Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10
 on: Today at 08:51:46 PM 
Started by fredjeang2 - Last post by eronald
I'm done with gear. Honestly.
I mean for personal use.
All I want is a decent footage in a standart codec backed into
A cell phone.
Even the BM minis are still too annoying for me.
I want no bag, no rig, nothing that can not fit into a jacket or trouser pocket.
But when it comes to cell phones, I am useless because
I do not follow the latest tendencies and when I tried to read
Reviews about mobile phones and motion imagery it was clear that the reviewers
Were not really "film makers" to use a shortcut. I want to avoid hassles
In post. Files that can be imported everywhere with zero transcoding.
I did some testings with some unstandart messy files (variable fps, squared, etc...) in Lightworks and
It takes them all in bin without transcode as if it was a good Prores, wich is great
And surprised me. I was expecting issues, and no.

So I rather ask here if some of you could recommend
Some models based on experience. Not only Apple but Android also.

Hey guy, what d'you do about angle of view?

 on: Today at 08:23:44 PM 
Started by mseawell - Last post by sierraman
Trying to plan our first trip to Arizona next year with Antelope Canyon high on the list. What is the best time of year to get the best light. I would also appreciate which company provides the best guide service for Antelope. Thanks in advance!


I guess it depends on what you mean by best light. If your looking to get "light shafts" in your images you will want to be in Upper Antelope Canyon in the summer months mid-day. If your looking for softer lighting you would want to be in either canyon earlier/later in the day. Both canyons are crowded most of the year so make advanced reservations and take the photographers tour. The upper canyon is an easy walk-in type canyon with lower being a tighter fit and lots of ladders to climb. Both canyons photograph differently so take your time and enjoy. If you have the energy and the time you could do lower in the morning and upper later in the day and head over to Horseshoe Bend for sunset. That's a lot of shooting in one day so I would plan on doing it over 2 days. Kens Tours is who you can make your reservations through.  :)

 on: Today at 08:20:09 PM 
Started by Benny Profane - Last post by Benny Profane
Unfortunately, this print has been mounted with some nasty adhesive, and then somewhat crudely matted, so I'm not doing any peeling to find info. Fortunately the mounting hasn't poisoned the print, and it's not very faded at all - print is in excellent shape, for what I think is its age. Seems that it is an elargement from an 8x10 either glass plate or neg, because the examples I find on the web are all that size, therefore most museum pieces were contact printed. It's a beautiful print. I'll take it to my framer and see what he can do.

I remember going into the Village in NYC in around 1968 as a hippie youth, and looking at his prints in a gallery I forget the name of in bins very similar to record store bins at the time. You know, flip, flip. Most were priced from 50 to 100 bucks, which was pretty steep for this teenager. Oh, to go back in time.

 on: Today at 08:07:39 PM 
Started by Huffie - Last post by Rand47
Let me toss in an additional something to think about re sizing the printer.  Whatever models you narrow down to, take a good look at the replacement cost of a full set of ink carts.  It can be fairly staggering for the really large printers.  I do a lot of file preparation and printing for myself and other photographers and I only keep "in house" a 17" carriage printer.  This easily handles 95% of my needs.  For really large prints/canvases it is much more cost effective to do file prep and soft proofing in my digital darkroom, but have the print made by someone else.  I would love to own a 24" or even larger printer, but it just doesn't pencil out based on the actual need for that size print in terms of total volume.

Anyway, price the ink!  In the long run and with any volume of printing at all, the ink will be at least as large a consideration in the overall cost of operation as the printer itself.

And let me add something that has been inferred but not stated fully... all of the printers mentioned so far, and even adding in the 13" carriage printers using the same inksets, are capable of producing gallery level works of art with beautiful detail and color and excellent longevity (assuming the paper used is up to it) when handled properly.

You're in the right place for good advice... Mark, and others here like Jeff Schewe, are truly experts and are very gracious in sharing their knowledge.  I've been "taught" by everyone here and it has been a huge help in achieving really fine results.

Best wishes in your analysis.


 on: Today at 08:04:45 PM 
Started by armand - Last post by Eric Myrvaagnes
A lovely set.
I hope you had a hard hat on when the hail was coming down.

 on: Today at 08:04:28 PM 
Started by Paul2660 - Last post by David Sutton

I do hope we continue to share experiences and thoughts.

Likewise. I've had the most tremendous amount of fun with photography, but the X-T1 has been the most fun with any camera I've owned.

 on: Today at 08:02:09 PM 
Started by Benny Profane - Last post by Eric Myrvaagnes
The absence of a signature will likely hurt the value a lot. Is there anything written or printed on the back of it?
Back in the 1960s Ansel was selling 8x10" contact prints, mounted, numbered, and signed at Best's Studio (later the Ansekl Adams Gallery) in Yosemite Valley. These were from a series he labeled as "Special Edition for Yosemite" and printed in large numbers, as he describes in his book The Print.

I bought several between 1965 and about 1975. At first, they cost $6.00 each (yes: SIX dollars). Once the price had gone up to $15, I decided they were getting too expensive for my student's wallet. Later, he had assistants print for the series, and he would approve and initial the prints. So the full signature ones were the most valuable.

A few years ago I had my collection appraised, and the $6 Adams prints were valued at $5000 each. Not a bad investment, though I didn't know it at the time.

Notice: As almost always in the "Art" market, the artist gets peanuts while later collectors get windfalls.

 on: Today at 07:54:33 PM 
Started by armand - Last post by RSL
It is a real and fascinating phenomena Russ. As Muntanela wrote, Galen Rowell was obsessed with it. The phenomenon can be seen from airplanes some times.

Hi Francisco, Yep, I've seen it from airplanes and I've also seen balls of St. Elmo's fire roll across my wings at night. But the problem here is that even though, as Eric says, nature can beat Photoshop, it can't make you believe it's not Photoshop. I like Armand's pictures, though.

 on: Today at 07:49:19 PM 
Started by torger - Last post by Theodoros

You are one stubborn guy.

I just can't understand your attitude... You have your opinion, I have mine... Who's been proved correct up to now? I don't "like P1" has nothing to do with P1 as a company... MO is that "they don't do things" ...they have a policy of providing DSLR alternatives (and ask to much money on top) up to now... That's why my suggestions... (IMO) ;)

 on: Today at 07:48:20 PM 
Started by armand - Last post by Eric Myrvaagnes
Another fine set. Just enough snow to be decorative, but not so much that stomping through it is hard.
I think my current favorite is the third one, with good stuff in foreground, midground, and background.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 10