zigi_S

zigi_S

Lives in Slovenia Slovenia
Joined on Mar 1, 2009

Comments

Total: 158, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
In reply to:

Tiefenunschärfe: No reason to be concerned.

They are only splitting out "Video & Sound" and NOT "Imaging Products & Solutions" !

see here: http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201502/15-017E/index.html

The rating agencies are a scam.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 21, 2015 at 09:24 UTC
In reply to:

Stig Nygaard: In case someone wants something else but discussing if Mads Nissens winner photo is a political plot or stagged, you can find other examples of his work here:
http://politiken.dk/fotografier/ECE2543405/eskapister-guldgravere-indianere-og-homoseksuelle-i-eksil/
http://www.madsnissen.com/category/stories/
The first link is photos from his book "Amazonas".

"@zigi_s, did you just say that people SHOULD be imprisoned for viewing or displaying this photograph all over the world? And people voted this up? That's dark."

Viewing and displaying are two different things. For displaying I agree with the russians.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2015 at 18:43 UTC
In reply to:

Stig Nygaard: In case someone wants something else but discussing if Mads Nissens winner photo is a political plot or stagged, you can find other examples of his work here:
http://politiken.dk/fotografier/ECE2543405/eskapister-guldgravere-indianere-og-homoseksuelle-i-eksil/
http://www.madsnissen.com/category/stories/
The first link is photos from his book "Amazonas".

And that's how it should be all over the world.

Direct link | Posted on Feb 17, 2015 at 10:45 UTC
On What is equivalence and why should I care? article (2089 comments in total)

I guess the DP staff had enough of equivalence fights in its comment section :-)

Direct link | Posted on Jul 7, 2014 at 10:22 UTC as 407th comment | 2 replies
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.

DP geeks are outraged someone stole a photo of their dog.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 18:03 UTC
In reply to:

wansai: this is a complete non issue. most ppl who have photoshop would know how to do this even without the tutorial. it is a simple process, something i would, at most categorise as intermmediate level ps skill, but likely one that any basic user should know.

i havent seen his blog post. unless he specifically states to do the shop then pass the image off as your own, i see no issues with it. also, if it is a picture of you and you have not signed a release, the photographer has no merits in trying to use it for commercial purposes. you have as much claim as the photographer.

"If a painter puts brush to canvas should it be stolen from him because he painted someone he saw on the street that day?"

Imagine a photo of you on every corner. Without being asked. Or your photo used in jokes. Like some unfortunate people on the internet, to gross "beautiful people" out.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 17:59 UTC
In reply to:

Donnie G: Don't think for a minute that people who remove copyright info from an image don't know that they are stealing. Of course they know. They just don't think they will get caught at it, or, if caught, they don't think they should be punished for the theft. (They always fall back on the same old worn out excuse of, "well, eveybody else is doing it"). And even when they don't get caught, they get embarrassed when someone points to them and publicly labels them for what they are, THIEVES.

You stole the light in the first place.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 17:43 UTC
In reply to:

zigi_S: I don't know what the majority of "photographers" on this site think. But I don't think a photographer has the right to publish a photo from an individual on the internet, without prior explicit permit. When a photo is on the internet, it can't be deleted. The right to a persons privacy ABSOLUTELY TRUMPS any copyright. Did the graduates permit the photographer to publish pictures of them on the internet? I don't think so. So the problem with the watermark is negligible in contrast to a serious trespass in a person's privacy.

"How could you possibly have televised news coverage or any kind of photojournalism in your fantasy world?"

In my "fantasy world" reporters ask the interviewed person. Reporting on public events doesn't breach privacy of an individual. There is a difference between a shot from an individual or a scene with people. I am sure that in most of the civilized world, law agrees with me.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 17:41 UTC
In reply to:

alpha90290: If he want free photo of himself, he should put his own camera on tripod and shoot himself. Or ask a friend/family member to do it.

There is no need to break the law to get it.

There is also no need to ask others to break the laws.

All stupid excuses just make him looks dumber.

Photographers where I live don't use such clauses in contracts. I'm sure the court would deem them null and void.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 17:36 UTC
In reply to:

alpha90290: If he want free photo of himself, he should put his own camera on tripod and shoot himself. Or ask a friend/family member to do it.

There is no need to break the law to get it.

There is also no need to ask others to break the laws.

All stupid excuses just make him looks dumber.

Photographer has no right to publish his photo on the internet. I would sue if a photographer I hired and paid him would use my photo in the public.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 16:23 UTC
In reply to:

zigi_S: I don't know what the majority of "photographers" on this site think. But I don't think a photographer has the right to publish a photo from an individual on the internet, without prior explicit permit. When a photo is on the internet, it can't be deleted. The right to a persons privacy ABSOLUTELY TRUMPS any copyright. Did the graduates permit the photographer to publish pictures of them on the internet? I don't think so. So the problem with the watermark is negligible in contrast to a serious trespass in a person's privacy.

I'm sorry, it looks like you understood me. I don't care what law says. I'm talking what is right. Everybody should have a right to privacy, no matter what a corporate sponsored law says.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 16:18 UTC
In reply to:

zigi_S: I don't know what the majority of "photographers" on this site think. But I don't think a photographer has the right to publish a photo from an individual on the internet, without prior explicit permit. When a photo is on the internet, it can't be deleted. The right to a persons privacy ABSOLUTELY TRUMPS any copyright. Did the graduates permit the photographer to publish pictures of them on the internet? I don't think so. So the problem with the watermark is negligible in contrast to a serious trespass in a person's privacy.

Public and private sphere are different things. To graduate does not make you a public person. Holding a public office, does.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 14:43 UTC

I don't know what the majority of "photographers" on this site think. But I don't think a photographer has the right to publish a photo from an individual on the internet, without prior explicit permit. When a photo is on the internet, it can't be deleted. The right to a persons privacy ABSOLUTELY TRUMPS any copyright. Did the graduates permit the photographer to publish pictures of them on the internet? I don't think so. So the problem with the watermark is negligible in contrast to a serious trespass in a person's privacy.

Direct link | Posted on May 29, 2014 at 13:47 UTC as 59th comment | 10 replies
On Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent article (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

Henry McA: Hungary is a great country plagued by a neo-fashist government.

What HUNGRY is a country? :-)

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 00:12 UTC
On Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent article (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

Funduro: Is Putin writing the laws in Hungary ?

Better no laws than totalitarian ones.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 19, 2014 at 00:10 UTC
On Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent article (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

Henry McA: Hungary is a great country plagued by a neo-fashist government.

They came to power after a catastrophic streak of leftists.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 18, 2014 at 22:29 UTC
On Hungarian law bans photos taken without consent article (321 comments in total)
In reply to:

Funduro: Is Putin writing the laws in Hungary ?

When it's about idiotic laws, I almost always hear about USA, UK or EU. Russia is mostly apart from the gay laws quite free.

Direct link | Posted on Mar 18, 2014 at 22:27 UTC
In reply to:

oluv: wow 349$ = 399€ for the 14-42! shouldn't it be the other way round?

Just don't buy it. Olympus always overprices their products and later firesales them for nothing. A bunch of morons setting prices in olympus if you ask me. And all japanese companies sell in europe their products for more. And it's not taxes. It's just to offset the subsidizing the american customer.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 30, 2014 at 12:50 UTC
In reply to:

Hans Bolte: Wonderful photographs by a true artist! I think most of the critics posting here have probably not taken one photo nearly as good as any of hers.

These photos are top notch. I have to figure how to get the same dreamy look.

Direct link | Posted on Jan 26, 2014 at 18:59 UTC
On Consumer SLR Camera Roundup 2013 article (112 comments in total)

The slt-a58 is recomended for high iso? All slt cameras are inferior in this compartment for losing a third of light. No matter how good the sensor behind is, it has to work with less light.

Direct link | Posted on Dec 3, 2013 at 14:22 UTC as 17th comment | 1 reply
Total: 158, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »