Jump to content


Life Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by crowecg

  1. Keeping cows still is quite an achievement, unless your objective is to move them!  On the small screen I’m currently looking on, the headless cow ( second from right in the main group) just looks like it is facing away and showing its backside.

  2. So many interesting bridges and wonderful pictures of them.  I like the night shots - summer is approaching here in Australia, so not too much night photography for me, but I'm sure you will be taking advantage of the winter nights and will show us more of you fantastic pictures.

    • Like 1

  3. I gave it a try yesterday.  It gave a clear warning at the start of the process about which 32bit apps were not going to work.  

    I haven’t given the computer a good work out to see if there are any other bugs which might affect me.  I don’t have a lot of peripherals attached to my system  - I know such things are often a source of problems for others if new drivers are required.

  4. 6 hours ago, Dallas said:


    If you get to the bottom of the page:

    Are all of these problems common?

    No, these are not commonly encountered issues with MacOS Catalina.

    Perhaps the most common issue that may be experienced by users with MacOS Catalina is that some older apps will not work, because of the loss of 32-bit app support. The other issues discussed here are fairly rare.



    Mind, I just had one of my kids asking "should I install this update?" five minutes before bed time on a laptop that they need for school in the morning!😱  THey got a definite "NO!"

    • Like 1

  5. Hopefully later this week.  I’ve spent the past few weeks preparing for it ( finally extracting the last of my Aperture libraries ).


    the Apple reference is to an island off the coast of California.  Not the plane unfortunately, which are fascinating.  I must get round to visiting Australia’s secret flying boat maintenance depot!



  6. 10 hours ago, Dallas said:

    Anyway, for me the bottom line with Face ID, which Apple obviously never took into account in their quest to make an all screen phone, is that it is much, much easier for me to move my fingers spatially than it is to move my face, ergo the move to this technology is a move backwards as far as convenience goes. And that is a sad thing to attribute to a company that likes to think it is leading the way forward where useful technology is concerned.


    Another area where I see technology for technologies sake rather than being an actual benefit is touch screens in cars.  They usually end up needing to be positioned away from your line of sight out of the car, aren't well shaded from the sun and quickly get covered in dirty fingerprints.  Dedicated buttons that can be found and operated by touch alone are a much better option.

    • Like 1

  7. 20 hours ago, Dallas said:


    Usually, but not this time, Rodrigo. I truly dislike this whole Face ID concept that Apple is forcing on us. I got the iPad Pro 11" and I just can't stand the way I have to crane over all the time to get it to unlock, or I find my hand is blocking the camera and it asks for my code. A totally unnecessary PITA. I'm more likely to get a Huawei than an Apple iPhone if I need to upgrade in the next year or two. 

    This might be something that interests you.  Reading into the details, it sounds like you are not alone.

  8. Mostly dodgy real estate rather than dodgy photos.  People do some stupid things with their houses.  But then again, you also want your house to be where you live and are happy with, not just keeping it 'just right' for photos in case you need to sell it.

  9. Some interesting thoughts - not the Landrover approved walk through, just one persons opinion.


    It may be a while before he gets his hands on one given his comments, but I think I agree with his idea that a basic model would have a market with old defender owners rather than the SUV crowd that's will buy the bells and whistles models.


  10. The 11 must have made huge improvements in image quality to be able to impress you.  From my experience with older iPhones, I'd have thought you would be disappointed with the noise reduction and its interference with the fine details of the image.    One thing to be careful of is that iPhones have tended to limit your ability to zoom into an image to the level where these defects become visible.  Once you get them onto your computer on the other hand......

  11. 23 hours ago, Dallas said:

    Chris, I can only answer that from the software perspective and that answer is no. If there was going to be support for extended HDR it would probably have to come from the hardware manufacturer (whoever makes the screen you're looking at). I think also that the terms HDR means slightly different things when it comes to photography and viewing hardware. 


    I have have done a bit more reading and it seems some top end hardware is now capable of 10-bit per colour channel.  A bit more tries to simulate a 10-bit colour depth using dithering on 8- bit panels.  I also now recall in the early days of consumer LCD at the turn of the century, hardware could be as little as 6-bit!


    i do prefer the hardware definition of HDR, ie a greater bit depth.  I've never been a fan of photo HDR ie compressing a greater brightness range into the limited reproduction range.  I was playing with a photo I took at the weekend of bright white clouds above a lake and field - the RAW file had enough data to get bother the cloud said and the foreground properly exposed, but doing that ended up with that artificial HDR look.



    23 hours ago, Dallas said:

    JPEG2000? No idea, sorry. 


    It was intended as a upgrade to JPEG and is capable of greater colour depth, but has never received anything near the  universal support of the old eight bit JPEG.  One list I found says that Apple supports it, also Capture One, but Adobe is a bit mixed, Photoshop does, but Lightroom doesn't.  It I see also a bit of hit and miss with web browsers.

    • Like 1

  12. 3 hours ago, Alan7140 said:

    Maybe it's too subtle a thing for most to pick up on, or maybe it's because most people see most photographs these days on a relatively low resolution, dynamic range limited LCD screen of some description, but once you see a proper gelatin silver-bromide or chloro-bromide print from a silver-halide negative image, the difference becomes obvious. For one thing the actual print resolution is way beyond the paltry 1920, 2560, 3840 or 4096 pixels over the long dimension of most current screens, even if the grain of the negative image chops things up in that particular image.  Film also most definitely provides a different print using traditional methods than when it has been digitised and screen-displayed or ink-jet printed, the latter's maximum of around 1440x1880 dots per inch being so far short of the potential of photographic paper that it shouldn't even need a mention.


    I can try to explain 'til I'm blue in the face, obviously, and anything I post online has even less resolution thanks to compression and downsizing and being displayed electronically, but I know what my B&W photographic prints look like, and there is simply no way anything I've achieved through all that money- and time-wasting experimentation with digital comes within a bull's roar of a good chloro-bromide print from a well exposed and processed negative in actual appearance. To that end there is therefore often little point in posting my photographs online these days, and I tend to confine that activity to film-groups who get what I'm talking about here through their own use of the medium, or in examples to demonstrate a point or equipment use.


    Please don't stop posting your photographs - there is so much to see and learn from them, even within the restrictions of LCD screens.  


    This is probably a question for Dallas, Given that HDR is a current buss-word among screen manufacturers ( both phone and TVs) is there any movement towards supporting greater dynamic range on websites?  Or are the screen manufacturers still playing catch up to the 8-bit per channel that we've been stuck with for years.


     Does Fotozones software support jpeg2000 even if not all browsers do?  Perhaps that could be a specialist channel for those that appreciate and have a suitable screen/browser.  However, please don't call it an HDR channel as many people overdo it as a processing technique and end up with a wired look.  

  13. 1 hour ago, Alan7140 said:


    Leave colour to digital, I reckon. Colour film manufacture is a bit dodgy these days in the small runs reduced demand has caused, and processing is definitely variable with the demise of well-run and busy colour labs. I see more online comment on colour film processing problems than anything else regarding film.


    Even slide?  If I do ever get round to shooting film, I'd probably go for Fuji Velvia.



    1 hour ago, Alan7140 said:


    B&W is where film, handled well, still trounces digital in appearance, the main reason being that Digital has a linear tonal response curve, film doesn't. While one can do a software curve adjustment to mimic film, it doesn't add tones to make up the "stretching" by increasing the steepness of the curve in the mid-tones, nor does it properly compress tones in the shadows or highlights where the film curve flattens out. Hence the frequent observation of "muddy" mid-tones with B&W digital. Film isn't confined to multiples of a base 8-bit 256 tonal separations (jpeg basic), either - it's tonal variability is potentially infinite between its black and white ends.


    If anyone ever tried a serious b&w digital (I know Leica have tried it), I bet they'd still include JPEG.  I'm surprised no image format has challenged JPEG even the updated JPEG2000.

  14. 4 hours ago, vivionm said:

    But who shoots at ISO 10,000. And how often?


    I think I still have a camera in the back of a draw where the propect of shooting behind ISO800 was unacceptable.  My current camera tops out at 51200 - it can see things in the darkness than I can't!  Back in film days, the camera would be put away at dusk or else needed a bulky flash or heavy tripod.   Nowadays I quite enjoy handheld shooting at night.

  15. On 19/09/2019 at 22:15, Alan7140 said:

    A scratch on medium format film is also highly unlikely as the film comes with its backing paper protection between it and the pressure plate, and doesn't really get dragged across anything static as with 35mm film's cassette light trap or the film itself contacting the pressure plate - the only part of a 120 film camera that generally touches the film emulsion  itself are a roller at each end of the film gate which turns with the film (so can't leave a drag scratch) and the top and bottom edge of the film gate outside the image area, so nothing can really lay a scratch mark on the image itself in those circumstances.



    That definitely looks better than the inside of a 35mm system (at least the ones I’ve seen) in regard to places to scratch the film.  And of course the backing paper gives a 50% reduction in scratching possibility compared to 35mm.  Perhaps not such a bad idea after all.


    now to find some cameras, choose  which films to use ( a mix of colour and b&w I suppose) and pick an itinerary (plus get approved by the financial controller).😀


  16. I think I have something similar.  I'll have to drag it out.  There is certainly an interesting pattern there.  Given your line of work, I'm sure you'll be able to talk the centre management into letting you do a shoot with you other cameras.

    • Like 1

  17. 20 hours ago, Dallas said:

    I personally would also love to use a medium format film camera, but I understand that the use thereof will only be for my personal edification. I won't be putting it to use for my real estate photography. Maybe if I ever go back to Namibia it will be a welcome tool to use for landscape work. 


    MF in Namibia, now that sounds interesting!  Only downside with that will be keeping the dust out - a lot of the film I shot when I was last in Namibia has a scratch along the bottom of the frame due to a grain of sand getting stuck in one of the film guides or rollers.

  18. 28 minutes ago, Dallas said:

    Mmmm... must have been a "controlled" launch environment. :) 

    It will be interesting to see once reviewers get to properly test them away from the controlled environments.  If you haven't come across them, try TFL on YouTube.  They occasionally take press cars properly off road.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By visiting this website you are agreeing to our Terms of Use, Privacy Policy & Guidelines.