Alec

Alec

Lives in United States New York City, NY, United States
Works as a Photographer / imaging artist
Has a website at http://karasevstudio.com/
Joined on Oct 24, 2000
About me:

* More architectural and recreational sports photography in the off-season (skiing and scuba);
* Roll out blog feature on the web site
* Put articles, more photos and video online
* Minolta archive!

Comments

Total: 114, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Canon introduces new $78K 50-1000mm cine lens article (157 comments in total)

"That's it, I'm switching to Canon - Nikon isn't doing anything"

Direct link | Posted on Oct 17, 2014 at 03:34 UTC as 56th comment
On GoPro announces Hero4 lineup article (109 comments in total)

I'm a GoPro 3 Black user and needless to say haven't felt the need to upgrade to the "+". I think I'll skip this one too.

What would prompt me to upgrade:

1. Redesigned housing:
- finned aluminum sides, thermally coupled to the CPU and battery inside
- non-corrosive micro USB, HDMI pass-through ports to the outside of the housing (for external battery pack or charging, and HDMI monitor or recorder e.g. when not scuba-diving)

2. Global shutter. For an action cam it is an essential feature, I feel. Gimbals and shock absorbers and software add to the workflow and time/cost, plus global shutter can be combined with them for a better still solution. I use this for skiing, chest/helmet/ski mounted, and there are situations where a compact and simple/robust direct mount is the preferred or only solution.

3. Manually focusable lens. Noyt asking for a lot here - even just 3 click settings would do: infinity + what it is now + 1ft/30cm

Direct link | Posted on Oct 1, 2014 at 00:31 UTC as 11th comment
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (336 comments in total)
In reply to:

Max Fun: If not having distortion is important to a portrait artist, he/she can always use a macro lens. They were also designed (in the film days) to do reproduction work and had to have a super flat field and be super sharp.

But I really question if portrait lenses need to be so technically superb. I used the Canon 135mm f/2 for a portrait shoot, and it was so sharp the bride's pores were all so visible.

Yup, the thing about a sharp lens is, you can have less detail any time you want - just knock off a little edge or blur the heck out of it or anything in between. you don't have quite the same flexibility when you start off a little softer.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 03:51 UTC
On Zeiss introduces 'no distortion' Otus 1.4/85mm article (336 comments in total)
In reply to:

Max Fun: If not having distortion is important to a portrait artist, he/she can always use a macro lens. They were also designed (in the film days) to do reproduction work and had to have a super flat field and be super sharp.

But I really question if portrait lenses need to be so technically superb. I used the Canon 135mm f/2 for a portrait shoot, and it was so sharp the bride's pores were all so visible.

I would say, this lens's cost presupposes projects with budgets allowing for makeup and/or Photoshop work, such that the end result resolves all of what you'd like (eyelashes, fabric textures, etc.) and none of what you don't (skin imperfections).

Direct link | Posted on Sep 9, 2014 at 02:18 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: Actually, one of the reasons that people don't buy cameras is that the one device they have with them all the time (i.e., their cell phone or tablet) has a camera that's good enough most of the time. Many people hate having to carry around another gadget, even if it's an APS-C or m43-based compact camera.

This device is more compact than a camera to carry around and they can significantly improve their pictures without needing a full blown dedicated camera.

I think it will sell and sell well . . .

... and that's okay. Two distinct users not wanting big cameras: 1) because they're too big to carry around and 2) because they lack the connectivity/flexibility/immediacy of a smartphone in image processing/tagging/sharing. Currently there's a big overlap between groups 1 and 2, but it's fair to say these SONY devices aren't really for Group 1 - they're for Group 2.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 4, 2014 at 13:30 UTC
In reply to:

jhinkey: Actually, one of the reasons that people don't buy cameras is that the one device they have with them all the time (i.e., their cell phone or tablet) has a camera that's good enough most of the time. Many people hate having to carry around another gadget, even if it's an APS-C or m43-based compact camera.

This device is more compact than a camera to carry around and they can significantly improve their pictures without needing a full blown dedicated camera.

I think it will sell and sell well . . .

I agree. The big deal about a smartphone is its connectivity. People have made do with those tiny cameras because the immediacy of editing and sharing (such as what is enabled by Instagram, Facebook) was more important. Now with this SONY you could have connectivity AND a great camera (that you can keep using with the next generation smartphone).

Direct link | Posted on Sep 4, 2014 at 03:14 UTC
In reply to:

BobYIL: Smallest of the MF format; only 30 x 45mm, a little larger than the FF... Only 37.5MP, a little more than the D800 series 36MP... A phased out CCD sensor to turn obsolete in couple of years in the world of MF-CMOS. Hopefully they can sell this "only 100 units" of limited edition. (BTW, would it differ much if the new lens was offered for $4K?)

HowaboutRAW : while I agree fragmented mounts don't serve anyone well, it's also fair to say the Sony mirrorless mount had encouraged significant lens reuse (through adapters) and experimentation.

Medium format mirrorless, coupled with LV, video, can take that a step further. Including, in particular, ability to optimally utilize the entire imaging circles of 35mm full frame lenses across a variety of frame aspects ranging from 1:1 to 21:9.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 2, 2014 at 05:46 UTC
In reply to:

BobYIL: Smallest of the MF format; only 30 x 45mm, a little larger than the FF... Only 37.5MP, a little more than the D800 series 36MP... A phased out CCD sensor to turn obsolete in couple of years in the world of MF-CMOS. Hopefully they can sell this "only 100 units" of limited edition. (BTW, would it differ much if the new lens was offered for $4K?)

I wonder if SONY will go into medium format with their own sensor.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 29, 2014 at 22:54 UTC
In reply to:

Benoz: My niece's husband is a cameraman employed by a television station.
Who holds the copyright to his work...the cameraman or the TV station?
We all know the answer to that!
The monkey took the shots with the photographer's camera already set to take those pictures.
IMO the photographer has the rights to the images.
The monkey wouldn't have the ability to just pick up a camera, switch it on, set it up and take selfies! :-)
Whether there is any benefit or not by requesting the image to be deleted is irrelevant.

"You'll find that most photoshoots are 'accidents' that result from thousands of trial shots." Right. The article suggests, the MONKEY has taken a lot of shots, one of which got famous. The photographer's own body of work doesn't come close. If you're walking on the street and Annie Leibowitz or somebody else whose work is capable of creating a million times the resonance of your own work, grabs a camera from your hands and takes a shot, the first of its kind for that particular situation, is it your copyright or theirs?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 14:51 UTC
In reply to:

Bart Hickman: This photo is the result of the photographer's work (creativity has nothing to do with copyright.) Besides the monkey was not purposefully creative. The photographer bought the appropriate gear. Travelled there. Found the monkeys. Set up the camera with the right lens. Post-processed the image. And if the monkey had broken the camera, the photographer would've paid for that too. The photographer created (through his own expense) the situation that lead to this image. This is the purpose of copyright--to encourage investment to stimulate commerce.

No photographer has 100% control of everything. The monkey gets no more credit for this shot than the sun and clouds get for lovely sunset shots. Never mind that copyright law only applies to humans.

In your WTC example, it's the terrorists that have spent the resources and created the entire situation - according to your logic should they own the copyright to the WTC shot?

Awesome example with the rock, though. Gave me a chuckle. I don't know what to say to that one. Good night.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 04:53 UTC
In reply to:

Benoz: My niece's husband is a cameraman employed by a television station.
Who holds the copyright to his work...the cameraman or the TV station?
We all know the answer to that!
The monkey took the shots with the photographer's camera already set to take those pictures.
IMO the photographer has the rights to the images.
The monkey wouldn't have the ability to just pick up a camera, switch it on, set it up and take selfies! :-)
Whether there is any benefit or not by requesting the image to be deleted is irrelevant.

Not to mention, a cameraman executes a series of shots as described and directed in detail. If the same cameraman grabbed the camera and on his own did something original and unexpected and never thought possible, that created a great resonance, beyond anything that TV station had had in its portfolio by a factor of a million, don't you think it's a little different? Would it matter which camera this was done with?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 04:46 UTC
In reply to:

Bart Hickman: This photo is the result of the photographer's work (creativity has nothing to do with copyright.) Besides the monkey was not purposefully creative. The photographer bought the appropriate gear. Travelled there. Found the monkeys. Set up the camera with the right lens. Post-processed the image. And if the monkey had broken the camera, the photographer would've paid for that too. The photographer created (through his own expense) the situation that lead to this image. This is the purpose of copyright--to encourage investment to stimulate commerce.

No photographer has 100% control of everything. The monkey gets no more credit for this shot than the sun and clouds get for lovely sunset shots. Never mind that copyright law only applies to humans.

If this monkey had chosen another photographer's camera, would we be discussing on here who Slater is or what he did? It is one thing if he were already known for setting up these sort of stunts in a deliberate manner. It's quite another if his other work doesn't measure up to the popularity of this one shot, taken by "someone" else.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 04:33 UTC
In reply to:

Ron A 19: The monkey may have pushed the shutter button, but without the photographer, we would never have seen this photo. AND the photo has most likely been modified by the photographer in post production, so this is very much his copyrighted work, and he is the originator of the image. Wikimedia is just trying to make headlines. The monkey didn't bring the equipment, download the picture, edit the picture, publish the picture, etc. It just played with a camera.

No, the relevant creative act is taking the photo. If this monkey had chosen another photographer's camera, would we be discussing who Slater is or what he did on here? It is one thing if he were famous for setting up these sort of stunts. It's quite another if his other work doesn't measure up to the popularity of this one shot, taken by someone else.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 04:30 UTC
In reply to:

Funduro: From Huffington Post article: He added that he believes Wikipedia editors, most of whom are volunteers, "have a communistic view of life."

"It's potentially being run by people with political agendas," Slater said of Wikipedia. "The people who are editing it could be a new Adolf Hitler or a new Stalin ... They're using whatever suits their agenda."

He urged people to stop using Wikipedia. "It's important to tell people that Wikipedia should be not used as a source of truth," he said.
____

I'm sort of speechless.

Says Slater, trying to hang on by the skin of his teeth to photos taken by a monkey. At a face value this reads like The Onion headline: "Photographer's claim to fame is a photo a monkey took with his camera"

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 02:12 UTC
In reply to:

GaryJP: The ape may have pressed the shutter. But there is more to taking a photograph than pressing the shutter. I doubt that the ape set the aperture, focal length or time, chose the lens, or took the camera to the location, or cropped the image. I am surprised more photographers don't seem to know this.

GaryJP: In regards to the photographer/producer's claims:

1) Do this photographer's other images from the shoot (or his entire body of work) measure up in public esteem to the photo the monkey has taken?

2) Had the photographer planned this shot (storyboard, coaching, or camera selection / setup intended for this, perhaps prior similar efforts)? Or did the monkey execute the shot in question it entirely on its own initiative?

3) If this monkey had grabbed ANOTHER PHOTOGRAPHER's camera and taken similar shots, would we likely be talking about those instead (making the photographer and his camera and its particular setting and the shoot logistics quite peripheral to the question of what actually made these photos famous), or the photographer can reasonably claim his other work is as famous or more famous, or he gets multiple monkeys to do selfies, planning them and executing them accordingly?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 02:08 UTC
In reply to:

Alec: The photographer's claim was that he'd paid for the photoshoot - so he acted in the role of the producer.

In determining which party actually lent the image its broad public appeal, it is clearly the monkey who both posed and operated the camera, not the photographer whose camera it was. The internet is full of "conventional" monkey images that are next to worthless. What made this image popular was the monkey's expression and the fact that it was a selfie.

Therefore in lieu of any model releases and camera operator releases signed by the monkey's legal council granting specific rights to the photographer, the monkey would own the copyright if there was a law allowing this. In lieu of such a law, the image is not copyrighted.

vFunct this is an excellent point as applied to Richard Avedon and other photographers who were more directors than camera operators.

If he'd coached or directed that monkey to take a selfie, or had a storyboard or an original idea, this would maybe hold some sway. Now consider:

1. Are any other images of this photographer on this shoot measuring up in esteem to the photos taken by the monkey in question?

2. If this monkey had grabbed ANOTHER random guy's camera, and taken these photos, would they be the ones receiving the acclaim? Making the question of "whichever photog with the camera" quite secondary to the popular image's value?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 01:29 UTC
In reply to:

Alec: The photographer's claim was that he'd paid for the photoshoot - so he acted in the role of the producer.

In determining which party actually lent the image its broad public appeal, it is clearly the monkey who both posed and operated the camera, not the photographer whose camera it was. The internet is full of "conventional" monkey images that are next to worthless. What made this image popular was the monkey's expression and the fact that it was a selfie.

Therefore in lieu of any model releases and camera operator releases signed by the monkey's legal council granting specific rights to the photographer, the monkey would own the copyright if there was a law allowing this. In lieu of such a law, the image is not copyrighted.

@ newellj probably not, but this is the internet :)

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 01:23 UTC
In reply to:

cpkuntz: This monkey's selfie looks better than at least 90% of the selfies I've seen taken by human beings.

I think it is clear that this primate has been photographed many times before as well as has seen its share of people taking selfies next to it or with it. So its actions aren't really random.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 00:40 UTC

The photographer's claim was that he'd paid for the photoshoot - so he acted in the role of the producer.

In determining which party actually lent the image its broad public appeal, it is clearly the monkey who both posed and operated the camera, not the photographer whose camera it was. The internet is full of "conventional" monkey images that are next to worthless. What made this image popular was the monkey's expression and the fact that it was a selfie.

Therefore in lieu of any model releases and camera operator releases signed by the monkey's legal council granting specific rights to the photographer, the monkey would own the copyright if there was a law allowing this. In lieu of such a law, the image is not copyrighted.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 00:37 UTC as 458th comment | 4 replies
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1544 comments in total)
In reply to:

Alec: I currently have a D800, and for tethered shooting using HDMI out to an external 24" monitor for manual focusing, I currently have to use an EyeFi card, because D800 won't simultaneously enable USB tether and HDMI output.

Is D810 able to do the latter?

Also on the video front, is it scaled from all pixels on the sensor or produced using line-skipping?

Galbertson on a D800 you can, if you capture pix on a memory card as opposed to directly in a computer.

Since D800 can write video to the memory card AND HDMI out, I was thinking it might also be able to do USB3 tethering and HDMI out concurrently as well, that D800 can't. So, anyone?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 24, 2014 at 02:31 UTC
Total: 114, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »