in London,
F50/1.7 routinely goes for between £100-125.
Now if I remember correctly, you could get new FA50/1.4 for £145 just 1.5 years ago or so...
wrt FA50/1.4 yep £150 was the lowest price I saw, at a time when exchanges rates were v.good for the pound, absolute bargain, still kicking myself for not getting one or some of the Ltds ! Still I'm not short of a lens or two now so shouldn't grumble quite a bit I think.
for example used FA50/1.4 will cost you around £225-£275 in London,
F50/1.7 routinely goes for between £100-125.
Now if I remember correctly, you could get new FA50/1.4 for £145 just 1.5 years ago or so...
Comment by bladerunneruk posted on "K" series lenses at 30/01/2010 - 17:17
womble wrote:
As many of you know I keep an eye on ebay sales (although not so assiduously as I used to, especially since ebay made it difficult to save images). Two things I have noticed. The first, which many people have commented on, is how the prices of old manual glass has gone up over the last year and half, particularly in the last six months or so. A SMC Takumar 85mm f/1.8 went for £340 today. I know this is one of those cult-status lenses but it still seems pricey. In comparison, the FA 77mm Ltd is going for £750 new, and that lens has an equal cult status I would have thought.
My second observation is the the original k-mount lenses (often called the "K" series lenses) are going for more, on the whole, than the slightly later M-series lenses. In one or two cases I know why (for example the 135mm f/2.5 compared to the M 135mm f/3.5) but it seems to be the case with other lenses too.
My question is: are the K-series lenses actually better than the M-series (despite being, on the whole, heavier and bigger) or is there a developing urban myth that they are which is driving up prices?
Best wishes, Kris.
Hi Kris, I think the used lens market has picked up quite a bit over the past year because of the recession, used is cheaper than new and the autofocus lenses went up in price quite a bit, so I think people have decided / had to downsize their lens budgets, so demand has gone up for the cheaper items, hence prices have gone up ?As many of you know I keep an eye on ebay sales (although not so assiduously as I used to, especially since ebay made it difficult to save images). Two things I have noticed. The first, which many people have commented on, is how the prices of old manual glass has gone up over the last year and half, particularly in the last six months or so. A SMC Takumar 85mm f/1.8 went for £340 today. I know this is one of those cult-status lenses but it still seems pricey. In comparison, the FA 77mm Ltd is going for £750 new, and that lens has an equal cult status I would have thought.
My second observation is the the original k-mount lenses (often called the "K" series lenses) are going for more, on the whole, than the slightly later M-series lenses. In one or two cases I know why (for example the 135mm f/2.5 compared to the M 135mm f/3.5) but it seems to be the case with other lenses too.
My question is: are the K-series lenses actually better than the M-series (despite being, on the whole, heavier and bigger) or is there a developing urban myth that they are which is driving up prices?
Best wishes, Kris.
I would guess use AF lenses have gone up in price too, but I don't keep track of them much now so can't comment on that.
cheers
Richard
Comment by bladerunneruk posted on "K" series lenses at 29/01/2010 - 12:09
Sorry but I too can't see the problem.
They aren't meant to have artistic merit, they are meant to illustrate an article. I actually quite like a lot of them and have no problem with them at all.
They are no worse than the majority of newspaper photos and a lot better than many.
I see your point about artistic merit, I just can't see how some have been accepted by major picture agencies, I'm not trying to say I'm a wonderful photographer, but some I've seen I would have deleted if I had taken them.
The one with the buildings and the sky is a great photo imho. And I have no problem with the blurred people in the first and third ones. Why do you need to read the whole text? It is clear what the building is, and it adds to the dynamics of the photo to not have the full text on it.
I guess it's a matter of taste.