doobob

doobob

Joined on Jan 5, 2012

Comments

Total: 19, showing: 1 – 19
In reply to:

Sdaniella: Wal-Mart Photo Studios releases all copyrights to the subjects they photograph because it's what the subject want. Any photographer withholding copyrights from their subjects after being paid offer a terrible exchange keeping someones image hostage is prepostrous as allowing a vending machine photobooth do the same.

If a photographer thinks it takes special skills to do graduate portraits, think again:
The time when basic facial-recognition/posture/composition recognition software comes into play is not far around the corner making portrait photographers completely redundant. And such photographers will merely be shutter-pushers, nothing more.
All post-processing could be created to be automated for the simplest of studio-shooting scenarios.

Right now, every SEASON, high volume school-shooting firms hire seasonal part-time 'temps' to cover school potraits every year in the last 10+ years. Most of such photographers* have no hold on copyrights, it all belongs to the studio-firms.

If Sdaniella thinks this, then why doesn't she go and spend thousands of dollars for equipment, take the time to stand there for free and do that so they can get their "free" picture...

Direct link | Posted on May 31, 2014 at 14:57 UTC
In reply to:

Kweide: A thief is a thief and should be treated as such.

Take some of his property and give it away for free...

Direct link | Posted on May 31, 2014 at 14:27 UTC
In reply to:

RickZimm: I agree with Suntan.

Photographers should never post proofs at full res. If somebody wants to spend time and trouble to remove a watermark from a proof only to end up with a file that is not suitable for printing, when he could have purchased a full-res file or 8x10 print for a few dollars, more power to the dummy.

It isn't going to occur on a wide enough scale to even worry about it. If the photographer's work is worth buying, most people will pay to get the quality.

I agree. Just post a really low res. file.

Direct link | Posted on May 31, 2014 at 14:10 UTC
In reply to:

bobbarber: It's interesting to see all of the outrage on this topic.

What else do you truly get offended about? N.S.A. breaking into your computer? Bankers selling bad mortgages and taking people's homes? Anything like that, or only a college kid doing the dumb kind of thing that college kids do?

It'll be hard, but I'll try to get over this one.

It does seem that a lot of people think it is okay to do this but what happens if this happened to you and the shoe is on the other foot? I bet you that they will think differently...

Direct link | Posted on May 31, 2014 at 14:06 UTC
In reply to:

Albert Silver: Seriously? This kid is the devil? Go to YouTube, type in "remove watermark from photo" and see how many videos you find. I'll give you a hint: there are dozens upon dozens of individual videos detailing how to do this. Plenty are older then 2 years. I think they are just targeting him because he works for Facebook.

Is working for face book " a real job" or just a place for people with too much time on their hands to look like they are working?

Direct link | Posted on May 31, 2014 at 14:01 UTC
In reply to:

kabam: It is called the Art of Reverse Engineering. Sigma and other companies use reverse engineer to sell Sigma lens for Canon, Nikon, etc. Magic Lantern user reverse engineer to allow/expose more Canon camera functionalities.

It is okay for large corporation to do it but it is not okay for a graduated to do it?

I don't think that is what he had in mind because he signed off by saying they can get back what is rightfully theirs to begin with, meaning their pictures. But it is good to know ...

Direct link | Posted on May 31, 2014 at 13:56 UTC
In reply to:

peevee1: Did they all sign a model release? If no, the pictures are not photographer's, are they?

Model releases only give you the authorization to use the images, for example, publication in a magazines, etc...

Direct link | Posted on May 31, 2014 at 13:43 UTC
In reply to:

Scottelly: Fuji is so smart. I bet they already have a working prototype of this. That's they only reason they would patent it. I bet we'll see this in a large sensor camera next year or maybe even later this year. If it gives them an edge, which is the main reason they would patent it, why would they not use it as soon as possible?

I would not say that the Sigma Foveon and Fuji X-Trans sensors are lower quality sensors. I have seen images by both and they are excellent. I think the Foveon sensor gave me some of the best color I have ever seen when compared to the other sensors from my other cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 27, 2014 at 20:42 UTC
On Fujifilm X20 Preview preview (201 comments in total)
In reply to:

RadioGnome: I was suddenly struck by the fact that Fuji prints the 35mm equivalents of the focal length on the zoom ring. I was inclined to like the whole retro styling, but this suddenly made it all look very fake and 'willing to be something it is not'.

I was considering ordering a X20, but can't describe how stupid the camera looks to me now.

I think after a good 10 years of varying sensor sizes, every serious photographer is mentally capable of understanding the focal length / sensor size story. This makes it ever more appropriate to just print the actual physical focal length on the barrel of a zoom lens. One side is 'wide angle', other end is 'tele'.

I like it better the way it is marked. I shoot a lot of panoramas and stitch them together. Far easier for me to go to the focal length that I normally use which is 35mm than to figure out what that would be. I can also set the exact focal length that I need and not have to guess what it is if they only put "wide or tele" on it.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 30, 2013 at 03:26 UTC
On Nikon D800 preview (1118 comments in total)
In reply to:

Florencio: Which model would be better for Macro photography?

Probably the D800E since you shouldn't have to worry about moire.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 7, 2012 at 16:32 UTC

The judge must be insane! These two images do not look alike. The only similarity is the location, subject and color. If this decision is held up, why take pictures anymore since someone probably already shot the same scene before you...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 25, 2012 at 14:50 UTC as 192nd comment | 1 reply
On Buyer's Guide: Enthusiast raw-shooting compact cameras article (286 comments in total)
In reply to:

D Alchemist: P7000, with firmware updates, crushes all these in the value department: New at Amazon for $229

You sure are right about that. Can't beat the results you get at that price.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2012 at 12:42 UTC
On Buyer's Guide: Enthusiast raw-shooting compact cameras article (286 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nudibranco: I strongly disagree with the conclusions as well.

I have now used the G12, the X10, the XZ1 and I i certainly put the G12 at the bottom of these 3 cameras which have much better lenses (just this is enough to make it more versatile).

Other things completely left out in the review are the amazing versatility of the XZ1 on the remote flash capability, the fantastic optional EVF on the XZ1, the great panorama and profocus functions on the X10, and amazing EXR dynamic ability of the X10. I found the various options retained through the various modes of the X10 a gift for easy setups in many situations. So is the G12 more versatile? Just because of the swivel LCD screen???

I am not the only one to have found the G12 frustrating in the settings and so it seems that Canon G12 is just taking advantage from its older models performance and from marketing.

I agree. I love the X10 and have gotten much better results than my G11, G12 or P7100. I prefer the P7100 over the G12 because of the longer lens on it. That camera also has a lot of functions that you normally do not find on these types of cameras. But I think all of these cameras do a decent job if you know what you are doing. After all, if you take lousy pictures, it doesn't matter what you use, it will still look lousy and maybe be worse because of your flaws.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 12, 2012 at 12:40 UTC
In reply to:

Nate21: Interesting it seems the new exr compacts have to have lens start at f3.5 is it hard to give f2.8 it would be greatly appreciated

I think maybe they did that to keep it smaller. If it was faster, the lens might have to be a lot bigger to let more light in. It would be nice if it was faster but for the market it is aim at, I think it is fine.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 5, 2012 at 17:47 UTC
In reply to:

Katsura: 20x, think of the compromises in such a lens design.
I'm willing to bet it's quantity over quality.

Have tried the X10? I love it and think it blows away those cameras.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 5, 2012 at 17:45 UTC
In reply to:

DioCanon: what???

only 19 new models of compact cameras?

are we sure we covered every niche and sub-niche and in-between-niche???

You got to look at the market that they are targeting. It is mostly the amateur or novice and a lot of them don't really care about performance but how it looks or what features it has. Some of the other companies also release a lot of slightly different models every year.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 5, 2012 at 17:43 UTC
In reply to:

yiannakas: 16mp for compact.... NO THANKS!

You really got to try the camera so you can see for yourself how good the Fuji cameras are.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 5, 2012 at 17:35 UTC
In reply to:

Solarcoaster: This is without a doubt the best pocket camera in the world.

I bought an f550exr for my wife and she loves it. I also love using it have gotten great results with it. I will probably buy the f770exr when it comes out.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 5, 2012 at 17:34 UTC
In reply to:

zubs: GF3 lookalike, panny lawsuit......
Poor aperture starts at 3.5 to 5.3. Fuji, you missed a trick

It sure does not look like a GF3 from the top. You got to remember that that the Fuji has a 25-500mm f/3.5-5.3 equivalent lens on it which I think is very fast for a lens of that range. Compare that to the Canon S100 which has a 24-120mm f2-5.9, now that is slow as a tortoise at the long end...

Direct link | Posted on Jan 5, 2012 at 17:31 UTC
Total: 19, showing: 1 – 19