PIX 2015
sh10453

sh10453

Lives in United States Michigan, United States
Works as a Electrical & Computer Engineer
Joined on May 2, 2010
About me:

Been shooting since the days of Adam and Eve!

Comments

Total: 248, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »
In reply to:

CrashMaster: It defeats the object: Performing artists crave publicity and this threatens that. If they were ignored they would soon be begging photographer to take shots. What would be really good would be if no publicity at all were given unless they pay for it. The contracts would be scrapped were quickly.

@ThePhilips,
I hear you, and I fully understand that.

The photographer has the option to say "thanks, but no, thanks" and walk away, or "SELL" the copyrights.

If the band/artist buys the copyrights from a photographer, then the photographer has nothing to complain about, and the artist should be free to use the images in any way they like. That's fair.

Personally, I would not sell them the copyrights unless the price is attractive enough, or if I was in a difficult financial situation without many options.

The other option is to sell the photo gear, go to art school and become a cartoonist :-)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and knowledge.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2015 at 20:31 UTC

Who are the Poo Fighters anyway?
Oops! Foo, I meant to say.

I thought Rock had died after AC-DC, The Who, Sabbath, Ozzy, Zeppelin, ..., etc.

NO ONE is forced to sign the band's contract, or very much any contract. It's that simple.

Just leave them alone. Let their management team photograph them with a smart phone and then see the results!
Maybe then they'll appreciate the presence of a real photographer, and (maybe) then they'd agree that they should pay the photographer some petty-cash money!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2015 at 13:09 UTC as 23rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

CrashMaster: It defeats the object: Performing artists crave publicity and this threatens that. If they were ignored they would soon be begging photographer to take shots. What would be really good would be if no publicity at all were given unless they pay for it. The contracts would be scrapped were quickly.

"... artists can hardly make any (living) money ..."

Pooooooor artists. My heart is bleeding!

I agree 100%. An artist (singers, bands, ...) who is making $50 MILLION a year is hardly making any living money, and, therefore, such artist can't afford to pay a starving photographer a few hundred dollars!!!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 15, 2015 at 12:41 UTC

Great effort, Aram, but the video can be done better.
I prefer to see it taken with a normal lens. The 280 degree lens makes the video look very unnatural to the human eye. I hope you dump the 280 lens next time.
I understand this is not to show video production abilities, so the video shake here and there is OK, but the video still looks and sounds like raw video.
I think it would've been much better if the audio was edited, and a narrative added. The noise from air hitting the mic (or other objects rubbing around it) is always very annoying.
After seeing this video, I am not a fan of 360 degree videos. It's just not for me, especially with this 280 degree type of lens.
It's OK for a 30 sec video to show what it looks like with a 280 deg, but not for a 20-min documentary.
The interactive panoramic images are nice, and the imagery is high quality.

Best of luck in your efforts to bring peace to these twins/neighbors, and I hope that you'll ignore useless, arrogant, ignorant comments!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 14, 2015 at 16:29 UTC as 8th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

sh10453: Articles like this always show us who has, and who has not ever had a formal college-level (university) class in photography.

There are too many who have never had formal education in "CRITIQUE", and all they know is to "criticize", or to be sarcastic.

Classifying an image simply as "rubbish" would have made the old photography professor chase you out of his classroom with a baseball bat!!!

It's fair to critique any image, but it's not polite or helpful to anyone to simply leave ignorant, or sarcastic comments.

Fair "critique" would point out "facts" in the image, such as DOF, hot-spots, spots where dodging or burning is not sufficient, distracting objects, background, composition, color, saturation, contrast, ..., etc.

As good old miss manners would say "if you don't have something "useful" to say, and you can't run with the big dogs, then sit on the sideline or, better yet, stay on your porch".

Now I'll go look at Tony's web page, and I hope to learn something from it.

@OBI656
" those with harsh tongue usually have NO idea what they are talking about in this case no idea how to operate photo-cams ..."

This reminds me of a wealthy acquaintance of mine, back in late 1990s, who bought a top-of-the-line Nikon 35mm film camera and an expensive set of lenses.

We were attending an event at one time, along with others.
He came to may and quietly asked if I knew how load a film in his camera (although I wasn't using a Nikon camera)!!!
He had no idea how or where to load the film.

This is honestly a true story, and I'm sure other readers have encountered a similar situation or two!!!

As for the distracters, I sometimes check to see if they have loaded any "stunning", or "record-breaking" images, but of course they have none!

@alcaher
Agreed.
Humor is fine, but sarcasm is bad (although there are specific occasions/need for it).
Envy, in many ways, is very much like hate, it eats the hater's heart out.
Bottom line is that they really show their IGNORANCE!

Direct link | Posted on Jul 13, 2015 at 01:04 UTC
In reply to:

sh10453: Articles like this always show us who has, and who has not ever had a formal college-level (university) class in photography.

There are too many who have never had formal education in "CRITIQUE", and all they know is to "criticize", or to be sarcastic.

Classifying an image simply as "rubbish" would have made the old photography professor chase you out of his classroom with a baseball bat!!!

It's fair to critique any image, but it's not polite or helpful to anyone to simply leave ignorant, or sarcastic comments.

Fair "critique" would point out "facts" in the image, such as DOF, hot-spots, spots where dodging or burning is not sufficient, distracting objects, background, composition, color, saturation, contrast, ..., etc.

As good old miss manners would say "if you don't have something "useful" to say, and you can't run with the big dogs, then sit on the sideline or, better yet, stay on your porch".

Now I'll go look at Tony's web page, and I hope to learn something from it.

@OBI656,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I liked the other image he has on the site (the fireworks).
It's an unusual view of the fireworks, where the fireworks look like they were exploding on the ground, or just above it.
This is of course due to taking the picture(s) from his 20th story apartment balcony!
As for this image, I think it's a mix between documentary and art, and, perhaps, can be categorized as journalism/reporting.
I respect Tony's courage to share it, and to put his reputation on the line.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2015 at 18:50 UTC

Articles like this always show us who has, and who has not ever had a formal college-level (university) class in photography.

There are too many who have never had formal education in "CRITIQUE", and all they know is to "criticize", or to be sarcastic.

Classifying an image simply as "rubbish" would have made the old photography professor chase you out of his classroom with a baseball bat!!!

It's fair to critique any image, but it's not polite or helpful to anyone to simply leave ignorant, or sarcastic comments.

Fair "critique" would point out "facts" in the image, such as DOF, hot-spots, spots where dodging or burning is not sufficient, distracting objects, background, composition, color, saturation, contrast, ..., etc.

As good old miss manners would say "if you don't have something "useful" to say, and you can't run with the big dogs, then sit on the sideline or, better yet, stay on your porch".

Now I'll go look at Tony's web page, and I hope to learn something from it.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 12, 2015 at 12:03 UTC as 45th comment | 5 replies

For decades, statisticians manipulated data (without altering it) to skew or shift public opinion one way or the other.
I don't imply that it is the case in DXO's data, but I don't know how these tests were made.
I couldn't see a description on DXO's site, and, therefore, such data is not very useful to me. It's "OK", and I take it with a large grain of salt.
We don't know the role that the different lenses played in the results, for example.
I think they owe the readers and the manufacturers a complete description of the test procedure, and, especially, the photographic equipment used.

One big advantage of this test is that it keeps the pressure on Canon so they can "keep up with the Joneses", or even do better.

Looking at the 5DS/R, 6D, 5D-III, I do not see any justification to pay nearly $4,000 for a camera that may not give me much more than a $1,300 one (6D).

I wonder if the DR tables would be turned if Canon was using a 16-bit ADC in the 5DS/R cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 11, 2015 at 15:22 UTC as 31st comment | 6 replies

High-speed video can be interesting. Also, it allows for slow motion viewing without having to use software to convert, etc.
In addition, it allows for seeing things that may not be possible to see in normal speed videos.

I have taken high speed videos of hummingbirds with a Panasonic FZ200 at 120 and 240 frames/sec, although it's not capable of 4K video, but I think the results are not bad for personal viewing.

Here is one video taken at 240 frames/sec. No need to register. Just click the X on the popup box/window that invites you to register.

Notice how the little bird continuously uses his tail to maintain balance!
I hope you find it interesting.
Tech info: i+ setting at max + zoom (1200mm equiv) plus a Canon 1.4X video teleconverter for a total of 1680mm.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fd9nfn86xbzz8iu/P1020934_Trimmed.mp4?dl=0

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2015 at 18:11 UTC as 4th comment
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1085 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: With such a high pixel content / sensor resolution (not just for Sony), and to provide an even better DR, I think the times has arrived for higher resolution A/D converters.

I wouldn't be surprised to start seeing them introduced pretty soon, and then the race might shift, from just pixels and sensor size, to include the number of bits of the ADC, which would be a welcome shift.

I agree on we should make no "big deal out of this", but in Analog to digital converters, resolution is commonly used.
In fact, for an IDEAL A to D converter, the effective number of bits (ENOB) is equal to the resolution, and of course there are no ideal components out there.
Sampling rate and resolution are two different things, and unrelated to each other.
A complicated subject, and I'm sure it can't be (and probably shouldn't be) discussed here further.
Thank you for your input.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 20:22 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1085 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: With such a high pixel content / sensor resolution (not just for Sony), and to provide an even better DR, I think the times has arrived for higher resolution A/D converters.

I wouldn't be surprised to start seeing them introduced pretty soon, and then the race might shift, from just pixels and sensor size, to include the number of bits of the ADC, which would be a welcome shift.

I believe that "resolution" is commonly used to define the number of the ADC's quantization levels (in its output) of the signal being sampled.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 15:36 UTC
On Canon warns about dangers of counterfeit camera gear article (153 comments in total)

If the OEM accessories prices were anything "near" reasonable, there would be no need to gamble by buying from 3rd parties or knock-offs!

A Canon or a Nikon flash unit for $500 to $600 is not anything near reasonable, especially for the thousands of enthusiast who do not make a living out of photography.
An equivalent unit, or even better than the OEM's, selling for a little over $100 becomes a very attractive deal.

Buying on eBay can be safe if the buyer checks the listing and the feedback of the seller very carefully. A seller with a 99% or higher positive feedback is normally my choice of sellers, but also look at their history, especially regarding the item you are buying (if they are quantity sellers).

eBay guarantees the purchase price plus shipping if you prove that the item is not as described.
I rarely ever have an issue with my eBay purchases, even from "most" Hong Kong and Chinese sellers.
Avoid buying items without full description / disclosure in the posting.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 4, 2015 at 14:14 UTC as 15th comment
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1085 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: With such a high pixel content / sensor resolution (not just for Sony), and to provide an even better DR, I think the times has arrived for higher resolution A/D converters.

I wouldn't be surprised to start seeing them introduced pretty soon, and then the race might shift, from just pixels and sensor size, to include the number of bits of the ADC, which would be a welcome shift.

Thanks again Rishi.
The ADC is a complex subject, and I'll avoid getting into its complexity, but the move from a 14-bit ADC to a 16-bit, for example, makes a HUGE jump in the unique data representative points (from 16,384 to 65,536)!
A 12-bit ADC has only 4096 unique data representation points, by comparison.
Of course the overall system complexity will increase as you implement a larger ADC.
ADC's have their own inherent errors/inaccuracies, and the overall system's accuracy is very much dependent on the accuracy and resolution of the ADC (cannot be better).

I have no doubt that Sony's electrical engineers understand ADC's, and have far more expertise in this area, than I do.

I understand that there are various limitations on the size of the ADC, and engineers will always have to make compromises in order to meet the overall requirements by the various components of the system; the microprocessor requirements would be one simple example.
Looking forward to see your next article.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 16:23 UTC

Although I do not own any Fuji cameras, I admire their dedication to firmware updates.
I wish Panasonic would learn a lesson from Fuji, and start updating their Firmware, not to upgrade but just to fix common problems that are not unique to one camera model.

Hats off, Fujifilm!!!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 16:03 UTC as 11th comment
In reply to:

Joesiv: Doesn't the moon rotate around the earth? seems like a strange heading for the story. Perhaps, "p900 shows the moon moving across the sky..." Would be more accurate, and probably less exciting (to match the video)

@Joesiv
The earth moves fast in its rotation at 465.1 meters/sec (or about 1040 miles/hour).
I understand it's hard to imagine that we are rotating at the speed of more than 1000 miles per hour!!!

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 15:51 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G3 X gets official introduction article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: Been a Canon guy since the A1, late 70s, have since purchased at least 2 dozen Canon pro cameras, including FF DSLR's.
I am ready to say goodbye Canon, & hello Sony.
No native VF is a deal breaker for me.
I can't follow a fast bird at 600mm looking at a screen on a bright sunny day!
$250 for the VF?
1 f/s RAW?
3 f/s?
It's a shame that Canon is sleeping.
A crippled camera with a large sensor is very limiting, although it's fine for those who will use it indoors for portraits)!
For a smaller, pocket size one, I opt for the Panasonic DMC-LF1. I love the view finder on this tiny camera, and it has Wi-Fi, NFC, etc. as well, at the price of the Canon VF.
For a 25-600mm, I'll opt for the Pana FZ200, f/2.8 all the way to 600mm Leica lens, and 12 f/s, although at a much smaller sensor.

Here is a recent sample photo using the LF1, reduced in size and resolution for the web (from a few days ago; notice the caption):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sharp_images/18691435299/in/dateposted-public/

Thanks Pat.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 30, 2015 at 03:16 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1085 comments in total)

With such a high pixel content / sensor resolution (not just for Sony), and to provide an even better DR, I think the times has arrived for higher resolution A/D converters.

I wouldn't be surprised to start seeing them introduced pretty soon, and then the race might shift, from just pixels and sensor size, to include the number of bits of the ADC, which would be a welcome shift.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 14:36 UTC as 21st comment | 8 replies
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1085 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: Great DOF and clarity in the first image. Looking at the full size image, on a 24 inch Samsung monitor, I see the fine detail on the inside of the first tulip (bottom-left). Yet, everything else is clear, even the far away hills.

I didn't look at the 2nd image, I'm too shy :)

I'm wondering what specific lens was used here. I must have missed it in the article.

A wonderful camera if it wasn't for $3,200, for just the body.
Will wait for the 7R III, then the 7R II would be selling on eBay for a fraction of the original price. :)

Thanks Rishi.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 14:22 UTC
On Canon PowerShot G3 X gets official introduction article (228 comments in total)
In reply to:

sh10453: Been a Canon guy since the A1, late 70s, have since purchased at least 2 dozen Canon pro cameras, including FF DSLR's.
I am ready to say goodbye Canon, & hello Sony.
No native VF is a deal breaker for me.
I can't follow a fast bird at 600mm looking at a screen on a bright sunny day!
$250 for the VF?
1 f/s RAW?
3 f/s?
It's a shame that Canon is sleeping.
A crippled camera with a large sensor is very limiting, although it's fine for those who will use it indoors for portraits)!
For a smaller, pocket size one, I opt for the Panasonic DMC-LF1. I love the view finder on this tiny camera, and it has Wi-Fi, NFC, etc. as well, at the price of the Canon VF.
For a 25-600mm, I'll opt for the Pana FZ200, f/2.8 all the way to 600mm Leica lens, and 12 f/s, although at a much smaller sensor.

Here is a recent sample photo using the LF1, reduced in size and resolution for the web (from a few days ago; notice the caption):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/sharp_images/18691435299/in/dateposted-public/

@ Pat Cullinan Jr,
So far I have no complaint about the FZ200 at 600mm, and I have had 2 FZ200 for over 2 years, with frequent use of the 600mm setting (or 1200mm equiv in "iA+" mode).

I also use it with a Canon video telephoto converter lens attached to it (1.4 X) to give me 840mm.
I have shot video with this setup at regular and at 120 frames/sec, and at 240 frames/sec of hummingbirds, at the full zoom of 840mm, and the equiv 1680mm in iA+ mode.
The videos have been extremely well received, and watching a hummingbird in slow motion is an awesome experience.

My biggest issue with both cameras, the FZ200, and the LF1, is that they occasionally produce multiple horizontal lines (in different colors) in the RAW images, which makes the image unusable. This happens more often in burst/high-speed mode.
Interestingly enough, if I shoot in RAW+jpg, the jpg comes out without these lines!!
Panasonic is keeping silent about it instead of issuing a firmware update to fix this problem.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 11:04 UTC
On Opinion: Did Sony just do the impossible? article (1085 comments in total)

Great DOF and clarity in the first image. Looking at the full size image, on a 24 inch Samsung monitor, I see the fine detail on the inside of the first tulip (bottom-left). Yet, everything else is clear, even the far away hills.

I didn't look at the 2nd image, I'm too shy :)

I'm wondering what specific lens was used here. I must have missed it in the article.

A wonderful camera if it wasn't for $3,200, for just the body.
Will wait for the 7R III, then the 7R II would be selling on eBay for a fraction of the original price. :)

Direct link | Posted on Jun 29, 2015 at 01:52 UTC as 26th comment | 2 replies
Total: 248, showing: 81 – 100
« First‹ Previous34567Next ›Last »