[rhythmdevils]

I'm almost positive the clipping I was seeing in the shadows was caused by this "blacks" adjustment that starts at 5. At first I was horrified that lightroom would be so idiotic, but after digging deeper I see that really I need to create a custom camera calibration for my NEF files. That's going to be fun

But for now, I'm just copy/pasting 0 blacks onto every image, and presto, my histogram is beautiful.

While we're talking about lightroom, one thing I'm still not happy with in LR2 is the burning/dodging tool. In theory it's great, but the results aren't so nice in my experience. It seems to just add a transparent layer of black/white pixels, which just makes the area look gray. I get much better results by doing curves layers in photoshop to select areas, but that doesn't take advantage of all that RAW has to offer.

 

[skyline889]

Rockwell just posted a full review of the new Nikon 16-35mm VR posted a couple pages back: Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR

 

[xkRoWx]

Rockwell's usually full of crap.

The review reeks of contradictions.

 

[skyline889]

Quote:

Originally Posted by xkRoWx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Rockwell's usually full of crap. The review reeks of contradictions.

Yes, but he's one of the few with an in-depth review out currently. His reviews in general always need to be taken with two grains of salt but they give a general idea of the overall performance of the item in question.

Here's a more factual review from Photozone on the 16-35: Nikkor AF-S 16-35mm f/4 G ED VR (FX) - Review / Test Report

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Yes, but he's one of the few with an in-depth review out currently.

In-depth? Yes he writes a lot of words but 99% of those are BS! He is a blogger, he needs to create controversy to drive traffic, that I understand. However, he is now giving poison information, e.g., he is still recommending D40 in 2010!? You know how many newbies will be misguided by reading his site?

 

[skyline889]

The D40 and D50 may be old but that doesn't stop them from being capable bodies. Half the so called "newbies" would be limited more so by their capabilities than by either body, and the other half would be better off investing in higher quality glass than an expensive body like a D90/D300. As far as the D3000/D5000 go, the D40/D50 offer 90-95% of the same performance for a fraction of the cost (If you go used).

I've voiced my opinions of Rockwell's highly opinionated commentary in the past here but I disagree that everything he says is crap. You have to sift through the BS in any review, just look at Stereophile and 6moons. Anyways, if someone is ignorant enough to base their entire knowledge base on one person, I'm sorry to say that they deserve what they get. Newbie or not, unless you're twelve, you should know better.

 

[bigshot]

You have to be pretty dense to not be able to separate entertainment value from the meat in Ken Rockwell's reviews. I actually get a lot more out of his site than many photo review sites. At least Rockwell offers a personal context. A lot of other sites just offer numbers with no context.

In case you haven't been paying attention, there have been some pretty darn good blowout prices on D40 kits in recent times. They're about gone now, but it's like that brief window where the D200 was selling for dirt cheap at Best Buy... latest is not always greatest.

 

[Towert7]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 /img/forum/go_quote.gif Rockwell just posted a full review of the new Nikon 16-35mm VR posted a couple pages back: Nikon 16-35mm f/4 VR

Oh no, you said the KR word! Now 2 pages of useless dribble is sure to follow (my post included).

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by skyline889 /img/forum/go_quote.gif ... if someone is ignorant enough to base their entire knowledge base on one person, I'm sorry to say that they deserve what they get. Newbie or not, unless you're twelve, you should know better.

In real life I am a decent photographer and people ask me stuff. I've seen many, way too many newbies coming to me saying they worship ken rockwell and his site is their bible, and they believe everything because the info there are written in a very personal way (unlike cold, hard, real, scientific facts like on photozone.de). To a newbie, they will believe anything he says.

Unbelievable. If someone shows you the facts in a chart, in unarguable numbers, VS someone telling you emotionally the "fact", you'll believe the latter because it comes from a person.

Once some dude was asking me stuff and then says he'll buy a film camera and never shoot digital. I asked him why. He says Rockwell says film has better color and resolution.... I went on that site and read that. He is comparing digital sensor to a medium sized film that is, what, at least 10 times bigger than the digital sensor? And then he claims that THAT film has higher resolution. In later articles he'll start to claim ALL film has higher resolution. I shoot digital and film. I know the truth. I am pissed by this info, and the fact that there are so many innocent people out there who believes him completely just because he has a web site with a lot of words, and goes on to waste their money in all the wrong places.

Sorry for the rant. I think that's enough said. No more KR talk for me.

 

[bigshot]

The relative sizes of the film and digital sensors is irrelevant because they are two totally different things. The truth is, 35mm film *is* better than digital in many ways. It's just not as convenient to not have the immediate feedback of viewing your shots as you take them. For most people, the convenience outweighs the advantages.

I've been shooting pictures in 35mm, medium format and digital for the past 35 years, and I would rather get advice from someone who bases their reviews on actually using a lens, rather than from someone who only shoots test charts to measure things without any attempt to define what difference it makes in practice.

Ken Rockwell obviously has a great deal of practical experience and knows better than the people he calls "measurebators" what makes a lens useful. I've found that the "newbies" are generally the ones that think they know everything. They're usually the ones arguing straw men theories against KR in internet forums.

 

[choka]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif The relative sizes of the film and digital sensors is irrelevant because they are two totally different things. The truth is, 35mm film *is* better than digital in many ways.

Size is relevant... but let's not argue on that. What am I doing talking about photography on a headphone forum anyway?

I shoot quite a bit of film, but I don't think film is better, that is not the word. It is DIFFERENT. I shoot fuji 160C. They just discontinued that. Sigh. Kodak gave me some samples of VC160 and some other assorted film saying I can replace the fujis with those but I haven't tried them out yet. Sooner or later there will be no film for me anymore.

 

[rhythmdevils]

one thought about digital vs film is that if the resolution is the same (whatever that means

), film will look better (resolution wise) because grain just looks better than pixels, as the image starts to break up, its not as big a deal with film as it is with digital.

I think KR has some good points and it's nice how he goes for practicality, against certain tech-freak things that I agree don't matter. But he also seems to enjoy being this way for publicity sake. Like saying that he shoots all his landscapes with a canon s90 point and shoot when he's got big guns lying around. nonsense!

 

[rhythmdevils]

any of you see the little bit in dpreview about future nikon DSLR's?

Nikon will provide 'better balance' of ISO and resolution: Digital Photography Review

I'm not sure about the "better balance" bit, as that's the whole selling point for everyone who has switched from canon to nikon since the D3. Or for me at least. 12 mp is enough for most things. But the DSLR "good news" is exciting. D700x? D700s?

 

[bigshot]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhythmdevils /img/forum/go_quote.gif Like saying that he shoots all his landscapes with a canon s90 point and shoot when he's got big guns lying around. nonsense!

I use my Canon SD880 for most vacation pictures. I get great images with my P&S- I'm definitely not sacrificing image quality as long as the light is good. When I'm traveling, I'm there to experience the place and the people, not drag around big bags of equipment and only see the sights through a viewfinder. I totally understand why Ken Rockwell prefers a P&S when he is on road trips. I shoot seriously when I have the time and inclination to plan my schedule and activities around photography.

 

[rhythmdevils]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigshot /img/forum/go_quote.gif I get great images with my P&S- I'm definitely not sacrificing image quality as long as the light is good.

I agree with everything about convenience, and enjoying the experience and not just photographing. I went to India for 8 months and didn't even bring a camera.

But no matter how good the light is, the file from a point and shoot won't look as good as the file from say a D700 or 5Dmkii. Unless it's just for web I guess, or you're making small prints. Or maybe you're a photoshop masta ?