« Two Alerts | Main | Talking to Ctein »

Friday, 22 October 2021


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Vogue on Charlie Watts

[ ... ] when Watts finally answered the phone, [Jagger] demanded to know: “Where’s my drummer?!” Watts calmly hung the phone up, before dressing in his usual impeccable suit and tie and polished shoes and walking out of his room to meet Mick. When he encountered Jagger, he immediately punched him in the face before insisting, “Don’t ever call me your drummer again. You’re my f--king singer!”


I don't imagine that Vogue wrote much about the Rolling Stones back in the 1960s.

Diane Arbus had oomph, but lord, she was depressing. Long ago looking in a book of her pics, I came across the fierce little boy raging against the camera. And I found myself thinking, "Wait, this is not all that negative, where is the negative aspect?" And then I noticed he was holding a toy hand grenade...

Eolake Stobblehouse

“Full frame is great for actual portraits, but realistically horrible for environmental portraits.”

Well, who’s going to break _that_ news to all those photographers, amateurs and professionals alike, who used FF cameras (aka 35mm, 2 ¼, 4c5, etc…) cameras - and with “normal lenses” to boot - for several scores of years?!? August Sanders, Yusuf Karsh, Dorothea Lange, Ansel Adams, Lee Friedlander, et al, who made all those amazing “environmental portraits” over the decades - they’re all “realistically horrible”?!

What’s that? Wait? It wasn’t the camera’s fault, you say? Those photographers (and many more) learned and knew how to use their cameras and adjust settings to make the camera record the image exactly the way they wanted…?!?

So, then, what’s up with the people using cameras today? Oh… I see.

I've been trying macro on the iPhone, with limited success with my 8+
The thing that's interesting to me about the iPhone 13 is the close focus distance. It lets you get inside the scene, which is a different perspective to being able to take a macro with a (say) 100mm macro lens.
Even clever tech like Halide can't solve that. You can't get the same perspective from the 8+ that you can from the 13 because of the lens, and you can't fake it.
Ideally, for what I want, I'd get Laowa probe lens, but that's for another day.

I’m not really familiar with Sony FF cameras. Are the apertures on Sony FF cameras not adjustable?

What blog is that so I don’t read it by mistake.

Mike that lap of the Ring is nothing compared to this insanity from Porsche!


Spend all the money to travel to Japan, but can't even see Mt. Fuji in the background of the portrait because it is too blurred? Travel to Egypt, but can't tell that's a pyramid in the background because you're shooting at ƒ/1.4 in full frame? I found that even on APS-C I prefer to shoot anywhere from ƒ/2.8 to ƒ/8 for environmental portraits."

Good points. More is not always better.


That is why the lens has a range of apertures. You learn to use them for creative purposes.
Unless you are doing pinhole or your lens is broken you have choices - choices that the creative artist learns to use.

I would somewhat disagree with your Dog's Nose view; I think the blogger's views were not so much "good points" as "blindingly obvious" to anyone who has ever used a camera. So much so that the point he/she made about Mt. Fuji made me laugh.

I do agree with your somewhat implicit message that live and recorded music are two different things. However, if I really want to listen to a song (say, the Red Hot Chili Peppers' "Dark Necessities") I'd much rather do it on Youtube where you can both enjoy the video AND understand the words; or listen to a CD, simply for the clarity. In an arena, many of their songs are simply incomprehensible, although the instrumentals (which you *can* hear) social experience is wonderful.

Congrats? on the new camera, a burst of creativity will surely follow. Don't follow Shirley unless she requests it!

Wish I could zero-sum your xH1, but then my sum would fall substantially subzero :^\ Ah well.

Re macro modes, fast lenses and bokeh.
I'm another who thinks very fast lenses and bokeh are overrated in the digital age for just the reasons given in The Dog's Nose. One of the best features of computational photography is the ability to stack images to increase dof. This is especially useful for macro and product photography. This brings me to Sony. For some weird reason no Sony, including the just released A7iv has auto focus bracketing available. It is a feature on almost all other makes. Given the af capabilities of Sony cameras, this is a very odd omission and it is costing Sony sales. It is usually not mentioned in reviews of Sony cameras but it is talked about in Sony user circles. I don't mind the lack of in camera bracket stacking because once you have the images this can be better done in front of a monitor where the images to be used in the stack can be selected according to need. Not being able to shoot the stack with auto focus bracketing where the number of images and the required focal distance variation can be set and then captured quickly, is really limiting.
Does anyone have thoughts as to why Sony resolutely refuses to add this feature to their cameras?

The 4 series that I took you to dinner in was tricked out to be a daily drivable track day car, and it's about 85-ish percent of an M4.
I really didn't show it off much that night.
If Watkins Glen had been available, I'd have treated you to a really fun ride!

Yr. Hmbl. reader is dumping thousands of photo-files into that great shredder in the sky. I've stopped paying for iCloud storage—no pay and Apple no store, a simple solution.

I'm also getting rid of my iPhone XS and Apple Watch. It's a great camera, but a poor phone.

"Yr. Hmbl. Ed. just ordered a new camera." So something to go with the lens you bought last week?


Mike, thank you for the Kubica video. That was fun!

I confess to being somewhat addicted to moving at high speeds via video!
Last one I watched, other then what you linked Mike, was a train, I believe in Germany, going at roughly 350 miles per hour. Great fun, especially when your home, watching. To be there, and participate must be something else again!

The A6600? I keep looking at good used examples of the 24/f1.8 Zeiss, in case I can pick one up and send it to you without totally breaking the bank!

He drives that like it’s a rental car.
Oh wait…

Whoa!!! That is one amazing run thru the Nurburgring! Thanks for posting that, Mike!

Good to hear that you are not wasting any more money collecting watches. IMO, there are only two brands worth collecting - Rolex and Patek Philippe.

Congratulations on your new Sony A6600! :)

Because I believe I know your photography needs, I am sure you purchased one of the new 8k-video-capable cameras.


In re: "Sweaty palms", how about this: Sabine Schmitz attempts to drive a transit van around the Nürburgring in under ten minutes.


Yeah, that's a respectable time...for a car. If want to see fast laps at the 'Ring, check out this video of the Manthey Racing Porsche GT2 RS setting an outright fastest lap record for a production car at the Nordschleife of 6:43:30. This Porsche was about...a full minute faster than Robert Kubica.


If memory serves, the outright lap record is held by the Porsche 919 EVO Hybrid, which is more than a full minute faster than the Porsche GT2 RS, and more than two minutes faster than Robert Kubica, at 5:19.55 (!)


But, for me what's more fun is to see the motorcycle riders on what are generally stock sportbikes blowing off cars left and right...

Here's Nino Pallavincini going as fast as Robert Kubica.... on a Yamaha R1 motorcycle. With a tire contact patch about the size of your hand, I might add...

Finally, you think yer fast?

Yer not so fast...https://youtu.be/ZjyYa3zL6Pw

[Nice links, for which thanks, but I protest...Kubica had to keep slowing down to safely pass other cars and motorcycles driven by amateur drivers! He wasn't alone on a closed, groomed course doing a time trial. And I must say, the passes were the most anxiety-provoking for me to watch. Although that's probably because I've watched too many "Nurburgring crash" video. But anyway, it's apples and oranges. --Mike]

Regarding the dog's nose: I'm so old that I remember when camera magazines (remember camera magazines?) had lots of articles on how to get MORE depth-of-field.

Just need to quickly remark on the bokeh piece: better quality bokeh ('more') is always better. What he is referring to is depth-of-field, which actually here you want more of, not less.

I see that popping up more and more on the internet, where people talk about the amount of bokeh, while it's actually depth-of-field. Bokeh does not have an amount, only a quality.

Sorry, grumpy-not-yet-old-guy signing off.

Martin Parr has done 80 or so books of his own work, while being the joint author of three books about the history of photographic books across the world.

He has also created a foundation, with part of its role being to preserve his book collection.

("Every day you go out hoping you might get one of those magic pictures, those iconic pictures. You rarely do. But thats's what keeps you going." How many times does he think he has? He grimaces. "Maybe 60 or 70. And that's not going. It really isn't."

Guardian 5 October 2021

Does anyone have thoughts as to why Sony resolutely refuses to add this feature to their cameras?

Posted by: Michael Fewster | Saturday, 23 October 2021 at 03:31 PM

For me this is very clear: Sony will add focus bracketing in a future model!
And absolutely no firmware update with this function for the previous models for sure!
This strategie will trigger sales not cost sales. Same thing as it was with animal eye-AF.

The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007