mr moonlight

mr moonlight

Lives in United States Miami Beach, United States
Works as a Graphic Designer/Photographer
Joined on Dec 7, 2006

Comments

Total: 162, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Akos Kozari: I'm thinking on what Oskar Barnack would say about creating a machine that not aiming to make the photography as easy as possible. I think it does not fit to the original philosophy... It is my 2 cents. On the other hand: i can confirm: Leica has a feeling and i would be happy to own one. Now if i would have money i would rather choose Fuji X-T1 instead. That follows the philosophy i meant...

For a photographer who shoots in manual mode, this is about as simple as it gets. If it was smaller, lighter, monochrome, and not so expensive, I'd pick one up.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 18, 2014 at 13:48 UTC
On Fujifilm X100T Overview preview (639 comments in total)
In reply to:

straylightrun: No major significant changes. Fuji is seriously milking the x100 camera hard with this 3rd revision.

It's because no major significant changes are necessary. All the X100 needed was a bit of refining.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 11, 2014 at 15:37 UTC
On Fujifilm X100T Overview preview (639 comments in total)
In reply to:

samfan: Such a nice camera but 35mm is a big meh. I always expected the niche maestro Fuji to make several versions, maybe from 21mm to 50mm. That would be just sweet.

My WCL works perfectly and is more compact than any lens. With the converters out, I don't see a reason to make several versions of the camera. If you need different lenses, there's the adapters or the XP1.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2014 at 22:50 UTC
On Fujifilm X100T Overview preview (639 comments in total)
In reply to:

marc petzold: If you compare the backside of the X100S and X100T from dpreview here - i'd say the newer T-Version is cheaper to produce...the buttons look cheaper to me, and also the knurling pattern onto the X100S Shutterspeed and Mode Dial Wheel looks better done for my eyes.

http://www.dpreview.com/previews/fujifilm-X100T/Images/Compared_X100S.jpg

What is that, the newer X100T doesn't have a 2nd Dial anymore? I see only 4 Buttons in X-Shape around the "Menu OK" Central button. Where is the 2nd Dial gone?

I used the dial now and then, but I'd rather have 4 buttons. The dial was finicky to work with and made the center button a pain to hit. I definitely prefer my XP1 button layout.

The knurling patter on the X100 is pretty grippy, but the knobs also had a tendency to get accidentally moved now and then. I think a little less grip plus having a little raised section on top might solve that problem. The X100 knurling pattern may have been a bit of overkill.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2014 at 22:47 UTC
On Fujifilm X100T Overview preview (639 comments in total)
In reply to:

pixelpushing: Same old 16MP X-Trans sensor? I loved my X100, but this is a fail on Fuji's part, IMO. If it has the same Lightroom RAW issues, I'd have to pass. Where's the 24MP APS-C?

The difference between 16MP and 24MP is very minor. I wouldn't mind more MP's, but improved processing makes a much larger difference when it comes to IQ and detail.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2014 at 22:38 UTC
On Fujifilm X100T Overview preview (639 comments in total)
In reply to:

princecody: Why no tilting or rotating LCD screen?

Probably because it added too much extra bulk.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2014 at 22:30 UTC
On Fujifilm X100T Overview preview (639 comments in total)
In reply to:

atone2: Totally uninteresting before Fujifilm get rid of the ridiculous x-trans filter array. One must be blind not to see the awful rendering of x-trans rawfiles, especially in Lightroom. My original X100 still has much better IQ than the newer models. Money saved, wooha! :-)

It's Adobe's issue not Fuji's. It's unfortunate that Adobe has such a monopoly over photography software. So much so that they don't have to bother with improving their RAW processing while forcing us to pay more for their Creative Cloud BS.

Direct link | Posted on Sep 10, 2014 at 14:46 UTC
In reply to:

Jan Bohme: Looking into the forum section of dpreview for the first time in a long while, I immediately realised why I quit posting in the first place: There is nothing ever as pig-headed as a photographer involved in a discussion who is wrong. :)

The legal issue is crystal clear: If the animal, as Slater claims, has pushed the trigger and pointed the camera by its own free will, that is the core creative moment, and Slater can't have copyright. Because it is not human, nor can the monkey. If we just discuss de lege lata - i.e. discuss the law as it stands - there is nothing more to discuss. While it is technically correct to say that the rulings of the US Copyright Office are only legally binding inside the US, there is nothing bizarre or outlandish in neither the US copyright legislations, or the specific ruling at hand, in this matter. The ruling will be the same in most, and very possibly all, countries signatory to the Berne convention.

@mariuss. That's the creative process leading up to "the creative moment" not "the creative moment". If I'm on vacation and ask a stranger to take a photo of me, I'll choose the place, lens, focal distance, settings, etc... but "the creative moment" still lies with the stranger who framed the shot and pressed the shutter. It would be the stranger who owns copyright. If all my work setting up the shot amounted had any more than a minimal effect on the outcome, those vacation shots by strangers would have actually come out half decent vs. utter crap.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 14:34 UTC
In reply to:

vFunct: The US Copyright office is going to delete this, since it's only a draft statement.

Photographs are never created by nature. The other examples that the Copyright office gives of natural works - elephants painting, driftwood shapes, rock grain formations - are all naturally contained works. They don't have any human involvement in its output.

Meanwhile, a photograph always relies on human involvement in its output - someone has to setup, process, and print/publish it.

It is not possible for nature to produce a photograph on its own.

The monkey did author the photo. You're not going to tell Stephen King he doesn't own the copyright to a book he's written just because publishers, printers, copy editors, designers, marketers, and distributors put much more time into creating his book than he did. It doesn't matter who hands the elephant a brush, processes a photograph, or rents the gear, it's the entity that frames the shot and presses the shutter that gets the copyright.

If Slater wanted copyright, he should have said that he planned for the monkey to take his camera with the hope that it would take a selfie. Then it would have been him directing a photoshoot vs. an accident.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 22, 2014 at 14:23 UTC
In reply to:

spencerda: Assuming that the monkey REALLY took it's own photo, I would agree Mr Slater has copyrights.

Why

One he owns the camera and the memory card and process the pictures.
Two We as humans do not give animals the right of ownership.
Three We as humans have ownership over animals and pets, we are held responsible for anything they might do, so there for Mr Slater has ownership of the copyright, laughing...

Mr. Slater did not own the monkey and it doesn't matter who owns the equipment.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 11, 2014 at 20:21 UTC
In reply to:

Digital Mike0697: My thoughts on this subject would be that Zoo owns the pictures not the photographer. Why I say this is because they owns the primate, the photos where taken on private property and the list goes on.

Yes the photographer owns the camera, but my impression on the copyright laws, you have to physically taken the photos yourself not anyone else or in this case a animal (primate). True the photographer may have setup the camera to take pictures, but in this situation the Zoo owns images.

I have a question, If the photographer owns the rights pictures, should he/ she ask the Zoo to sign a modeling release and will the Zoo be compensated to allow the photographer to make money off of images?

Slater may have chosen the lens and set exposure, but I don't see how that would hold up as creative authorship. So a friend asks to borrow my camera. I select the body, lens, and preset the exposure to F1.8, 1/800, and auto ISO since my friend doesn't know what he's doing, but I think those settings will make for a few good portraits as my friend is trying to learn portrait photography. I also instruct him to use his girlfriend as a model, how he should pose her, where he should take the shot, how to frame it, and to use the window in his living room to light it. The next day he comes back with some absolutely stunning shots using my settings, camera gear, the subject I chose, and instructions. Should I have some ownership of the photos since I had so much creative input?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 13:44 UTC
In reply to:

Boss of Sony: THIS SHOULDN'T BE ABOUT MONEY. THE PHOTOGRAPHER SHOULD BE GRACIOUS, BE A GENTLEMAN, AND SAY "ALL HUMANS MAY SHARE THESE WONDERFUL PHOTOS TAKEN BY A MONKEY". By suing, he is showing that he is cheap, nasty, and selfish. Handing a camera to a monkey is not a respectable way to make money.

Handing a camera to a monkey is a respectable way to make money. That would have made Slater "the photographer". It's all in the planning. If Slater purposely handed the camera to the monkey with the plan that the monkey would take a few selfies, then Slater would own copyright. If you direct an assistant to snap the shutter for you, your assistant doesn't suddenly own copyright. If your assistant stole your camera and took some shots, your assistant would own copyright.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 13:26 UTC
In reply to:

SushiEater: Monkey did not post the photo, human did. How he obtained the photo is irrelevant because it was his camera after all. Wikimedia posted the photo knowing that it was copyrighted and yet posted it anyway.

A trail camera has to be purposely set up by someone to take shots as the elephant walks by. Slater did not set up the shot. His camera was basically stolen from him, the thief took a bunch of selfies, then Slater was able to get his camera back. Now if the thief was human, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 13:20 UTC
In reply to:

kerensky20: The photos only exist as a result of the photographer's intervention in nature, which would mean that the photo would not have existed if the photographer did not set out in the first place to document the monkeys.

I do support that the photographer reserves every right to the photos.

PS: Saying that the photo is the work of the monkey is as good as saying every winning lottery ticket's monies belong to the computer that rolls the numbers every draw. There is causation that resulted in the effect.

You're using the same argument for both sides. What if the photographer handed his camera to a tourist walking by so the photographer could get a shot of himself, at which point the monkey grabbed the camera from the tourist who didn't want to battle a monkey for a camera? Would the tourist then own copyright?

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 13:15 UTC
In reply to:

B1ackhat: That is a completely ridiculous defense to copyright infringement. If I set my camera up on a tripod remotely controlled by my phone and one of my dogs licks the screen thereby triggering the shutter, the photo then becomes the property of no one. That's ludicrous.

The difference would be that you set up the shot. In this case, the monkey set up the shot. Now if your dog set up the tripod, set up the camera to be remotely controlled by your phone, then licked the screen, it would be your dogs property.

Direct link | Posted on Aug 8, 2014 at 13:04 UTC
On Getting off the ground: Cheap drones for photography article (148 comments in total)
In reply to:

christiangrunercom: I'm sorry, but calling the Phantom a serious platform is a joke. And calling the reviewed quads for camera-platforms, well, no, they are trainers and toys.

So when is a platform a "serious platform"? When it can lift a gimbal providing close to perfect stability with no vibration and ability to lift a camera providing pro grade footage with room for postprocessing.

I agree. If you can attach a GoPro, you can get results of high enough quality for a lot of professional applications. As long as you have a reasonable amount a stability that can be corrected in post, you can do some pretty serious work with a GoPro. It may not work for all professional applications where aerial video is needed, but neither does any other setup.

Direct link | Posted on Jul 3, 2014 at 13:40 UTC
In reply to:

ManuelVilardeMacedo: The images look slightly bleached and lacking contrast. From my personal exprience, converters tend to do this. It's a great idea on paper, but the results aren't that good.

The samples look just fine to me. Remember we're looking at x100s RAW files processed using defaults in ACR, so you can't expect really punchy colors or high contrast. You will get images like this with or without the converter.

Like lenses, there are good and bad converters out there. One of the reasons Fuji's converters are so expensive is that they are absolutely fantastic (assuming that the Tele is of similar quality as the wide angle). I've been using the wide angle converter for awhile now and there is no noticeable loss of light or IQ even with heavy pixel peeping. I was also skeptical at first, but once I tried the WCL, I was convinced.

Direct link | Posted on May 3, 2014 at 06:52 UTC
In reply to:

bobbarber: Disclaimer: I'm a hypocrite, because I've bought converters for compact cameras before.

Comment: If you're buying converter lenses for your compact or fixed-lens camera, isn't that telling you that you need/should have bought an interchangeable lens camera in the first place?

If there was an ILC with the same specs as the X100 with a 35mm attached, then yes. So far we don't have anything that comes close without giving up a key feature... Built in hybrid viewfinder, leaf shutter, APSC sensor or compact size. I have an XP1 which is great, but doesn't in any way replace my X100 and WCL. It's larger, no built in flash, no high speed sync, has larger lenses, no leaf shutter and you can't compare the X100's size when you just need a 35mm.

The converters are simply a great way to expand on a high quality compact fixed lens camera without adding a lot of bulk or giving up some of the best features of the X100. Sure, there's a slight loss in quality and light, but I know from the WCL that it's undetectable and you don't have to fiddle with swapping lenses without a place to put one down or worry about getting dust on your sensor.

Direct link | Posted on May 2, 2014 at 21:46 UTC
On Alien Skin Software announces Exposure 6 plugin article (11 comments in total)
In reply to:

Lloyd709: disappointed only works for CS6 and upwards - couldn't stand the cropping tool on CS6 and don't want to go monthly so sticking with CS5 - I guess it's the first of many plugins I won't be able to use!

Yeah, it took a little getting used to at first, but now I also love the new crop tool.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 29, 2014 at 13:52 UTC
On Fujifilm announces 1.4x teleconverter for X100/X100S article (130 comments in total)
In reply to:

headofdestiny: The MTFs look like we won't be giving too much up in the way of IQ.

http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital_cameras/accessories/lens/conversionlens/x100teleconversionlens/specifications/

Looks like it's going to perform at the same level of the WCL.

Direct link | Posted on Apr 18, 2014 at 16:26 UTC
Total: 162, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »