Scottelly

Scottelly

Lives in United States United States
Works as a Photographer, videographer, photo/video editor
Has a website at http://ffphotos.zenfolio.com
Joined on Aug 26, 2011
About me:

Shooting photos for about 30 years (with a little hiatus in my twenties), I am an "aspiring" art photographer with a little experience shooting products, portraits, fashion, weddings, glamor, landscapes and various other stuff.

Comments

Total: 548, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Accessory Review: Drobo Mini RAID article (149 comments in total)

I figure a RAID is a working drive. With a fast external link, like Thunderbolt, that would be perfect. I wish someone would make a SD card RAID with like 6 UHS-1 SD card slots. Imagine that? 32 GB cards are dirt cheap now. You could get 6 of those for like $100 and you'd have a decent size, really fast raid . . . and then in a couple of years you could get 6 128 GB cards for like $10 each, quadrupling the capacity of the thing for like $60. Then a couple of years later you could get some 256 GB cards . . . and so on. I figure Thunderbolt ports will be around for a while, and a Thunderbolt RAID would work with a Thunderbolt 2 port, so the computers of the future will work with the thing just fine.

What would be even better is if the RAID could take UHS-2 cards!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 16, 2014 at 14:56 UTC as 24th comment
On Sigma stabilizes 50-500mm ultra-telezoom article (5 comments in total)
In reply to:

Scottelly: I've been told by someone pretty reliable that this 50-500mm OS lens is sharper than the cheaper 150-500mm OS lens. Can anyone who knows, because you have experience with both of these lenses, please confirm or deny this?

Here is some evidence that supports the claim that the more expensive 50-500mm OS is sharper than the cheaper 150-500mm OS lens:

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=683&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=2&LensComp=939&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=7&APIComp=3

Direct link | Posted on Aug 16, 2014 at 09:46 UTC
On Sigma stabilizes 50-500mm ultra-telezoom article (5 comments in total)

Here's a photo of this beast, with the hood on and zoomed all the way "in" to its longest focal length of 500mm:

http://www.digital-photography-school.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/PeterWestCarey-CameraAwesomePhoto1.jpg

Direct link | Posted on Aug 16, 2014 at 09:33 UTC as 1st comment
On Sigma stabilizes 50-500mm ultra-telezoom article (5 comments in total)

I've been told by someone pretty reliable that this 50-500mm OS lens is sharper than the cheaper 150-500mm OS lens. Can anyone who knows, because you have experience with both of these lenses, please confirm or deny this?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 16, 2014 at 09:30 UTC as 2nd comment | 1 reply
On Apple expands OS X Mavericks Raw compatibility article (86 comments in total)

Too bad Apple can't figure out how to provide raw camera support for the amazing new Sigma Quattro cameras OR the old Sigma Merrill cameras. Quality imaging USED TO BE what Apple was all about.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 23:06 UTC as 2nd comment | 2 replies
In reply to:

Scottelly: I think that monkey is cute. I don't care about the legal stuff. The photographer should know that this photo is more famous now, and Wikimedia's use of it is good for him. He can now sell prints, because he has the originals in high resolution. He's MUCH better off, now that Wikimedia refused to take the photo down.

If a model picks up my camera and starts shooting photos with it, do I own the work? What if she sticks her own memory card into the camera, shoots a bunch of photos with the camera, switches out the memory card, and later sells the photos she shot?

The thing is this whole situation is a grey area. If I didn't go with the model to the photo shoot, my camera would not have been there. That means I am partly responsible for the photos, right? What if I was paying the model to be there at the time? Some would argue that she was being paid for her modeling services and not for her time, and therefore anything she did that was not modeling was not covered. What If I paid to fly the model to some exotic place, which is the only reason the model was able to capture the marketable photos? See how it is a quagmire of grey areas?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 16:06 UTC

There are a lot of sites using the photos. Here is just one, which includes a good explanation of the way they see the legal use situation:

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110712/01182015052/monkeys-dont-do-fair-use-news-agency-tells-techdirt-to-remove-photos.shtml

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 16:01 UTC as 285th comment | 4 replies

I think that monkey is cute. I don't care about the legal stuff. The photographer should know that this photo is more famous now, and Wikimedia's use of it is good for him. He can now sell prints, because he has the originals in high resolution. He's MUCH better off, now that Wikimedia refused to take the photo down.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 15:54 UTC as 289th comment | 6 replies
On SDIM0322 photo in dannybgoode's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Wow! What a weird rock! Cool, interesting photo.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2014 at 21:09 UTC as 1st comment
On ISO160-SAM_0494 photo in dpreview review samples's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

Until Samsung makes a wider variety of better lenses (with wider apertures, like f1.2), I think this product line is just something to watch, rather than something to buy. Certainly the OIS of this prime lens is a nice feature, but it seems to me that the image quality from the 16 MP Nikon AW-120 waterproof camera is about as good as the image quality from this camera, and that Nikon has a 5x zoom lens, covering all the focal lengths this camera covers. This is a pretty sad offering . . . and not really an inexpensive alternative to the Nikon 1 system. I think the Nikon 18.5mm f1.8 on a J3 or J4 might have this lens beat. Of course, Samsung is known for doing a great job of competing, and over the next year we could see a slew of new 1" lenses and cameras from them.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 17:35 UTC as 1st comment
On HeyBuddy photo in Scottelly's photo gallery (1 comment in total)

I swear I didn't set this up. This is as I found it. The opossum was climbing over a safety barrier fence that surrounds a pool at my friend's step dad's house in the Florida Keys, and I happened to have my camera handy.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2014 at 02:32 UTC as 1st comment
In reply to:

electrophoto: Oh poor lad, poor poor Boorman....
All that publicity must really hurt your business badly.
I'm so sorry for your grieve.

Yes, we should all be crying for Boorman.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 18:45 UTC
In reply to:

marc petzold: In today's times, it's sad, but true....it's all about copycats...i've found one of my works onto a iphone wallpaper website, about 2 years ago and felt really angry.

Damn copycats. I can't believe how many people are out there doing the same thing Ansel Adams did . . . making photos of landscapes! The GALL!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 18:44 UTC
In reply to:

completelyrandomstuff: Photographer hits 1 on reddit, regrets it due to overexposure -> Dpreview increases exposure.

lol

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 18:43 UTC
In reply to:

Artpt: To All,

So is there a website that does not allow image saving or copying? Could a flash based site be more secure?

With sincere interest and kind regards,

Art

Yes, there are sites where you can display your work, and it uses Flash to disable people's ability to easily copy the images. You can have your logo placed over the image too, so that when people order a print the logo will not be there, but when they view it on the computer your logo will be on the image. You can make the logo large or semi-transparent, and you can even have other stuff over the image, like a message that it is protected by your "watermark" on-line, so that people do not steal your images electronically.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 18:41 UTC
In reply to:

munro harrap: websites claim to respect copyright, but they do not. Microsoft and Apple cannot be prevented from searching your hard drives for images- they after all, know best how to, and Google, Facebook, in fact just about everybody is able to take whatever you put out there without payment and sell it as theirs, EASILY.

This is why you will not find my stuff online anymore and why I left Facebook .

Where is your stuff now? Are you a famous photographer? I so, your stuff IS on-line now. If you're not, where are your photos? In a few people's homes? On gallery walls? In a cabinet, collecting dust?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 18:38 UTC
In reply to:

Steve Bingham: I had one of my low rez photos stolen from photo.net years ago - 0ver 100 times and counting. Best I can tell it has had over 2.5 million views that I KNOW of. To date I haven't made a nickel from the picture. It is what it is. I took it down. Even now it is on 64 other sites! No credit of course.

With the internet being world wide and the proliferation of smart phones, no image is safe. Copyright protection means nothing.

So do you only print your photos now? Can people only see your photos in books and on gallery walls now? I guess what it comes down to is what you want to do with your work. Do you want your work to be seen around the World? Do you want to give of yourself to the World? If so, then post your photos on the Internet.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 18:36 UTC
In reply to:

artwine: Lesson 1 - which should be obvious by now - is that if you post anything on the Internet, anywhere, then it's now in the public domain. You have relinguished your rights to it, in essence. If you don't like it, don't post! There's a price to pay for "advertising".

neo_nights . . . if you leave your car parked on the street all night down-town, with the windows down and the keys in the ignition, what are the chances it will be there in the morning?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 18:33 UTC
In reply to:

AlexBakerPhotoz: I totally gave up on stock photography sales and any commercial photography and now only do Fine Art work, my true love anyway. I do maintain a website and enjoy having it as a portfolio but know full well that internet sales are a pipe dream. Steal my work at alexbakerphotoz.com

Beautiful work Axel.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 18:30 UTC
In reply to:

Vlad S: The only consolation is that none of the people who stole his work would have paid anyway. So it's not like he lost sales... But yeah, as a reflection of morals in general the story is really disheartening.

He got fame from it. Does it matter? Sure. Is it o.k. that people steal photos, poetry, prose, or whatever intellectual property on the Internet? No. Of course not . . . but when a photographer complains that there is a down side to fame . . . s/he's doing better than most photographers, right? What a shame that Kris couldn't see what a good thing having to deal with a bunch of spam really is. Just like movie stars who get sick of paparazzi, Kris is now seeing what it's like to be famous on Reddit. Good for him. I just think it's a shame that he's complaining about the down side of that fame.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 26, 2014 at 18:27 UTC
Total: 548, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »