Mike Yoder (myoder)

Log in to follow

Comment history

Lucinda Williams digs deep into Southern roots, family history in new album

Nice story Joanna. The new CDs are on rotation in my car while I cruise for photo features and cover assignments. Passing on this concert, but caught her at Liberty last time.

November 6, 2014 at 4:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Behind the Lens: Preserve old slides by digitization

Make sure and ask what resolution and size they scan negatives and slides at places like Walgreens, WalMart etc. I believe they have a limited scan size that is approximate to a 4x6-inch print. And if I remember correctly, this is a service they will provide, for an extra fee, only at the time of development of the roll of film or slides. Their assumption is that nobody needs larger file sizes than what is necessary for a 4x6-inch print. It certainly is convenient but it would not enable you to make larger reprints at a later point.

January 9, 2012 at 9:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Behind the Lens: Preserve old slides by digitization

Wolfe's Camera/Photo in Topeka may be the closest. I do not have price information on their scanning services, but I do see on their website that they will scan both prints and negatives/transparencies. http://www.wolfes.com/services/scanni...
I think there is a Wolfe's in Overland Park also. K.C. should have several photo service labs with this service.

January 8, 2012 at 1:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Behind the Lens: Know your macro

You're right McCoy and I thought I sort of mentioned that in this line from column.....

"If you don’t need the quality and high resolution of a 35 mm, large-sensor DSLR camera, P&S cameras may be a better and cheaper option for exploring macro photography."

Only if you want real large files and high resolution do you need an expensive lens like that Nikon 105 micro. I just wanted folks that still might be into DSLR's to know the expansive selection out there. Personally, I think a mid-grade point-and-shoot would suffice for most macro work, even to 11x14 print size.

November 20, 2011 at 1:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Behind the Lens: Getting the most from your 50 mm 'normal' lens

Agree with you Matt. I have to make a more obvious distinction in what audience I am writing. That's been a little tricky when I start using terms like 50mm etc. which does mean different things for different shooters. Field of view is indeed a better way to define this point. I'll try to direct different columns to different levels of users and make it a little less confusing if possible. Thanks for input.

November 13, 2011 at 4:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Digital rot, the inevitable loss of value in digital cameras, makes it confusing to know when to jum

Ha. Thanks for the question Nathan. I sometimes wonder if anyone reads the articles too. I ran out of room in the caption block to get all the info included. My basic point was illustrating how until recently, about any film camera, no matter how old or outdated, (the little Canonet 28 at right) might produce comparable image quality to expensive, early-model digital cameras that have now lost their value (Nikon D2H, left) As digital CCD sensors creep closer to 24-30 megapixel file size, they have reached the quality of film. To me this means the important qualities of cameras now will have more to do with lens quality and user preferences regarding the type of body and the way controls operate. In other word, maybe we're reaching the point of less digital rot, so personally, I'd put more money into quality components, lenses etc.

September 7, 2011 at 6:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

September 7, 2011 at 3:26 p.m. ( )

Behind the Lens: Creative framing

You're right. I do that and don't even think about why sometimes. Tilting the lens drives some people crazy, but I think it does create some tension that can help an otherwise flat image.

June 13, 2011 at 10:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Behind the Lens: A staggering find

Yes, you're right. It should be.. at an August 20, 1960, press conference at the Truman Library in Independence, MO., It was correct on the photo caption in the gallery but I typed it in wrong in story.

March 7, 2011 at 10:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Behind the Lens: Kodachrome fades into memory

My goof. I caught it Sunday morning when I was checking it in paper. I guess I know my emperors better than my actors.

February 21, 2011 at 6:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal )