57even

57even

Lives in United Kingdom London, United Kingdom
Joined on Jul 16, 2012

Comments

Total: 482, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »
On article iFixit tears down Sony's new a7R II to find its secrets (290 comments in total)

Actually looks like a nice bit of industrial design, particularly the switches and buttons.

I didn't realise the camera wasn't weather sealed. A little surprised at that for a landscape/outdoor camera.

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2015 at 21:56 UTC as 38th comment | 15 replies
On article Samsung introduces PM1633a, world's first 2.5" 16TB SSD (121 comments in total)

Personally, I would settle for a 4TB SSD which cost under $100...

Link | Posted on Aug 19, 2015 at 00:21 UTC as 9th comment | 1 reply
On article Fujifilm XF 90mm F2 LM WR real-world samples (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecka84: So, why would I choose this over FF 135L or my 150/2.8 APO Macro?

ecka84

You use a full frame camera to look at images on a screen?

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2015 at 19:01 UTC
On article Fujifilm XF 90mm F2 LM WR real-world samples (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecka84: So, why would I choose this over FF 135L or my 150/2.8 APO Macro?

@ecka84

Better is meaningless without context. Why don't you own a medium format camera if you are so obsessed with sensor size?

The best camera is the one that gets the job done with the minimum fuss and inconvenience. Quality differences you can't see in a print are meaningless, and most people have no idea how big they have to print before the difference is even visible.

Gear forums are for people who insist they need the camera equivalent of a Range Rover for the photography equivalent of the school run.

Link | Posted on Aug 6, 2015 at 10:09 UTC
On article Fujifilm XF 90mm F2 LM WR real-world samples (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecka84: So, why would I choose this over FF 135L or my 150/2.8 APO Macro?

True, they don't generally mention it but T1.7/F1.4 is not unusual.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 14:47 UTC
On article Fujifilm XF 90mm F2 LM WR real-world samples (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecka84: So, why would I choose this over FF 135L or my 150/2.8 APO Macro?

Exposure is related to t-stop not f-stop.

DOF is related to f-stop.

So yes, 1/3 stop difference is not unusual.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 14:23 UTC
On article Fujifilm XF 90mm F2 LM WR real-world samples (182 comments in total)
In reply to:

ecka84: So, why would I choose this over FF 135L or my 150/2.8 APO Macro?

@brendon1000

Fuji ISO (along with MFT) uses the SOS ISO digital standard and Canon/Nikon/Sony use the REI one. Arguably, Fuji are the ones who are NOT cheating, since SOS is tied to an actual RGB mid-grey for standard JPEG. REI just means 'looks about right'.

Link | Posted on Aug 4, 2015 at 13:52 UTC
In reply to:

joyclick: The gear this guy uses is far down the rung of entry level stuff,sheer skill and imagination has taken his photography to a level that will put "the latest and the best" gear owners to shame.

You can always acquire gear more easily than talent. You only need money.

Unfortunately, talent is more important.

Link | Posted on Jul 18, 2015 at 14:58 UTC
In reply to:

JohnLL: So there are only 40 utterly idiotic MEPs?

Actually, there are many MEPs with agendas (just as there are MPs with agendas who table private bills). Several attempts to pass stupid laws have been heavily rejected.

It works better than you think. The only glaring exception is the VAT issue, but that was happily signed up to by our own government who didn't even bother telling us about it.

I have nothing against legal harmonisation of product standards, bank regulation etc. but not when it is a matter that directly removes an established right from a member state, such as the right of panorama. This would have been challenged under the constitution in any event so it would never have made it through.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2015 at 19:36 UTC
In reply to:

Mister J: And quite right too.

But - ridiculously - you still cannot shoot the Eiffel Tower at night.

Precisely - France has lots of laws, they just have a relaxed attitude to enforcement. The legal system is so protracted, very few people bother.

Unfortunately, in the UK if such a law were to be introduced, every business in London would be putting signs up saying permits required, and hunting down website owners.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2015 at 19:29 UTC
In reply to:

Mister J: And quite right too.

But - ridiculously - you still cannot shoot the Eiffel Tower at night.

You can, if the lights are turned off - the lights are supposedly a copyrighted artwork. However, France has no right of panorama and strictly speaking you have no right to shoot people in the street either.

However, being France, no-one can afford to sue anyone so they generally don't bother and settle it all over a bottle of red.

Link | Posted on Jul 10, 2015 at 18:39 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Some impressive insults here. Spin this as you like; the idea is that if the person taking the picture manages to make money from it, somebody else wants that money. You see, the folks who own skyscrapers are having trouble making ends meet but you, the photographer, can help.

Just as stock photos create a revenue stream, helping Gates and Getty put food on the table.

Only in France. Not in the UK.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 00:46 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Some impressive insults here. Spin this as you like; the idea is that if the person taking the picture manages to make money from it, somebody else wants that money. You see, the folks who own skyscrapers are having trouble making ends meet but you, the photographer, can help.

Just as stock photos create a revenue stream, helping Gates and Getty put food on the table.

I do not have any choice whether a building is there or not, so I have no obligation to compensate the builder, architect or occupier for something I have no choice in. This is true of any permanent structure in plain sight, hence the law protecting the 'right of panorama'.

If you want to destroy something that is a right in many countries then that's fine, but I personally do not agree that this is fair. However, the implications of the new law are indeed very obscure. There are already many private estates in London which try and prevent use of photographs because of copyright, but currently this is protected if the picture was taken from public land. They can make any restrictions they want about commercial use OF THE LAND for taking pictures, but this is different. You have to be ON the land to be in breach.

Link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 00:08 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Some impressive insults here. Spin this as you like; the idea is that if the person taking the picture manages to make money from it, somebody else wants that money. You see, the folks who own skyscrapers are having trouble making ends meet but you, the photographer, can help.

Just as stock photos create a revenue stream, helping Gates and Getty put food on the table.

@Nixda

Seems you apply 'art' to any copyrighted structure or edifice, in which case anyone holding an iPhone, or reading a book, or driving a car, or sitting in front of a building less than 70 years old, would potentially not be usable on any website that supports advertising.

It is a very shallow argument to say that someone who photographs a building on a paid site is profiting at the expense of the owner or designer of the building, since the building's main source of profit is occupancy rents.

This is very different from copying a unique artwork and selling the copy, when the work is the main source of profit for the artist.

In other words, there is NO DAMAGE OR LOSS to the building's designer from the sale of the photograph.

This would be different if a company logo was affixed to that building which then appeared in an advertisement for a competing product. In that case, the owner of the trademark would have recourse to sue for misuse. Nothing to do with copyright.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2015 at 22:42 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Some impressive insults here. Spin this as you like; the idea is that if the person taking the picture manages to make money from it, somebody else wants that money. You see, the folks who own skyscrapers are having trouble making ends meet but you, the photographer, can help.

Just as stock photos create a revenue stream, helping Gates and Getty put food on the table.

That certainly is the interpretation in most countries, but not all it seems.

Link | Posted on Jul 8, 2015 at 04:08 UTC
In reply to:

Deliverator: Vanitas and nixda, you are replying to every single post expressing concern over these new laws, saying there is nothing to worry about.

Why?

The UK does not charge fees, the copyright holders do. If the law would let them.

But even if they don't I am obligated to seek permission.

Plus, the whole issue of what 'commercial exploitation' includes is wide open to debate. If the image is being used in advertising, then fair enough. If it is part of a documentary about architecture on a website supported by banner ads, is that commercial? More of a grey area.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 22:16 UTC
In reply to:

Vanitas Photo: Again this is for COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY dumbie dumbs, it WON'T apply to tourist, family, personal, selfie stick, etc. photography.

Step 0: Learn to read
Step 1: Don't diagonal or half read, read it completely
Step 2: Interpret what you read
Step 3: THINK what you read
Step 4: RE-THINK what you have just read
Step 5: Draw your conclusions from what is written and not from what you think it is written
Step 6: Avoid writing yourself something dumb because you didn't followed what it was written from step 0 to Step 5...

And those calling this foul from the USA try to take a photo of an US embassy in any part of the world without having a major issue with them... PFFFT

Using a picture commercially would include any website I own which also has advertising. Several million people do the same.

I am not exploiting their copyright because I had no choice but to include what is in public view. That is the right of panorama.

If I sell ANY shot taken anywhere in London, I am potentially going to include thousands of copyrighted structures. In most cases I would not even know.

It is absurd and unworkable.

As is the issue with cars.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 21:55 UTC
In reply to:

AbrasiveReducer: Some impressive insults here. Spin this as you like; the idea is that if the person taking the picture manages to make money from it, somebody else wants that money. You see, the folks who own skyscrapers are having trouble making ends meet but you, the photographer, can help.

Just as stock photos create a revenue stream, helping Gates and Getty put food on the table.

Architects don't work for free.

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 20:48 UTC
In reply to:

Vanitas Photo: Again this is for COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY dumbie dumbs, it WON'T apply to tourist, family, personal, selfie stick, etc. photography.

Step 0: Learn to read
Step 1: Don't diagonal or half read, read it completely
Step 2: Interpret what you read
Step 3: THINK what you read
Step 4: RE-THINK what you have just read
Step 5: Draw your conclusions from what is written and not from what you think it is written
Step 6: Avoid writing yourself something dumb because you didn't followed what it was written from step 0 to Step 5...

And those calling this foul from the USA try to take a photo of an US embassy in any part of the world without having a major issue with them... PFFFT

These works are not being copied. They are in plain sight.

I did not grant the copyright holder the right to spoil my view, so they have no right to demand payment when I take a picture of it.

Besides, a photo of a building is not a copy or facsimile. It is simply an image of a building. It bears no relation to copying written text or images which can substitute for the real thing (a poster of a painting, a photocopy of a book, a recording of a song.

Technically, all car designs are copyright. Do you propose that I have to ask BMW, Ford and Toyota every time I include cars in my images?

Link | Posted on Jul 7, 2015 at 20:45 UTC
In reply to:

Tungsten Nordstein: What is not clear is whether an artist can take a photograph/film of a building and then display and sell such a photograph/film. Would Warhol's film Empire be allowed under such legislation?

In general, I don't think anyone who puts a building or artwork up in full public view (i.e in our living environments) should be able copyright and restrict its image and uses of. Developers should be forced to waiver all such rights on grant of planning permission.

I agree.

Link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 22:19 UTC
Total: 482, showing: 61 – 80
« First‹ Previous23456Next ›Last »