posted Jan 18, 2012 4:08 PM by Jose Velasquez
[
updated Jan 19, 2012 4:39 PM
]
There's not much to take pictures of during the winter months because the bees have all left. Nevertheless, I've been reading, and planning, and pondering. My goal of getting an image that was both scientific and artistic is no longer a goal for several reasons.
After seeing images taken by Dr. John Brackenbury, I realized that I was a little late to the party. You can see some of his work here. His work is a bit controversial. According to some reviewers of his books at Amazon he uses several images to digitally compose them (i.e. blend them via software); according to others he uses a very unique system that requires special lenses, shutters, and flash and no software. Whatever the case may be about his pictures, it's the flash that got me curious. According to the British Journal of Photography the amount of power he uses can power a small town--well, they don't say how big a town, but I'm certainly impressed as the good Doc describes it as "lightning". That's got to be some power. One train of thought and a lot of searching led to another and I ended up finding the following:
On top of this I discovered Olsen flashes, SL-80 flashes, and a few others. Sadly all the flashes that could help me accomplish my goal are either no longer in production or extremely expensive (not the flash themselves, but due to import/brokerage fees). There are no flash manufacturers on this continent who focus on high speed flashes for enthusiasts. Needless to say I was a little dismayed.
I will continue to take pictures of bees, but my goal has changed. I've gone back to what I originally wanted and I'm not going to cry a river or worry about whether my images will ever win a contest or be published for being both scientific and artistic. This is, after all, just a hobby for me, and I'll gladly keep it that way and continue to share my work with others. I can't wait till next summer because I have a some new tricks up my sleeve, just nothing as fancy as a flash system that requires as much power as lighting a small town (however large or small it may be)!
|
posted Dec 30, 2011 9:14 PM by Jose Velasquez
All right the D700 Katzeye review is up. Enjoy the videos--it's not easy to shoot video inside the viewfinder.
Here's a sneak peek...
|
posted Dec 9, 2011 7:55 PM by Jose Velasquez
[
updated Dec 17, 2011 6:25 AM
]
I finally broke down and purchased a Katzeye for my D700. While it's not as nice as what's available for DX I have to admit it is a handy tool to have. The split image prism is much larger than I expected, and works like the split image prisms of yesteryear. Now that I'm heading back into MF lenses I'm going to have a little more fun seeing through the viewfinder. Expect a review soon. For now enjoy the teaser image I posted on Flickr.
 |
posted Nov 7, 2011 2:40 PM by Jose Velasquez
[
updated Nov 7, 2011 2:41 PM
]
It's ready to be read here. Thanks for looking! |
posted Nov 6, 2011 8:09 PM by Jose Velasquez
I just finished the comparison of my big zooms. I'll have it up tomorrow. I've been away for a bit, but that's all right because I've been busy with bigger, more important projects.
Later this month we're planning a shoot with our friend's classic car--we'll probably be using a 1936 Ford and have my favorite model dressed up to reflect that era. Then before the snow comes I hope we can get our pilot-themed shots in, but I'm not going to hold my breath for that one.
This winter I hope to do more photography of children and maybe a few family Christmas protraits of our friends. I've got a nice light that's seen little action, and is capable of freezing it like crazy!
Till my next review, rambling, or post, this is, hey, hey,
~jsv
|
posted Aug 23, 2011 5:31 PM by Jose Velasquez
[
updated Sep 28, 2011 5:18 PM
]
A few weeks ago I got curious about lens caps.
Is there truly a difference between the cheap, Chinese knock-offs and the OEM caps for Nikon lenses? The answer is a big YES! The difference begins with price, continues with material, and ends with spring tension.
Let's begin with the price. I purchased one cap from China for about $2.50. I purchased a genuine Nikkor lens cap for about $7.50 at Adorama. That's way more than double. It almost seems like a rip-off. In some ways it is, but I'll discuss that later. Second the plastic of each cap is reflected in the price. The cheaper the cap, the more flimsy the plastic feels; the more expensive the cap the more rugged and solid the plastic feels. Finally the springs used in each cap are worlds apart. The cheaper the cap the looser the springs (i.e. it's not hard to pinch the cap); the more expensive the cap the greater the effort required to pinch the cap (i.e. it's got taut springs).
Upon a casual glance these differences are not apparent. And that's good, because caps are not cheap to replace, which is why I haven't wholly discounted cheap caps.
Can you tell the difference? At first glance it's difficult, but only one of these caps is genuine. Which one? The one that looks cheaply made is the knock-off and the one that looks well made is the genuine one. If my description doesn't help you, then keep reading. 
These images make it difficult to tell the difference between the legit goods and the knock-off. All I can say is the nicer the plastic looks, and the thicker the Nikon letters are are a big giveaway. Also note on the back the small "Made in Thailand" stamp just to the left of the springs, inside the little groove. Those are big clues to it being a genuine cap. If that still doesn't help you, then I'll tell you. The cap on the left is the knock-off; the cap on the right is the legit cap.
I have to hand it to the Chinese--their knock-offs are getting better and better since they took over the accessories market. However, quality is nowhere near the original. However, that is a moot point, as the legit goods are not cheap. Lens caps have a habit of being dropped, lost, broken, forgotten, and left on subways, trains, and taxis. That's why I am not going to say that investing more money in a lens cap is worth the money. Only a fool with money to burn would say that.
Having said that I must say you do get what you pay for--quality always comes at a price; however, if the purpose of a cap is merely to protect your lens or your filter then you're getting ripped off with the legit caps. Why? Because they're so easy to lose and misplace. The cheaper they are to replace the more of them you can have and afford to lose.
Watch the following video to see what a difference the springs make.
| | Pros | Cons
| | Nikon | Better build quality, taught springs, doesn't slip off so easily
| Expensive, expensive, expensive, and did I mention expensive to replace?
| | Knock-off | Lesser build quality, loose springs, cheap, cheap, cheap, and did I mention cheap to replace?
| It may slip off more easily than genuine cap; however, I have yet to experience this, so take that with a grain of salt. As long as the cap can stay on there it is doing the job for which it was designed.
|
Conclusion: Buy the cheaper caps if you're not vain because they'll be easy on your wallet to replace; buy the more expensive caps if you're vain or if you have money to burn.
Till my next review, rambling, or post, this is, hey, hey,
~jsv |
posted Aug 22, 2011 8:05 AM by Jose Velasquez
[
updated Aug 23, 2011 7:17 PM
]
My favorite model (a.k.a my little guy) loves to watch Bob the Builder. I noticed the other day that one of Bob's hobbies is photographing birds. I got curious about the type of camera he uses. From what I can tell he shoots with a custom-made-for-the-show camera. If you don't know who Bob the Builder is watch the video below.
I've captured a few snapshots of Bob with his camera, and have posted this to a group on Flickr to determine what camera he actually uses. Once I receive an update I'll update this post.
I don't think anyone asked this question when the show was till popular back in the 90's/early 2000's, as there are no references to his camera online. The show is no longer in production, so it's difficult to find the people behind the show to be able to directly ask them.
While I normally don't cover things like this I thought this would be an interesting post.
Till my next review, rambling, or post, this is, hey, hey,
~jsv |
posted Jul 24, 2011 1:49 PM by Jose Velasquez
[
updated Sep 30, 2011 8:12 PM
]
Just a quick update. I've spent a couple of hours every Saturday for the past few weekends taking pictures of bees. Those of you who follow my work on Flickr have seen some of my latest work. For the summer, and because of grad school, they have been the main focus of my work. I hope to get more images of children as the summer progresses and grad school winds down. The bees are great, but working with toddlers and children are something I very much enjoy. I have a few ideas I've been playing around with that will include soda-fountains, classic cars (thank heavens we have a family friend who owns a handful of them), and gas stations, and leather jackets. August-October will probably a busy time for that side of my work.
*************
Last night I was taking a picture of my son hanging on to a moving ceiling fan (well, you'll see what I mean later on @ Flickr), and I tried something I thought would work. When I initially tested this setup last year it looked like it did work, but working with more sophisticated equipment (i.e. an Einstein flash unit) I realized that you cannot sync an RF-602 with a flash and another camera.
What do I mean? Say I wanted to do a self portrait and use the RF-602 system to remotely trigger my camera and trigger the flash--well, it's something that will work. My quick and dirty test of last year indicated that it would be possible. It is not. It is possible to trigger multiple flashes or multiple cameras, but not both together. I have no idea why (other than the electronics aren't communicating in sync), but no matter the power and no matter the mode, my D700 just would not sync with the Einstein. Sure I could trigger both, but they would never sync. So, my apologies for not testing this further and with better equipment.
***************
Also, sometime during August I'll be posting a big review of most of Nikon's constant aperture zooms that cost under $900. The results will probably surprise many, and verify the conclusions that others have found. The only thing I can say at this point is paying more doesn't lead to better performance or better images, but it does make a difference in subject/background separation.
Till my next review, rambling, or post, this is, hey, hey,
~jsv
|
posted May 23, 2011 4:40 PM by Jose Velasquez
If you follow my work on Flickr, you'll know that I've been scanning some of my older work from last century (late 90's). The reason? I finally bit the bullet and bought a V600 scanner. It was the best compromise between features and price--the V750 looks nice, but I would've had a very difficult time justifying $700 to my wife. So the V600 it was, and at a good price from the Epson clearance store.
I tend to buy used or refurbished gear for two reasons: one it's often cheaper than buying new; two, it's always inspected, unlike a new item that may have just had a few cameras/lenses/scanners inspected out of a huge lot. So look for some of my older work, much of which hasn't really been seen by the world, on Flickr. I'll add a picture or two as the summer rolls by.
This summer is going to be a fun one--once all the rain decides to finally stop. All this water has been great for flowers, but so far it's kept the bees away. I've seen a few daring ones out and about looking for pollen, but they're scouts, and so far they've got nothing much to report to their hives. Both of us are waiting for the great pictures coming our way this season.
For those of you who enjoy reading my reviews--I have a few more coming down the pipeline--I can't promise a date because I'm busy doing grad school and I do work a 9-5 job. But expect something enjoyable, maybe even a bit controversial. I can't tell you what I'll be reviewing, but when the time comes you'll know it. I'll probably get flack from purists and fanboys, but my hunch is the man-behind-the-lens is going to become more well known than he currently is.
Also, I'm delving deeper into the craft--so much so that I currently own 23 books on the subject. I may post my reviews/critiques of those books on a separate page. They're mainly academic in nature, so don't expect a critique on a DVD or on someone's book on wedding photography.
Lighting--that's my next horizon and the beast I'm slowly taming. The past few weeks I've diligently read Light: Science & Magic by Hunter, Biver, and Fuqua. It was a decent read, though at times a little more complicated in its wording than it has to be. Once thing I noticed after reading it is Strobist seems to take off pretty much where this book leaves off--getting the most out of small lights. If I could do it again I would've read the book first and then the work written by Strobist. While lights big and small both have their place, the principles are the important things to take away from that book, because they don't change.
So why am I focusing on light? Because it's something that I never really got into when I was first getting into photography 14 years ago--and it's something that I would like to master, not just for portraits of children but also for bees. Yes, you heard me right. I do plan to use flashes with my little friends this summer. However, I'm not gullible enough to rely on something like a ring flash or the Nikkor R1C1 unit--they're great (and they look cool) but they're too limiting for the images I have in mind.
HSS would come in handy for what I have in mind; however, my recent water droplet picture on Flickr has proven that you don't need HSS in order to freeze fast moving things!
Till my next review, rambling, or post, this is, hey, hey,
~jsv
|
posted Apr 4, 2011 6:38 PM by Jose Velasquez
[
updated Apr 7, 2011 7:09 PM
]
The past few days the RE 35 digital film cartridge has grown from joke, to rumor, to potentially real.
Who thinks it's real? Popsci--I've really lost respect for that magazine. You'd think their editors would at least have the brains to go and use a translator or a translation service to get the goods from the horse's mouth.
What started out as a great April Fool's joke has spread like wildfire, and many people are scratching their heads and wondering if this is for real. While the concept is novel, the idea is not new. Back at the turn of the digital revolution there was a company that tried to develop Silicon Film. Only a few prototypes were every made before the company vanished and the technology became vapoware--probably the biggest vaporware in photography's history (that wasn't a joke).
While the idea of shooting "digital" film sounds great, the concept is far more difficult to pull off--first there's the way each camera handles the "film"--they all had slightly different planes; second, there's no direct linkage with the shutter and the sensor, so either the sensor is always turned on, or something is telling it when to turn on (which seems highly unlikely given the thickness of the RE 35 "film"; third, the battery technology required to power a 35mm sensor is not small (just look at the batteries for the D3, the D700, the 5D, the 5D MKII--they're not small)--there's no way you can squeeze an image processor, a battery, and a storage device to handle a 35mm sensor inside a cartridge that small.
While it's a great joke--I think it's gone a bit too far--sure it would be great to shoot digital with my FM, FE, or even an F3HP, but the technology just isn't there to make that happen. The camera makers know this--that's why they never bothered with it. A case in point--Medium Format cameras have digital backs. They never waited around for someone to invent "digital film". Now there's a concept that would work and sell fairly well with 35mm shooters! A digital back for older film cameras would be amazing, and that's something I would also buy.
 Kodak tried to do that at the beginning of the digital revolution, but their approach was clunky, heavy, and ugly at best...imagine carrying that device around your neck while climbing a mountain!
In any case, at this point in time it's probably too costly to research and produce a small digital back for 35mm cameras, so the big four have not and may never pursue this route. Nikon stopped making film cameras back in 2006 (except for the F6 and the FM10, which is actually Cosina made); so for them pouring time and money into something they've pretty much abandoned would be a waste.
I have to admit, however, that it would be nice to bring the mystery and the aura back to photography, as in the case of RE 35--there's no way to see your pictures right away. That was part of the fun of photography--you couldn't see your work till later. As fun a toy as RE 35 would be, it's nothing more than a joke, a cruel one for those who have been waiting years for the mythical FM3D, but at least someone somewhere is laughing and having a good time at our expense.
Will digital film ever come to light? It already has in two ways--FF DSLRs and highly decent scanners from Nikon and Epson. Will analog film ever die off? No. It's still alive and kicking. Film has actually made quite a comeback the past few years. Many digital natives are beginning to appreciate the analog magic some of us played with. And that's a good thing, because both are different mediums of the same craft--much like painting some prefer canvas, while others a simple piece of paper, and others Photoshop and Illustrator. It's the result, the final work, the "decisive moment" that ultimately shows a photographer's true nature and skill.
Till my next review, rambling, or post, this is, hey, hey, ~jsv |
|
