This is Jim Bullard's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Jim Bullard's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Jim Bullard
Recent Activity
Right now I am stuck on the Canon EOS M3. I know they just came out with the M5 But the only real difference (one that would affect my choice) is the inclusion of Bluetooth. That would be nice but it isn't enough to make me upgrade at this point. Pros: The same (physical) size sensor as my 7D but with 24 MP instead o 18. Very good/sharp small lenses plus an adapter that allows the use of any of my other EOS lenses. Good modest sized body with well-placed controls. Cons: The LCD only flips up/down, not fully articulated. Had they made the LCD fully articulated on the M5 along with the addition of Bluetooth, I might have been tempted.
FWIW I always preferred D-76 diluted 1:1 and used as a one-shot developer. I tried lots of different things (including Rodinal) but D-76 1:1 gave me the negatives I wanted. If I were to return to film today, I still use it.
So, have you found someone to loan me one for two years yet? ;-)
Toggle Commented Jan 20, 2017 on GFX-50S Has Everything at The Online Photographer
I would choose the Fuji. Sadly, I have no rich friends, at least none inclined to be that generous toward me.
Switch to Chrome browser Mike. With Chrome all those settings, bookmarks, etc. are stored in Google's cloud and it Chrome gets corrupted, you just uninstall and reinstall. The new install will pick up your settings when you log in.
Toggle Commented Jan 17, 2017 on Book Report at The Online Photographer
While he isn't "freezing" the bird flight, it isn't one long exposure either. His site doesn't explain but it appears that he is shooting video and then combining the frames into a single image. Cool.
I'm with you on both a native square sensor and a B&W only camera. Personally (and you've heard this from me before) I'd like to see a digital Mamiya 6. I suppose a Hasselblad style body with a flip-up finder for when you wanted to put the camera at eye level would be okay too. And I second Ranjit's comment on batteries. It is truly annoying to have two cameras with batteries that are only fractionally different in size and the same configuration so I have to test which charger to use. Grrrr!
As an EOS M3 owner, I am unimpressed and even disappointed in the M5. I was looking forward to an M4 that I hoped would have a fully articulated screen. Instead. they made the screen flip downward 180°, the most useless feature I can imagine. Okay, so they couldn't do the 180° upward flip because of the now built in EVF (which does not flip up 90° like its detachable predecessor) but what good is the downward flip if it is behind your tripod? And how awkward is it to handhold the camera for selfies with it flipped down? Come on Canon. You can do much better. IMHO the M3 is an underappreciated camera that could have been even better but the M5 isn't it.
I share your aversion to the current trend to make videos of everything or even audio "podcasts" for that matter. Many years ago while working as a bureaucrat I took a course in speed reading from the then Guinness Record Holder for speed reading. The point to speed reading is to get quickly past what you already know to the new information you want. You can't do that effectively with videos or podcasts. Consequently, I'd rather read most things. Videos are fine for things that must be seen to be fully comprehended and audio is a must for performance based things like TED Talks but for camera reviews, let me read.
So... What were they called before they were called commandments? The Hopi precepts or whatever they are called remind me of a SciFi story I once read in which the main character visited a parallel universe and in that universe, the entire code of laws consisted of "Don't annoy others and don't be too easily annoyed".
Butters needs a ball like those shoes they make for little kids, the ones with blinking LEDs inside the soles. :-) <https://www.amazon.com/Nite-Ize-GlowStreak-Lights-Disc-O/dp/B01CHO5UHY/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1481904792&sr=8-1&keywords=dog+toy+with+leds>
In the army, 1964-'67, I was a "pro" and I loved it. I wasn't tied to one place. I got to experience many situations and learn along the way about things that I otherwise would never have encountered. Of course, there was some drudgery, hours in the darkroom turning out hundreds of photos of the new commanding general to be placed in every building on post, various "grip & grin" shoots for press releases, getting dragged out in the middle of the night by the MPs to photograph auto accidents that involved GIs. I loved the aerial assignments. I once photographed an autopsy. The assignment I most loathed was the officers' wives tea parties. The range of what I did was exciting and fun but unlike the average independent commercial photographer, I did not have to go out and round up assignments. I think if I'd had to do all my own marketing it would not have been any fun at all.
"Many great quotes eventually become folkloric—and if they do, they are then usually attributed to a handful of people who are held to be wise." Of course! That is why the New Testament gospels are attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke & John. None of the writings identify the author, so a century or so later they were assigned to famous people. As for chesterfield, I make it a point not to talk to sofas. I'll talk to animals but I draw the line at furniture (tongue in cheek). I did photograph the places I worked when I worked there and the people I worked with but frankly, I don't ever look at those photos. Recently I seriously considered throwing them out because none of them involve fond memories, many quite the opposite. As a genealogist OTOH, I totally agree with you. Record things, but be selective.
I'd like to correct a couple of misconceptions that I spotted reading through the comments: 1) 51% didn't vote for Trump. He didn't even win the popular vote. Hillary had more votes. He "won" due to the Electoral College system of "winner take all" for allocating the actual electors who elect the president. 2) Obama can't run again after a 4 year break. The two term limit is a lifetime limit.
The EVF is like a mini live view screen. It shows you what the camera sees, the way the camera sees it. From a practical standpoint, this means that unlike an optical rangefinder which shows the subject continuously and an SLR which immediately returns your view to the subject when the mirror slaps back down, the EVF continues to show the image that is being written to the card until that is complete. The delay may vary with the speed of your camera's ability to write files and the card's ability to accept them quickly. That could be problematic for sports or other photography where you are trying to follow action. Also if you are following action you may see pixelation if the refresh rate has difficulty keeping up with the movement. As for exposure, the EVF will show how bright the image will be. If you change the +/- settings the change will be reflected in the EVF view. On the cameras that I have used with EVFs you can also view whatever you have chosen to display on the back screen (histogram, digital level, etc) as an overlay or a clear view of only what the lens sees. On my Canon M3 it is easy to flip through the available screen views by repeatedly pressing INFO button. I find that handy for checking exposure and other settings without taking my eye away from the EVF. I'm not the person to advise on how true to the EVF image the files are because I always shoot RAW files, not JPGs in any of the available "modes", so I don't know how well that works. I like my Canon M3 because I shoot a fair number of slow shutter speed images and the lack of mirror movement combined with the self-timer makes it easier to get shake free images. I hope that answers your questions.
Toggle Commented Nov 8, 2016 on Reader Question at The Online Photographer
I nearly bought a GX-8. I liked the specs and the tilting screen but then there were rumors of an impending Canon M-4. For my purposes, the M-3 had resolved almost all the deficiencies of the original M but I really hoped that they would upgrade to a fully articulated screen (useful for low/high angle portrait format shots). Then the rumor mill put off the M-4 until mid to late 2017 and Canon came out with the 28mm 1:1.2 macro lens. I already had an M acquired cheaply because they were selling off the now obsolete model. It has an 18 MP APSC sensor that is equal to the one in my 7D. The lack of an EVF bothered me and the touch controls are a bit too 'touchy' for my taste but I liked it enough to buy an M-3 which resolved most of the complaints I had about the original M. The M-3 is now my default camera (anyone want to buy a gently used 7d, original model, with an 18-135mm lens?). I like the EVF. The fact that it isn't built in is okay with me. I thought it might be a nuisance but use the tilt screen more so I only put it on the camera when I need it.I still look forward to an M-4 version with (hopefully) a fully articulated screen but Canon seems to have jumped right over a 4 model to the M-5 which is not the camera I was hoping for.
As an old IT guy, I still get newsfeeds from a couple of tech sites. A while back I read that Apple is moving away from desktops because they see mobile as the future. Other sources seem to confirm that, noting that the hardware still being used in iMac Pros is 4-5 years old. If that is true it may be that Microsoft has seen an opportunity to capture a market that Apple is abandoning. Some pro photographers I know seem ready to switch. Admittedly I have always been a Windows guy. I can't afford Apple prices, don't really see much difference in performance when using high-end machines and I harbor a patriot grudge against corporations that hide profits offshore to avoid paying taxes.
Toggle Commented Oct 28, 2016 on The Empire Strikes Back at The Online Photographer
I totally agree with your annoyance over fame trumping hard-earned excellence. And photography is a field that is particularly vulnerable to that, especially since the advent of digital. With everyone snapping madly away (over 2 billion/day by some estimates) anyone is bound to get a few decent images. Those who organize exhibits want/need an audience and in a sea of photographs it is whatever is on the crests of the waves that gets attention, i.e. those who are already known, even if their fame is for something else, so it is understandable (but regrettable IMO) that the already famous dominate. It irritates the hell out of me too. OTOH I don't entirely agree that Dylan wasn't a deserving recipient. I suspect that the breadth of his impact was as much a consideration as his actual words. I'm sure that there are authors whose writing may be more polished but, for whatever reason, didn't have the reach of Dylan's songs (which are poems set to music, the quality of his singing not withstanding). And I don't think it is an apt comparison to all the musicians, actors, etc. who are famous in their primary field tapping into that fame to get exhibits of their photography, painting or whatever. Dylan is essentially a writer. Writing is his field. We live in a "star" society. Once upon a time, a long time ago, there were few photographers, few painters, sculptors, writers, etc. because life was demanding and few had the time and resources to pursue creativity. Perhaps the downside to the post-industrial revolution technology and relative prosperity is that while it democratizes creativity, the resulting flood of "Art" necessitates a system for determining what gets attention. I don't like the "fame" system but I'm not sure what the alternative would be. How would one otherwise sort through over 2 billion images a day?
I used to use only Epson papers with my Epson printers but then I bought some Artic White from Red River for printing note cards. I appreciated that it was pre-scored for folding and they have envelopes to fit. As it turns out I like the paper so much I'm switching to it for my larger prints as well (I like mat surface papers). I recently bought some of their "metallic" paper which is interesting but not suitable for most of my images. I also got a 5 sheet sampler of their Palo Duro SoftGloss Rag that I haven't tried yet. By all means, try the Red River papers. No, I don't own stock or get kick backs. I just like their paper.
Toggle Commented Oct 11, 2016 on The Best Printing Papers at The Online Photographer
You might want to check out the reports on Red River Paper's site. <http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost-of-inkjet-printing.html> There are reports covering the ink costs per print size for both Epson and Canon printers. Their papers are pretty nice too. I started using them to print note cards (they sell much better than matted prints) but I have largely shifted to them for other prints as well.
Toggle Commented Sep 30, 2016 on 'Horrific' Ink Prices? at The Online Photographer
I recently considered buying a Panasonic GX-8. I also looked at the Canon EOS M3. I own an original M and like it in spite of some flaws. I was really hoping that Canon would come out with the M4 that has been rumored for over a year but then they came out with a 28mm macro lens for the M series around the same time the rumor sites reported that the M4 was another year away so I bought the macro and the M3. I'm not sorry, in fact, I think I'm in love. The M3 has largely sidelined my 7D (the original) which is now going on 7 years old. I can use a much light tripod so my whole kit has dropped several pounds with no loss of image quality, in fact, it is better. Then, just a few weeks later Canon jumped right over the M4 and came out with an M5. Again, I'm not sorry. I like the articulated add-on EVF on the M3. The M5's EVF is fixed and the flip screen goes down 180° which is weird, because of the fixed EVF no doubt, but why didn't they use a fully articulated screen like the 80D? So, the announcement of a new lens did serve to keep my Canon loyalty although I wish I had a direct input channel to Canon to tell them what I'd like to see in the future.
It's probably a bit inconvenient for your style of photography but have you seen this "poor man's digital MF"? http://amzn.to/2cAfefq [This is just me, and nothing against that product, but I've personally never been interested in PITA solutions like that...from the Visoflex on down to today. Hair-shirt simple is about as far toward a PITA as I'll go...for instance I used a camera for six or eight months that didn't have an exposure meter, guessing exposures by eye. But that's all. Otherwise I just find a camera that does what I want and use it as it was intended. Radical simplicity appeals to me; radical complexity doesn't. Some guys are the opposite, and I get that. (JG's Frankencamera is a good example--he did that half because he needed its capabilities and half because the project appealed to him, as he admitted.) Lots of professionals are problem-solvers first and foremost, and they like nothing better than a challenge to figure out. I have admiration for those guys, but I also know I'm not one of them. --Mike]
Go for it Mike. You can hire a programmer to do the software part. The business end is a bit more difficult to resolve. We recently had a photographer shoot the people at our wedding anniversary. Our daughter arranged and paid for it so I left it up to her and the photographer. I did note several things that I would have done differently if I were the photographer. He left the shot list entirely up to our daughter. I'd have had a few suggestions myself. Although he paid attention to backgrounds (he was overly focused on that IMO) to the point that he missed seeing things like hair that should have been combed and awkward poses. A few shots had poor composition or were tilted. Overall they were technically okay but having his assistant carry a comb, hair brush and hand mirror would have been a good idea. I think the biggest problem is that most photography training is just photography and not the nitty gritty aspects of dealing with clients.
RE: Being a "professional". While the term at one time (think pre-1900) might have been limited to formally trained and licensed practicioners, that is not longer how it is defined This is the dictionary definition. pro·fes·sion·al prəˈfeSH(ə)n(ə)l adjective adjective professional of, relating to, or connected with a profession. white-collar nonmanual (of a person) engaged in a specified activity as one's main paid occupation rather than as a pastime. having or showing the skill appropriate to a professional person; competent or skillful. expert accomplished skillful masterly masterful fine polished skilled proficient competent able experienced practiced trained seasoned businesslike deft ace crack top-notch worthy of or appropriate to a professional person. paid salaried denoting a person who persistently makes a feature of a particular activity or attribute. noun noun professional plural noun professionals a person engaged or qualified in a profession. a person engaged in a specified activity, especially a sport or branch of the performing arts, as a main paid occupation rather than as a pastime. professional player paid player salaried player pro a person competent or skilled in a particular activity. I was formally trained but no one ever asked me to get a license.
I am saddened to hear that Brooks Institute is closing. When I was young that was my dream school. I never made it there, all the way across the country. Instead, I learned through NYI's correspondence course and the Army's Signal Center and School at Ft. Monmouth where I also taught briefly. I still regret not making it to Brooks, a matter of money and distance. Back then photography was taught as a set of skills with a solid understanding of the process, how photography worked and why. Any content on the 'art' of photography was rather formulaic (rule of thirds, etc.). The art part tended to come with experience. I think one reason that a case can be made for excellent images by casual photographers today is a combination of camera automation plus the explosion of images being produced since the advent of digital photography. If one shoots enough, he/she is bound to get a good photo occasionally simply as a matter of luck. I am rather dismayed when I read "pros" tell about how they went out and shot 2-3 thousand images in a day and how long it took them to cull for "the good ones". When we were shooting film we couldn't afford a strategy that depended more good fortune than on skill and creativity.