Wye Photography

Wye Photography

Lives in United Kingdom Chepstow, United Kingdom
Works as a Photographer Designer
Has a website at www.wyephotography.com
Joined on Feb 16, 2009

Comments

Total: 305, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On Opinion: Do we really need the Fuji X30? article (257 comments in total)
In reply to:

Aroart: My fuji x20 got me laid more than my sony rx100 or canon 70 d...nuff said...

Laid by what tho?

If the X20 got you laid, does this mean that without the X20 you don't get laid?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 27, 2014 at 11:04 UTC

If an animal makes an exposure using a photographer's gear they (the animal) should be classed as "photographer by proxy" i.e. they make the exposure on the behalf of the photographer.

I think that would solve all future issues.

IF the current judgement stands and is adopted by others countries then in future similar cases where an animal makes an exposure or triggers an exposure the photographer will simply lie and say "I made the exposure" and that will end the matter.

(tongue-in-cheek) I suspect that in this case the photographer actually did make the exposure but said the monkey did it for the publicity.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2014 at 07:23 UTC as 6th comment
In reply to:

stawarz: So will this set a precedent whereby if an animal takes a picture of itself the photographer who's equipment took the image no longer assumes copyright? Now what happens to all the other wildlife pictures whereby they were triggered by the animal tripping a remote release and not by the photographer, have they in fact taken a selfie?

Only in some US states, the rest of the world may have a different view.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 26, 2014 at 07:08 UTC
In reply to:

sixtiesphotographer: That is one handsome monkey with a great smile.

If I looked like that, I'd've been married by now.

:-(

Direct link | Posted on Aug 23, 2014 at 06:43 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: Now that the matter is settled, shouldn't we be paying bananas to that monkey for royalties?

Marty4650

You obviously missed this paragraph from the your own link which throws doubt on the judgement...

"In the internet age, publication online may be considered publication in every sufficiently internet-connected jurisdiction in the world. It is not clear what this may mean for determining "country of origin". In Kernel v. Mosley, a U.S. court "concluded that a work created outside of the United States, uploaded in Australia and owned by a company registered in Finland was nonetheless a U.S. work by virtue of its being published online". However other U.S. courts in similar situations have reached different conclusions, e.g. Håkan Moberg v. 33T LLC.[4] The matter of determining the country of origin for digital publication remains a topic of controversy among law academics as well"

The convention goes on to mention the country origin (which ISNT the bl00dy US), so US law (as quoted at the outset of the article just shouldn't apply. I agree with Stu above. Not settled yet!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 17:47 UTC
In reply to:

Langusta: “What do you call 500 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?”

Whale 5h!t

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 17:38 UTC
In reply to:

straylightrun: Breaking news just in: It has now been confirmed that If your photo is captured using the camera's self timer, it is legally not your photo any more but is the property of your camera.

ONLY in the US. The rest of the world is NOT subject to US law. Judges in the other 192 countries may judge differently - what then!

Should the US dictate to the rest of the world? No wonder people are P!55ed at them!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 09:49 UTC
In reply to:

Marty4650: Now that the matter is settled, shouldn't we be paying bananas to that monkey for royalties?

The matter may be settled in the US (for now). As the world doesn't do obeisance to, and isn't under US law, I wonder what a copyright ruling would be in the UK.

I don't see why a ruling in the US has worldwide effect. The company in question may be US based, the ruling should apply only to the US. If a judge in one of the other 192 countries of the world deems the copyright to be the holder of the photographer - What then!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 09:46 UTC
On Nikon D810: A sport photographer's impressions article (231 comments in total)
In reply to:

ysengrain: Do you think useful to get those snaps by using a very-nec plus ultra-the most high tech possible to show this kind of photos ?

Pardon!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 13, 2014 at 07:38 UTC
In reply to:

KAR-I: Keep using film !

I'm with you there KAR-I

I shoot film and digital. I enjoy both for different reasons. I get more satisfaction from film. Better colour, better feel, huge dynamic range, perfect skin tones. I process my own films BW as well as colour. I find it complementary and cathartic shooting both mediums.

I'm NOT into this immature and selfish film OR digital, or one is better than the other argument.

Shoot both!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2014 at 17:24 UTC
On Readers' Showcase: Nature and Wildlife article (28 comments in total)

Some really great photos. I like number 3 and 4 the best.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2014 at 09:46 UTC as 9th comment
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Inception, Dark Knight to name but two film shot on film.

Paraphrasing the words of the directors themselves (taken from various sites and interviews).

1) The quality of film is better than digital.
2) Depending on the film used the resolution is better.
3) They prefer the look and feel.
4) The dynamic range is much better than digital, especially the highlights.
5) When you digitise it you still, apparently, capture a lot of the quality, look, feel and DR.

It cost more, the production is longer, the gear larger, but some top directors and producers think it is well worth it.

These are their words not mine. I don't shoot movies and decided to do some research after reading some comments from people who are obviously nobs and know-it-all better than top directors.

I wasn't really aware film is still used to make films. I found my own research very educational and surprising.

And yes, I have nothing better to do on a Friday afternoon!

@Bill T.

Thanks for the link.

Very impressive portfolio. Some of those are my fave films.

Though personally, I prefer film for my own "work" but shoot loads of digital. I find film and digital are analogous to oil and watercolour. Neither one is better and both have there own character and feel with a degree of cross over. I was using my father-in-laws EOS D70 over the weekend. Ugh! That is horrid. Horrid RAW files, horrid colour, horrid!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2014 at 09:44 UTC
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Inception, Dark Knight to name but two film shot on film.

Paraphrasing the words of the directors themselves (taken from various sites and interviews).

1) The quality of film is better than digital.
2) Depending on the film used the resolution is better.
3) They prefer the look and feel.
4) The dynamic range is much better than digital, especially the highlights.
5) When you digitise it you still, apparently, capture a lot of the quality, look, feel and DR.

It cost more, the production is longer, the gear larger, but some top directors and producers think it is well worth it.

These are their words not mine. I don't shoot movies and decided to do some research after reading some comments from people who are obviously nobs and know-it-all better than top directors.

I wasn't really aware film is still used to make films. I found my own research very educational and surprising.

And yes, I have nothing better to do on a Friday afternoon!

@JamieTux

I hope you had a good weekend and it wasn't as hectic as mine!

Incidentely, how much would you Father want for it?

I do have a Fujifilm S5 Pro - still impressed by the DR. Great camera, I don't need more and that says it all I think. lol.

Although I use a Mac obtaining a PC that runs XP and has SCSI should be easy and as cheap as chips. Or I can use a VM on my Mac with a USB/SCSI converter. Da da! Sorted!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2014 at 09:31 UTC
On Photographing Thailand with the Nokia Lumia 1020 article (155 comments in total)

...has inspired me to get out my box brownie.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 4, 2014 at 09:23 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Inception, Dark Knight to name but two film shot on film.

Paraphrasing the words of the directors themselves (taken from various sites and interviews).

1) The quality of film is better than digital.
2) Depending on the film used the resolution is better.
3) They prefer the look and feel.
4) The dynamic range is much better than digital, especially the highlights.
5) When you digitise it you still, apparently, capture a lot of the quality, look, feel and DR.

It cost more, the production is longer, the gear larger, but some top directors and producers think it is well worth it.

These are their words not mine. I don't shoot movies and decided to do some research after reading some comments from people who are obviously nobs and know-it-all better than top directors.

I wasn't really aware film is still used to make films. I found my own research very educational and surprising.

And yes, I have nothing better to do on a Friday afternoon!

Hi JamieTux,

We are observing the same thing and calling it different names. I don't call is compression because when you compress tones you get a low contrast flat result. I don't observe this when I scan my film.

I know its a very personal thing but I don't simulate analogue. I don't like it. It's faux. I prefer to use the real thing. When I go mountaineering I always carry a film AND digital camera. Both of which are top notch (I put that in there to prevent digital fanboys saying the usual cliched rubbish). I am relatively new to negative film shooting and, for me, find the results better than any digital sim, especially in those critical highlights. I would love to try your LR recipes.

A friend of mine raves about Ektar, but I find it too saturated for what I do and like (not that that's any good).

I mostly shoot medium format, a little 35mm and half frame (and lots of digital)

I would love to have unlimited access to that scanner. Can I borrow it?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 2, 2014 at 13:45 UTC
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Inception, Dark Knight to name but two film shot on film.

Paraphrasing the words of the directors themselves (taken from various sites and interviews).

1) The quality of film is better than digital.
2) Depending on the film used the resolution is better.
3) They prefer the look and feel.
4) The dynamic range is much better than digital, especially the highlights.
5) When you digitise it you still, apparently, capture a lot of the quality, look, feel and DR.

It cost more, the production is longer, the gear larger, but some top directors and producers think it is well worth it.

These are their words not mine. I don't shoot movies and decided to do some research after reading some comments from people who are obviously nobs and know-it-all better than top directors.

I wasn't really aware film is still used to make films. I found my own research very educational and surprising.

And yes, I have nothing better to do on a Friday afternoon!

@ Bill T,

I take of my metaphorical hat. Impressed.

Academy awards for what as a matter of interest?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 19:54 UTC
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Inception, Dark Knight to name but two film shot on film.

Paraphrasing the words of the directors themselves (taken from various sites and interviews).

1) The quality of film is better than digital.
2) Depending on the film used the resolution is better.
3) They prefer the look and feel.
4) The dynamic range is much better than digital, especially the highlights.
5) When you digitise it you still, apparently, capture a lot of the quality, look, feel and DR.

It cost more, the production is longer, the gear larger, but some top directors and producers think it is well worth it.

These are their words not mine. I don't shoot movies and decided to do some research after reading some comments from people who are obviously nobs and know-it-all better than top directors.

I wasn't really aware film is still used to make films. I found my own research very educational and surprising.

And yes, I have nothing better to do on a Friday afternoon!

@JamieTux,

"film compresses the dynamic range". How do you know? Do you shoot and scan film? Can't really say that is my experience. I have recently started to shoot, process and scan 35mm and MF colour negative film (in addition to shooting BW film for a decade and digital for longer than that) and even with my modest Epson v700 the amount of highlight detail captured is just incredible. It's just all there in a basic scan. I wouldn't call it "compressed" the scans are perfect. When I intentional pull in the highlights further (compress them) I can recover just obscene amounts.

What started out as a "I would like to play about with colour neg development" has started to end up as a more serious project just because of how amazing Kodak Portra 400 is.

Even just shooting and developing a few rolls I know that if I get the exposure about right, I just do not have to worry about those highlights. It's all captured in one frame.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 19:07 UTC
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Inception, Dark Knight to name but two film shot on film.

Paraphrasing the words of the directors themselves (taken from various sites and interviews).

1) The quality of film is better than digital.
2) Depending on the film used the resolution is better.
3) They prefer the look and feel.
4) The dynamic range is much better than digital, especially the highlights.
5) When you digitise it you still, apparently, capture a lot of the quality, look, feel and DR.

It cost more, the production is longer, the gear larger, but some top directors and producers think it is well worth it.

These are their words not mine. I don't shoot movies and decided to do some research after reading some comments from people who are obviously nobs and know-it-all better than top directors.

I wasn't really aware film is still used to make films. I found my own research very educational and surprising.

And yes, I have nothing better to do on a Friday afternoon!

Hey Bill T. you in the film industry then? You obviously know more than the people who are! Better tell them that then!

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 18:54 UTC
In reply to:

jkokich: I love film. I love Kodak. Anyone who says film can be the same cost as digital is simply wrong. You have to buy film, which cannot be reused. You have to process film. You cannot watch film that you have just shot; it has to be processed. Sure, you can watch a video backup, but then why use film in the first place?

@jkolich

Yes you are right shooting movies with film has a higher cost, production is longer and the gear needed is large and quite noisy...

BUT, certain top directors and producers think its worth the cost because THEY (not me) think the resolution is better, the colour and feel is better and the dynamic range (especially in the highlights) is much better.

They consider it worth the extra cost.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 17:53 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1489 comments in total)
In reply to:

Wye Photography: Here I am processing some pix just taken on my 5mp Olympus E1 thinking to myself "I must get out of the Jurassic". But then again more than 5mp is wasted on me and I do love my E1. I would also love to have a go on this machine.

@HowaboutRAW

E1 RAW files at ISO800 when treated a little in Lightroom are OK. I have actually photographed a few pets at ISO800, printed at A3 and the client was very happy. Not clean for sure, just OK. I rarely shoot above 400 even with my modern Digital and that one does ISO12800 pretty good. ISO400 on the E1 is pretty nice.

And that Kodak sensor has a very nice colour output that I just really like. Have a laugh at these here www.themountainphotographer.co.uk most of them are E1. Sorry friend, your link didn't work.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 1, 2014 at 15:41 UTC
Total: 305, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »