Dan4321

Dan4321

Lives in United States United States
Joined on Oct 18, 2009

Comments

Total: 41, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »

Actually if you study quantum physics or causality, sometimes just observing something can change it. And sometimes the simple act of knowing one thing makes it impossible to know another. You don't need to be actively involved to bring about change, and sometimes even, being actively involved only makes things worse, not better.

Also don't forget to check out the charities you give money to on foundationcenter, guidestar, etc. to make sure they are good stewards of your money.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2013 at 20:10 UTC as 15th comment
On Hasselblad Lunar interchangeable lens camera now shipping news story (371 comments in total)

The free market is the ultimate test of a product, let's see how long this laughable product survives the test.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 10, 2013 at 20:59 UTC as 174th comment

Evolve or perish.

Direct link | Posted on May 30, 2013 at 21:02 UTC as 80th comment | 3 replies
On Photographer turns camera on teenage 'freighthoppers' news story (189 comments in total)

I don't get it, most of the photos aren't that great, the editing wasn't tight nor did the set really keep my attention. There's a lot better sets than this. The four shown above are really the best, most of the others just seemed like they were thrown in there.

Train-hopping isn't the safest activity and not really for the faint of heart. If he's trying to show the gritty side of it, should also show the people who have lost limbs or suffered other injuries from it, as well as the graves or loved ones of those who perished while attempting it.

Direct link | Posted on May 6, 2013 at 17:38 UTC as 11th comment

Thanks I liked this article, it was a good read.

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2013 at 17:44 UTC as 16th comment

What is more likely is a scheme to prevent the resale or used sales of lenses. Or a subscription system to bring in additional revenue after the sale of a lens (in exchange for continued use). At the end of the day, companies really only care about the 'bottom line' or another way to make money.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 16, 2013 at 20:59 UTC as 13th comment | 1 reply
On US Judge rules for Eggleston in dispute with collector news story (300 comments in total)
In reply to:

graybalanced: Limited editions don't mean much in a digital world, and there are plenty of blurry lines. Is it still the same edition if you change the size or type of output?

Even worse is leaning on "scarcity" as value in art. That's fine if it's historical, but scarcity on its own is a stupid reason for a collector to base most of the value of a digital piece. Hey, I will print only one copy of this digital photo here, therefore it must be worth four million dollars.

No, let's assign value on the inherent creative value and meaning of the work, not on a scarcity that is implemented in such a plainly artificial way. That's just lying.

Yeah it is the demand that creates value, not supply (scarcity = limited supply). If it's something no one else wants, it doesn't matter how scarce it is, it's not going to be worth a lot because of that.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 00:31 UTC
On US Judge rules for Eggleston in dispute with collector news story (300 comments in total)

The whole collector mentality is very odd to me, have never really understood it. They are just things to me. Often times collectors have a different sense of what something is worth as compared to the money they could actually get for it in the near term. The only way this would be illegal is if the photographer had made the promise, publicly or in writing as a contract, that no prints of that photo would ever be made again. If the collector assumed something that he shouldn't have, that is his fault and not the fault of the photographer.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 00:29 UTC as 91st comment

It's the free market. If you don't like it, you don't have to buy their product. I can find reasons to not buy any given company's products but at the end of the day, I am probably just going to ignore them and buy the one that best fits my needs anyways. Some people are more into moralism than I am, but that is their choice and right.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 4, 2013 at 00:23 UTC as 103rd comment
On Canon EOS 100D/Rebel SL1 Hands-on Preview preview (355 comments in total)

Likely they will sell far more of these than any kind of EOS-M camera.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 21, 2013 at 05:50 UTC as 138th comment
On Just posted: Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM lens review news story (161 comments in total)

No people?

Please, could you post some photos of actual people taken with this lens in the samples?

Statues don't count, I want to see how the lens handles delicate skin tones, eyes, lashes, etc. Close-up portraits, full-body shots, groups shots, environmental, studio, etc. It's important for a lot of us but it seems like a lot of the time, review samples posted by you guys have only a few people shots -- or none at all. Please don't neglect people photographers.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 6, 2013 at 22:42 UTC as 47th comment | 2 replies

Don't see the point, even if one is tempted (which I'm not), would be best to wait of the one that can run existing windows apps. When it comes down to it, these things are about the apps, and with such a limited selection there just isn't much reason to buy one.

Direct link | Posted on Oct 25, 2012 at 17:19 UTC as 15th comment | 1 reply

A solution in search of a problem. While they have designed out the minor inconvenience of downloading your camera's photos to your computer, are people going to pay significantly more for that? Or pay a monthly subscription fee? Not to mention the shorter battery life and limited applications. IT people know the cloud is already yesterday's technology, it has largely come and gone in favor of virtualization.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 21, 2012 at 18:23 UTC as 11th comment
On Compositional Rules article (120 comments in total)

You follow one rule, but break two others. For instance, the cropping in the second photo cuts off part of the woman's hand. The third photo I think involves some nudity, so it should probably be labelled *NSFW* (or the whole article labelled that) because while we may not mind the nudity, someone looking over our shoulder in the workplace may.

In the modern world where photos are rarely printed and often viewed on screen, in a movable window, the rule of thirds is such a big deal anymore.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 21, 2012 at 20:26 UTC as 43rd comment | 5 replies
On Eric Kim on the pioneering color photographer Stephen Shore news story (199 comments in total)

Know your audience, users/customers typically go to this site for a few reasons, or expect a few things out of this site. And following links to someone else's commentary isn't one of them.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 14, 2012 at 12:20 UTC as 40th comment | 2 replies

I've been there, it's hard to use these cameras for sporting events if you are used to the modern automatic DSLRs. Autofocus can't be relied on, ever so slight viewfinder lag, etc. They can be fine for a lot of things, but for sporting events, basically zone focus and keep your other eye open all the time to not miss any action... not saying it can't be done, just that I wouldn't choose it given the choice.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 27, 2012 at 17:57 UTC as 99th comment | 2 replies
On Researchers follow the noise to find composite images news story (38 comments in total)

If there are algorithms to detect it, then the same algorithms can be used to hide it, what's the point really?

Direct link | Posted on Jul 9, 2012 at 17:18 UTC as 19th comment | 2 replies

Coming up with excuses or trying to rationalize away failure is not what an honorable man does. A real man would own up to his failure, take responsibility, and see to it that it never happened again. Anyone can ride high on a success, but how one deals with failure is far more telling and indicative of one's own character.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 6, 2012 at 23:59 UTC as 183rd comment | 1 reply
In reply to:

Neodp: I am not impressed with these samples. Most of them look washed-out, slightly. The colors are weird, and the shadows tend to have the digital, ugly noise. I recognize, many things have improved, and are of high quality; but without a sensor, that can do better than the current "best", I see little point. I am all for a better carry package, but not, with these cons. A slightly bigger camera, which can be older, and costs far less, can overall beat this. A trailing quality, 4/3rd sized sensor will never make it. It simply has to lead, in new sensor IQ quality, due to the smaller (for carry, and telephoto) size disadvantages. Now, if these were bargain basement priced, *and* you were then OK, with the "quality" (which I still would not be), then I could understand better, the compromise. A good camera, is not about compromises. It is about balances (lenses first), and needs to get out of your way. This is also not to say, I am for, or against mirror-less.

I think it's because of their post, the nicest way to say it is.. I don't think dpreview's photographers do a lot of portraiture, or this type of photography in general.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2012 at 18:10 UTC

You mean the white dots are gone? Damn, I'll sure miss those little guys. Oh well.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 26, 2012 at 20:10 UTC as 59th comment
Total: 41, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous123Next ›Last »