Klarno

Klarno

Lives in United States Santa Fe, United States
Has a website at http://www.photoklarno.com
Joined on Mar 3, 2009
About me:

Lenses paired with Sony Alpha A3000 and Metabones Speedbooster:
Olympus OM 28mm f/3.5
OM 50mm f/1.8
OM 135mm f/2.8
OM 50mm f/3.5 macro
Soligor 19-35mm f/3.5-4.5

Comments

Total: 86, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Klarno: How about a thought experiment:

Let's say you have an art installation in a museum or gallery. In the installation, you have set up a camera, and direct people visiting the installation to take a selfie with that camera. The camera is connected to a computer running a script which automatically uploads and posts each photo to a thread on Reddit. The Reddit thread is displayed on a nearby computer screen. For the record, I've seen stranger art installations.

Who, then, does the copyright of the photograph then belong to? The person who thought up and set up the installation, the gallery's curator, or the person taking the selfie?

I think intent has to be considered in copyright.

The intent for the creator of the installation is to create a body of selfies, including the stream into a reddit thread, and for the subject of other viewers be of people taking selfies (again, I've seen weirder installations). It's uncertain what the intent of the participant would be, but the intended intent here is for the participant to simply participate in the art installation, and to not expect copyright or financial compensation over individual selfies.

Reddit, as a bastion of free speech and free information and libertarianism on the internet, like the Wikimedia foundation, is inherently biased against copyright, with a reddit thread recently being the center of an IP struggle by a photographer, with redditors claiming that you can't copyright a photograph incorporating a skyline and that anything on the internet is automatically public domain (both are wrong according to copyright precedents).

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 01:49 UTC

How about a thought experiment:

Let's say you have an art installation in a museum or gallery. In the installation, you have set up a camera, and direct people visiting the installation to take a selfie with that camera. The camera is connected to a computer running a script which automatically uploads and posts each photo to a thread on Reddit. The Reddit thread is displayed on a nearby computer screen. For the record, I've seen stranger art installations.

Who, then, does the copyright of the photograph then belong to? The person who thought up and set up the installation, the gallery's curator, or the person taking the selfie?

I think intent has to be considered in copyright.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 19:31 UTC as 262nd comment | 3 replies

The photographer is the one that made the macaque selfie possible. The monkey didn't go to walmart and buy the camera, and the monkey didn't really compose any images, not knowing that any images would be captured, only seeing her reflection in the lens and hearing the sound of the shutter.

The copyright can't belong to the macaque, as the law does not provide for animals to have copyright. Nor does the macaque have power to determine whether or not any copies can be made of the photograph.

Copyright is an economic right, and if there's a profit to be made from this photograph, that right should belong to the photographer who made the photograph possible. He put himself, and the camera, in the situation where the macaque selfie ended up happening.

The only way public domain can apply in a private photographer's situation is if the copyright expires (in the UK, 70 years after the photographer's death), or the photographer chooses to place the photograph in the public domain.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 7, 2014 at 18:20 UTC as 267th comment | 4 replies
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

Klarno: When you have two lenses for different formats that on their respective formats have the same angle of view, and these two lenses have the same ENTRANCE PUPIL (that is: the optical size of the aperture), then the lenses are equivalent. On their respective formats, they will have the same angle of view, same depth of field, and same amount of light falling on the sensor . These images already have for all intents and purposes the same SNR, so they're already equivalent as far as the signal capture is concerned.

What really confuses people about equivalence, particularly in this digital age, are the film-era measurements that are f-number and ISO.
To understand equivalence, you need to understand the f-number and ISO concepts and take them for what they are: helpful for the shooting process, but only because that's how the photography industry developed over the past 187 years, and essentially useless for how the photographic signal is actually captured in digital systems.

Right you are. Also, in practice smaller sensors are more efficient than larger sensors of the same generation, which ends up meaning that FF doesn't have a 2 stop light gathering advantage over MFT, but more like 1 1/2 or 1 2/3rd stop. And larger aperture lenses are less efficient on digital sensors than smaller apertures. But trying to compare every single parameter, beyond the testing ability or comprehension of the layman, just makes equivalence even more confusing.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 18:29 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

Cybercore: What I get from this show is something like this:

1. Nikon 1 is the worst system in terms of image quality, sensor is too limiting, but the smallest, more portable, though, in my opinion, pricey for what it is. Is closer to compacts in all aspects, than to system cameras.
2. FF is the best on image quality but pricey and big to be called portable.
3. APS-C is in between, but bulky systems for what it does these days.
4. MFT makes most sense, very good image quality, small size.

To me, in the first comparison, FF looks the best, while in second, MFT seems to be the better. So, probably these two systems will lead the future.

Now, with all FF, MFT and APS-C, you can do professional imagery and less with the Nikon 1, which seems to be targeted at casual photographers who probably will want small super zooms for their vacations and stuff. The kind of people who buy 20X compact zooms with many megapixels and a "good" brand.

Good idea you people had to make this comparison.

The most compelling thing about Nikon 1 for nature and sports photographers is that when you throw in the FT-1 adapter, you get decent tracking AF with Nikon's F-mount lenses. And because it's just a smaller, higher pixel density sensor instead of an optical teleconverter, you get the effect of a 2.7x teleconverter without the horrible downsides (such as reduced resolution or viewfinder clarity) that come with teleconverters.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 18, 2014 at 18:22 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)
In reply to:

Klarno: When you have two lenses for different formats that on their respective formats have the same angle of view, and these two lenses have the same ENTRANCE PUPIL (that is: the optical size of the aperture), then the lenses are equivalent. On their respective formats, they will have the same angle of view, same depth of field, and same amount of light falling on the sensor . These images already have for all intents and purposes the same SNR, so they're already equivalent as far as the signal capture is concerned.

What really confuses people about equivalence, particularly in this digital age, are the film-era measurements that are f-number and ISO.
To understand equivalence, you need to understand the f-number and ISO concepts and take them for what they are: helpful for the shooting process, but only because that's how the photography industry developed over the past 187 years, and essentially useless for how the photographic signal is actually captured in digital systems.

The f-number is nothing but the relationship of the focal length to the entrance pupil diameter. To achieve the same entrance pupil for the same FoV between a 35mm-format and Micro Four Thirds format, well, the entrance pupil remains the same because that's a physical quantity that we defined. However, the focal length on MFT is half that of the 35mm format, which means the f-number--which is the focal length divided by the entrance pupil-- is twice as large.

ISO is mostly irrelevant, having more to do with the brightness of JPEGs than it has to do with with how digital systems capture and interpret data. Just think of ISO as changing the display brightness. How bright the displayed image is doesn't affect the signal-to-noise ratio.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2014 at 19:52 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2004 comments in total)

When you have two lenses for different formats that on their respective formats have the same angle of view, and these two lenses have the same ENTRANCE PUPIL (that is: the optical size of the aperture), then the lenses are equivalent. On their respective formats, they will have the same angle of view, same depth of field, and same amount of light falling on the sensor . These images already have for all intents and purposes the same SNR, so they're already equivalent as far as the signal capture is concerned.

What really confuses people about equivalence, particularly in this digital age, are the film-era measurements that are f-number and ISO.
To understand equivalence, you need to understand the f-number and ISO concepts and take them for what they are: helpful for the shooting process, but only because that's how the photography industry developed over the past 187 years, and essentially useless for how the photographic signal is actually captured in digital systems.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 17, 2014 at 19:52 UTC as 72nd comment | 4 replies
On Kodak Pixpro S-1 First Impressions Review preview (180 comments in total)
In reply to:

Kipplemaster: Small cameras like this should have USB charging. I believe this is the only m43 camera which does, which would be a very big selling point for me. I like DNG RAW too.

Sony E-mount cameras, all the way up to the A7 line, have USB charging. I think it's potentially very useful-- I carry USB battery backups with me when backpacking, and I use them I use to keep devices like my phone (that I use as a GPS) charged. Plus, USB charging means I can top up the charge while driving from location to location.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2014 at 21:46 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1518 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roy LaFaver: Nice camera. But the D800E is pretty hard to improve on, and I think it is not worth the price for owners of the E model. I doubt it means anything that the new model is built in Thailand, but you know that little nagging thought is there for many people. Do I really want to give up my "Made in Japan" camera for such a small upgrade? It is quite possible that in two years a used D800E might be worth more than a used D810.

This isn't for D800 users- it's for D700/D3X and earlier users, and event shooting pros whose cameras are genuinely consumable. If you upgrade your cameras every single time there's an incremental update, you're insane but the camera manufacturers love you.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2014 at 17:45 UTC
On Nikon D810 Preview preview (1518 comments in total)

Aren't zebra stripes supposed to be for exposure checking, not focus?

Direct link | Posted on Jun 27, 2014 at 01:59 UTC as 229th comment | 3 replies
On Kodak Pixpro S-1 First Impressions Review preview (180 comments in total)

Attractive camera, good for the system. Don't like the different flash pinout. Interested to see the performance of the lenses. This camera doesn't really have a place in my bag when it's outclassed in functionality by my $200 E-PM2 though.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2014 at 17:26 UTC as 54th comment | 1 reply
On Sony A3000 preview (676 comments in total)
In reply to:

Klarno: I bought this camera specifically as a platform to use with legacy lenses on a metabones speedbooster. For that, it's wonderful-- it offers just enough direct controls to get the job done quickly and effectively. ISO, exposure comp and shutter speed adjustments are very easy to get to. I set the bottom soft button to magnification and I leave peaking on. At $160, can't argue at all.

Mine was a discounted display model from a local big box. $350 seems to be the going price. At that price the value isn't as good, but still pretty ok if you're looking for a sensor in a box.

Direct link | Posted on Jun 24, 2014 at 15:08 UTC
On Sony A3000 preview (676 comments in total)

I bought this camera specifically as a platform to use with legacy lenses on a metabones speedbooster. For that, it's wonderful-- it offers just enough direct controls to get the job done quickly and effectively. ISO, exposure comp and shutter speed adjustments are very easy to get to. I set the bottom soft button to magnification and I leave peaking on. At $160, can't argue at all.

Direct link | Posted on May 15, 2014 at 04:42 UTC as 12th comment | 2 replies
On Leica T (Typ 701) First Impressions Review preview (2300 comments in total)

Touchscreen interface and carved out of a solid block of metal. Guess you're not supposed to use it in winter. Or if you try it'll be an exercise in masochism.

By all accounts it's a genuinely enjoyable camera to use, though. More power to Leica on that front.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 24, 2014 at 15:56 UTC as 605th comment
On Hands on with the Pentax 645Z article (655 comments in total)
In reply to:

Fri13: If you want great control for depth of field, high resolution (you are working with prints over 100x60cm), then you do not want to waste money to any full frame cameras but get this giant. You don't lose in size or weight but you gain more than any DSLR can offer.

If you don't want to this, then m4/3 is best format to use. If you company m4/3 camera with this, you have best setup.

Actually, 35mm does offer shallower DoF than 645 and smaller medium format. It has done for a long time.

MF is still generally small enough to need fast lenses to get the job done. Most fast lens development has been for 35mm, and MF systems simply don't have the equivalent lenses to match the shallow DoF of the fastest 35mm format lenses.

However, with the kind of photography people actually do on medium format cameras, shooters would tend to rather have more depth of field, not less (you just have to bear in mind that the same depth of field means the same impact from diffraction, regardless of system). And there are medium format technical cameras which can get you DoF control in the deeper end, namely the ALPA 12 FPS which is basically just...a focal plane shutter for which you supply your own back and lens. With those you can do perspective control adjustments, nearly as varied as you can do on sheet film, movements which on 35mm are only available on a small handful of lenses.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 22, 2014 at 19:52 UTC
On Mockups emerge of new Olympus OM-D 'OM-G' article (333 comments in total)

If Olympus were to produce a camera like this, market it to the luxury crowd, give it the absolutely stunningly huge viewfinder of the OM-1 that makes everything we have today look like a sad joke, and maybe reissue a few OM lenses with modern coatings or even new designs, I think they could have a hit on their hands. A Leica for the DSLR shooter.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 4, 2014 at 17:15 UTC as 11th comment
On When Bad Weather Means Great Photography article (28 comments in total)

It's not so much that bad weather makes good photography--as it is that the bright, sunny weather that makes ordinary people want to go out and do things makes for BAD photography.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 16, 2014 at 21:28 UTC as 4th comment

I really don't buy "satisficer" as a word.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 25, 2013 at 14:47 UTC as 25th comment
On Rumors start: New iPhone by June, and in color post (5 comments in total)
In reply to:

PhD4: As fast as Apple is rolling out new product, with hardly any upgrade, keeps Steve Jobs rolling over in his grave.

What does the "s" stand for.... Silly colors ?

S stands for the same thing it did in the 3GS, 4S, and I daresay the Nikon D3S and D300S.
That is to say, it doesn't stand for anything, except that it's a model with upgraded hardware in the same body style.
Just like your computer, smartphones have components that are being continually improved just like anything else. You can expect the iPhone 5S to have better performance than the iPhone 5. This would be in line with the cycle that Apple has adopted, and it's really not rocket science to figure out their cycle:
1st generation, iPhone. Introduces the line, but isn't a refined product.
2nd generation, iPhone 3G. Refined product.
3rd generation, iPhone 3GS. Upgraded hardware in the same body style of the 3G.
4th generation, iPhone 4. Upgraded hardware in new body style.
5th generation, iPhone 4S. Upgraded hardware in the same body style of the 4.
6th generation, iPhone 5. Upgraded hardware in new body style.

Rumor mill aside, I think you can figure out what the iPhone 5S will be.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 11, 2012 at 22:20 UTC
In reply to:

bryanbrun: You don't buy this lense over the Panny 20mm b/c it focuses faster and silently, you buy it b/c the bokeh is so much better than the Panny 20mm.

The Panny 20mm suffers from harsh pancake bokeh.

The Oly 12mm with the same build and features is one of the top selling lenses on amazon for CSC. Oly is duplicating that approach.

marike6, the shape of a point light blur circle has to do with the shape of the lens opening, that is correct. But the visual quality of bokeh is also heavily influenced by any number of other factors going into the lens design. Take a blur circle of a point light source: if the perimeter of that circle is brighter than the interior, that leads to a busy appearance which is not appealing. What you want is for the blur circle to be of even illumination, or brighter in the center than on the perimeter. And that also has nothing to do with the shape of the lens opening; it's to do with the balance of aberration corrections in the lens versus other optical design factors.

With a pancake lens, there's simply less optical material available to work with, making appealing bokeh much more difficult to achieve relative to other factors (such as how the image looks when it's in focus).

Direct link | Posted on Nov 18, 2012 at 23:36 UTC
Total: 86, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »