StevenE

StevenE

Lives in Canada Canada
Joined on Feb 24, 2009

Comments

Total: 99, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

StevenE: The photographer did not just provide the tool. He selected the camera, the film (if any), the lens, focal length, all camera settings. He found the venue in which he was likely to get the shot, he patiently waited for the time, the lighting, and interactions with the animals. He risked personal injury knowing he would get great shots. Even if he did place the camera in the chimps hands, he did this with the intention of getting exactly these kinds of shots. Even if the chimp grabbed the camera from him, that camera was prepared in a way only someone with knowledge and intent could, and he let the chimp play with it expecting to get these results. VERY FEW self-described "Pros" on this site would have had the presence of mind to make this happen.

He took these steps and risks, knowing exactly what he was looking for. He got what he was looking for, and wikimedia used a legal loophole to steal his work.
The shame is on WikiMedia.

ipecaca ... auto mode with backlighting yields an absolute garbage photo. But then you would need a bit of knowledge to understand that, and even more to understand how to deal with it.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 15:16 UTC
In reply to:

StevenE: The photographer did not just provide the tool. He selected the camera, the film (if any), the lens, focal length, all camera settings. He found the venue in which he was likely to get the shot, he patiently waited for the time, the lighting, and interactions with the animals. He risked personal injury knowing he would get great shots. Even if he did place the camera in the chimps hands, he did this with the intention of getting exactly these kinds of shots. Even if the chimp grabbed the camera from him, that camera was prepared in a way only someone with knowledge and intent could, and he let the chimp play with it expecting to get these results. VERY FEW self-described "Pros" on this site would have had the presence of mind to make this happen.

He took these steps and risks, knowing exactly what he was looking for. He got what he was looking for, and wikimedia used a legal loophole to steal his work.
The shame is on WikiMedia.

peterstuckings ... exactly!

Bottom line: this photo had zero chance of existing without the hard work, knowledge, expertise, and intent of the photographer. The photo exists ONLY because of the photographer and his artistic intention.

PS ... the critics are simply jealous, and incapable of capturing anything like this.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 15:10 UTC

The photographer did not just provide the tool. He selected the camera, the film (if any), the lens, focal length, all camera settings. He found the venue in which he was likely to get the shot, he patiently waited for the time, the lighting, and interactions with the animals. He risked personal injury knowing he would get great shots. Even if he did place the camera in the chimps hands, he did this with the intention of getting exactly these kinds of shots. Even if the chimp grabbed the camera from him, that camera was prepared in a way only someone with knowledge and intent could, and he let the chimp play with it expecting to get these results. VERY FEW self-described "Pros" on this site would have had the presence of mind to make this happen.

He took these steps and risks, knowing exactly what he was looking for. He got what he was looking for, and wikimedia used a legal loophole to steal his work.
The shame is on WikiMedia.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 05:45 UTC as 99th comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

carport888: This story is quite disturbing. The copyright should rightfully belong to Slater. Slater is a wildlife photographer who set out to get photos of wildlife. He brought equipment to a specific location, set that equipment to specific settings that allowed these captures, and yet had the "good fortune" of having "someone else" take good photos? I think not.

Slater got exactly what he set out to get: great wildlife photos. It was his expertise that facilitated these results. Without him setting up this situation, these photos would not exist.

What about GoPro footage "taken" by animals?

Strap your GoPro to a dog? The dog "chose" where to "point the camera".

An octopus "steals" your GoPro? It must've been trying to "create art".

Does your © lapse only if the octopus happens to press the shutter?

If you set a device to hit the shutter, the device doesn't negate your copyright, as it is not human. Likewise, a monkey cannot own ©, so it should belong to Slater for facilitating.

The photographer did not just provide the tool. He selected the camera, the film (if any), the lens, focal length, all camera settings. He found the venue in which he was likely to get the shot, he patiently waited for the time and interactions with the animals. He risked personal injury knowing he would get great shots. Even if he place the camera in the chimps hands, he did it with the intention of getting exactly these kinds of shots.
He took these steps and risks, knowing exactly what he was looking for. He got what he was looking for, and wikimedia used legal loopholes to rob him.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 05:42 UTC
In reply to:

StevenE: What about the scores of incredibly lucky photos captured by accident. They were not knowingly planned.
As a photographer, you will have to keep your mouth shut about everything you do, and say only: I planned this shot and it came out exactly as I had intended.
Say nothing else to anyone, ever.

There's already been tons of examples that are copyrightable but not taken by the photographer : shutter triggers for example. And most sports photography involves machine gun fire at the action and hope for the best, which is possibly even less input from the photographer than this photo.
This photographer must have prepared the camera to capture this photograph, including all the settings, lens selection etc. He got to the chimp, and probably coaxed it. He may have done even more. Then there's post processing.
"Take your own damn pictures," said the guy who runs his camera on automatic... so not copyrightable either.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 05:33 UTC

What about the scores of incredibly lucky photos captured by accident. They were not knowingly planned.
As a photographer, you will have to keep your mouth shut about everything you do, and say only: I planned this shot and it came out exactly as I had intended.
Say nothing else to anyone, ever.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 05:14 UTC as 104th comment | 4 replies
On Sony a5100 First Impressions Review preview (553 comments in total)
In reply to:

nunatak: now if only Sony could deliver all this in a 1" sensor — along with the glass required to make it work — they'd MILC the competition. :)

1" sensor is a big step backwards. APS-C is already a small sensor

Direct link | Posted on Aug 18, 2014 at 17:36 UTC
On Readers' Showcase: Astrophotography article (43 comments in total)
In reply to:

neo_nights: Noob question: those photos with long exposure (i.e. photos #10 and #11) shouldn't have resulted in star trails?

Some photogs use a barn door star tracker to eliminate trails http://www.instructables.com/id/Build-a-Motorized-Barn-Door-Tracker/
Probably need to composite two images: one for stars, one for the landscape

Direct link | Posted on Aug 17, 2014 at 18:54 UTC

The photographer "set up the scene" such that this shot could be made. He may have subtly or not so subtly guided the monkey, or coaxed it into getting the shot he wanted. So the question is not so black and white.
What if a photographer sets up a shot with models, coaxes and guides them, sets the camera settings, and then asks an assistant to press the shutter button? Who owns that shot?
I think the benefit of the doubt should lie with the photographer.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 13:09 UTC as 334th comment
In reply to:

StevenE: I have a small company and ship through Canada Post. I have had several incidents in which my customers did not receive their order. NOW I know why!

PS.... and I thought it was customs that caused the problem! Canada Post ... it figures!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 03:39 UTC

I have a small company and ship through Canada Post. I have had several incidents in which my customers did not receive their order. NOW I know why!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 03:28 UTC as 30th comment | 1 reply
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

StevenE: Should also talk about the angle at which light strikes the sensor. In FF the angle at the corners is pretty extreme, causing light loss and vignetting. This becomes even more extreme in mirrorless cameras since the flange distance gets smaller, like Sony A7 series.
Smaller sensors may have an advantage in corners, especially in mirroless. I'd be interested in an in-depth analysis of the significance of sensor size, sensor design and flange distance

Pixels are actually three dimensional. They have depth as well as area, and my understanding is that some light fails to be detected if it reaches the pixel at too much of an angle, as would happen at the edges. This angle would be even greater with a short flange distance. Micro-lenses help to a point, but I don't think they fix the whole problem. Smaller sensors should allow the light to strike more directly from all parts of the lens. The research into curved sensors probably will address this as well.

Comments welcomed

Direct link | Posted on Jul 8, 2014 at 04:22 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)

Should also talk about the angle at which light strikes the sensor. In FF the angle at the corners is pretty extreme, causing light loss and vignetting. This becomes even more extreme in mirrorless cameras since the flange distance gets smaller, like Sony A7 series.
Smaller sensors may have an advantage in corners, especially in mirroless. I'd be interested in an in-depth analysis of the significance of sensor size, sensor design and flange distance

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 14:21 UTC as 343rd comment | 12 replies
In reply to:

crashpc: M mount still dead?
No way, M3 is coming!

I have used the EOS-M for video on both the 24-105 f/4L and my 70-200 f/2.8L. It is a very affordable, very small and light second body to my 5D3. It has gotten me shots I would not have otherwise had. Versatility is important. Plus the new Samyang primes are going to be great additions to my kit. Rokinon has a 12mm f/2 for M mount. I'll use this for handheld stabilizer video, at about 1/3 the weight of equivalent on the 5D3 I'll be able to carry it forever.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 2, 2014 at 03:16 UTC

Not far from what I expected to see for stills, but I am expecting to be amazed at low light video from the A7s.

If the low light video from the A7s does not produce the "holy-crap, wow!" effect, then I won't see any point to this camera, either A7r or 5DIII would be better options. The A7s video needs to be really clean and detailed up to ISO 25,000, and useable above that, in order for this camera to make sense. Otherwise why not take the A7r for a light weight camera, or the 5DIII for an all around work horse that natively accepts a ton of excellent lenses?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 22, 2014 at 13:10 UTC as 134th comment
On Sony Alpha 7S added to test scene comparison tool article (272 comments in total)

I'm surprised at how well the A7r holds up

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2014 at 22:15 UTC as 25th comment
In reply to:

crashpc: M mount still dead?
No way, M3 is coming!

I'm waiting for an all-out pro EOS-M ! I want it all, and I want it in my pocket! :)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 20, 2014 at 15:40 UTC
On Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000 First Impressions Review preview (1282 comments in total)

Can you set the audio level manually in video?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 12, 2014 at 14:46 UTC as 278th comment

The shots are barely larger than thumbnails

Direct link | Posted on May 25, 2014 at 14:53 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply

I didn't like it, just repetitive spinning, make me feel ill.
A guy put a gopro on a ceiling fan outdoors, with fireworks ... that was cool! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvghDGlrbUo

Direct link | Posted on May 24, 2014 at 19:31 UTC as 42nd comment
Total: 99, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »